Thread: What is a Terrorist?

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]

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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."

The Israelis are way too passionate to ever all or even mostly leave Israel, for religious reasons and because of the love of democracy. I think the terrorists know that. I think the terrorists are just racist shit-head mother fuckers (Pardon the French, but this subject makes my blood boil.) who kill out of anger and so they can screw virgins. I don't think there is the first thing rational about it.

I have talked to a lot of supporters of Palestinian terrorism. They speak in very general terms and with almost pure emotion. It is on the level of the KKK. It is completely crazy and absurd. I mean, the terrorism supporters very often actually say that two year olds in Israel deserve to be killed because "THEY" invaded the "holy land" at a time that even precedes the births of my parents. It is so ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Israelis are way too passionate to ever all or even mostly leave Israel, for religious reasons and because of the love of democracy. I think the terrorists know that.

I do agree with that, but do you think the extremists - who are just as passionate - should/would stop just because the occupiers are too proud to leave? Or do you believe that just fuels the fire?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think the terrorists are just racist shit-head mother fuckers (Pardon the French, but this subject makes my blood boil.) who kill out of anger and so they can screw virgins. I don't think there is the first thing rational about it.

I know how much the subject makes your blood boil - and rightfully so. It's a very serious matter, and one that people feel passionately about. However, I do think your high level of emotion for the subject does, sometimes, prevent you from seeing the matter from any other perspective.

Originally Posted by Universal

I have talked to a lot of supporters of Palestinian terrorism. They speak in very general terms and with almost pure emotion. It is on the level of the KKK. It is completely crazy and absurd. I mean, the terrorism supporters very often actually say that two year olds in Israel deserve to be killed because "THEY" invaded the "holy land" at a time that even precedes the births of my parents. It is so ridiculous.

I have never, personally, heard it said in that way. I've heard more along the lines of them being "fair game," because of the reasons we've been talking about (which is horrible, in itself, don't get me wrong). I'm not saying that it hasn't been said with the exact wording that you put it, but that would change the reasoning, completely.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I do agree with that, but do you think the extremists - who are just as passionate - should/would stop just because the occupiers are too proud to leave? Or do you believe that just fuels the fire?

It definitely fuels the fire, but that does not mean the fire is not irrational. I also don't agree that Israelis at this point in time are "occupiers" any more than you are an "occupier" of Florida.

I should mention here that the 1948 land steal should have never happened, but that does not mean people born three or four generations later are invaders themselves. The Israeli government pisses me off by giving Judaism too much of a place in the government. That definitely fuels the fire. If they would be secular, they would have a lot more support and make the terrorists look far worse.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I know how much the subject makes your blood boil - and rightfully so. It's a very serious matter, and one that people feel passionately about. However, I do think your high level of emotion for the subject does, sometimes, prevent you from seeing the matter from any other perspective.

Hey, if there is something rational about the other perspective, I am dying to know what it is. I have never been able to get anybody to tell me what is rational about it. All I ever get is racism/creedism and the fallacies involved in it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I have never, personally, heard it said in that way. I've heard more along the lines of them being "fair game," because of the reasons we've been talking about (which is horrible, in itself, don't get me wrong). I'm not saying that it hasn't been said with the exact wording that you put it, but that would change the reasoning, completely.

Did you ever read my conversations with Dragon Overlord or Nina in this forum? They both preached the mentality I am talking about. They said that all Israelis deserve to die because they are "they", children included. When Nonviolence.org had a discussion board, I came across lots of people who said that stuff.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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]

If that's the case, then every side in every war that has ever been fought has been "terrorist". I think the definition is supposed to be more specific than that.

Kleenex : tissue paper
Jell-O : gelatin

(Terrorist) : (terrorist)

Ok, I'll elaborate. "Terrorist" itself does have a dictionary definition. However, I believe over the years we have (or rather, certain governments) have been able to brand the word to a specific type (or stereotype) of people.

So, when we really SHOULD be saying "a palestinian terrorist, an islamic terrorist, a muslim terrorist", we have been conditioned to simply use: Terrorist. It's marketing 101 - on a global scale. I often wonder, do people in the middle-east refer to us as terrorist? Does Al-Jazira (or whatever network) report our 'counter attacks' as terrorism?

SIDE NOTE: Not to go a little off topic, but I was watching this show on PBS of this film crew that went to Iran to tour and shoot... eh, film. I couldn't believe how the people there are so pro-american. Well, sure, we are fighting the Iraqi's, but still, our past with them is not so clean. BUT, my point: the guy had someone explain the differences between the Sunni and Shiite factions. I was suprized to learn that the difference was VERY LITTLE! People kill each other over the smallest thing. While the guy explained it was more to do with land, still, the same could be said of the Christian and Protestants (and probably others).