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 Defines Terrorism?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The Sun Online, a brittish news organization, has published a list of Islamic terrorist attacks since 1993. You can read it here.

There is one glaring ommission, however. It says nothing of any palestinian attacks on Israel. What's the message we're to take from this? Is it not terrorism if it is an on going attack against Israel's children? Are the Palestinians no longer considered Islamic? Do the Jews not count because they deserve it anyway? What's the deal?

I've been seeing things like this a lot, in many listings of terrorist attacks, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not covered at all. A blind eye is turned to it. Suicide bombers who, if they can blow up a bunch of Jews, will be rewarded by Allah are obviously doing it for Islam. Most of the time they don't target military targets, but malls, school busses, schools, and the like. Why are they not considered Islamic terrorists?




posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
In my eyes, a Terrorist is anyone that uses action to cause panic and terror. So, in my eyes Palestinian extremists are terrorists, as well as the unibomber, all dictators, and anyone robbing the local convenience store.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
maybe I can help here.........

I have studied terrorism in college..........

I was always understood to believe that terrorism and a terrorist act is performed by individual(s) who lack the conventional resources to initiate a declaration of war with established battle fronts.

Therefore, with limited resources they perform acts of aggression that inflict terror on a given country or population through a limited action most often inflicted on innocent individuals.

In this manner they strike fear into a population as an emotional weapon of manipulation to bring attention to their cause and issues since they lack the means to drive this attention through conventional warfare or diplomacy.

That is the essence of a the tactics of terrorism as I understand it..........



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
futuretense, I agree with your definition to a degree. I would consider someone who used those means against military targets to lower troop morale and cause them to pull out/surrender would be geurilla warfare. Strikes made against a military target to cause terror in the troops. This was generally the means by which the American Revolution was won.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is targeting the civilian population with the intention to cause the people to be terrified and try to enact a revolt or change in politics.

My question, though, was why aren't the palestinian attacks on Israel considered terror attacks?


cjf

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Terrorism defined as:

Premeditated and politically motivated violent acts perpetrated specifically against noncombatant targets intended to influence an audience and the ensuing psychological impact of said violent act is used to affect political change within the audience.

Differentiating from...

‘Freedom Fighters’ or ‘Guerrilla Forces’ when committing specific atrocities against civilians should therefore be appropriately labeled "terrorists" and thus would not be able to deny being terrorists simply because of the alleged implied validity of their goals.

.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Terrorism, on the other hand, is targeting the civilian population with the intention to cause the people to be terrified and try to enact a revolt or change in politics.

My question, though, was why aren't the palestinian attacks on Israel considered terror attacks?


Jake I agree. I watched the news yesterday and heard a lot of comparisions to 9/11 and Spain, but not one word of the terrorist attacks in Israel. Is this due to anti-semitism, ignorance or just plain indifference? I can't answer that question. Pehaps someone more educated or intelligent than myself can.

Maranatha



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I like my personal definition...

Terrorism = The act of deliberately targetting innocent civilians in order to achieve a political objective.

I think it pretty much fits the bill....



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Hehe I'm starting to think a lot of people reply to the subject of the thread without reading the post explaining it...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   


And you're just noticing this now????

Seriously, I think it might be because they are both blowing up each other's children so it is really hard to point the finger at one side or another in that case.

Do you feel better that someone actually read what you wrote?




posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Second, in that 75%, it's just as indescriminate, in fact more so. When a retaliation is ordered, a blockade is ordered, Apache gun ship called in, as well as heavy artillery and tanks. Those tanks are often loaded with flechettes ( metal "knives" intended to maim , not kill). No Red Crescent Ambulances in or out, and when they're allowed, they're fired upon. Then you also have your random snipers and bulldozing of subsitance farm patches and hovels, indiscriminate of who it's collapsed upon.

Third, Palestinians are also devoutly Christian, not all are Muslim.

Fourth, you've got an occupation vs. insurgency ( like we have in Iraq ) concurrent to guerrilla warfare in that conflict.




Terrorism defined as:

Premeditated and politically motivated violent acts perpetrated specifically against noncombatant targets intended to influence an audience and the ensuing psychological impact of said violent act is used to affect political change within the audience.

Differentiating from...

‘Freedom Fighters’ or ‘Guerrilla Forces’ when committing specific atrocities against civilians should therefore be appropriately labeled "terrorists" and thus would not be able to deny being terrorists simply because of the alleged implied validity of their goals.



The fact of the Palestinians not have the machines of war vs. the world's #3 Military power is lost on this analogy. A Freedom Fighter of destitute armament = a terrorist?

Overall, Israel needs to be tallied as a Terrorist State, along side our actions in too many campaigns lately.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Well, just commenting on it now because this is the first thread I've started where it's been so apparent.

As for your reasoning, Duzey, even if that is the assumption, the list was of Islamic terrorist attacks. Even if you view Israel's retaliation as terrorist tactics as well, that doesn't change the fact that the Palestinian attacks are also terrorist tactics and in the name of Islam.

As to feeling better, DarkElf beat ya to it
I just didn't really have any comments that came to mind on DarkElf's post...Well, none that would be condusive to the conversation, anyway



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Bout Time: Even with the Christian element of the Palestinians, it is the Clerics and was Arafat who were calling for the removal of the Jews from their land. Christianity and Islam seem to have drastically different concepts of suicide to get into heaven, but that doesn't mean there aren't Christians out there who would do something like that and think it would be in God's grace.

However, everything I've read from both sides (Al' Jazeera is usually my "other side" source, so I also admit they probably wouldn't cover a Christian suicide bomber...On the other hand, I think they might to show how Christian an Muslim both hate the Jew based off of a single example) has been that the suicide bombers are blowing themselves up to kill as many Jews as possible in the name of Islam. I'm refering to the specific acts of terror, not the demographics of the (contested)nation they come out of.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Oh yeah, use reasoning why don't you? That's not fair.


I guess for the answer, you'd have to ask the Sun what their criteria were.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Political expediency defines terrorism.

For instance the Americans who rose up against the English occupiers/government in 1776 were freedom fighters.

The Iraqis who fight US troops are terrorists.

Similar situations, country occupied by foriegn power. Different labels due to different politics.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Terrorism is nothing new...just withold income taxes and watch as the feds start honing their knives.

The fact that Palestinian Terror is ignored on those lists is evidence of bias in the media. I'm certain, in the coming days, that bias will become frothingly close to hysteria and war mongering.

Interesting thread, Jungle Jake...personally, I read the entire thread too.






posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
First lets read about the 6 day war:

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

The Palestinian / Israeli conflict is a power struggle of sorts. Israel being given a homeland after the war, and 17 years later, the Arabs decide to take her out. Hence, 6 day war, and the problems we have with Palestinian lands being held and settled.

Israel has been highly supported and funded to be sure that there is a Jewish homeland. Yes, I said Jewish.

In the 6 day war, Israel made a mockery of Egypt and Syria.. Mowed over them like they were butter and took land in the process. The land that is being disputed now and being given back is Israel giving back something that rightfully she didnt have to give back considering the war. After all, she was threatened.

Take a look at this CNN timeline as I dont want to rehash all of history here

www.cnn.com...

The Palestinian and Israeli conflict is one of know deep seated bias and unrest. Israel has defaced any government that the Palestinians have tried to put together, disarmed the people and their Armies, and has has herself run helicopter gunships and killing innocent civilians.

Many of the bombers were not Islamic extremists as your post first stated. Many of them were youn attorneys and doctors, and not the Fire spitting American and Israeli hater that you might think.

This was a people with their backs against the wall. So, whoever, mom, dad, doctor, lawyer, student puts on a bomb and sees that their is no alternative. They had no government to support them. No world order to go to. No one to say stop the settlers. No dimplomacy in place, left only one alternative. Violence.

Israel, protecting herself, does everything possible trying to stop the bombings. But how can one defend against one willing to give their own life? Israels actions although defensive, are also percieved as unwarranted violence. Huniliating in many ways the way they went about it. Stones being thrown at tanks and highly outfitted military teams. It was indeed a sad picture in terms of combat. The Israelis were the heavy hitters, but due to political constraints, the situation was a stale mate.

The Volley of violence went back and forth. And today, in a noble effort to stop it, Sharon has pushed, against the settlers will as well as some of his party and even the military, to give them back their lands which I feel is a huge gesture towards the Palestinian peoples.

So why arent Palestians terrorists? They are a people with no way to fight back against a large military machine. Their objectives have been stated and pushed aside for years. And now that there is going to be a Palestinian state, Israel wont be able to invade like they have in the past.

Al qaeda is just terrorism period. No warning. We cant give any land back.
We dont have an alternative or a reason as to why the bombings happen.
That is why they are terrorist. Killing to kill at random for no reason is terrorism.

It appears theres a new brand of terrorism, and that is kill the west, because they are the west. And that is a scarey point to ponder cosidering Israel and Palestine were only bordering countrys.

That is why the war on terrorism is going to be hard to beat. Its a war to be fought with winning the hearts, and not with Guns and bombs. Have we not learned anything from Israel and Palestine? If they can find peace, anyone can. Global help, not global hell. World community, not world corruption.

Read the rough Draft of the American Consitution that Jefferson intended.

www.duke.edu...

Ill close with this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.

Peace


[edit on 8-7-2005 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 8-7-2005 by HIFIGUY]


cjf

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
The fact of the Palestinians not have the machines of war vs. the world's #3 Military power is lost on this analogy. A Freedom Fighter of destitute armament = a terrorist?


Absolutely, It is the premeditated motive of the attack and the status of the intended target(s) (not the specific method) which is the conventional defining factor. again….

With emphasis....(condensed)

Premeditated and politically motivated violent acts perpetrated specifically against noncombatant targets……to affect change

This act is not restricted to those who can 'afford' a level of 'higer tech' weapons of scale???

Just becasue one can afford a batallion of T-72's and another only a single Kalashnikov (heck even a just mayo jar filled with gasoline, a rag and a pocket lighter) does not imply nor provide any 'special' right to specifically target and attack noncombatants with respect to the afore mentioned definition, c'mon.



.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
The Sun Online, a brittish news organization, has published a list of Islamic terrorist attacks since 1993. You can read it here.

There is one glaring ommission. . .


The Sun is not renown for being a serious source of unbiased news, so I wouldn't take their list as being the definitive terrorist attack guide.
The omission of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is probably an editorial decision as to not confuse their reader demographic with ideologies beyond the good vs evil world model.

[edit on 9-7-2005 by shanti23]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Jungle Jake,

i believe the list is attacks on western targets



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join