What Is Terrorism?

[Geoff332]

Terrorism is the enemy of the free world, at least according to some. I have noticed that the people who make claims like this have a tendancy not to actually explain what terrorism is. This is fairly standard practice, because it allows you to call everything you don't like 'terrorism' and anything you do like 'not terrorism'. (And, more importantly, lable the people you do and don't like)

I am curious to know how each of you define terrorism.

[The Devil]

It's terrorism to burn down a church in Georgia. I'll see if I can find the news story.

[RebelWithanAK]

To terrorize a populace in order to affect political change. Government scare tactics and suicide bombing tactics are both after the same result.

[Section 8]

Many people confuse guerillas and terrorists. For example, Che was considered a terrorist, when he was a freedom fighter for the Cuban people.

[RebelWithanAK]

sec 8, you can't define something by what it isn't. Besides, the politics behind the attack are irrelevant. We're not talking ideology, we're talking tactics.

[castille]

By some accounts Christians were all terrorists in the Soviet Union.


Terrorism literally is anyone who commits an act of violence to spread a political message, or frustrate a current political message.

Ideologically, obviously Communists will say non-Communist gurellias are terorrist, Nazis will say non-Nazi gurellias are terrorist, and so forth. So there is no real definition of what is a terrorist, and what is a freedom fighter.


However, I class anyone using violence to spead a political message, outside of the confines of state-sanctioned and recognised conflict, as a terrorist.

[RebelWithanAK]

"Terrorism literally is anyone who commits an act of violence to spread a political message, or frustrate a current political message."

That defines all war, ever. Oh, wait, states are excempt. Hypocrite.

[Impenitent]

a terrorist is exactly who the ones in power say is a terrorist...

if you win, you can be a revolutionary or a freedom fighter or a patriotic hero... until then you are a terrorist in the eyes of the ruling class...

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
"Terrorism literally is anyone who commits an act of violence to spread a political message, or frustrate a current political message."

That defines all war, ever. Oh, wait, states are excempt. Hypocrite.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Well, I did say "outside of the confines of state-sanctioned and recognised conflict, as a terrorist."

Wars that are recognised as valid conflict is not terrorism. Also, wars are targeted at destroying the military production capabilities and force capabilities of a nation - whereas terrorism is designed to evoke an emotional response by the destruction of civilians and symbolic objects.

[G. Adams]

Terrorism is simply a tool, and is usable by both states and guerillas. States can engage in it, for instance Israel bulldozes buildings and drives people out of there home, in order to force the Palestinian authorities to change policies. Or, in a case of indirect terrorist action, Roosevelt ignored warnings of a Japanese attack on Pearl harbour, so that public opinion would allow him to enter WWII.

Anyone who uses tactics that scare a population or government into changing its policies are terrorists, be they individuals or governments.

wars recognised as a valid conflict? Do they need a license or something to be valid? Guerillas are soldiers without a government, and terrorists are guerillas who have chosen terrorism as a tactic.

Wars are not simply directed at military targets. War is just two sides using lethal force against each other in order to complete a mission. If it serves one side to only attack military and logistical targets, they'll do so, if not, they'll hit civillians as easily as anything else.

[RebelWithanAK]

Thank you, G; and here I thought subjectivism was the word of the day. Can it be said that the US performed an act of terrorism in firebombing the city of Dresden? Hells yes, it can! Hell, we invented the predecessor to napalm for the expressed purpose of destroying German apartment buildings.

[manik]

Yo G, I'm sorry but there is no way Roosevelt "ignored warnings of a Japanese attack on Pearl harbor" just so he could enter the war. American's were already a massive part of the war, financially, as well as sending volunteers to Europe to fight alongside the allies.

Essencially, we were already apart of the war - and the American's were about to enter into the conflict at any given moment.

True - there was speculation on whether or not the American Government pre-cognated the attack on Pearl Harbor, but the fact remains that *at the time* it didn't seem like a logical move on the Japanesse Military's point...and it would have cost millions to just *fortify* (move them around so they could be ready for an attack) the fleet, so they made the wrong discesion.

As an American, I'm a firm believer that the populace at that time (it's different now) didn't need an *excuse* like Sept. 11 to go into WWII. It was a bad decision, that frankly, if I were to be Roosevelt, would be something I'd never want to look at again.

I'm sorry about the tangent, but you kind of offended me with that, so I had to put my 2 cents in on that one.

[G. Adams]

There are multiple accounts of Roosevelt ignoring warnings prior to the pearl Harbour attack. And I was just proving my point with that, if that is too shakey and dubious, how about Gulf of Tonkin?

The US was not openly involved militarily in WWII until Pearl Harbour, after which Germany declared war on the US, so then you entered the war. Prior to that your involvement in the war was lend-lease with GB (where we literally gave you all the gold the British Empire owned, now I wonder how the US climbed out of the depression...) and clearing the atlantic lanes of Germans who were sinking supplies to Britain.

It wasn't mean to offend, just an example of indirect state terrorism. Stick with Gulf of Tonkin for now on.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Roosevelt ignoring warnings for WWII implies that he has a stomach for sacrificing the short term for the long term. His economic strategy implies that he was willing to sacrifice the long term for the short term. If they were in the other order we could blame the flip-flop on guilt, but they were not.

Therefore Roosevelt was either insane, or he did not ignore warnings.

[castille]

Anything could be defined as terrorism.....


Russian Communist revolutionaries used to literally scalp White (Imperial) soldiers and citizens. Afterwards they would bury the "Imperalists" (Imperialist means anyone they had a grudge against) alive in pits.

According to some people, those acts were perfectly legal, and merely a "political necessity". Stalin's genocide could be claimed as a legal (legal by Communist laws) way of exterminating capitalists, traitors, and anyone who doesnt clap for his speech.


Very fine line between illegal terrorism and state-sponsered conflict.

[white rice]

The definition of terrorism is very tenous. A criminal act? An act for freedom? Is it war? Every case is different.

The difference between a criminal and a terrorist is that their motivations are different. A criminal's main goal is money, while ideology or religion is the purpose behind a terrorist. While both may use fear to get what they want, a criminal most likely won't die for money while terrorists might sacrifice themselves if the cause is big enough in their eyes. A terrorist is also more motivated and organized and will be loyal to their particular cause. A terrorist wants change in society, while a criminal wants the status quo but also wants to be elevated within it.

Does that mean that the Revolutionary War pitted a terrorist group against England? Revolutionary violence shouldn't be labeled as "terrorist violence" if the revolutionaries use military means and don't aim at innocents. If they cross the line and use "illegitimate force" (another tenuous and dynamic term) and use it upon innocents, then it should be considered terrorism.

In the case of countries inflicting brutality upon citizens during war, mostly to demoralize the opposition and to cause terror, it shouldn't be defined as terrorism, but as a war crime against humanity. The reason is that states and political bodies can be held accountable for their actions on the world court or another international body (which gives credibility to Israel reeking of terrorism).

Terrorist organizations are apolitical and non governmental shadows that relish in that status to evade accountability. Almost all terror organizations have no rules of conduct and use that towards their advantage. Terrorism, in the dictionary form, is inflicted by people or groups of people, not by governmental organizations and armies.

Just my two cents....

[G. Adams]

How have you come to the conclusion that terrorists typically follow no rules? Most terrorists are driven by a cause, and that cause in itself would impose some kind of rules, even if not written down. for instance a left wing guerilla wouldn't burn down a poverty stricken village, because it is those villagers he is fighting for.

[white rice]

Some causes might have specific unwritten rules, but it doesn't mean they will uphold it if they grow unpopular (in some cases too popular) or if it's their last stand.

They're not obligated to follow rules normally held by warring nations, and they can impose their cause to justify the killing of innocent civilians. For instance, while they might not burn down a poverty stricken village, they could justify bombing an industrialized area of a city even though the workers could be migrants from a poverty stricken villages.

[G. Adams]

But warring nations do this too. For example, the US tore up the Geneva convention because it suited it. Remember the search and destroy missions in Vietnam? All's fair in love and war.

[white rice]

I'm not defending the US, but it's big enough to become hypocritical of its actions without immediate recourse though they are still held accountable. Other countries can't evade the Geneva Convention with impunity or blatant disregard.

The US also has the capability to blast countries back to the stone age. I believe most terrorists (fundamentalist in particular) wouldn't have any trouble using nukes if they posessed them.