Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Terrorism Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Terrorism: defined
BlackHistory    3/29/2004 7:52:19 PM
I wanted to start a discussion about terrorism, and what we think it means. I think a discussion about it would be beneficial for everyone; ideally, we will all learn something. OK, so I'll begin: Terrorism, in my mind, can be defined as: "the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments." I know, it seems kind of broad, but that's what is also scary about it: lots of acts in world history, by various regimes, fit with this description of the term. Here are some questions: * Can terrorism (as defined above) ever be "justifiable" ? * There are lots of 'obvious' or oft-mentioned countries whom we accuse of employing terrorism to 'get their points across.' Has the U.S.A. ever behaved in such a way? Russia? France? England? Israel? Any one else? Hope this spurs a good debate!
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
Elbandeedo    RE:Terrorism: defined s .rd - you MUST be kidding?   3/30/2004 10:16:27 AM
or just a kid, one or the other. Where did you learn your history? Animal House? "...think of Pearl Horbor in 1944" EXCUSE ME!?? That is such an egregious error it is beyond belief. If you don't know the date of Pearl Harbor, you are in the wrong place and obviouly have no clue about the subject you are posting on. That makes you nothing more than another ignorant little troll. For your information troll: Pearl Harbor: military attack by uniformed service members of the Japanese Navy on various installations of the United States Navy and the U.S. Army (and a few other "official" targets). Said attack took place without warning - however that merely made it a "surprise attack" not a terrorist attack. The date was 7 Dec 1941 and the first bomb fell at approximately 0755hrs, local. pack some facts into that skull of yours, quit trolling in ignorance - you may stay around a while - then again... E.
 
Quote    Reply

Elbandeedo    RE:Terrorism: defined   3/30/2004 10:28:48 AM
From AskAsia.com: http://www.askasia.org/teachers/Instructional_Resources/FEATURES/AmericasCrisis/BG1/whatisterrorism.htm Definitions of Terrorism League of Nations (1937) All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public. Code of Federal Regulations (Revised July 2001) Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. (28 CFR Section 0.85, on Judicial Administration, describing functions of the FBI within the Department of Justice.) United States Department of Defense The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. There is no single definition of "terrorism." International opinion has deplored terrorism in all forms, regardless of political motives, yet the international community has never agreed on what exactly constitutes terrorism. As a result, international law has instead chosen to address specific forms of terrorism, such as hijackings and abduction of foreign dignitaries, and to introduce measures to ensure international cooperation to combat and investigate terrorist incidents. Well, that's an open and shut case, isn't it? (note sarcasm) E.
 
Quote    Reply

KoSo    RE:Terrorism: defined   3/30/2004 11:35:47 AM
Here are my two cents worth (drawing from some of the previous posts...) Terrorism is: 1) An act of indiscriminate violence perpetrated specifically against civilians and / or non-combatants. In my mind, if you are suited up and carrying a gun, you can't whine about it when somebody else shoots at you. Also, if you are inducing people to suit up and carry guns and somebody shoots at you, you can't whine about it either. So the assasination of the right-wing Israeli tourism minister a while back would not be terrorism and neither would the roadside bombs in Bagdhad. *AND* 2) Planned and enacted by a force that does not have real or nominal power to tax citizens or induct them into military service. i'm using the verb 'tax' to also include requiring protection money be paid to it, etc. -- the original form of taxation. i had originally tried to say something here about material support, but then realized that this would lead to problems. What i am trying to say is that terrorism is carried out by a group that does not have de facto state powers. Combining this rule with rule one means that the US Cavalry handing out smallpox infected blankets to the Lakota would be abhorent and terrifying, but not terrorism. Libya bombing a German nightclub or destroying a civilian aircraft over Scotland are clandestine acts of war and should be prosecuted as such (i.e., US and UK might have declared war against Libya and might have brought up Qadaffi on war crimes charges). The Tamil Tigers, while not a recognized state entity does have the power to tax and induce military service; as such, it's attacks in Sri Lanka would be abhorent and terrifying, but by this definition, not terrorism. So, using these two rules, let's look at examples and see if the definition works... a) 13-year olds thowing Maltov tails at Israeli tanks. Not terrorism, by rule one. b) Suicide bomber killing destoying a Pizza parlor and its customers in Jerusalem. This is a very tough one; the case can be made that Hamas might have quasi-state powers (i know that they pay stipends to families of suicide bombers, and carry out some state functions such as provision of medical care, education etc. i don't know enough about their fund-raising to know if they have some power of taxation over inhabitants in Gaza or the West Bank -- maybe someone with knowledge of this could enlighten me?). Assuming Hamas does not have quasi-state powers, this is an act of terrorism as it meets both definitions. c) Japanese attaking Pearl Harbor. Not terrorism by both rules. d) Al-Qa'ida flying two jet-liners into the WTC. Also a tricky one, strangely enough. The operation, seems to have been planned solely by Al-Qa'ida, but also received some tacit support from the Taliban (some of whose leaders may have had advanced knowledge of the imminent attack). Strictly, this would be terrorism, since Al-Qa'ida does not have quasi-state powers and otherwise fits definition two. However, the Taliban connection makes for a gray area as it might be construed as an act of war agains the United States by the former government of Afganistan. Well, this is my best shot at present... How does it seem to all of you? All the best, e...
 
Quote    Reply

BlackHistory    KoSo   3/30/2004 11:45:09 AM
A very decent attempt to encapsulate and describe the facets of terrorism. I don't necessarily agree with the 'indiscriminate' component in your 1st case, as terrorists are quite often highly discriminating in their choice of targets.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    RE:Terrorism: defined   3/30/2004 11:45:30 AM
..Assuming Hamas does not have quasi-state powers, this is an act of terrorism as it meets both definitions... By reciprocation, then that gives the Israelis EVERY legal right to flatten and utterly destroy the members and supporters of a quasi-state supported Hamas, and their supporters, along with EVERY other quasi-state supported terrorist group, without intervention and condemnation from the august members of the United Nations. Since Israel would be acting in self-defense to destroy state-supported terrorism. swhitebull - thank you for supplying the casus belli for Israel totally leveling Gaza.
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious    Koso.. be careful what you wish for.   3/30/2004 12:02:21 PM
Inducing People... So now, anyone with a political opinion is a potential lawful target. Whoa... Back the truck up... or do we send a JDAM towards Al-Jazeera? Maybe you've got something there. But, you've made a definition so exclusive it's impossible to find a place where it applies, making it just as useless as a definition that applies to anything. You left out the key elements: A terroris operates outside normal state authority and the rules and customs of warfare. Covert support doesn't cut it. The accepted rule is that a nation, when using violence, does so openly, under its colors, and takes responsibility for it. Since no nation did so for 9-11, they were without a doubt terrorists.
 
Quote    Reply

KoSo    RE:Koso.. be careful what you wish for.   3/30/2004 1:28:43 PM
Basically, if one takes up arms or incites others to take up arms, i believe they're fair game for assasination. Hamas shouldn't whine about their boy being whacked, and neither should the Israelis get upset if somone takes out the vociferous Likud member who advocates crushing the Palestinians. Also, remember, i'm not saying that someone who induces others to commit violence is a terrorist. On the contrary, i'm saying that if someone inducing others to commit violence is assasinated, that's not terrorism. In my mind, that's a murder (whether legally sanctioned or not) and a political action. (If it is not terrorism if one kills a soldier, why would it be terrorism if someone killed a general?) Regarding state support. From the Libya examples, it seems clear to me that what 'state-supported terror' means is a covert act of war. The Libyan bombing of the German nightclub is a good example: Libyan intel officers actually planned, funded, and supplied the operation. To me, this is an act of war disguised as a terrorist action. The WTC attack, i believe fits the definition of a terrorist act. On the other hand, the implicit governmental support of the Taliban, while not of the same extent as Libyan support of the German bombings, qualifies it as an act of war as well. This, i think, is the reason why the US was justified, in a legalistic sense, of attacking the governmental apparatus of the Taliban and overthrowing that government.
 
Quote    Reply

S .rD    RE:Terrorism: defined s .rd - you MUST be kidding?   3/30/2004 7:05:58 PM
EH BLACK HISTORY... SORRY... I MISTYPED... I HAVE ANOTHER COMENT SOMEWHERE WITH THE CORRECT DATE POSTED BEFORE YOURS
 
Quote    Reply

S .rD    sorry black history... i made a mistake   3/30/2004 7:10:00 PM
it was elbandeedo that said that... tottally messed up sorry
 
Quote    Reply

Condor Legion    RE:sorry black history... i made a mistake   3/30/2004 10:39:06 PM
"A mistake?" JUST ONE?, CL.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics