| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| How do you define terrorism? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 11 2004, 07:03 PM (290 Views) | |
| ds9074 | Apr 11 2004, 07:03 PM Post #1 |
|
Admiral
|
I hope no-one minds me spliting the topic, it just that it was getting so long and we seem to have gone off on a tangent anyhow
I want to know how we define terrorist. Are they terrorists only if we disagree with their cause? Take the French resistance. Were they terrorists? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 11 2004, 08:21 PM Post #2 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
I've always used this definition for terrorism... Terrorism is a covert violent action against a civilian population with no or little military value and is an action designed for propaganda value or as a means to coerce the government representing the people attacked. Under my definition, 9-11 was a blatant terrorist act whereas the French resistance was not. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 11 2004, 11:01 PM Post #3 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
I guess you would have to look at the motivation. In the case of the French Resistance in WWII, they were fighting against a nation bent on world domination. If I said they were fighting against an invader, then you could argue that justifies Iraqi insurgents. However, our goal is not to maintain control of, and dominate another country in hopes of creating a physical empire. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 12 2004, 01:54 AM Post #4 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Yeah, and there's something else I think separates pure terrorism from resistance movements, and that is the resistance movement generally will give warning before an attack - the quintessential bomb threat that is phoned in warning people of the impending attack. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 12 2004, 08:07 AM Post #5 |
|
Admiral
|
I still think it is a very grey area. The IRA almost always gave warnings, yet they were definitley terrorists to me. To some however they were resisting the British occupation of Ireland. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 12 2004, 11:07 AM Post #6 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
They certainly leaned in the direction of being terrorists, mostly because they attacked civilians more than they attacked military targets. One of the reasons I didn't word my definition of terrorism to eliminate those giving warnings is due to the IRA and their tactics. I didn't want to give a definition that eliminated them as a possible target on the War on Terror. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 12 2004, 11:48 AM Post #7 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
It should also be noted that people in the American, French, and Russian revolutions often resorted to tactics that would today amount to terrorism. American Revolutionaries in many instances burned down threatened Loyalists and even burned down businesses. I don't know many people were actually murdered, but there was violence against civilians. The French and Russian revolutions need not be mentioned as the murders of the upper class, most of the middle, and some of the lower (just for good measure) is well documented. My point is, perhaps the victorious get to portray themselves as they wish to in history. Also, from a cultural standpoint, one person's terrorist is another person's revolutionary. You unfortunately can't make a clear cut definition of terrorism without making many Western countries look bad. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 12 2004, 12:18 PM Post #8 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
I think trying to compare actions from 200 years ago to now is a little flawed. Hiumans were not as enlightened as they are now. Modern Americans most likely would not do what early Americans did to the aboriginal Americans. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 12 2004, 05:28 PM Post #9 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
But on the other side of the coin, people back then would probably send suicide bombers to the middle of the city. It would seem that we have traded one form of enlightenment for another. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 12 2004, 05:32 PM Post #10 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Doctortobe, Yeah, perhaps a trade has occurred. I don't for a moment believe that humanity has become more enlightened with the passage of time. I would venture to say that the inverse is true. (Of course, Star Trek is excluded. ;)) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 12 2004, 06:01 PM Post #11 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Well, maybe you'd like to use some leeches for that headache then. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Apr 12 2004, 06:15 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Just pointing out that during World War 2, the Allies and the Axis (Germans and Japanese) acted against civilian targets with little or no military value for terror and political reasons. For example: bombings of Dresden, London, Tokyo, the attacks on Chinese peasants in Manchuria, etc. Perhaps to the definition should be added something about the militant group being in the minority of the general population (i.e., the Hamas, probably represent a minority of Palestinians). Perhaps the fact that the Allies and Germany were trying to win a war, not gain political power. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 12 2004, 07:25 PM Post #13 |
|
Admiral
|
Astute. All too often the attempt seems to be to blur the lines between the two. ;( |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Apr 12 2004, 07:37 PM Post #14 |
|
Unregistered
|
I don't know whether the Shi'ite "uprising" we've seen for the past week or so falls under the definition of Iraqi patriotism or terrorism - I do know that I hate to see American troops and relief workers being hurt and killed in the midst of the mayhem. In my mind, terrorism is easily identified when a suicide bomber gets on a bus or blows up a restaurant. When I see a situation like we've seen in Iraq - a widespread uprising being carried out by loosely organized people against an occupying force, the definition of terrorism isn't a 100% fit, in my opinion. Meanwhile, President Bush and his administration "hold" National Guard soldiers on duty in Iraq, talk about increasing the number of troops in Iraq . . all while insisting that the US military is just the right size - and while sticking with the derelict plan to turn over political authority to an as yet to be named person/persons in two and a half months. My gosh - I just don't get this President - I just hope someone makes a specific, crystal-clear, step by step recommendation in one of his PDB documents. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| ds9074 | Apr 12 2004, 07:44 PM Post #15 |
|
Admiral
|
Sometimes you need to stick things out - however painful. I personally think now we are in Iraq that is something we MUST stick at. We cannot afford to leave that county "unreconstructed". On the other hand there are times when you need to take a step back and be honest with yourself. If plan A is not working or circumstances change you need might need a new plan. You might need to be flexible. I think this also fits with Iraq, in terms of the handover and some of the tactics so far employed. I heard a US military offical talk about his rejection of the softly-softly approach we have adopted in Basra. I dont see so much violence in Basra, or the port of Um Qusar or other areas of the South. It might be the approach adopted or it might just be the locale. But perhaps it IS time to change tactics. I can also see that this handover timetable is becoming less a help and more a stumbling block, perhaps it needs rethinking. So for me in Iraq we need to be resolute in staying in that country but flexible in our tactics and timetables. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




2:13 PM Jul 11