Can someone please tell me what 'Terrorism' is?

[8236]

Would the definition apply to the Contras, the Bay of Pigs invaders, the Mujahedeen and the IRA, the ANC, the maquis, the chechens, the russians in chechenia, the serb paramilitaries, blablabla?

Who is a terrorist? Who is a freedom fighter? I honestly don't know. I think all of them must be both.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Try www.ineedabrain.com

 

[Zhukov]

A terrorist is someone who intentionally seeks to intimidate, harm, or kill innocent people for whatever reason.

Terrorism is what terrorists do.


Someone who by a personal or organizational code of conduct restricts themselves to the military targets of the force they are in opposition to is not a terrorist.

Someone who detonates a bomb in an area of crowded innocents in the slim hope of wounding a soldier is a terrorist.

 

[HGROKIT]

One entry found for terrorism.


Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

DICKSHUNAIRY

 

[insein]

Terrorist is one who kills or inflicts fear indiscriminately to further a cause or position of strength for themselves or for a group.

Freedom Fighters Fight to liberate themselves from an oppressive force.

Terrorists target weaker individuals, usually civilians to prey on the hearts and minds of the masses as well as the leaders of a country or group in order to coerce them into giving into demands.

Freedom Fighters tend to attack authority figures and/or governmental heads directly to escape a tyrannical rule. A last ditch effort to escape from a kill or be killed society.

Terrorists wish to establish a totalitarian rule where they are in control. they keep their control by subjegating fear upon the masses.

Freedom Fighters fight to establish a society where they and their families can live without oppression. They strive to put into place a government where they can live without fear.

Hoped that helped but i doubt you'll be very receptive judging by your posts thus far.

 

[8236]

A terrorist is someone who intentionally seeks to intimidate, harm, or kill innocent people for whatever reason.

Terrorism is what terrorists do.

Someone who by a personal or organizational code of conduct restricts themselves to the military targets of the force they are in opposition to is not a terrorist.

Then, I can think of plenty of terrorists in plenty of 'respectable' armies around the world. And you can argue that all the 'illegal combatants' picked up in Afghanistan are not because they were fighting a US/Brit/French military that invaded their country.

Does the statement 'Once a terrorist, always a terrorist' hold true. If so Ariel Sharon is up the creek. Can't be the case though, cos Arafat's been rehabilitated.

Someone who detonates a bomb in an area of crowded innocents in the slim hope of wounding a soldier is a terrorist.

Oh good, would the suitable candidate then be FDR, Oppenheimer or Tibbetts(?) after Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Is (deliberately) killing innocent enemy civilians, in order to (expect to be able to) save ones own troops justified or is that not state sponsored terrorism?

I know it's lame, but my point would be that all these definitions are culturally, morally and historically biased and hence meaningless. Like the Geneva convention, they maybe fixed in stone when they are needed to be, but are just as easily bent when required.

It's like that phrase 'collateral damage'. Now what exactly does that mean?

 

[HGROKIT]

It's like that phrase 'collateral damage'. Now what exactly does that mean?

I almost wish you could be the subject of your query you are such an ass.

 

[8236]

Hoped that helped but i doubt you'll be very receptive judging by your posts thus far.

Ofcourse! Hey I'm only trying to stimulate a bit of debate

Unlike your president, who likes to see everything in black and white (at least when he's on TV), it's never like that. I like your use of the words 'tend to'. They imply the dreaded 'shades of grey'.

Wasn't one man's terrorist the other's freedom fighter?

 

[8236]

I almost wish you could be the subject of your query you are such an ass.

Thanks. You contribution is greatly valued and re-enforces the stereotype I already have of many of the 'intellectuals'/Americans on this board.

 

[MtnBiker]

What does morale equivalent sycophant mean?

 

[Zhukov]

Then, I can think of plenty of terrorists in plenty of 'respectable' armies around the world. And you can argue that all the 'illegal combatants' picked up in Afghanistan are not because they were fighting a US/Brit/French military that invaded their country.

They're not terrorists. They're illegal combatants. Big difference, and one doesn't exclude the other. They don't wear uniforms or segregate themselves from the general population. They are therefore illegal combatants.

But the distinction is irrelevant, they were attacking us and they were captured. They are soldiers in the War on Terrorism and should therefore be detained until the War on Terrorism is over, just like any other war (did we let Nazi's go in the middle of WW2?) It's not our fault if they are all dead by then.

Oh good, would the suitable candidate then be FDR, Oppenheimer or Tibbetts(?) after Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Is (deliberately) killing innocent enemy civilians, in order to (expect to be able to) save ones own troops justified or is that not state sponsored terrorism?

Civilians involved in the production of implements of war are not innocent.

I know it's lame, but my point would be that all these definitions are culturally, morally and historically biased and hence meaningless.

They are the rules we play by, and they are more just than any other I know of. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have attacked us. It's a bit late to complain about it now.

Meaningless because they are based on our history and our sense of right, wrong, justice, and honor? Well, I'm sorry you think so.

That's a pretty morally relatavistic attitude. A dangerous kind of attitude that has historically lead to the extermination of over a billion people. I hope you're happy with the company you keep.

It's like that phrase 'collateral damage'. Now what exactly does that mean?

Unintentional.

Which makes all the difference in the world. Do you honestly not understand that?

 

[8236]

What does morale equivalent sycophant mean?

I dunno.

 

[MtnBiker]

I dunno.

I'm not suprised.

 

[8236]

They're not terrorists. They're illegal combatants. Big difference, and one doesn't exclude the other. They don't wear uniforms or segregate themselves from the general population. They are therefore illegal combatants.

But the distinction is irrelevant, they were attacking us and they were captured. They are soldiers in the War on Terrorism and should therefore be detained until the War on Terrorism is over, just like any other war (did we let Nazi's go in the middle of WW2?) It's not our fault if they are all dead by then.?

OK then, a man accused of murder in down town LA fits that definition. He doesn't wear a uniform, hides among the population. He still gets a lawyer etc. though.
And how will the war on terror ever be over. You can't fight wars against ideas. It's not like WWII, fighting the krauts- a definable government. You might as well ask: 'When will the war on shoplifting be over'. Never.

Civilians involved in the production of implements of war are not innocent.

Even if coerced? I any case even in a state engaged in total war, there are plenty who are not working in war industries. And what is an implement of war? Is a truck? Or an engine before it is put into the tank?

They are the rules we play by, and they are more just than any other I know of. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have attacked us. It's a bit late to complain about it now.

Meaningless because they are based on our history and our sense of right, wrong, justice, and honor? Well, I'm sorry you think so.

That's a pretty morally relatavistic attitude. A dangerous kind of attitude that has historically lead to the extermination of over a billion people. I hope you're happy with the company you keep.

Unintentional.

Which makes all the difference in the world. Do you honestly not understand that?

Completely agree with last bit cos it's not black and white: i.e. 'more just than any other I know of', common 'sense'.
I just don't trust people who have 'access' to absolute truths (Dubya/Blair/Thatcher/Reagan etc.).
Look, I'm only playing the devils advocate. It's how I get my thrills on the night shift After all, I am only an 'ass'.

 

[8236]

I'm not suprised.

Did I say the 'sycophant' bit? If I did, it's a mistake.

 

[8236]

Try www.ineedabrain.com

Sorry, you try your link yourself.

 

[Zhukov]

OK then, a man accused of murder in down town LA fits that definition.

No. A man guilty of murder might fit that description. But what's your point? He should be shot like any other terrorist.

And how will the war on terror ever be over. You can't fight wars against ideas.

Sure you can. But despite the rhetoric it isn't a war against terrorism. That's just the PC facade. It's a war against militant islamic fascists. You win that war by killing them, by removing the organizations that create them, and by eliminating any incentive for their actions.

Even if coerced?

Sure, even slave labor would count. It's you or them. It's that simple.

I any case even in a state engaged in total war, there are plenty who are not working in war industries.

Hence the word 'total'.

And what is an implement of war? Is a truck? Or an engine before it is put into the tank?

Any product or service that furthers the enemy's war effort. This includes a rubber factory for making tires, an oil refinery for making fuel, a textile factory for making uniforms, crops, bridges, buildings. In total war everything in a country, short of the POW camps, is fair game.

In the WoT it includes the terrorists, their equipment, the homes and property of people who provide them aid and comfort, the governmental institutions that encourage terrorism, and any and all co-opted industries in those countries which are mobilized to that end.

I just don't trust people who have 'access' to absolute truths (Dubya/Blair/Thatcher/Reagan etc.).

Not even sure what that means. The President is in a complicated situation and has been forced to make tough descisions. He bases those descisions on his world view, just like anyone else. Would you prefer someone who possessed no foundation of character?

 

[MrMarbles]

So if blowing ones self up in a crowded civilian area in the name of their beliefs is terrorism, how is nuking japan not, or carpet bombing cities? And if these are the 'rules we play by' they seem a little slanted in your favour.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So if blowing ones self up in a crowded civilian area in the name of their beliefs is terrorism, how is nuking japan not, or carpet bombing cities? And if these are the 'rules we play by' they seem a little slanted in your favour.

The world is a battleground between competing visions of how the world should be. Some of the visions are mutually exclusive, hence why we can't just "all get along". You focus on the violence without thinking about which vision you support. Actually you know which vision you support, global socialism. This is equal to global tyranny and those of us who disagree with it will fight to the death to stop you and your ilk from instituting it. Your intellectually dishonest defenses of your totalitarian worldview and ignorance of the unintended(?) consequences of socialism are not convincing. Go ahead, side with the terrorists if you hate America that much. But you will ultimately fail, because the truth will out and good always wins.

 

[HGROKIT]

I think 8236 and Psychoblues are one in the same.