Idle thoughts on the word "Terrorism"

[kumquatq3]

The dictionary defines it as:

 

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

 

Britannica goes a step further:

 

Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

 

A post that said "Americans are terrorists" (the way it was supposed to be taken aside) got me thinking about the meaning of the word terrorism again.

 

Britannica lists some moments of time that are famous for their "terrorism":

 

the reigns of certain Roman emperors, the French Revolution (see Reign of Terror), Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Argentina during the

[Kaftan Barlast]

The actual meaning of the word Terrorism as it is being used today is more along the lines of:

 

 

Violent or subversive acts by an organisation or nation, labeled and recognized as terrorists by the Western nations.

 

 

Its essentially a highly subjective classification. Nelson Mandela's ANC was labeled a terrorist organisation before the break of apartheid, yet now they are written about as heroes that ended apartheid and brought justice to the black population of South Africa. That the west actively supported apartheid and thatwe considered them terrorists 20 years ago, is swept under the rug.

 

 

Another example of the subjectivity of labelling something Terrorism; If for an instance, a Palestinian kills an Israeli settler then that is a clearcut act of terrorism. If on the other hand, the settler kills the palestinian then its just murder.

 

 

 

 

damn, time'sup, Ill be back later.

 

 

p.s

 

People, try to keep serious and not troll this thread to closure.

[kumquatq3]

Its essentially a highly subjective classification.

 

That is essentially my point. It's so subjective as to almost be meaningless.

 

But if I asked someone what a terrorist was, to break it down to it's core (not name names), I think you would get basically variations on the same answer.

 

Hence, in our modern understanding of the word, I think you can be more specific and add the "with little or no concern about who that violence effects" to "Systematic use of violence, with little or no concern about who that violence effects, to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective".

 

I think this better reflects what the majority of people would think the word actually means. Not that I'm for changing the meaning of words on a majority vote, but in this case it seems apt. It also draws a better line between acts of war and terrorism.

[Torpar]

It's easy to judge good and evil unmixed, and in the west, we are quick to condemn those who resort to subterfuge and violence to achieve their means. Why is there terrorism in the first place? People do not just kill other people for no reason. Terrorists adhere to their beliefs as strongly as we do to ours, and are just as willing to use force to hold up to them as we do. Unfortunately, in a face-to-face battle, the terrorists are sure losers, so what else can they do but resort to guerrilla combat and suicide bombing? In war, end justifies means. However, to the rest of the world, these actions make terrorists seem cowardly and treacherous, while in truth, they're fighting for their beliefs as the democratic powers (supposedly) are. No, I am not defending the terrorists nor do I approve of their actions in any way, but I think the definition of "terrorist" fundamentally depends on the particular perspective. If we were put into the same situation, we would probably do the same thing.

 

I admire what the US is trying to do in the Middle East, but the problem is that liberal reforms are brought into effect too quickly in such a conservative and traditional region. It's like trying to force-feed a nutrient broth to a man who has fed on scraps all his life. It may be good for him, but the important question is: will he like it? Every person has a basic sense of human dignity, and to be treated thus may seem like an insult.

 

What terrorists do is wrong, but they are not inherently inclined towards violence. I think the US is missing the point here. I know many people have said this before, but capturing the terrorist leader or crushing the terrorists by force is just going to compound the anger and make them seem like martyrs to their people. What is important is to solve the problem (not complicate it) by applying a more moderate and gradual approach towards foreign policy in the Middle East. Terrorism essentially feeds on nationalistic anger. Suppressing it is just going to exacerbate the situation.

 

An interesting point to note is that terrorism is a relatively new phenomenon - there were no signs of it present up until the mid-twentieth century...

 

I pass the floor to someone else.

[Volourn]

I am with Kum. There's a difference to me bewteen Freedom Fighters and Terrorists. There *are* Iraqis who are fighting the US because they believe it is the right thing to do. I disgaree with them; but I can understand why they would do so. Then there are those who target whoever to cause fear in iraq. Those are the terrorists there. the ones who target purposefully Iraqi civilains all the while stating they are figthing for Iraq.

 

And, yes, I do beleive at times the US can be guilty of using terrorism to further its own ends. Most countries are.

 

This is why terrorism is such a hard hting to define to a good degree. That's why I like K's chosen definition.

[taks]

Violent or subversive acts by an organisation or nation, labeled and recognized as terrorists by the Western nations.

i've never heard a bigger bunch of BS. it is being defined as stated by kumquat above. just because you seem to think differently does not make it so. those that we are calling "terrorists" are bombing civilian settlements, taking down public buildings, blowing up public airlines and committing other acts of violence in order to reach a political goal. in the end, however, their primary goal is fear.

 

Nelson Mandela's ANC was labeled a terrorist organisation before the break of apartheid, yet now they are written about as heroes that ended apartheid and brought justice to the black population of South Africa. That the west actively supported apartheid and thatwe considered them terrorists 20 years ago, is swept under the rug.

not by me or anyone else that thinks as i do.

 

Another example of the subjectivity of labelling something Terrorism; If for an instance, a Palestinian kills an Israeli settler then that is a clearcut act of terrorism. If on the other hand, the settler kills the palestinian then its just murder.

sorry bud, but the palestinian is walking into a cafe full of civilians with a bomb strapped to his chest. the purpose of such an act is to create an atmosphere of fear. the very essence of terrorism as defined by kumquat. how you can fathom equating these things is beyond rational thought.

 

of course, in order for such rationalizations to hold, little facts like the latter must be left out. not surprising.

 

taks

[taks]

Terrorists adhere to their beliefs as strongly as we do to ours, and are just as willing to use force to hold up to them as we do.

most terrorists are actually just misguided, albeit fanatical, followers of some charismatic nut-job. in the case of al qaeda, that nut-job is bin laden.

 

If we were put into the same situation, we would probably do the same thing.

no, we would not. terrorist organization leaders specifically target those that are easily manipulated (for whatever reason) as their "soldiers." this is no different than any cult in the rest of the world. their actions, however, are different.

 

I admire what the US is trying to do in the Middle East, but the problem is that liberal reforms are brought into effect too quickly in such a conservative and traditional region. It's like trying to force-feed a nutrient broth to a man who has fed on scraps all his life. It may be good for him, but the important question is: will he like it? Every person has a basic sense of human dignity, and to be treated thus may seem like an insult.

true on the former statement. unfortunate, but true. however, the same sense of dignity that we may be stepping on is somehow lost when people like zarqawi ask followers to blow themselves up in the name of "the cause." funny how that works.

 

What terrorists do is wrong, but they are not inherently inclined towards violence.

the soldiers themselves probably are not, but the leaders are. their purpose is fear. this is how they lead. not through respect, but intimidation. the easiest way to intimidate is to commit violent acts.

 

Suppressing it is just going to exacerbate the situation.

no. ignoring them or negotiating with them will exacerbate the situation. their publicly expressed "goals," whatever they may be, are merely facades. the leaders want fear. they may want either anarchy or total control in the end, acheived through fear. nothing different than hitler or stalin, they just disguise their true motives in a different way. this "nationalistic anger" you speak of is a myth. most people are decent enough to realize what is wrong with the picture at hand, they're just afraid of speaking out.

 

An interesting point to note is that terrorism is a relatively new phenomenon - there were no signs of it present up until the mid-twentieth century...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, not true... i'll find some examples, but this type of thing has existed for centuries. we just didn't have mass media till the mid-20th century. that's all.

 

taks

[kumquatq3]

sorry bud, but the palestinian is walking into a cafe full of civilians with a bomb strapped to his chest.  the purpose of such an act is to create an atmosphere of fear.  the very essence of terrorism as defined by kumquat. 

 

 

sort, but in modern terrorism, fear is almost a benifit for the "terrorists" as I see it.

 

it's more like the movie Dog Day Afternoon.

 

The goal is just to publically kill as many innocent people, women and children included, as you can till you take the fight out of the other side. Not through fear nessasarily, but almost via sorrow.

 

In war, end justifies means.

 

Does it? I think there has to be a line where "winning" isn't quite the same thing anymore.

[taks]

sort, but in modern terrorism, fear is almost a benifit for the "terrorists" as I see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, i never said it wasn't. fear is the goal. it is a benefit in and of itself simply because it is the means by which terrorist organizations survive.

 

taks

[kirottu]

An interesting point to note is that terrorism is a relatively new phenomenon - there were no signs of it present up until the mid-twentieth century...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There has always been attacs towards other side

[kumquatq3]

sort, but in modern terrorism, fear is almost a benifit for the "terrorists" as I see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, i never said it wasn't. fear is the goal. it is a benefit in and of itself simply because it is the means by which terrorist organizations survive.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'd argue, at least in recent times, they survive by hate. I don't think they intimidate their members or their supporters so much as tell them what they want to hear (what they end up hearing is based on hate). Your comparing them to a cult seems pretty apt.

 

but I don't think the insurgence in Iraq is trying to instill fear, at least, not as it's primary purpose. Sure, they have used it as a weapon, but I think they are more trying to break the will of the US and the Iraqi people outright.

 

Not that it was terrorism, but America wasn't afraid of the Vietcong nessasarily, but the Vietcong still ended up disheartening them. I think a similar thing is going on now. Terror has evolved form bullying to, do what we say, or we kill someone else. Much like, as i said, Dog Day Afternoon

[Azarkon]

Terrorism is just one of the many military tactics used to achieve a particular objective. It's easy to abstain from terrorism when you're big and powerful, with tanks and bombs and missiles capable of leveling entire cities in the span of a day - it's easy to, at that point, claim that you're trying to avoid civilian targets because you CAN do so. It's the equivalent of possessing great strength and choosing just the right amount for the job.

 

But it's different when you're weak. It's different when you can't fight your opponent directly or risk extermination. It's different when the only possible victory you can ever achieve is to not necessarily scare your opponent's military into submission, but to make the entire atmosphere of war too costly and dangerous for your opponent to continue fighting. Guerilla warfare and terrorism have this same objective and are often both undertaken by "freedom" fighters. The difference is that guerilla warfare is the term given to a more organized military offensive undertaken by trained soldiers, whereas terrorism we associate more with extremist groups and organizations who do not typically have true military prowess, and are not "nations" from any political viewpoint (you seldom hear of a nation committing terrorism, because the equivalent tactics used by nations are considered acts of war).

 

To say that guerilla freedom fighters never target innocent is a matter of terminology. You can certainly define it in this way, but I doubt, somehow, that linguistic word choce is what you're after here. In the history of "freedom fighting" both guerilla warfare and terrorism have been used - necessarily - to achieve political goals. During the Vietnam War the guerilla fighters of the Vietcong initiated attacks against civilian targets for the sake of disrupting US forces - and vice versa, in certain cases - this is distinctly a terrorist tactic, but because the Vietcong are considered an organized military under a politica entity, it can be labeled and often is as guerilla warfare. For a military to commit terrorism, it's merely the acts and facts of war. For an organization - such as Muslim extremist groups - to do the same, it's terrorism through and through. Ultimately, though, the two are seldom different. As I said, targetting civilian targets is not necessary if you have the technological and military power to avoid it. But when it does become necessary, I've seen very few countries actually shy away from the use of force for their own ends. The US, after all, are the ones who dropped the A-bomb on Japanese civilians - and the Japanese, in likewise fashion, are the ones who committed the massacres on Chinese civilians. The cycle repeats, and I'd like to quote from a rather wise man:

 

Governments seldom lose wars. People seldom win them.

[Torpar]

true on the former statement.  unfortunate, but true.  however, the same sense of dignity that we may be stepping on is somehow lost when people like zarqawi ask followers to blow themselves up in the name of "the cause."  funny how that works.

 

It makes them feel like martyrs of a holy cause - and to them, there is much honor in it.

 

the soldiers themselves probably are not, but the leaders are.  their purpose is fear.  this is how they lead.  not through respect, but intimidation.  the easiest way to intimidate is to commit violent acts.

 

True, but it begs the question: why are the leaders inclined towards violence?

 

no.  ignoring them or negotiating with them will exacerbate the situation.  their publicly expressed "goals," whatever they may be, are merely facades.  the leaders want fear.  they may want either anarchy or total control in the end, acheived through fear.

 

And what is their true motive behind spreading fear? If the terrorists are so fervorous and radical, they must truly believe in what they are fighting for.

 

uh, not true... i'll find some examples, but this type of thing has existed for centuries.  we just didn't have mass media till the mid-20th century.  that's all.

 

I'll wait to be enlightened then...

[kumquatq3]

Terrorism is just one of the many military tactics used to achieve a particular objective.  It's easy to abstain from terrorism when you're big and powerful, with tanks and bombs and missiles capable of leveling entire cities in the span of a day - it's easy to, at that point, claim that you're trying to avoid civilian targets because you CAN do so.  It's the equivalent of possessing great strength and choosing just the right amount for the job. 

 

I feel you are overlapping guerilla tactics and terrorist tactics, which arn't nessasarily the same thing. Vietcong wern't, tho some "terrorist" tactics might have been used, by and large "terrorists"

 

 

During the Vietnam War the guerilla fighters of the Vietcong initiated attacks against civilian targets for the sake of disrupting US forces - and vice versa, in certain cases - this is distinctly a terrorist tactic, but because the Vietcong are considered an organized military under a politica entity, it can be labeled and often is as guerilla warfare. 

 

but would you say there is a difference between when those tactics are occasionally used and when they are the backbone of your entire effort?

[Azarkon]

but would you say there is a difference between when those tactics are occasionally used and when they are the backbone of your entire effort?

 

The question you gotta ask yourself is this: can terrorists fight their opponents in any other way other than terrorism? Can they declare, in a military sense, "war"?

 

I'm of the mind that people generally don't engage in SUICIDE bombings if they could achieve their objects through some other method, such as winning battles and being respected as war heroes. But that's not what modern warfare is about - the age of huge armies clashing against each other have come and gone, though many nations still refuse to admit it.

[kirottu]

The US, after all, are the ones who dropped the A-bomb on Japanese civilians -

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That should be a school book example of terrorism.

[Laozi]

It's like when the Secretary of State, whats her name, the one who was incharge of domestic defence, Rice? Anyway she says something like, "Iran, stop developing the same nuclear technology that we have, or suffer the consequences."

 

Basically stop or we do the same thing to you that we did to Iraq, Afganistan, but suprisingly enough not Saudi Arabia, then she and the U.S. government has become effectively a terrorist.

[kumquatq3]

but would you say there is a difference between when those tactics are occasionally used and when they are the backbone of your entire effort?

 

The question you gotta ask yourself is this: can terrorists fight their opponents in any other way other than terrorism? Can they declare, in a military sense, "war"?

 

I'm of the mind that people generally don't engage in SUICIDE bombings if they could achieve their objects through some other method, such as winning battles and being respected as war heroes.

 

Suicide bombings is one thing. Bombing a disco full of 18 year old kids is something else. Thats the difference I'm keying on.

 

So yes, you prolly could fight a "war" of gurellia strikes against soft military targets, but it is clearly not the "easy" road. Getting some kid to blow him-self up to kill other kids gets more attention with less man and material losses to your side. It's more cost effective, if you will.

 

Tho I'm not sure if the motivations of the "terrorists" play into what the definition of terrorism is, nessasarily. Tho I'm still think about that.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Its essentially a highly subjective classification.

 

That is essentially my point. It's so subjective as to almost be meaningless.

 

But if I asked someone what a terrorist was, to break it down to it's core (not name names), I think you would get basically variations on the same answer.

 

Hence, in our modern understanding of the word, I think you can be more specific and add the "with little or no concern about who that violence effects" to "Systematic use of violence, with little or no concern about who that violence effects, to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective".

 

I think this better reflects what the majority of people would think the word actually means. Not that I'm for changing the meaning of words on a majority vote, but in this case it seems apt. It also draws a better line between acts of war and terrorism.

 

 

I dont think that the term "with little or no concern about who that violence effects" simply because the terrorists are very clear about who and what they are targeting, and why. The attacks are always meant to carry some sort of message, and that is not accomplished by just random acts of violence(even if there is that type too, very definently Im not denying that).

 

If we look at some examples that may seem to be just random violence to us(which is because we usually dont know the full story) for instance the bombing of police recruitment centers in Iraq. That's no coincidence, the terrorists are saying "If you side with the foreigners by assissting them in controling this country, you're going to get hurt." a very clear and understandable message.

Another example is the bombing of an Israeli restaurant in the west bank a couple of months ago. To us it just seemed like the usual meaningles violence but the story was that this restaurant was frequented by both Jews and Moslems. It was a nail in the eye of an organisation that believe themselves engaged in holy war against the infidels, and to have Moslems casually socialize with Jews is sacrelidge to them. So they bombed the in order top say "dont mix with the infidels, we are at war with them and the only right solution is to kill them all. we can never have peace with them and if you think so then you're not a true moslem and you deserve to die."

 

Terrorism is all about the who and what the violence affects. "with little or no concern about who that violence effects" is true for only a small percent of terrorism.

[kumquatq3]

Terrorism is all about the who and what the violence affects. "with little or no concern about who that violence effects" is true for only a small percent of terrorism.

 

I see your point, hmm....

 

Ok, I can see how that would fail in that regard.

 

I still think I took a step forward rather than a step back with the definition, meaning playing on the targeting of "innocence" (or specifically women and children), has a large part to play in the modern definition of terrorism. I think I just have to get the wording right.

 

let me think about it

[kirottu]

Terrorism is all about the who and what the violence affects. "with little or no concern about who that violence effects" is true for only a small percent of terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the word concern is key point here. Yes, they have targets, agenda and such, but they simply don

[kumquatq3]

Terrorism is all about the who and what the violence affects. "with little or no concern about who that violence effects" is true for only a small percent of terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the word concern is key point here. Yes, they have targets, agenda and such, but they simply don

[B5C]

The US, after all, are the ones who dropped the A-bomb on Japanese civilians -

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That should be a school book example of terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

How is that terrorism?

 

We warned the japs that if they dont surrender we will unleash a weapon that could destroy cities.

 

They didnt surrender so we had to use the bomb to end the war quickly. Since an invasion and occupation of Japan would have been costly. Since almost every damn citizen has been training and ready for a American landing on Japan.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Violent or subversive acts by an organisation or nation, labeled and recognized as terrorists by the Western nations.

i've never heard a bigger bunch of BS. it is being defined as stated by kumquat above. just because you seem to think differently does not make it so. those that we are calling "terrorists" are bombing civilian settlements, taking down public buildings, blowing up public airlines and committing other acts of violence in order to reach a political goal. in the end, however, their primary goal is fear.

 

Kumquat listed a couple of official definitions of terrorism. What I meant to express was that the practical definition used by goverments today differs from this in its obvious subjectivity. If an act is deemed terrorism or not, depends as much on who performed it as on how it happened. Given that, the only real definition on what terrorism is, is "Whatever we say it is."

 

Disabling the water supply for an city through by attacking the pumping stations with commando troops is not considered terrorism while attacking a military base with carbomb, is. Both cause civilian casualties but wether it is considered terrorism or not depends on who that attacked who.

 

 

Nelson Mandela's ANC was labeled a terrorist organisation before the break of apartheid, yet now they are written about as heroes that ended apartheid and brought justice to the black population of South Africa. That the west actively supported apartheid and thatwe considered them terrorists 20 years ago, is swept under the rug.

not by me or anyone else that thinks as i do.

 

And yet it was listed by the UN as a terrorist organisation.

 

 

 

Another example of the subjectivity of labelling something Terrorism; If for an instance, a Palestinian kills an Israeli settler then that is a clearcut act of terrorism. If on the other hand, the settler kills the palestinian then its just murder.

sorry bud, but the palestinian is walking into a cafe full of civilians with a bomb strapped to his chest. the purpose of such an act is to create an atmosphere of fear. the very essence of terrorism as defined by kumquat. how you can fathom equating these things is beyond rational thought.

 

of course, in order for such rationalizations to hold, little facts like the latter must be left out. not surprising.

 

 

You are right, but it was not what I was talking about at all. I meant to say that on a general basis, if an act of violence is to be declared as terrorism, depends on who is the purpetrator and who is the victim.

Years ago, there was a massive incident where an Israeli settler walked into a Mosque and opened fire on the defensless people gathered in prayer. This was not strangely enough not labeled as terrorism, even though it bore every characteristic of it as it is officially defined. Had the roles been turned however and it had been Israelis dying at the hands of a Palestinian, we can have little doubt that it had been called a terrorist attack.

[kirottu]

The US, after all, are the ones who dropped the A-bomb on Japanese civilians -

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That should be a school book example of terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How is that terrorism?

 

We warned the japs that if they dont surrender we will unleash a weapon that could destroy cities.

 

They didnt surrender so we had to use the bomb to end the war quickly. Since an invasion and occupation of Japan would have been costly. Since almost every damn citizen has been training and ready for a American landing on Japan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unnecessary use of mass violence towards innocent people in hope of destroing otherside