What Is Terrorism?

[michiganFats]

Alright, who gave DevNell a thesaurus? Shame on you, that's like giving a loaded gun to a chimp.

 

[morpheus]

I always understood terrorism to mean: acts of violence or threatening (with violence) groups of people, in pursuit of a political goal and/or motivated by political and/or ethno/national affairs.

Unfortunately, the term is broadened by many for political purposes, to include things that don't fit the conventional understanding of "terrorism". Due to the incredible power and clout that the term "terrorism" gained following the 9/11 terror attacks (which easily fit under the conventional definition), politicians -both American and foreign- have misused the term "terrorists" to describe anything from urban guerrillas (who are not interested in killing or threatening groups of civilians) to even political dissidents and environmental activists. I wouldn't understand political assassins to fall under the conventional definition either, despite carrying out objectionable acts, they just don't fall under the conventional definition, IMO.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Alright, who gave DevNell a thesaurus? Shame on you, that's like giving a loaded gun to a chimp.

is that what they call that book? I thought it was a universal translator.


go figure

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You want to debate me?

Then debate what I say, not some strawman of your own deluded design, sport.

stop being so fukin' full of yourself. If even 1/1000th of the country took themselves as seriously all the time as you do, we'd be in a world of hurt.

wait...we are! thank you you fukin' wingnut.

 

[michiganFats]

Just when I think DevNell is an idiot....he pulls me back in again.

 

[mightypeon]

Of course he is, actually, everyone is an idiot apart from me and my 5 imaginary friends !

 

[Gurdari]

Isn't terrifying people what its all about? I think that's pretty obvious

I thought it was the use of violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve political or idealogical ends.

I'd get a definition from the US army, the UN, the dictionary and maybe a few other places and compare. And, yes... many 'good' nations are technically terrorist states on occasion.

 

[DavidS]

Terrorism is TARGETING of CIVILIAN populations for political purposes.

Jillian, I love you to pieces, but I gotta disagree here.

Terrorism doesn't target just civilian targets. Terrorism is the intentional damage and destruction of civilian and government infrastructure which can and most likely does cause injury and death for political purposes.

The attack on the USS Cole was not intended to hurt any civilians, but we do see it as a terrorist attack.

 

[Agnapostate]

As opposed to the gentle police patrolling at Sabra and Shatila...

 

[Godboy]

Epsilon Delta
FUCK WAR
Member #11471 Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Montrealgrad, Quebekistan SSR.
Posts: 939
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 5



No, actually, it is not. Terrorism is the name given to gross acts of violence that are perpetrated by OTHERS against us. You see? It only goes one way- "We" can't commit terrorism, only "they" can commit terrorism. It's a very useful term for political elites everywhere. Since only "they" can commit terrorism, any atrocities committed by "us" are actually perfectly justified acts of violence. In ALL cases. If anybody disapproves, then they are supporting terrorists, of course.

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

...often and thoughtlessly repeated, this is one of those point of veiws that cry out for logical and philsophical analysis. Competent analysis will show that clear-thinking persons ought to avoid the saying.

Note first that while freedom is an end, terror is a means. So to call a combatant a terrorist is to say something about his tactics, his means for achieving his ends, while to call a combatant a freedom fighter is to say nothing about his tactics or means for achieving his ends. It follows that one and the same combatant can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter. For one and the same person can employ terror as his means while having freedom as his end.

Suppose a Palestinian Arab jihadi straps on an explosive belt and detonates himself in a Tel Aviv pizza parlor. He is objectively a terrorist: he kills and maims noncombatants in furtherance of a political agenda which includes freedom from supposed Israeli occupation. The fact that he is a freedom fighter does not make him any less a terrorist. Freedom is his end, but terror is his means. It is nonsense to say that he is a terrorist to Israelis and their supporters and a freedom fighter to palestinians and their supporters. He is objectively both. It is not a matter of 'perception' or point of view or which side one is on.

Another Palestinian renounces terrorism and fights for freedom from occupation by the path of negotiation. He is objectively a freedom fighter and objectively no terrorist. A third case might be an Isreali terrorist who blows up a Palestinian hospital or mosque in revenge for Palestinian terrorist attacks. He is objectively a terrorist but objectively not a freedom fighter.

So there are two reasons to avoid 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' The first is that it rests on a confusion of means and ends. Describing a combatant as a terrorist, I describe his means not his end; describing a combatant as a freedom fighter, I describe his end not his means. A second reason to avoid the saying is because the saying suggests falsely that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not a person is a terrorist. There is: a combatant is a terrorist if and only if he employs terror as a tactic in the furtherance of his political goals. It doesn't matter what his goal or end is. It might be the noble one of freedom from oppression. Or it might be base one of domination and exploitation. What makes him a terrorist is the means he employs. (Of course, I am not suggesting that a noble end justifies terrorist tactics.)

In brief, terror is a means not an end, and there is an objective fact of the matter whether a combatant is a terrorist or not.

 

[Gurdari]

Is violating this terrorism?

"Article 54 of the Geneva Conventions clearly states that destroying or rendering useless items essential to the survival of civilian populations is illegal under international law and a war crime. "

For example, the 1991 US bombing of electrical grids that powered 1,410 water-treatment plants for Iraq's 22 million people. An excerpt from a 1998 US Air Force document, entitled "Strategic Attack," chillingly explains: "The electrical attacks proved extremely effective ... The loss of electricity shut down the capital's water treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in the Tigris River."

A second US Defense Intelligence Agency document, 1991's "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," predicted how sanctions would then be used to prevent Iraq from getting the equipment and chemicals necessary for water purification, which would result in "a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population" leading to "increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."


Maybe 'terror' is the wrong noun for this?

 

[Godboy]

A second US Defense Intelligence Agency document, 1991's "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," predicted how sanctions would then be used to prevent Iraq from getting the equipment and chemicals necessary for water purification, which would result in "a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population" leading to "increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."


Maybe 'terror' is the wrong noun for this?

Yes, terror is the wrong noun for this. I hardly think the Iraqi civilians were concerned about the sewage treatment facilities, asuming they were even aware of the problem right away. Regardless, just because the citizen population is frightened during an attack on their country, doesnt make it terrorism. People are frightened EVERY time theres a war.

You make the assertion that the US wanted to bomb electrical grids in an effort to shut down water treatment plants, BECAUSE it would cause disease among the civilian populace, but that isnt the case. There were many reason why we wanted to do it, and it wasnt to spread disease.

Heres an actually quote from the "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" document.....

IRAQ DEPENDS ON IMPORTING-SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT-AND SOME CHEMICALS TO PURIFY ITS WATER SUPPLY, MOST OF WHICH IS HEAVILY MINERALIZED AND FREQUENTLY BRACKISH TO SALINE. WITH NO DOMESTIC SOURCES OF BOTH WATER TREATMENT REPLACEMENT PARTS AND SOME ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, IRAO WILL CONTINUE ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS TO IMPORT THESE VITAL COMMODITIES. FAILING TO SECURE SUPPLIES WILL RESULT IN A SHORTAGE OF PURE DRINKING WATER FOR MUCH OF THE POPULATION. THIS COULD LEAD TO INCREASED INCIDENCES, IF NOT EPIDEMICS, OF DISEASE AND TO CERTAIN PURE-WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIES BECOMING INCAPACITATED, INCLUDING PETRO CHEMICALS, FERTILIZERS, PETROLEUM REFINING, ELECTRONICS,PHARMACEUTICALS, FOOD PROCESSING, TEXTILES, CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION,AND THERMAL POWERPLANTS.

As you can see, there are many strategic advantages to limiting pure-water supplies. To think that their goal was to cause disease is absurd, as that would serve no purpose to us at all, and lets not forget, the Iraqi people didnt die of thirst. WE limited the supply of clean water, which is not the same thing as removing ALL clean water completely.

When you dont tell the whole story, it isnt fair or true to reality, but it sounds soooo much better for your arguement when you only mention the disease thing.

 

[Godboy]

An excerpt from a 1998 US Air Force document, entitled "Strategic Attack," chillingly explains: "The electrical attacks proved extremely effective ... The loss of electricity shut down the capital's water treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in the Tigris River."

Yeah, i found this, word for word, on several liberal Bush bashing sites. Each time, they conveneiently chose only those 2 sentences (and they combined them actually, making it 1 sentence) out of the whole exerpt, in an effort to make it look sinister. Its a lie of course when you do that, but they certainly cant deabte us on the facts, so what choice do they have BUT to lie? Theres plenty of suckers out there who will believe their garbage.

Here is the REAL exerpt...

DESERT STORM:
Impact of Strategic Attack on Electrical System

The electrical attacks proved extremely effective. By 0310L (H+10)
CNN (Cable News Network) reported that Baghdad had completely lost
commercial power. Few, if any, electrons flowed through Iraq for the remainder
of the six-week war. The loss of electricity shut down the capital’s water
treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in
the Tigris River. It further disrupted the commercially dependent Kari system,
forcing its defenders to resort to backup generators. Fluctuating output,
the air planners knew, would play hob [cause mischief] with sensitive electronic
equipment and computers. The loss of electricity further hampered
daily government functions and literally put Iraq’s leaders “in the dark.” In
the following week, Tomahawk land attack missiles and coalition aircraft reduced
every major city in Iraq to the same unhappy situation.

Richard G. Davis
Decisive Force: Strategic
Bombing in the Gulf War

By editing it the way the Bush bashers did, it implies that their desire was to make a public health crisis, and they were happy with that outcome, which is an outright lie. When you read this word for word, the way it was MEANT to be read, you see that he is simply reporting the multiple things that were effected by their "extremely effective attack" on the Iraqi electrical system.

 

[Agnapostate]

Probably because one never existed.

So to clarify, Operation Mongoose was a friendly diplomatic process? Just checking.

 

[AllieBaba]

Isn't terrifying people what its all about? I think that's pretty obvious

I thought it was the use of violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve political or idealogical ends.

I'd get a definition from the US army, the UN, the dictionary and maybe a few other places and compare. And, yes... many 'good' nations are technically terrorist states on occasion.

YOu thought wrong. Terrorism is targeting innocents in order to terrify a population. Using the threat of violence to stop a despot from slaughtering their own people is not terrorism. Targeting schools in order to establish a regime that is despised by the majority is terrorism.

Get it yet?

 

[AllieBaba]

"Random violence against civilians (noncombatants) is the type of action most widely condemned as "terrorism." '
Terrorism - Definition

 

[Godboy]

"terrorism "


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. Israel has been a frequent target of terrorism, but the United States has increasingly become its main target. (See also September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, and Basque region.)

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

 

[Godboy]

terrorism

noun
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

 

[Godboy]

ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

[Gurdari]

An excerpt from a 1998 US Air Force document, entitled "Strategic Attack," chillingly explains: "The electrical attacks proved extremely effective ... The loss of electricity shut down the capital's water treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in the Tigris River."

Yeah, i found this, word for word, on several liberal Bush bashing sites. Each time, they conveneiently chose only those 2 sentences (and they combined them actually, making it 1 sentence) out of the whole exerpt, in an effort to make it look sinister. Its a lie of course when you do that, but they certainly cant deabte us on the facts, so what choice do they have BUT to lie? Theres plenty of suckers out there who will believe their garbage.

Here is the REAL exerpt...

DESERT STORM:
Impact of Strategic Attack on Electrical System

The electrical attacks proved extremely effective. By 0310L (H+10)
CNN (Cable News Network) reported that Baghdad had completely lost
commercial power. Few, if any, electrons flowed through Iraq for the remainder
of the six-week war. The loss of electricity shut down the capital’s water
treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in
the Tigris River. It further disrupted the commercially dependent Kari system,
forcing its defenders to resort to backup generators. Fluctuating output,
the air planners knew, would play hob [cause mischief] with sensitive electronic
equipment and computers. The loss of electricity further hampered
daily government functions and literally put Iraq’s leaders “in the dark.” In
the following week, Tomahawk land attack missiles and coalition aircraft reduced
every major city in Iraq to the same unhappy situation.

Richard G. Davis
Decisive Force: Strategic
Bombing in the Gulf War

By editing it the way the Bush bashers did, it implies that their desire was to make a public health crisis, and they were happy with that outcome, which is an outright lie. When you read this word for word, the way it was MEANT to be read, you see that he is simply reporting the multiple things that were effected by their "extremely effective attack" on the Iraqi electrical system.

I like this part: "The loss of electricity shut down the capital’s water
treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in
the Tigris River."

So, they didn't WANT to hurt anyone, it was just the by-product of this "extremely effective attack" as you put it. How noble.

If you reverse the actors, would you still feel the same way?