Define Terrorism

[zenoaugustus]

Anti-American, Communist. haha, i can't even keep a straight face typing that.

I think terrorism is an ideal made/used by those who wish to prove their point through more extreme means. Kind of like V for Vendetta.

 

[tumeg828]

umm? ok my bad for not putting all my time and effort into a post but ur right they are terrorists to some extent but to few recognize that

 

[Laxman9292]

We dont bomb with the sole intention of killing innocents, but it's impossible to prevent civillian casualties but they are significantly less than terrorism.

And by the way we werent at war with native americans. technically they were a nomadic nation within the U.S. which meant they were subjected to U.S. control (i.e. laws of relocation and the like)

 

[Snugglebunny]

Terrorism is attacks and targets of certain groups of people in a fashion to instill terror and a message rather than a tangible result, like if someone bombed a factory because bombs are being made there, thats not terrorism. If someone bombed a factory because it really hated all the factory workers and wanted all the other the other factory owners to fear their authority, thats terrorism.

 

[McClaud]

It's not crazy because country's do that as well but yet are not called terrorists. During World war 2 the British launched a massive terror bombing on Dresden. The attack was meant to brake the moral of the german nation and show them that further fighting was pointless. And that means that the bombing was a terror tactic. You can't argue they they did not bomb the "schoolchildren" on purpose because they did. So i could just as well call the World war 2 era British terrorists. It's just like some people here have already pointed out: If it was them then its terrorism if was us then it was just "collateral damage"

Were all terrorists in the end. You know!

Wrong.

War was formally declared by the Germans on the British. Civilian death related to a war is not terrorism. While it may make people scared and uncomfortable, they know that there is a war going on.

Terrorism does not officially declare war on a specific target. Maybe an ideal, but since the opposition or the civilians don't know exactly when or who is at war with them (they can't identify incoming combatants), it's not official warfare. It's a single attack with the intention to terrorize that may or may not be repeated. It's a threat without an official declaration of war.

As I said, insurgency is different, because the opposition has officially declared war on the invader.

Now, care to try another example that isn't poorly confusing warfare with terrorism?

 

[Crazy Elf]

One paper ? Thats it thats your arguement ? And you havent actually mentioned how much the bombers families receive. A huge cash sum for an impoverished family has no effect at all. Bullshit.

Well you find me a source that has actually looked into and studied the root causes of suicide bombers to the extent that Pape did and then get back to me. The, "They get a lot of money!" thing has been greatly hyped by right wing media, but isn't nearly as prolific as they've made it out to be.

Really, do the research. It's not like that out there. A great number of suicide bombers blow themselves up because their family is already dead and they want vengeance.

Learn to read The Scottish Wars is how you conduct a freedom fighter esque war.

But they attacked military targets, and you were citing it as an example of successful freedom fighters that didn't. Now either you're arguing something else now or you don't know what you were arguing in the first place.

What civilians were killed in the AWI (Outside of individual action, dont be so tiresome)?

Undecided colonists during the war were sometimes forced into one side or the other, and if they failed to join up they were killed. Also, although civilian casualties remained low throughout the war, they did occur.

Merchants war goes under the heading of read a damn book, oh sorry, MORE THAN ONE BOOK.

And all the books that I can find on the subject are science fiction novels. If you want to use examples you best use real ones.

Just to clarify for the dumbass
Freedom Fighter - Someone attacking the actual cause of his problems.

Terrorist - Filthy animals too stupid to do anything meaningful that kill innocents and murder squaddies to no effect other than to stir up attention for a cause no one cares about. Also so that they can line there pockets with ill gotten gains and peddle drugs.

Just to clarify:

Freedom Fighter - Someone that hasn't received negative media attention highlighting their negative actions.

Terrorist - Someone you don't agree with and don't understand the context of their actions.

I think we're done here.

 

[JWAN]

Terrorism : Using fear tactics that are not sanctioned by global powers to manipulate or forcefully control affairs.

Why is it not terrorism when global powers use fear tactics to manipulate or forcefully control affairs?

generally they are working for the greater good of human kind

for example sanctioning North Korea or Iran
or Invading Iraq and placing a democracy so the people have a voice and can control their own fate, send girls to school, get real hospitals, that kind of thing

 

[Flying-Emu]

Or maybe you're refering to when the US moved all those Native Americans, 'to promote the Natives interests despite their inclinations,' I believe was the line?

Erm.

Why are you bringing up American policy from two hundred years ago?

 

[r4ndom]

THE MOVIE "TITANIC"

 

[JWAN]

One paper ? Thats it thats your arguement ? And you havent actually mentioned how much the bombers families receive. A huge cash sum for an impoverished family has no effect at all. Bullshit.

Well you find me a source that has actually looked into and studied the root causes of suicide bombers to the extent that Pape did and then get back to me. The, "They get a lot of money!" thing has been greatly hyped by right wing media, but isn't nearly as prolific as they've made it out to be.

Really, do the research. It's not like that out there. A great number of suicide bombers blow themselves up because their family is already dead and they want vengeance.

Learn to read The Scottish Wars is how you conduct a freedom fighter esque war.

But they attacked military targets, and you were citing it as an example of successful freedom fighters that didn't. Now either you're arguing something else now or you don't know what you were arguing in the first place.

What civilians were killed in the AWI (Outside of individual action, dont be so tiresome)?

Undecided colonists during the war were sometimes forced into one side or the other, and if they failed to join up they were killed. Also, although civilian casualties remained low throughout the war, they did occur.

Merchants war goes under the heading of read a damn book, oh sorry, MORE THAN ONE BOOK.

And all the books that I can find on the subject are science fiction novels. If you want to use examples you best use real ones.

Just to clarify for the dumbass
Freedom Fighter - Someone attacking the actual cause of his problems.

Terrorist - Filthy animals too stupid to do anything meaningful that kill innocents and murder squaddies to no effect other than to stir up attention for a cause no one cares about. Also so that they can line there pockets with ill gotten gains and peddle drugs.

Just to clarify:

Freedom Fighter - Someone that hasn't received negative media attention highlighting their negative actions.

Terrorist - Someone you don't agree with and don't understand the context of their actions.

I think we're done here.

also freedom fighters tend not to gas schools or bomb buses full of children
ex. the founding fathers of the United States of America

 

[McClaud]

also freedom fighters tend not to gas schools or bomb buses full of children
ex. the founding fathers of the United States of America

And freedom fighters have a right to a counter-war to fight off the invaders. The invaders declared war, so the fight is on.

Terrorism often occurs in areas that are not warzones. Targeting your own citizens to stir unrest is also terrorism - you aren't helping your cause or your people. You're trying to kill them because they won't take your side (they exercised their freedom not to fight).

 

[Crazy Elf]

also freedom fighters tend not to gas schools or bomb buses full of children
ex. the founding fathers of the United States of America

That wasn't really an option back then, but I think we're beginning to get somewhere with a definition, particularly with this statement:

And freedom fighters have a right to a counter-war to fight off the invaders. The invaders declared war, so the fight is on.

Terrorism often occurs in areas that are not warzones. Targeting your own citizens to stir unrest is also terrorism - you aren't helping your cause or your people. You're trying to kill them because they won't take your side (they exercised their freedom not to fight).

So, let's try to get this straight. Freedom Fighting occurs in response to external aggression, whereas terrorism does not?

 

[McClaud]

And freedom fighters have a right to a counter-war to fight off the invaders. The invaders declared war, so the fight is on.

Terrorism often occurs in areas that are not warzones. Targeting your own citizens to stir unrest is also terrorism - you aren't helping your cause or your people. You're trying to kill them because they won't take your side (they exercised their freedom not to fight).

So, let's try to get this straight. Freedom Fighting occurs in response to external aggression, whereas terrorism does not?

As I said previous (and since you have not read anything else I've said up to this point) -

I don't consider the insurgency in Iraq to be terrorists. There are terrorists mixed in with the insurgency, but they are still pretty separate groups. The insurgents don't exactly like the terrorists, either, since they tend to inform on them (for the money to continue to fighting the invaders - or us).

A truck bomb set by insurgents (freedom fighters) that kills America soldiers is not terrorism. We declared war, invaded, and those feeling invaded are responding with their own declaration of a counter-war. Of course, that means we can shoot back. Often, attacks by either side unintentionally kill civilians. But that is war. There is a war going on there. Same goes for Afghanistan - we declared war on the Taliban and Al-Q. They respond by fighting back (usually with a lot of soldiers armed with guns and RPGs).

A suicide bomber that runs into a crowd of mixed Sunni/Shia civilians is terrorism. The goal of the suicide bomber was not to attack the US, but directly aimed at causing paranoia and alarm in the general populace. They don't exactly declare war their enemies - they continue to attack at random at targets that can't fight back. While it might be considered a "war" of ideals, it's not warfare. It's terrorism.

There is a difference. If you refuse to acknowledge the difference, then it's near impossible to have an intellectual conversation about it (since one side intentionally stays ignorant so as not to see facts).

EDIT: The reason you have to define each separately is because you have to fight each differently. Each has a different set of solutions or actions that effectively work. Attempting to treat terrorism like warfare, or vice-versa, is not going to work. Blindly treating them as the same will only bring about more of the same.

 

[Crazy Elf]

A suicide bomber that runs into a crowd of mixed Sunni/Shia civilians is terrorism. The goal of the suicide bomber was not to attack the US, but directly aimed at causing paranoia and alarm in the general populace. They don't exactly declare war their enemies - they continue to attack at random at targets that can't fight back. While it might be considered a "war" of ideals, it's not warfare. It's terrorism.

Hmm, but in Iraq there are many factional disputes that would have people consider others of a different ethnic group to be people they are at war with. The Kurds, Sunni and Shi'a don't get along, and before Saddam was in power they spent a lot of time killing one another.

Surely, in their perception of things, they ARE attacking a side that they have declared war against. Very few militant organisations kill randomly and for no reason. Also, they tend to view all those killed as viable targets.

Who then decides what is and is not a viable target?

 

[McClaud]

Surely, in their perception of things, they ARE attacking a side that they have declared war against. Very few militant organisations kill randomly and for no reason. Also, they tend to view all those killed as viable targets.

Except the Shia have not officially declared war on the Sunni or vice-versa. For years, one group bullied the other and oppressed them. When the faction in power was unseated, the other faction thought, "Well, this is an excellent time to strike back at my opponents without having to actually fight/declare an honorable war."

Same for Al-Queda - they take the opportunity to randomly attack people without a declaration of war. Some call it a jihad (the terrorists), but usually the rest of the Islamic population recognize it for what it is - domestic terrorism. Because it's easier to hide your agenda behind the mask of religious extremism to lash out and terrorize people.

Who then decides what is and is not a viable target?

When it's declared warfare, it's who you declared war on (and both sides usually make this very well known). A sanctioned army or guerilla force/insurgents can fight back (even if outgunned). In terrorism, it's whoever can't officially fight back or stop the action. Like civilians or weak police. Notice how terrorist groups such as Shia extremists intentionally avoid outright confrontation with actual military forces and instead target civilians or weak police forces. It borders on genocide through covert means.

 

[Crazy Elf]

Except the Shia have not officially declared war on the Sunni or vice-versa. For years, one group bullied the other and oppressed them. When the faction in power was unseated, the other faction thought, "Well, this is an excellent time to strike back at my opponents without having to actually fight/declare an honorable war."

But they do declare war, but with no formal government to do it with very few people take it seriously. Al Qaeda declare war quite often, and AQI are much the same, as well as the insurgent groups in Iraq. Also, they hit military targets as well as civilian ones, much like any military organisation. I think the only real difference is that the targeting of civilians is much more common.

Would it be fair to say that the frequency of civilian targeting is more the issue?

When it's declared warfare, it's who you declared war on (and both sides usually make this very well known). A sanctioned army or guerilla force/insurgents can fight back (even if outgunned). In terrorism, it's whoever can't officially fight back or stop the action. Like civilians or weak police. Notice how terrorist groups such as Shia extremists intentionally avoid outright confrontation with actual military forces and instead target civilians or weak police forces. It borders on genocide through covert means.

Not at all, it's just asymmetrical warfare. They'd be utterly foolish to directly target a fortified military group when they can achieve the same results by hitting softer targets. Remember that chaos in Iraq only puts more pressure on the US to move out, which is the ultimate goal. Suicide bombing and hitting softer targets means, strangely enough, that you lose fewer people in the long run and maximise your kill rate. Mathematically it works out.

As for declarations of war, the US hasn't made a formal declaration of war since 1942. Does that make every military action that they've taken part in since terrorism?

 

[Gaz_mcMillan]

Non-government forces doing acts of violence against a general population or a certain groups of people(including other "terrorist" groups) or a particular religious groups

A terrorist is some one who works with terror and is not part of a government of any ideology e.g. democracy

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.

When I said non-government I didn't mean governments should get a free pass to use violence against other people of nations, I was talking about terrorist pacifically

 

[Schnippshly]

Instilling fear in your enemies by attacking non-military targets.