Define Terrorism

[ace_of_something]

Uwe Boll movies.

 

[Crazy Elf]

I define terrorism as an act of violence from one country to another when the country executing the act of violence believes they are doing the right thing by their viewpoints. Example: 9-11.

But the 9-11 hijackers weren't working for the Saudi Arabian government. Is it still terrorism if country isn't part of the equation?

 

[Azetheros]

I define terrorism as an act of violence from one country to another when the country executing the act of violence believes they are doing the right thing by their viewpoints. Example: 9-11. The terrorists who crashed the planes believed they were doing their country and their god justice, and that they would be rewarded for it. Im not saying they are good people; they killed thousands, but from their viewpoint, they are heroes in their country. They had an enemy, they attacked that enemy.

How are al-Qaeda a country? Bear in mind that it wasn't the Taliban (who I am told kind of hated al-Qaeda, as they lived in their own places with their own laws and didn't obey the Taliban's strict codes) but al-Qaeda who was behind 9/11. Al-Qaeda don't have a nation. They are generally disliked by nations because they erode a nation's sovereignty. Besides, that makes most wars terrorism. The US' response was also, by that definition, terrorism. In fact, it was moreso than 9/11; at least the invasion of Afghanistan was done by a country.

Terroism is defined as acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion.

This is a less problematic definition, but I would like to posit the argument that Professor Faisal Devji makes in his much under-appreciated book, Landscapes of the Jihad, that al-Qaeda is less like, say, the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq (a minority that has been wronged repeatedly by history and resorts to terrorism) and more like an environmental movement, in that both are supra-national organizations with ethical, rather than political goals (bin Laden himself has claimed that the enemy is not the US, but "global Crusaderism.")

(Sorry, I'm in college and actually had the fortune to study under the aforementioned professor. I've read a (sadly) obscure book. ^^')

 

[Phyroxis]

Terrorism: The tactic our governments use to keep us afraid of others, generally getting us to sheep along and comply with whatever new measure TO KEEP US SAFE they come up with.-- To the point in which we start to give up fundamental freedoms in exchange for perceived security.

Al-Queida is not a threat, promise.

 

[BubbleGumSnareDrum]

An act by any individual, organization, government or military carried out deliberately with the intention of instilling fear in one or more groups/nations of people.

People like to pretend that it's only terrorism when "they" do it, and really, "we" are "they." The US government and military aren't any less terroristic than any of the organizations they label as terrorists, and are disturbingly guilty of psychological terrorism, IE a fear campaign against their own people.

 

[darfjono]

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

 

[santaandy]

Using violent means to inflict fear upon civilian or otherwise innocent people. Politics and personal goals are not part of it. That's one of the reasons freedom fighters are not terrorists, they have political/personal goals. They also don't (usually) target civilians, and they stop when they're done. Terrorists don't.

 

[Chickenlittle]

If they're willing to kill civilians to have a chance to even injure an enemy, I call that terrorism.

If they threaten to kill civilians, I call that terrorism.

If they suicide bomb, I call that terrorism.

If they use illegal weaponry, i.e. gas, I call that terrorism.

I think you get the idea.

 

[kaziard]

I always saw it like this
Terrorists are rebels that end up losing the war
Freedom Fighters are rebels that end up winning the war.

 

[Hazy]

I consider Terrorism to be: Using Fear or Terror tactics to obtain something or get a point across.

 

[Nargleblarg]

ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Did I win yet?

 

[new_age_reject]

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

 

[Sockerbit]

Shooting a soldier patrolling the streets or bombing a military base, that's warfare. Depending the tactics, it might become guerrilla warfare. Examples; Bombing the pentagon, warfare. Flying a plane into the pentagon, guerrilla warfare.

Shooting a civilian simply for living in the country or in an area, that's terrorism not matter what kind of tactics you use. Examples; Bombing the WTC towers, terrorism. Flying a plane in the WTC towers, terrorism.

 

[GodsOneMistake]

Bastards being bastard coated bastards with bastard filling to other bastard coated bastards with bastard filling, and some nice people too

 

[hippo24]

What does terrorism look like?

Spoiler: Answer

Terrorism is when an enemy relies on underhanded tactics such as: attacking civilians, guerrilla warfare, suicide bombing, kidnapping, and overt or unethical attacks. Done usually to insight fear into their opponents in hopes of convincing them to concede to their demands. Normally this is an option when a faction does not have significant enough resources or followers to wage a normal armed conflict.

 

[Raregolddragon]

An technique that the fool thinks fear will work on me.

 

[Azetheros]

The very word terrorism is a pointless, one. There is no such thing as a terrorist. Just people labeled terrorists by the other side.

I would disagree. I would say that there should be a term for those fighters who insist on blurring the lines between soldier and civilian (which, may I remind you, is a violation of Geneva Conventions) and so sow terror among civilians. There needs to be a term for those who deliberately aim at civilians, who meet their enemies in their homes and not a battlefield.

As for revolutions, aside from the part where I'm opposed, I am certain that any group could choose to reserve its revolution to acceptable battlefields, or at least not aim AT civilians, deliberately.

Using violent means to inflict fear upon civilian or otherwise innocent people. Politics and personal goals are not part of it. That's one of the reasons freedom fighters are not terrorists, they have political/personal goals. They also don't (usually) target civilians, and they stop when they're done. Terrorists don't.

Actually, terrorists usually have ethical claims as well. Again, compare them to envoronmental movements. Environmental movements claim that the environmental crisis must be dealt with at a global scale, or not at all. They therefore operate on a global scale, without regard for national boundaries, and at times without regard for national interests. Rarely if ever are they attached to a nation, (can anyone say where Greenpeace is from? Now tell me why it matters, at this point?) but will more often have offices and efforts in many. They have a sense that their work is futile, but nevertheless worthy and they must therefore do it.

Replace Greenpeace/environmental movements with al-Qaeda and environmental crisis with Muslim suffering and you'll have an accurate picture of al-Qaeda. They aren't amoral. They're just ok using violence to meet their ends. So is ELF. Are they terrorists?

Edit: Also, to the two people who said that horrible quote "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Our revolutionary tradition is too shaped by the Terror of the French revolution, but the original American revolution was relatively bloodless when it came to civilians and other non-combatants. Freedom fighters don't have to become terrorists. But if you choose to fight for freedom by sowing terror, instead of by meeting your oppressors on the field of battle, you're a terrorist. Period.

 

[IxionIndustries]

Making bombs out of dirty shoes and throwing them at George Bush?

 

[ygetoff]

You mean like all the times the US sent bomber raids over Baghdad to enrage the civilians into overthrowing Saddam for us?

Yes, I heard those satellite-guided missiles are very accurate.

Or maybe you're refering to when the US moved all those Native Americans, 'to promote the Natives interests despite their inclinations,' I believe was the line?

Sorry, how long ago was that? Did people even obey rules of engagement then?


I think you're confusing hiding among civilian populations and setting bombs in heavy-traffic public areas designed to go off at the busiest time of day with the acts of general war.

Terrorism is bad. War is bad. Civilians die during war, it's called collateral damage. Civilians die under terrorism, it's called a victory. War is bad. Terrorism is worse.

This is the dividing line right here. War does not have the intent to kill civilians. Terrorism does.

 

[Skeleon]

Using fear to force others to do your bidding.

War does not have the intent to kill civilians. Terrorism does.

Terrorism doesn't necessarily have the intention of killing civilians or anybody for that matter.
Used to be terrorism was just about extorting people with bomb or poison threats.
The problem is that terrorism isn't a homogenous group of acts.
It differs depending on the goals, cultural background just as much as the actual act.