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.Gaz_mcMillan said:
Define Terrorism
- Thread starter Crazy Elf
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
The IRA were terrorists, they were all white.tumeg828 said:
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.
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.LimaBravo said:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Surely that's not the definition. Passive resistance is not considered, in this day and age, terrorism by anyone's standards.Zombie_Fish said:
All police forces work that way. The fear of imprisonment keeps people in line. Few people would consider police forces to be terrorist organisations.sms_117b said:
Which means anyone you want it to, which isn't much of a definition.Rutawitz said:
Better, I think, than many others. However it does include all military actors.JodaSFU said:
Haven't read more than the first couple posts, so if I missed something, apologies.
Terrorism is the blatant act of using murder and/or fear as a way to coerce people.
Basically every government ever made, and several that tried to be made, have been/are terrorists, in addition to the various rebel factions.
Terrorism is the blatant act of using murder and/or fear as a way to coerce people.
Basically every government ever made, and several that tried to be made, have been/are terrorists, in addition to the various rebel factions.
well this is what i found
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 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.
