Define Terrorism

[Kiereek]

Terrorism: The use of violence, or threat of violence, to achieve goals that are political, religious, or ideological in state.

By this definition, you Americans (it pains me to even find that worthy of capitalization) are just as much terrorists as those you claim to be fighting.

I disagree. Soldiers fighting soldiers on the field of battle capture enemy soldiers and do this all the time. But real terrorists kill innocent people simply to inflict fear, regardless of whatever else happens.

When soldiers die from a roadside bomb, it saddens me, but I at least "get it." The people who bombed them are fighting their enemy on the field of combat, to get the soldiers out of their homes so they cam be safe. But when some monster drives a bomb into a carload of children, I could never "get" that. *That* is terrorism, and *that* is why some of us consider terror evil and worthy of attempting to stop.

I'm not stupid. I know there's all kinds of political power plays going on in the background, and that no side is innocent or "good," but honestly, there has to be a line. And so far the line seems to be forming at "don't kill innocent civilians, regardless of the reason." If being a muslim doesn't make the other guy a monster, being American doesn't make me one either.

I can agree with your perspective of a soldier's death, and true, there are many good Americans (I sorta saw, and took, a cheap shot earlier). The concept of an innocent civilian however, died with industrialization. Seeing as the people are vital parts of the "war machine," they are just as much a target now as the soldiers on the battlefield. Eliminate factories to stop production, supplies to starve the country, school to stop teachings that don't fit your views. They are all your enemies if you are in a war.

The word terrorism is usually used to define something that most people can agree to be negitive, but I still do not like using to describe attacks. I consider it an act of war, as if it were instigated by a state, then it usually would constitute war. In that case, it should not be twisted to sound like something bad, but an occurence that has now to be dealt with. A bomb, in any form, would be perfectly acceptable if they would simply see it as an act of war. Same with the word terrorist. It makes them sound like bad people. I prefer freedom fighter, or revolutionary. They are always going to be the heroes for someone.

Finally, there is definately no good side, you're right. But historical and political background is definately an important part of this. We have to remember what created this conflict in the first place. For example, let's look at a few countries. North Korea, generally accepted to dislike the USA. We can trace this back to the Korean War, where the USA (not to mention the UN) put their forces behind the South Koreans, and Rhee. Even though it was suppose to be a peacekeeping mission, they pushed right up into China (where they were promptly pushed back for shelling Chinese land). A good start for a bad relationship I'd say. Iran, USA supports the Shah, who uses the most brutal secret police to terrorise (there's that word again), and oppress the Iranian people, and because of this, Ayatollah Khomenini revolts and takes over, establishing an Islamic Fundamenalist State. They blame the hardships they endured on the American people for re-instating the Shah. In general, it is mostly safe to travel there if you're not American. Cuba, USA supports recently ousted Battista, and launches invasion later on at Bay of Pigs. Although a failure, it leads to the Cubans agreeing to the USSR putting intermediate range missiles there, and a breakdown of Cuban-American relations. Having just come back from Cuba myself, I can say there are still many people who hold a grudge against the USA. Afghanistan, USSR begins invasion of the country in the 1970's. The USA backs the rebellion group headed by Osama Bin Laden, a hero in his own part of the world, and the ally of the USA at that time. They supply him with weapons, technology, and it gives him a seat of power and respect in the long run. I suppose all I'm trying to get across is that the past can come back to bite, and that when you side with anyone, you should always expect some sort of retaliation, and not just label them a "terrorist" just because you're not on the side that can call them a hero.

By the way, thanks for taking this seriously, and sorry again, because I definately wasn't being too serious when I made that first post. Nice talking to you.

 

[Silva]

I would argue that pre-emptive strikes based on actionable intelligence should be valid, but (and this will be the day!) there should be sanctions if the attacking side can't prove that the threat it responded to wasn't real. After all, would it be moral if Nation A has a weapon, conceals it, and makes serious plans to deploy it on Nation B in a surprise attack, and Nation B found out and attacked Nation A to prevent this from happening?

Ah well, there are huge legal problems with enforcing that. Namely that the United States and a few of the other key nations can pretty much Hadoken any attempt at giving them sanctions through the UN. You'd need a bigger international authority, or some way of supercharging the UN in an objective fashion.

I agree that if there were a way to make such strikes accountable they'd be more valid, but I still think that morally justifying an action after it is done and not before doing it isn't ideal. The best example why this still wouldn't work is political self-sacrifices - a person might sacrifice their political career by doing such and such a military action, taking the blame for sanctions and then getting a million bucks from some company for protecting their special interests. If that can happen, international law enforcement isn't doing its job. What's more, it's debatable whether Nation B would need to conduct a larger attack on Nation A to prevent the strike in the hypothetical you've outlined.

Finally, in this increasingly complex and delicate Information Age where data is very easy to change and move, there is a fine line between actionable intelligence and possibly falsified or questionable intelligence, particularly in the case of a nation on another side of the world. And in the context of military action, it seems to me much more sensible to err on the side of caution than action, particularly if you've got a running missile defense system.

 

[santaandy]

I can agree with your perspective of a soldier's death, and true, there are many good Americans (I sorta saw, and took, a cheap shot earlier). The concept of an innocent civilian however, died with industrialization. Seeing as the people are vital parts of the "war machine," they are just as much a target now as the soldiers on the battlefield. Eliminate factories to stop production, supplies to starve the country, school to stop teachings that don't fit your views. They are all your enemies if you are in a war.

The word terrorism is usually used to define something that most people can agree to be negitive, but I still do not like using to describe attacks. I consider it an act of war, as if it were instigated by a state, then it usually would constitute war. In that case, it should not be twisted to sound like something bad, but an occurence that has now to be dealt with. A bomb, in any form, would be perfectly acceptable if they would simply see it as an act of war. Same with the word terrorist. It makes them sound like bad people. I prefer freedom fighter, or revolutionary. They are always going to be the heroes for someone.

Finally, there is definately no good side, you're right. But historical and political background is definately an important part of this. We have to remember what created this conflict in the first place. For example, let's look at a few countries. North Korea, generally accepted to dislike the USA. We can trace this back to the Korean War, where the USA (not to mention the UN) put their forces behind the South Koreans, and Rhee. Even though it was suppose to be a peacekeeping mission, they pushed right up into China (where they were promptly pushed back for shelling Chinese land). A good start for a bad relationship I'd say. Iran, USA supports the Shah, who uses the most brutal secret police to terrorise (there's that word again), and oppress the Iranian people, and because of this, Ayatollah Khomenini revolts and takes over, establishing an Islamic Fundamenalist State. They blame the hardships they endured on the American people for re-instating the Shah. In general, it is mostly safe to travel there if you're not American. Cuba, USA supports recently ousted Battista, and launches invasion later on at Bay of Pigs. Although a failure, it leads to the Cubans agreeing to the USSR putting intermediate range missiles there, and a breakdown of Cuban-American relations. Having just come back from Cuba myself, I can say there are still many people who hold a grudge against the USA. Afghanistan, USSR begins invasion of the country in the 1970's. The USA backs the rebellion group headed by Osama Bin Laden, a hero in his own part of the world, and the ally of the USA at that time. They supply him with weapons, technology, and it gives him a seat of power and respect in the long run. I suppose all I'm trying to get across is that the past can come back to bite, and that when you side with anyone, you should always expect some sort of retaliation, and not just label them a "terrorist" just because you're not on the side that can call them a hero.

By the way, thanks for taking this seriously, and sorry again, because I definately wasn't being too serious when I made that first post. Nice talking to you.

Well thank you for engaging me in intelligent debate. You don't have to apologize for your opinion, even though I disagree I'm not going to hold a grudge. My point was not to be a bleeding heart for every poor soul lost during wartime; rather, I was trying to illustrate how terrorism goes outside of that to become something else.

I must question, though, why you have such a harsh view of civilians? Innocence didn't die with industrialization, it just changed. I agree that those working on bombs and the planes to drop them are not exactly innocent, but schools? That sounds a bit far, doesn't it? I wouldn't suggest America bomb Iraqi schools so they couldn't teach children in ways America didn't like. Besides, there have been reports in the news about terrorists in the Middle East using their own people as human shields during battles! These people are also willing to bomb weddings and funerals, even in other Middle Eastern countries! Those people were just as innocent as any Western victims were. And the terrorists do all this just to spread fear. They'll never stop, because fear isn't a goal that can be reached, it's a condition that must be maintained. They have stated that they want us to know that nowhere is safe from them. That's my problem with terrorists - they will kill anyone and everyone just to spread fear. I understand that defending your own homeland or your own innocent people is justifiable, but bombing weddings, funerals, and children never is.

I do agree with you that terrorism isn't just carried out by suicide bombers. Governments that oppress their people are just as guilty. And you're right in that the Western world has treated the Middle East very badly for some time. I can sympathize with their desire to be respected as people and as equals. I can even sympathize with their desire to push our military bases (we had some pre-wartime) and occupation force out, even if it means fighting us. I know you didn't say this, but blaming the government or combat force's actions on the entire population is what is exacerbating this situation right now. And fear (of not knowing who is who) is part of it.

But the line must be drawn there. After all, you also pointed out how the USA has treated North Korea and Cuba just as badly, but NK and Cuba never murdered civilians over it. And as long as we don't inflict violent harm on them, they probably won't.

 

[Crazy Elf]

Civilian casualties are racked up by every military force that's actively engaged in conflict. Historically this has always happened. If you're carpet bombing an area you're definitely going to hit something other than your primary target. Thus civilian deaths, if included in a definition, would surely include every military group out there, and many police forces also.

 

[Silva]

Civilian casualties are racked up by every military force that's actively engaged in conflict. Historically this has always happened. If you're carpet bombing an area you're definitely going to hit something other than your primary target. Thus civilian deaths, if included in a definition, would surely include every military group out there, and many police forces also.

Well said. That's the problem, exactly.

 

[shadowstriker86]

Ice capades = terrorism

 

[jamesworkshop]

Terrorist actions are
Guerilla warfare against non-military targets like civilians or buildings/infrastructure performed for the purpose of forcing political changes.
In other words groups that are too small to raise a proper military force but wants say a country to withdraw from an area or warzone and thus attack the nations civilians with the message that if their demands are met the attacks will stop.

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." - Raul from Die Another Day

 

[Gaz_mcMillan]

Non-government forces doing acts of violence against a general population or a certain groups of people(including other "terrorist" groups) or a particular religious groups

A terrorist is some one who works with terror and is not part of a government of any ideology e.g. democracy

 

[Silva]

Non-government forces doing acts of violence against a general population or a certain groups of people(including other "terrorist" groups) or a particular religious groups

A terrorist is some one who works with terror and is not part of a government of any ideology e.g. democracy

Why do you define it as "non-government"? That seems like an addition to any dictionary definition, besides the fact that it sounds like to you governments should be given a free ticket to be violent. That is the pejorative nature of the term since attacks like September 11th.

 

[McClaud]

I'll just say this:

Terrorism is one step away from general warfare. The only thing that keeps it from being warfare is that it doesn't target soldiers a majority of the time, it isn't an prolonged engagment (since it's over as quickly as it starts) and it preys on breaking the rules that a majority of the world has agreed on.

Terrorists don't engage in open warfare - that's not how they operate. Theirs is only courage to the suicidal death, not fighting enemy soldiers. Their agenda is to inspire terror and undermine confidence. And to bring about general paranoia. Who can you trust? What is safe? Unlike a majority of countries, they don't send a visible military force to the battlefield, and they don't try to keep the battle away from civilians. They don't declare war until AFTER the attack, and then remain obscure until the next strike.

Warfare begins when an identifiable military force with visible troops enters the fray. Guerilla warfare is still warfare - although you don't "see" the guerillas, they are still there, organized and defined to the enemy. They have concrete objectives that often follow the rules of war. Same with national military forces. Sometimes you don't see them, but they are there, organized and defined to the enemy. Warfare begins when one country says to another, "We're coming to invade, we declare war."

I also don't call a majority of the soldiers who engage US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as "terrorists." It's clear that they are an insurgency - they have defined forces and they come at us with guns. They are reacting to our declaration of war. On the same note, there are terrorists operating among them. These are the people who blow themselves up in marketplaces and suicide themselves. They sometimes work for the insurgency, but it is clear that the insurgency still exists as a separate force.

I love how people try to define acts of war as acts of terrorism. They try to blur the lines in the hopes that one day, there will be no more authority to direct people. As if convincing people that warfare is terrorism will cause an end to warfare. Lie to yourself all you want - there will always be armed forces. There's this thing called deterrence, and it only works if you have a force that stalls the enemy and makes them think twice about attacking you. There will always be police and governments. If you dislike what your police and governments are doing, then motivate yourself to get people together to instill change.

But don't ignorantly confuse warfare with terrorism.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Terrorism: a gold-mine for modern day FPSs

 

[Danny Ocean]

Killing people. Unfortunatly only if those people are white according to(?) our racist society.

The IRA were terrorists, they were all white.


You're all missing the point.

Yes, conventional warfare kills civilians, but it's not hypocrisy because those civilians know what they are getting themselves into when they stay in these besieged cities. It's not unheard of for armies to actually fly over and drop thousands of pamphlets warning people that they are going to bomb the shit out of their city.

Modern warfare focuses on destroying the opponent's means of organised resistance. You cut their army's supply lines, you destroy their armies.

With terrorism, they attack people who believe that they are safe from warfare. For example, 9/11. Who saw that coming? Madrid trains, London Tube, all these people thought they were safe. When these bombs go off in these places, it's like saying, "No matter where you are, we will find you, and we will kill you."

Terrorism focuses on destroying the opponent's means of organised resistance by removing their will to fight by scaring the crap out of the civilian population, so that said population then uses their political weight to persuade their government into complying with the terrorist's demands. Unfortunately for the terrorists, it doesn't work. Unfortunately for us, they haven't figured this out yet, so they just bomb us more.


Terrorists hold the civilian population hostage in order to achieve their aims. The military simply destroy's the oppositions means of protecting themselves, and in doing so remove a great deal of their political and governmental "Muscle". This then allows said military or their leaders to take over. This is all OK because it's just the way things are done. It's OK because people know what to expect. Hell, there's even systems that allow asylum from war. If people want to escape because they feel threatened, they can!

With terrorism, there is no asylum.

 

[Crazy Elf]

Do you know how much the family of a suicide bomber gets paid for their 'sacrifice'? Find out and get back to me.

Actually cash isn't that big a factor. Robert Pape in a paper published in 2005 collected data from 315 suicide terrorist campaigns from 1980 to 2003, involving 462 individuals and found the major objective of 95 percent of suicide attacks is to expel foreign military forces from territory that the bombers perceive as their homeland. Nationalism seems to be a much larger draw card than cash.

Scottish Wars of Independance, American War of Independencce, the Carioca Revolt, the merchants war, blah, blah, blah.

Um, the Scottish Wars involved the attacking of military targets, as did the American War of Independence (which also has a lot of civilians getting killed). The Carioca Revolt failed and what the fuck do you mean by Merchant's War?

 

[manicfoot]

A terroist is anyone who gets in Jack Bauer's way

 

[Crazy Elf]

A terroist is anyone who gets in Jack Bauer's way

Don't his superiors get in his way most of the time?

 

[Zombie_Fish]

Both the english and american definition is along the lines of this:

Someone who passively or actively tries to get political attention by the government or try to change the government's opinion on something.

However, if this is true, 2 people who would be terrorists include jesus christ and Ghandi.

 

[Iron Mal]

My personal definition of terrorism is simply an act that puts terror in people on a large scale (hence the title).

If I was to tell everyone on this forum that I would hunt them down and beat them to death with their own spinal colomn and I scared someone then I would be a terrorist.

In recent times (namely since the 9/11 bombing) we have, as a society, narrowed the meaning down to someone who causes mass death and destruction for a cause when this isn't always the case.

 

[sms_117b]

Using fear to get your point across or something you want

 

[JodaSFU]

An act of violence intented to induce fear (terror) in the populace or government of a nation or community.