Thread: What is a Terrorist?

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?