It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is a terrorist?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I hear the T word banded around a lot.

1)So what you you class as a terrorist?

And secondly

2) Are all terrorists evil?

Me?
1) A terrorist is someone or a group who try to use violence and intimidation to force a ideology or view on others.

2) For me it comes down to the questions whats the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Nothing.
It depends on the ideology and targets.

A group like AL queada that try to enforces a extreme religious ideology by targeting innocents and soft targets is clear evil.

But the french resistance was in effect "terrorists" so was john brown. But there ideology was fighting a wrong, there targets government or militarily with emphasis on trying to minimize innocent deaths. So were they wrong?

I actually don't know on number 2.
edit on 22-6-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Interesting question.

There is a fine line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

I will say that I think that Al queada began as a group of "freedom fighters" trying to defend their lands from Russian forces.....but became terrorists once the US quit supporting them and labeled them enemies.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   
A terrorist is whomever government decides is a terrorist, its that simple.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok



As the saying goes...

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
They call themselves leaders around the world .. you can find them in whitehall and washington d.c along with every other capitol city in the world .. also known to dwell under rocks and in sewers .. closely related species are religous leaders ..bankers and lawyers ..

Decontamination strongly recommended after contact with them .. along with checking that you still have all your digits and valuables ..
edit on 22/6/14 by Expat888 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/6/14 by Expat888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok


A group like AL queada that try to enforces a extreme religious ideology by targeting innocents and soft targets is clear evil.

Choir boys compared to certain governments.
Nice broad strokes. Waging war on a noun, lol.

Everyone is a terrorist. Oonless yu do exactleey vat ve say…



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

In my opinion:-

A Freedom Fighter will only aim at Government Institutions, i.e Military, Police, Bureaus Of The Government etc

A Terrorist will target anyone, including innocent civilians.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Hi crazyewok!
I believe that 'terrorist' is an all encompassing word, to mean 'enemy'.

It seemed to be the buzz word after 911.

In my lifetime, there has always been an enemy. It used to be the Russians...the commies...the Germans (according to my British parents who lived during WW2 in England)....insert any country that your home country doesn't like/trust.

Now, the word is 'terrorist'. Why? It is my opinion that it's a word that can be used to describe ANYBODY. Doesn't matter what your country/religion/colour/creed/political party/gender/sexuality...etc. is.

It is a label that can be placed on any individual who is in question with the authorities.
Divide and conquer. Question every single person....trust no one...

In the movie, The Day The Earth Stood Still....when Dr. Helen Benson is being 'escorted' to the secret meeting, she is told that "it's a matter of national security", to which she replies, "Well that means whatever you want it to."

In a world where all seem to want to know who our 'enemy' is, we are now faced with the fact that 'anyone' can be the enemy. It's frightening actually.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
A terrorist is someone who uses fear in an attempt to enforce an ideology or make political change. To me a terrorist is someone who knows they can't defeat the military in a straight fight, so instead of even trying, they attack the civilian population on purpose. Or they attack random civilians without the intend to actually conquer but simply to provoke fear. 911 was that kind of attack. Bombing buses and pizza parlors is that kind of attack. The purpose of terrorism is to demoralize and force change without ever getting to the stage of an open war.

A freedom fighter is someone who may fight a ruthless guerilla war, but their targets are mostly military in nature, not intended to be civilian. IEDs on our military convoys are this kind of attack. The American Revolution was primarily fought using this kind of tactic.

The government caught in a guerilla war by separatists will label them terrorists. It's inevitable and will always happen. Whether or not you side with the separatists depends on whether or not you think their cause is just. What kind of government are they fighting to free themselves from and what kind of government would they be fighting to impose?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

A terrorist plays without rules, laws, or conscious, to achieve victory.

A freedom Figther plays with a mosicom of rules generally exempting civilians from harm, but not always... Something akin to Guerrilla Warfare and Guerrilla Fighter.

At the end of the American civil war it is thought that Lee's surrender at Appomattox and the way in which the surrender was done, eliminated the idea of Guerrilla Warfare, and years of strife in America. Thus promoting the nations healing.

Some in the south say it continues today, that the war isn't over. Here locally 4 or 5 years ago they built a new center to shop and in that center they built a place called the Yankee Candle Factory. People protested in the streets not to allow a company with the name "Yankee" in the name. Sometimes I think we have lost our minds.

Great question though...



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Definition of terrorize: create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror.

With that in mind and answering your first two questions:

1. Anyone who terrorizes me.
2. Evil is a word that alludes to someone who has an absence of morals. What is "evil" will vary depending on who you speak to. Evil to me is someone who makes every effort to control other human beings in some capacity. These individuals have no regard for the sanctity of each individual's personal unit of human capital. In other words, they are those who do not understand the phrase "Live and let live."

I have never been terrorized by anyone in the middle east. As a lesbian I have been terrorized a few times by people who didn't like teh gays. It's getting better but I have some scary stories from when I was around 18. Those folks were terrorists to me.

Also, there is not difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Both individuals have no respect for someone else's right to live and let live. They are both violent soldiers of some propaganda induced ideology that was hammered into their heads since birth. Each have zero respect for the other's ultimate right to control their own personal unit of human capital.

edit on 22-6-2014 by OrphanApology because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
A terrorist is a person who attacks our government or it's top execs, attacks our financial structure, or targets businesses that contribute to the political agenda. All other actions are considered civil problems with nutty people as the cause or just acts of violence or murder. Homeland security agents were present at the marathon bombing, so that was a terrorist event I guess



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok
The US legal definition of terrorism is pretty typical:


"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.


An act of terror must be dangerous, and it must already be illegal. So a terrorist is somehow who uses violent crime to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policies of a government. Whether or not a freedom fighter is a terrorist depends on what they are doing and whose law you are using to analyze their actions. It's sort of a given that they will be breaking municipal law and attempting to influence the conduct of a government. But the really interesting part, which is found in clause (i) of the above definitions and all throughout international law, is the idea of distinction in targeting. In conflict, it is lawful to attack certain targets, and not lawful to attack others. The principle of distinction is the first rule in the ICRC's database of customary IHL. The second rule concerns the use of terror:


Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

Examples of acts of violence cited in practice as being prohibited under this rule include offensive support or strike operations aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population, indiscriminate and widespread shelling, and the regular bombardment of cities, but also assault, rape, abuse and torture of women and children, and mass killing. The indictments on the grounds of terrorizing the civilian population in the above-mentioned cases before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia concerned deliberate and indiscriminate firing on civilian targets, unlawful firing on civilian gatherings, and a protracted campaign of shelling and sniping upon civilian areas. These examples show that many acts violating the prohibition of acts or threats of violence aimed at terrorizing the civilian population are also covered by specific prohibitions.


So in non-international conflict, it is customary to view as a terrorist someone who uses or threatens violence in order to spread terror among the civilian population. Freedom fighters may use and threaten violence against combatants, provided the methods used are legal, and doing so does not make them terrorists.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

To me a Terrorist is anyone that uses the threat of Religion to harm, dismember or kill another person or group of people. Otherwise wouldnt just normal/ serial killers be Terrorists too?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

been awhile for this topic.

in reality a "terrorist" is anybody who is actively fighting against you using death and destruction as a tool to further their goals. can be against civilians and civilian infrastructure, or even military personal and infrastructure. typically those called "terrorists" are normally the underdog faction fighting against superior forces. other names (generally from those that support said group), are freedom fighter, rebels, guerrillas, the underground, the resistance, liberation groups, etc. while a lot of people would cut off at those that attack civilians and civilian infrastructure, the usage of covering the rest is not even new, it has been around an extremely long time.

during ww2 Hitler and the Nazi party referred to the resistance, and the underground freedom fighters as being "terrorists", yet at the same time they themselves filled out even the most basic concept of those who attack civilians. i am not even talking about purposely bombing civilians (technically acts of "terrorism" by any definition), or other parts of the war, but the specific revenge tactics they used in retaliation for those "terrorist" attacks they received. yet it is a rare thing to hear someone calling the German state/armed forces under the Nazi regime as "terrorists", they were the stronger force not the underdogs, and much of their acts of "terrorism" were instead called war crimes, or crimes against humanity.

i believe the Spanish back in the 1890's called the KKK "terrorists", even though if you were to ask the Filipinos they would have called the Spanish the "terrorists" for much the same reason as with the Germans and the resistance groups. it all depends on which side you are on. those opposed to you are the "terrorists". just as most acknowledge the IRA as terrorists, those in the IRA would call the English the "terrorists". or even today if you were to ask the Islamic "terrorists" who the "terrorists" are, they would answer the USA and western nations. and what was shock and awe but acts of "terrorism", the act of putting terror and fear into the hearts of your enemies.

in reality ALL WAR can be considered acts of "terrorism", even when using your definition of "A terrorist is someone or a group who try to use violence and intimidation to force a ideology or view on others." for what is any war about but "violence and intimidation to force a ideology or view on others". doesn't even mater if you are defending, you are STILL trying to use "violence and intimidation to force a ideology or view on others".

so is all "terrorism" or "terrorists" evil? no how can they be when it is all a matter of which side you support that determines who YOU feel the terrorists are.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Interesting question.

There is a fine line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

I will say that I think that Al queada began as a group of "freedom fighters" trying to defend their lands from Russian forces.....but became terrorists once the US quit supporting them and labeled them enemies.


I don't think the line is so thin.

Terrorists commit random acts of violence to install fear in civilian populations in order to further their political/idealogical goals.

Freedom Figthters pick specific targets with militiary or ideological specifications to further their goals.

Now the goals may be similar but the means are different.


edit on 22-6-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: wlasikiewicz
a reply to: crazyewok

To me a Terrorist is anyone that uses the threat of Religion to harm, dismember or kill another person or group of people. Otherwise wouldnt just normal/ serial killers be Terrorists too?


so what you are saying is if religion is not involved than it is not terrorism? so within the Philippines for example if MILF or other Islamic separatist rebels kill a bunch of people it is terrorism. but if the same people are killed in the same way but it is the NPA or other communist separatist rebels, it is NOT terrorism?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Interesting question.

There is a fine line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

I will say that I think that Al queada began as a group of "freedom fighters" trying to defend their lands from Russian forces.....but became terrorists once the US quit supporting them and labeled them enemies.


I don't think the line is so thin.

Terrorists commit random acts of violence to install fear in civilian populations in order to further their political/idealogical goals.

Freedom Figthters pick specific targets with militiary or ideological specifications to further their goals.

Now the goals may be similar but the means are different.



the definition can be even more simple:

terrorism is: instilling fear in public/group to achieve political goal.

exactly what the US government (among other governments) is doing to their own citizens.

terrorism is not only done by killing...



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Have you learned to ululate yet?




posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Here is a link to show how the U.S. Federal Government Identifies potential terrorists.


Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link. As you can see, this list covers most of the country…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”

2. Those that advocate for states’ rights

3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”

4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”

5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”

6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”

7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”

8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”

9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”

10. “Anti-Gay”

11. “Anti-Immigrant”

12. “Anti-Muslim”

13. “The Patriot Movement”

14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”

23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”

30. Anyone that “complains about bias”

31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”

32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”

33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”

34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”

35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”

36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”

37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”

38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”

39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”

40. “Militia or unorganized militia”

41. “General right-wing extremist”

42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”

44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

45. Those that are “anti-global”

46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”

48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”

49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”

50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”

51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”

52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”

53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”

54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”

55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”

56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”

57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”

58. “Rightwing extremists”

59. “Returning veterans”

60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”

61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”

62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”

63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”

64. “Anti-abortion activists”

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)

71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians

The groups of people in the list above are considered “problems” that need to be dealt with. In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.

thetruthwins.com...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join