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 terrorism

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Since I am relatively new I do not know if this was covered. Terrorism is a term that is thrown around like a bong at a highschool pot-head party. yet everyone defines it differently.

I think that the best definition is:
The targetted killing of civilians as a strategy used for political gain.

What do y'all think?




posted on May, 17 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi


I think that the best definition is:
The targetted killing of civilians as a strategy used for political gain.

What do y'all think?


Thats the way i define it,

Some stuff from dictionary.com

Terrorism:
1:The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

2:The calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Terrorists lose

Freedom fighters win

"However, on Monday, July 22, 1946, Manachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun, retaliated against Operation Agatha by blowing up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, where the documents proving their guilt had been stored, killing 28 Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and 5 others, for a total of 91 dead. This massive terrorist act destroyed what remained of the Unified Resistance organization completely, with the Hanagah denouncing it and announcing unilateral termination of the "struggle" against Britain. The massacre also provoked bitter anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish sentiment in Britain."

brneurosci.org...

Begin went on to be Prime Minister



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   
.
It is true the victors are the ones to write history.
It has already been said terrorists lose, freedom fighters win.

A good example is Britain , they called George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson terrorists. That however isn't how they are remembered.

Someone will probably say George Washington etc were not suicide bombers or mass killers like modern terrorists, but these are the modern times and a truck loaded with explosives is the poor mans exocet missile.

What is worse in war? Killing a few civillians with a truck bomb and the bomber dies , or killing hundreds with carpet bombing inflicted from a safe vantage point ?



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
It could also be argued that our own governments are guilty of terrorism against "we the people".
Keep us all living in fear of bogeymen and threats to our lives from outsiders to gain support for giving themselves more power and control over us.
Hell, maybe manufacture an event or two to "prove" that the bogeyman exists



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
Terrorists lose

Freedom fighters win

"However, on Monday, July 22, 1946, Manachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun, retaliated against Operation Agatha by blowing up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, where the documents proving their guilt had been stored, killing 28 Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and 5 others, for a total of 91 dead. This massive terrorist act destroyed what remained of the Unified Resistance organization completely, with the Hanagah denouncing it and announcing unilateral termination of the "struggle" against Britain. The massacre also provoked bitter anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish sentiment in Britain."

brneurosci.org...

Begin went on to be Prime Minister


The king David Hotel was the were the British command and the Mandatory government secretariat was located. This is a miltary target by all definitions. The British were warned by Irgun before the attack and the British ignored the warnings. This information is missing from your link.

I therefore conclude that from the definition of terrorism I proposed this was NOT an act of terrorism.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
THe terrorists loose Freedom fighters win arguement is a very valid arguement on a philosophical level yet the definition is one of importance for everyone to talk a common language.
In my view freedom fighters are those who target the military.
Terrorists target civilians.

Do we all agree on this?



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
THe terrorists loose Freedom fighters win arguement is a very valid arguement on a philosophical level yet the definition is one of importance for everyone to talk a common language.
In my view freedom fighters are those who target the military.
Terrorists target civilians.

Do we all agree on this?


Judah - you've convinced me with the strength of your arguments - Terrorists are Arabs, Muslims and Arab Muslims.
Freedom fighters are American, Jewish or American Jews


Has Israel ever done anything wrong in your eyes?

BTW your definition is b*llocks. PIRA were terrorists when they blew up a 10 YO boy shopping and still were when they shot British Squaddies / Irish Policemen - as were Irgun etc and the rest of the bloodthirsty zealots you view as freedom fighters.

Whether you like it or not we were the closest thing to a legal authority at the time and your guys planted a bomb - giving a warning isn't any excuse. In fact it makes me sick that you excuse MURDER with your one-sided wriggling and sophistry.

If, as you seem, you're religious pray to your god for forgiveness.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
Judah - you've convinced me with the strength of your arguments - Terrorists are Arabs, Muslims and Arab Muslims.
Freedom fighters are American, Jewish or American Jews


Has Israel ever done anything wrong in your eyes?

BTW your definition is b*llocks. PIRA were terrorists when they blew up a 10 YO boy shopping and still were when they shot British Squaddies / Irish Policemen - as were Irgun etc and the rest of the bloodthirsty zealots you view as freedom fighters.

Whether you like it or not we were the closest thing to a legal authority at the time and your guys planted a bomb - giving a warning isn't any excuse. In fact it makes me sick that you excuse MURDER with your one-sided wriggling and sophistry.

If, as you seem, you're religious pray to your god for forgiveness.



My dear but deluded friend.

Various situations require the use of force for liberation. I have no problem when Militant organizations such as HAMAS, Islamic Jihad or the PLO factions fight the occupation they perceive by targetting the Israeli military. When Israeli soldiers are killed by a Palestinian ambush/Attack this is NOT terrorism. When Iraqi insurgents kill American soldiers by targeting their vehicles with RPGs this is not terrorism and when Israeli military liquidate Hamas activists/leaders it is not terrorism either.

But when HAMAS blows up a bus with school children, a restaurant with families or holiday festivities in a religious school. This is terrorism.

You tried to make an example of Israeli terrorism in order to provoke an arguement since you are aware from my previous posts that I am an American/Israeli. You missed big-time since you chose a bad example.
Let me help you. There where instances when all Jewish organizations where engaged in what can be considered terrorism by my definitions prior to the foundation of Israel and for a short while subsequent to its foundation. The reason they switched to terrorism was for retaliation to other terrorist attacks perptrated by the Arabs. Irgus switched from a policy of restraint (havlaga) to a policy retaliation. This is in no way a justification but as you can see - I am trying to DEFINE terrorism without bias.
Incidentally the policy switch resulted in a decrease in Arab terrorism. BUT that is a different story.

So again I ask do you agree with the definition I put forth???


BTW You are wrong on another issue - I am not religious.

[edit on 17/5/05 by JudahMaccabbi]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

by JudahMaccabbi In my view
freedom fighters are those who target the military.
terrorists target civilians.

Do we all agree on this?


Yes, I agree, but in many circumstances its not always so clear cut.

The problem is governments have watered down the meaning of terrorism when they consider themselves terrorist targets instead of a valid military target. I don't agree with governments definition of terrorist as I believe political leaders, government facilities, military bases, transports & support facilities etc are valid military targets - though there is some hard to define lines in that category sometimes as many political leaders don't really wield any kind of real power that's a threat to outsiders thus if someone killed a little town Mayor with a gun I would call it a simple murder, but if they blew up a restaurant full of people while doing it I would label it a terrorist act. Of course the government might label it a terrorist act regardless in order to make it easier prosecute the perpetrator - which is a misuse of the law in my opinion and waters down the meaning of terrorist if the killer was just some nut case with a gun & a personal beef..

When there is no current war I think it's possible to expand the definition of terrorism sometimes. Another words if someone bombed a civilian run facility that supplied tools for the civilian population as well as equipment for military forces during peacetime with no imminent threat that could be considered an act of terrorism - but during war times I would expect if I worked in a weapons plant, shipbuilder, aircraft makers or other important supplier that I would be in a valid military target zone. Of course a large enough supplier would always be a target.

While military actions often cause collateral damage which results in civilian casualties I think each situation has to be looked at before you can label the action an act of terrorism. They may even know there are going to be civilian casualties but the fact is that is not their goal for that mission whereas in a terrorist act killing civilians is clearly their goal & they readly admit to it. While the result may be similiar the intent is what makes the difference. Yes, sometimes governments do commit acts of terrorism, but most of the time they use others to do that in secret.

[edit on 17-5-2005 by outsider]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Sorry to break it to you folks, but "civillians" and innocents die in EVERY WAR. If your definition of "terrorism" is a person, and or entity that target civillians then you would have to admit that the USA is a terrorist Nation (we drop bombs in the middle of cities, right? innocents there die right? Civillian death=terrorism, then US aggression fits under this description)

To answer the initial question "terrorism" is yet another "ism" that serves it's purpose quite nicely(keeping people seperated) Made up, and perpetuated by governments and the media that they control to better control the mindless masses who actually buy into the sheitze.

Bolschevism, communism, fascism, terrorism, racism, ellitism, dialectical materialism, marxism, nihilism, etc, etc, etc...blah, blah, blah.


KILL YOUR "ISM" !!!!!!!

[edit on 17-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist
That's a catchy phrase & often true - in this discussion its not that simple or clear cut. We are breaking down what is meant by the word terrorist or terrorism.

phoenixhasrisin - While your killing is killing, murder is murder argument is correct when you look at the end result. We do break them down & classify them that's why we have capitol murder/1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter etc. in the Western civilian world. Usually first degree or capitol means means you planned to murder someone far in advance & thus you knew what was going to happen ahead of time and you were cognitive to those results whereas if you driving like an idiot on the highway & breaking laws that result in a accident that someone dies in you might be charged with manslaughter. Both are wrong & both have the same results (a dead person), but we have different degrees of punishments because civilized society has decided that one act is more criminal/evil or more of a threat to civilized society than the other.

Remove your personal politics from the issue for just one moment & it's not that hard to see.

No Doubt there's some evil fakirs in governments around the world that are terrorist. Terrorist are terrorist whether they work in government or not.

More than anything else terrorism is just a method of operation in a conflict. That's the label we have given to that method of operation. It doesn't mean civilians hunkered down in there homes waiting for the next bombing are not being terrorized - but in that case the terrorism is a secondary effect & not a primary goal. There is a difference. Now - if that bombing runs primary goal was to kill civilians than it should be labeled as such, but I have yet to see any evidence of such an act - nope that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

[edit on 17-5-2005 by outsider]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
as far as i know the war on terrorism will never end. terrorism is a idea, not religion, country, group etc. it's all over the world. just perpare, we got at least 50+ more years to clean up most terrorism, cleaning all terrorism will be impossible. perpare for a long never ending war.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
yet everyone defines it differently.



This part I agree with,..... as the term is relative to the perceiver.

The "act" itself in whatever mode is usually one of desperation or coward ness, yet however distasteful it is a tactic used by combatants on Both sides.

While our "authorities" are eager to provide you with a "identi-sketch" of a "terrorist", you need to consider their motives.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by outsider

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist
That's a catchy phrase & often true - in this discussion its not that simple or clear cut. We are breaking down what is meant by the word terrorist or terrorism.


With all due respect if you want to break-down a useless phrase such as terrorism, then by all means do so to your hearts content. I find the effort quite futile as the term is probably younger than I am. You and others can talk and define, and argue what exactly terrorism is till you are blue in the face, that will not change the fact that the term is used as jingoist propaganda. Actually giving the term validity by discussing it to such a degree, tells me just how much the propaganda has actually gotten to you.

Unfortunately my catchy phase is pretty much on spot, as there have been no revolutions, including our own that do not target, and endanger civillians. If you want to define then by all means define. Just do not think for one second that the term can not be applied to your own nation.




phoenixhasrisin - While your killing is killing, murder is murder argument is correct when you look at the end result. We do break them down & classify them that's why we have capitol murder/1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter etc. in the Western civilian world.


For the record I am also against the death penalty. I am against the taking of another human life, except when faced with a life threatening situation, under ANY circumstances.

While we might classify certain crimes in a criminal court of law, that has nothing to do with the semantical application of a useless term which is soo frivolously thrown around (as is the case with "terrorism"), and not just by the western world either.

By solidifying this useless term you are forever putting in danger the future acts of freedom fighters around the world. Example, Jeff lucers
www.freefreenow.org...

What you are failing to realize is that it does not matter how you, and or I define terrorism. It is a semantical term that will be applied to anyone the government feels like. As in the example above. The man was charged with "ecological terrorism" for torching a few hummers. Now logic would dictate that the term "ecological terrorism" would have something to do with an act of terror, against some sort of eco-system, right? Well this is not the case with my brother Jeff!!

People are being charged with "terrorist" activities for posting thoughts similar to mine on the web. The term terrrorism has also grown to include damage done to property, or inanimate objects. Now tell me , how exactly does one terrorize property? Terrorism is a weapon that is being used more by the worlds major governments than by supposed "terrorist"

Now if we are to accept your dictionary definition of terrorism, which is:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
dictionary.reference.com...

Then you would have to agree that the USA can be defined as such. All feelings aside.

Was the war in Iraq legal under international law? No. Therefore it was unlawful.
First requirement of definition filled.

Have we used force? Yes! Second requirement filled

The USA is an organized group.....thereby fulfilling the third requirement of the definition.

Has it been against people and property? YES! Thereby fulfilling the fourth requirement as defined.

Was the intent to coerce a people or a government? YES! Fulfills fifth requirement.

Was it for ideological, or political purposes? Yes. Thereby fulfilling the sixth, and final requirement as defined.

See by your very definition of the word terrorism, we fit perfectly.

Now if you want to argue intent? Are you to claim that the USA did not knowingly drop nuclear weapons on Japan, with the full knowledge of the civillian casualties? Yes we did. So even using your "intent" argument, the USA does fit the definition.

Sorry I will stand by my first argument of "kill your ism"

If one were to look at all the problems that have plagued mankind for recorded history, you will most likely find some "ism" or another behind it.

It is a term to further seperate people, plain and simple. At the end of the day it basically boils down to resistance=terrorism.

You will see soon enough. Jsut remember my words



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
From my good friend Judah

'Various situations require the use of force for liberation'

Presumably therefore if one liberates (ie wins) one isn't a terrorist - my original point.

Also depends which media you read - 'ours' or 'theirs' and whether you fly a flag or dig with a spade.

Maybe the true difference is a good PR operation and willing media connivance in shifting the emphasis from terror to liberation.

I don't think defining on the basis of targets is the way to go. Is it more ok to kill a soldier and accidentally kill a child or vice-versa?

Perhaps it's actually whether you have to answer to a judicial process for your actions and have to prove they were legal?



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
The application of terror as a means of driving a policial agenda is used more widely than your definition gives scope to, Judah.

Here's an interesting search:

Look up member billybob, go to one of his posts, and read the second definition of three he gives for "terrorism" in his signature. Then determine whether you live in a terrorist regime.




posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Some people have some screws loose, USA a terrorist because it has killed a few civilians? Umm as much as some would like to believe it We dont TARGET Civlians they get caught in the cross fire, If we targeted civilians, we wouldnt have smart bombs wed just carpet bomb the whole damn place and seriously not give a flying **** rather or not we killed them or not.

Read the def its very clear, Klling civilians for political gain.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
We dont TARGET Civlians they get caught in the cross fire,


Dropping an atomic weapon inside a heavily populated area does not count as targetting civilians? Give me a break.

Hiroshima, nagasaki? They were all just "caught in the crossfire" right? Sorry but by even your own definition we fit it. I can understand not wanting to admit to it, but as a great thinker once said......

"Facts do not cease to exist, simply because they are ignored"-Aldous Huxley



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join