Thread: What is a Terrorist?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A terrorist is somebody who targets and kills civilians for political reasons illegally.

What is extra special about Islamofascist terrorists is that they do it irrationally. It's just, "I'm mad. Me kill THEM because they got same nationality. Grrrrrrrr!!!!!" Fuck that scum.

As long as we say its legal first, its not terrorism? How do you know, exactly that the so called 'islamofascists' are irrational? Have you spoken with them? Where have you gotten your information?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This is actually a case in point. By who's(whose?) definition is that the meaning of a terrorist? A terrorist, as I understand, doesn't even have to kill anyone to be a terrorist. Also, the word implies the method they use to influence, not whether or not the method is legal. Someone can be on a deserted island, with 30 other people and no rule of law, and be a terrorist. On the flip side, if someone targets and kills civilians, "legally," does that make them better than a terrorist?

The legality factor is part of the general definition, but you asked a good question about "by whose defintion". The best answer I can give is, "according to the general laws of nations". If it is legal in Iran to blow up cafes in Israel for no other purpose than to GET THEM and please Allah, they are out of synch with the general laws. However, invading Iran to destroy their nuclear facilities may not be the general method countries use, but it is also not generally illegal. It is also not irrational, though it may not be the best way to handle the situation according to some people.

What would I do to fight occupiers? If I were Iraqi, I would write them thank you letters every single day, possibly every hour, and offer to paint their houses and do work in their gardens. If I were a Frenchman in the months before D-Day, I would help kill every Nazi I saw. If the Nazis stayed for a hundred years and the great great grandchildren of the invaders were living there, I would understand that the great great grandchildren are not invaders themselves and would let the dead invaders just be dead. What I would NEVER do is target the innocent just because I am pissed at people I associate them with based on race, religion, or nationality. There is no excuse whatsoever for that irrational shit.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If you would, please respond to some of the other questions in my OP, particularly:



Or, in another scenario: If the Native Americans used terrorist acts on the white man - after they came in and pretty much usurped their way of life - and no other method proved capable of stopping the flexing of the white man's "superiority," would they be doing it irrationally?

It all depends on the rationality of the act, or how effective it will most likely be in the attempt to bring about a rational result. If targetting white populations with women, children, and so forth really does have a high likelihood of stopping the stealing of land on a major level, it is not terrorism. It is an act of war. If the mentality behind it is, "I hate white people! Kill!!!!" then it is an irrational act, but the legality issue is hard to give a definite answer on in that situation.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As long as we say its legal first, its not terrorism? How do you know, exactly that the so called 'islamofascists' are irrational? Have you spoken with them? Where have you gotten your information?

The illegality factor is part of the definition. That does get hard to define specifically enough, but it is still part of the definition.

I have watched their interviews, read their declarations, and studied their philosophies. Have you read Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation"?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The legality factor is part of the general definition, but you asked a good question about "by whose defintion". The best answer I can give is, "according to the general laws of nations". If it is legal in Iran to blow up cafes in Israel for no other purpose than to GET THEM and please Allah, they are out of synch with the general laws. However, invading Iran to destroy their nuclear facilities may not be the general method countries use, but it is also not generally illegal. It is also not irrational, though it may not be the best way to handle the situation according to some people.

I still don't agree the legality factor plays any part in the general definition. According to the general definition, a person in the stone age that used the threat of violence to get his way would be a terrorist.

Originally Posted by Universal

What I would NEVER do is target the innocent just because I am pissed at people I associate them with based on race, religion, or nationality.

I believe this is a stark minimization of the fundamental motives of the extremists. How far back does their beef with the U.S. government go? What was the actual beginning to all of this? When did we first go over there and begin to occupy their land and for what reason? You always seem to highlight the parts of the extremists' texts that (over decades of bad blood) have, yes, become as trivial as chastising us for simply our way of life and how we are somewhat "spoiled rotten" with our freedoms...however I don't think I've ever seen you even so much as mention anything beyond that. Do you really believe that that is the basis for the conflict - that we are not like them and they hate us for it? Of all the cultures in all the countries in all the world, that don't act or think like the Islamic extremists, do you think it's just a bad game of "duck, duck, goose" that made them choose us?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It all depends on the rationality of the act, or how effective it will most likely be in the attempt to bring about a rational result. If targetting white populations with women, children, and so forth really does have a high likelihood of stopping the stealing of land on a major level, it is not terrorism. It is an act of war. If the mentality behind it is, "I hate white people! Kill!!!!" then it is an irrational act, but the legality issue is hard to give a definite answer on in that situation.

Do you believe that it's irrational to think that - if someone's oppressing you and (inadvertently or otherwise) killing the women and children of your nation - they might actually care about their own women and children that your retaliation, in turn, might get them to stop what they're doing?

I don't know about you, but if I knew that, by my killing someone's daughter, they are definitely going to devote their life to killing my daughter...I'm probably not going to kill their daughter.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

The word "terroist" is really in the eye of the beholder.

One example.

In WW2, the Danish resistance killed, assasinated, sabotaged, and blew up bombs against the Nazi occupation.

In Denmark they were celebreted, because they were freedom fighters, but the nazis (and the Danish government) called them terroists.

From Wiki:

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political opponents, and thus legitimize the state's own use of terror against those opponents.

And

The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative; it is a badge which denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. The application "terrorist" is therefore always deliberately disputed. Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others. Thus, each party might still subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of their own political cause or aim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

According to most of the definitions, Israel is doing terror against the Palastinian people, I hear no world leaders saying that.

When a state or governemnt think the word "terroism" is "appropriate" for their own gain, it's used.

Great post. This is exactly what I'm trying to highlight.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I still don't agree the legality factor plays any part in the general definition.

Well, it does.

ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. 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.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I believe this is a stark minimization of the fundamental motives of the extremists. How far back does their beef with the U.S. government go? What was the actual beginning to all of this? When did we first go over there and begin to occupy their land and for what reason? You always seem to highlight the parts of the extremists' texts that (over decades of bad blood) have, yes, become as trivial as chastising us for simply our way of life and how we are somewhat "spoiled rotten" with our freedoms...however I don't think I've ever seen you even so much as mention anything beyond that. Do you really believe that that is the basis for the conflict - that we are not like them and they hate us for it? Of all the cultures in all the countries in all the world, that don't act or think like the Islamic extremists, do you think it's just a bad game of "duck, duck, goose" that made them choose us?

My answer had nothing to do with that. Even if the U.S. government nuked 100 of their cities just for kicks, killing innocent Americans now with no rational calculation involving necessary results is irrational, period.

Hating our way of life is a major part of why the Islamofascists hate us, but our protection of Israel and our presence in the... (Twilight Zone music playing) "holy land"... have a great deal to do with it also.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Do you believe that it's irrational to think that - if someone's oppressing you and (inadvertently or otherwise) killing the women and children of your nation - they might actually care about their own women and children that your retaliation, in turn, might get them to stop what they're doing?

I don't know about you, but if I knew that, by my killing someone's daughter, they are definitely going to devote their life to killing my daughter...I'm probably not going to kill their daughter.

Are you sure you read all of my post? See what I said about stealing Indian land. I agree with you. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended World War II. It was rational. Targetting civilians is always awful but not always irrational.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Well, it does.

ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. 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.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry:
ter·ror·ism Listen to the pronunciation of terrorism
Pronunciation:
\ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1795

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist Listen to the pronunciation of terrorist \-ər-ist\ adjective or noun
— ter·ror·is·tic Listen to the pronunciation of terroristic \ˌter-ər-ˈis-tik\ adjective

Just putting in "define: terrorism" into Google will bring up dozens of definitions, none of which, that I've seen, mention illegality.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

My answer had nothing to do with that. Even if the U.S. government nuked 100 of their cities just for kicks, killing innocent Americans now with no rational calculation involving necessary results is irrational, period.

You put a temporal distance between "Even if the U.S. nuked.." and "killing innocent Americans now..." I'm not sure if you did this consciously, but what if the situation was that their people are still being oppressed, and they aren't just responding to something that happened in the past? And are we really able to say what is rational for such a (in many ways) primitive people? When your back is against the wall and you are facing a force 1000x more powerful than you, when does the irrational become rational? Are you saying "never"? Or do you concede that it is a matter of perspective?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you sure you read all of my post? See what I said about stealing Indian land. I agree with you. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended World War II. It was rational. Targetting civilians is always awful but not always irrational.

I did, but it seemed to be a bit inconsistent at the time. You're saying it is acceptable to bomb millions of civilians to send a message that would (hopefully) stop a war, but it is not acceptable to kill civilians to try to send a message to stop an occupation that has cost (and is costing) the lives of the people of your nation? When is judgment most fitting, after the fact? What if the bombing didn't stop the war? What if other countries saw it as a despicable act and rallied against the U.S. for it? Would it have been acceptable to you, then? I'm just trying to thin out the gray area.

When does something move from "justifiable force" to "terrorism," in your eyes? Where is the line? It's justified if it works?

It is a matter of probability. There was an extremely high likelihood that nuking the two Japanese cities would end World War II. But blowing up cafes in Jerusalem has about a 0% chance of making all of the Jews move out of Israel. The insurgent terrorism in Iraq is exactly what is keeping us there. That scum is irrational. Do you agree?

This Wikipedia entry will help with the definition of terrorism. Notice the U.N.'s definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you agree?

...I honestly don't know.

I mean, look at it this way: The extremists honestly believe that they will continue on fighting forever. Their children will take up the fight. Their children's children will take up the fight. The logic may be that Israel (maybe with pressure from the Israeli people) will weigh the cost of the occupation against the un-ending bloodshed of its civilians - with no way to completely stamp out the opposition - and eventually (however long it takes) pull out of the "Holy Land."

Desperate? Yes. Wrong? Probably. But I really don't know if I could call it irrational.


[Edit]

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This Wikipedia entry will help with the definition of terrorism. Notice the U.N.'s definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

I'll take that into consideration. However, I still believe that the most basic definition is one that supercedes whether or not there is an "established law" that is being broken. Using terror to force a point is what is requisite of terrorism, regardless of whether the act is "criminal" or not. As we all know, the idea of whether something is "criminal" or not can be either altered or completely hidden from public opinion, by those with enough influence.
[/Edit]