What is a terrorist?

[Back]

Whoops, hit return instead of tab. This was supposed to be a poll, but I screwed up. Lets have a nice, friendly Socratic discussion on what a terrorist is anyway.

Before I give you the dictionary definition I’ll give you my own off the top of my head.

A terrorist is someone who kills innocent people as a way of intimidating them into accepting a non-popular belief.

Ok, dictionary.com says... a terrorist is involved with terrorism, defined as...


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.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Backlash]

[Artha]

Like a freedom fighter, but instead of having military targets, they go after civilians.

[theotherjohn]

a freedom fighter


Really depends on whose side you are on

[Edaarin]

Anyone that's not white and Christian.

[Back]

Ok, fixed the first post.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Backlash
A terrorist is someone who kills innocent people as a way of intimidating them into accepting a non-popular belief.



Sounds a lot like an American Army job description

kill people to force the others in their country to accept a non-popular belief

[Back]

Interesting that people say “freedom fighter” as the people who founded this country were freedom fighters fighting for freedom from an oppressive king.

By definition...


One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

PS. I think Dictionary.com’s definition of terrorism is severely generalized and inaccurate.

[Hulkein]

Greenpeace are probably the only terrorists I know.

[Gan]

A group that is too cowardly to actually go to war with another group so they attack innocent civilians of the other group(s)instead.

Wikipedia has some interesting discussion on the defination of terrorist - and the overall page is disputed.


Originally posted by Wikipedia
"The word "terrorism" is controversial and has many definitions, none of which are universally accepted. According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence."

For most of the 20th century, the word was used primarily to describe the attacks of "a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects" (OED). However, it was always a pejorative term, and its use has broadened considerably since the declaration of the War on terrorism, now covering almost any enemy action perceived as being an immoral use of violence. The word is used exclusively to refer to others. No known group self-identifies as 'terrorist'.

21st century definitions of the word range very widely. They typically involve some subset of the following criteria:

The motive is political or religious
The target is civilian
The objective is to intimidate
The intimidation is directed at government or society
The perpetrator is non-governmental
The act was unlawful
None of these are universally accepted as being either necessary or sufficient."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Ganalon
A group that is too cowardly to actually go to war with another group so they attack innocent civilians of the other group(s)instead.



Cowardly?

What is a terroist afraid of?

It sure is not death

The best I could find... The UN did something kinda right.

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988). [4]

[Gan]

Originally posted by theotherjohn

Originally posted by Ganalon
A group that is too cowardly to actually go to war with another group so they attack innocent civilians of the other group(s)instead.



Cowardly?

What is a terroist afraid of?

It sure is not death

I dont call blowing up 20+ children at a checkpoint brave or warrior-like. I call it cowardly.

I dont call blowing up innocent civilians who never saw it coming brave or warrior like. I call it cowardly.

[SpunGirl]

Willingness to die does not necessarily equal bravery.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

A terrorist desires a change in the perceived policies or activities of a larger body, usually but not necessarily a government. Unable or unwilling to explore conventional, legal channels (e.g. voting, debate, demonstration), the terrorist will use physical violence or the threat of physical violence (someone yelling "Fur is murder!" in the middle of a school isn't a terrorist, they're just dumb and annoying). Terrorism is always wrong.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[Back]

It is important to know your enemies, and know them well. According to Sun Tzu at least.

“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” I have no idea who said that.

This discussion is an exercise in definition, and as we can see so far, there does seem to be some common agreement about what a terrorist is. But there are also some differences and we may never be able to truly come to a conclusive agreement on what a terrorist actually is. But in having this discussion, we can better understand who the real enemies are.

[Artha]

What is a terroist afraid of?
Some practical jokester slipping pork into something they're drinking.

[Edaarin]

Abortion clinic bombers = terrorists.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Artha

What is a terroist afraid of?
Some practical jokester slipping pork into something they're drinking.

Would that be like burying them face down, facing west, with an authentic football cuddled next to them?

[Back]

Originally posted by Artha

What is a terroist afraid of?
Some practical jokester slipping pork into something they're drinking.

Wrong. Not all terrorists don’t eat pork.

And Ganalon, not all terrorists hate the west.

You’re both being stupid for comedic factor I hope.

[Artha]

Yes.

edit: But really, who doesn't live in fear of the dreaded porksoda?

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Artha]

[Warriorbird]

"Greenpeace are probably the only terrorists I know. "

Operation Rescue all the way.

[Gan]

Its a sad and lame attempt at levity I'm partaking in. :(

[Back]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Operation Rescue all the way.

Ghandi and Mother Terrisa were way worse, man.

[Atlanteax]

Well, this sounds like Greenspeace to me! :lol:


Originally posted by Ganalon
A group that is too cowardly to actually go to war with another group so they attack innocent civilians of the other group(s)instead.

Wikipedia has some interesting discussion on the defination of terrorist - and the overall page is disputed.


Originally posted by Wikipedia
"The word "terrorism" is controversial and has many definitions, none of which are universally accepted. According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence."

For most of the 20th century, the word was used primarily to describe the attacks of "a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects" (OED). However, it was always a pejorative term, and its use has broadened considerably since the declaration of the War on terrorism, now covering almost any enemy action perceived as being an immoral use of violence. The word is used exclusively to refer to others. No known group self-identifies as 'terrorist'.

21st century definitions of the word range very widely. They typically involve some subset of the following criteria:

The motive is political or religious
The target is civilian
The objective is to intimidate
The intimidation is directed at government or society
The perpetrator is non-governmental
The act was unlawful
None of these are universally accepted as being either necessary or sufficient."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

[Gan]

It also sounds kind of like moveon.org

:lol:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Edaarin
Anyone that's not white and Christian. Yeah... that.

[4a6c1]

What is a terrorist?


Someone who commits a crime for an ideaology.

Laws change to suit societal mores. And so do terrorists.

[ElanthianSiren]

A terrorist is anyone on the unwinning side of an ideologically-motivated, violent altercation at its conclusion.

If Britain had won the Rev. war we'd all learn in gradeschool, most likely, about a violent uprising in our great country by a rogue general named Washington and how the noble British army beat back those savages. In the end, history is written by the winners.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
A terrorist is anyone on the unwinning side of an ideologically-motivated, violent altercation at its conclusion.I've never heard anyone call the Nazis terrorists. And I've certainly never heard anyone describe the British forces of the Revolutionary War as terrorists.

[Skirmisher]

I think she simply forgot to mention the being outnumbered aspect as it seemed to be almost assumed or else they would meet the opposition out in the open.

Anyone that does not agree with me.
:duh:
(that was a joke..kinda :D)

[ElanthianSiren]

The definition of a terrorist changes often. Actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

If you scroll down to the origins of the word Terror aspect, they do mention Nazism as an early type of terrorism, going further to say that early terrorism was a modus employed by governments to control their own citizens.

Further, as terror is unacceptable activity by a strong force dealt to a weaker force (civilians), you can argue that Britain participated in terroristic activities -- specifically with regard to its Scottish Land Clearances and with the impressment of Americans/Scots/Welsh prior to and during the Revolutionary War.

It's like the Bible, not that the Bible is about terrorism. There are many many many versions, and the interperitation/translation really depends on who was trying to accomplish what.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
I think she simply forgot to mention the being outnumbered aspect as it seemed to be almost assumed or else they would meet the opposition out in the open. I would be very surprised if the Allies didn't outnumber the Axis. I'd be a little surprised if the Soviets alone didn't outnumber them.

I would definitely agree that England (and America, for that matter) did some extremely bad things to pretty much every country they conquered. I also agree that the ruling power can be described as terrorist, but I would posit that when we're talking about the results of military conquest it's a slightly different animal (not that it's not bad, it's just a slightly different kind of bad).

[Gan]

Its almost as if Terrorism is conflict that falls outside the realm of normal or conventional.

One could even argue that the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was terroristic. Or the baloon bombs that Japan floated across the Pacific. Or the carpet bombing campaigns that were exchanged in the European theatre during WW2 was terroristic because civilians were casualties. It can also be justified as collateral damage, if you were to even justify killing someone who's not actively engaged in the war or conflict.

Defintately thought provoking.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Its almost as if Terrorism is conflict that falls outside the realm of normal or conventional.

One could even argue that the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was terroristic. Or the baloon bombs that Japan floated across the Pacific. Or the carpet bombing campaigns that were exchanged in the European theatre during WW2 was terroristic because civilians were casualties. It can also be justified as collateral damage, if you were to even justify killing someone who's not actively engaged in the war or conflict.

Defintately thought provoking.

That was absolutely the point, but you said it better than I did. The term terrorist is, by its very nature, subjective.

-M

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by theotherjohn

Originally posted by Ganalon
A group that is too cowardly to actually go to war with another group so they attack innocent civilians of the other group(s)instead.



Cowardly?

What is a terroist afraid of?

It sure is not death

I dont call blowing up 20+ children at a checkpoint brave or warrior-like. I call it cowardly.

I dont call blowing up innocent civilians who never saw it coming brave or warrior like. I call it cowardly.

Neither are Nation States any braver when they fire rockets from a safe distance which kill innocent children. Or when such Nation States drop bombs from a safe distance which kill innocent civilians.

[Atlanteax]

How about ToJ on this Forums... does that count now? :lol:

[Gan]

Originally posted by xtc
Neither are Nation States any braver when they fire rockets from a safe distance which kill innocent children. Or when such Nation States drop bombs from a safe distance which kill innocent civilians.

The difference, in your scenario, I suppose is intention and the definition of combatants.

It is never our [US] intention to land a rocket in the middle of a school - thus why we spend billiions of dollars on R&D to create 'smart' weapons that can be guided with a fair amount of precision into areas where combatants are hiding.

However, its not the intention of a suicide bomber to strategically strike at armed combatants but to strike at anyone and in certain cases - women and children that arent combatants at all. Yes its a fine line, but a line none the less.


[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Ganalon]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by xtc
Neither are Nation States any braver when they fire rockets from a safe distance which kill innocent children. Or when such Nation States drop bombs from a safe distance which kill innocent civilians.

The difference, in your scenario, I suppose is intention and the definition of combatants.

It is never our [US] intention to land a rocket in the middle of a school - thus why we spend billiions of dollars on R&D to create 'smart' weapons that can be guided with a fair amount of precision into areas where combatants are hiding.

However, its not the intention of a suicide bomber to strategically strike at armed combatants but to strike at anyone and in certain cases - women and children that arent combatants at all. Yes its a fine line, but a line none the less.


[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Ganalon]

Governments know of and accept the killing of civilians. Collateral damage is certainly a term we have all heard time and time again.

While some bombs are designed to be precise some are designed to be the exact opposite, take cluster bombs.

Some suicide bombers attack military targets, i.e. checkpoints. On Sept 11 the terrorists targetted the Pentagon, and the Whitehouse, both are military targets.

To quote Steve Winwood "It is fine line, a very fine line".

[Gan]

And the WTC, which is not a military target. Perhaps because there is so much trouble defining what a terrorist is, at least on our level, that might be why there is so much consternation in the methods used to combat it.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't know why you think bombers are safe, xtc. http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/gunner/gunner.html

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I don't know why you think bombers are safe, xtc. http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/gunner/gunner.html

That bomber is a little old.

Try Stealth Bomber

Stealth Bomber (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/)

or unmanned bombers

Unmanned Bomber (http://boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q2/nr_020523m.html)

All are safer than being on the ground.

[Back]

Bumping an old thread because it seems relevant to current discussions. Amazingly a good read, and not very virulent.

Over a year later has opinion changed?

I’ve been thinking about this recently due to other discussions and I see a very dangerous trend right now. Singling out one group of people as “terrorists.” I stand by everything I’ve said and will add a few more thoughts...

I would boil it down like this: if a terrorist is someone whose sole objective is to change someone’s opinion through violence then we can consider muggers as terrorists. People who threaten harm on other people to make them behave in the way the threatener wants.