Thread: What is a Terrorist?

Depends on who you ask.

To Most people: a terrorist is someone who uses violence against non-combatants to force a view on them.

To Bush followers: a person who does not follow Bush

To people who know the definition of irony: the united states, who claims to fight terror, but uses terroristic tactics and war crimes to push their beliefs.

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.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Depends on who you ask.

Exactly my point. It seems that the word has been thrown around so much, and attributed to so many arbitrary definitions, that it appears to have lost its true meaning.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

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?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

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

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What about their actions, from their perspectives? If your home/family/community is being purged/desecrated/oppressed/etc. by a force that was 1000x more powerful than your own, to what extent would you go to make sure your rights were respected, your land was unoccupied by the oppressors, your ideals were not trampled upon, and your people were left to their own ways of life? If you knew that attacking (in this case) the outsiders' military, alone, was futile, and would do nothing but get you killed, what would you do to insure your own freedom?

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?

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"?

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.

The general definition of terrorism involves the "legality" factor, but personally, I use the word to label irrational acts against innocent populations. If it is rational, I won't call it terrorism. If it is clearly irrational, I will call it terrorism even though it is somewhat out of synch with the general definition. When Bill Clinton blew up an aspirin factory in Sudan as a symbolic gesture, I called it terrorism.

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]

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 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.

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.

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).

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.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The US's definition of terrorist is far to broad.


Yes, there are irrational assholes who kill people to instill fear and get their messages across.


But then there are people in occupied countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan who are sick of being occupied needlessly and are fighting back. Those people, in my opinion, are completely justified.

To them, the US is the terrorist and they are an improvised milita.

Yes, there are irrational assholes who kill people to instill fear and get their messages across.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Maybe it's just a campaign to keep our minds off of what's happening in our own backyard?

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.

----

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.

----

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?

Wow, so you are saying that bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was rational, because it would end WW2.

You are saying that it would be not be rational to blow up cafes in Jerusalem, but dropping a nuke would be!

A nuke in Jerusalem will probably move the jews out of the city, and end the war. Hell, why not 2 or 3 nukes, just to be sure.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The US's definition of terrorist is far to broad.


Yes, there are irrational assholes who kill people to instill fear and get their messages across.


But then there are people in occupied countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan who are sick of being occupied needlessly and are fighting back. Those people, in my opinion, are completely justified.

To them, the US is the terrorist and they are an improvised milita.

The only way the Iraqi insurgents are "freedom fighters" is from the perspective that the term means "people who fight AGAINST freedom". They are blatantly against freedom and are glad to admit it. They would kill you at the drop of a hat if they found out you are gay. They hate your guts any way, but our soldiers are putting their lives on the line for you. Think about that. The insurgents are not doing what will drive us out. Their terrorism is what is keeping us there. They are acting out of religious insanity. They are also acting against the forces that gave their nation the right to vote and all kinds of other new rights that American liberals claim to cherish.

If they were killing in the name of Jesus instead of Allah, would you have a different perspective?

It seems that the Americans who scream the loudest for American rights are the same people who scream the loudest that giving rights to other nations is an imposition. Can you explain the difference? Was the gaining of American independence an imposition on Americans? Is the Bill of Rights an imposition? Is the legalization of gay marriage an imposition? If I blow up churches and restaurants because I am pissed about the legalization of gay marriage in certain states, am I a "freedom fighter"?

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Wow, so you are saying that bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was rational, because it would end WW2.

You are saying that it would be not be rational to blow up cafes in Jerusalem, but dropping a nuke would be!

A nuke in Jerusalem will probably move the jews out of the city, and end the war. Hell, why not 2 or 3 nukes, just to be sure.

Because driving Jews out of Israel is racist/creedist and irrational while stopping Japanese aggression was rational.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And what exactly is a Terrorist? Do you feel that they inherently evil? Aren't there terrorists of all nationalities/ethnicities/religions?

A terrorist, by my own deffinition, is "One who willfully invokes terror in others in such a way as to procure the fulfilment of personal/group-oriented goals or desires." That means that one must have the intent or knowledge beforehand that what they are doing is going to cause some kind of psychological trauma that will lead directly to whatever it is they wish to achieve. This is to prevent associating "those who's actions may inadvertantly invoke terror as a consequence of their primary actions" with terrorists. That means that my definition can apply to the abusive husband who intentionally causes harm to his wife/children so as to invoke a sense of fear, and as a result, submission.

On the less extreme end, consider a person who might play an air-raid siren out their bedroom window, just because they think it's funny that other people will react fearfully towards it's sound. They are causing fear in order to fulfill their desires. Terrorism is more commonly used on the global scale with consideration to national militaries, governments, political groups, activist groups, etc. There is somewhat of a line that can be drawn though. If tactics that employ terrorism are used in defense of opposing terrorist tactics, the word loses it's power. This is because it carries a heavy negative connotation, and those who use strategies similar to the oppositions strategies for the sake of defending themselves are usually justified. Those who employ terrorism first, however, are more rightfully identified as the terrorists than those who use it afterwards in order to defend themselves. This 'correct' identification is usually made by the whoever's being oppressed.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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?

Certainly not. The Natives would be acting in self defense to overwhelming odds (technology and numbers) in an uneven playing field. They were defending their very existence, not just their land.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If it is legal in Iran to blow up cafes in Israel for no other purpose than to GET THEM and please Allah,

Iran hasn't made any militaristic moves against Israel. And you can't mean HAMAS either, since they have coherent reasons that go beyond the concept of just "get them", or for the sake of "pleasing Allah"... So you might want to be more clear as to who you're reffering to.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

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

Considering that even the American news (NBC, at least, suprise) acknowledged that out of all of the Palestinian civilians that Israeli troops have killed, over a third of them were children. They've killed some 1,100 civilians just in the timespan of the recent Gaza conflict alone. So yes, Specialis, you'd be correct.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hating our way of life is a major part of why the Islamofascists hate us

No. Maybe what our way of life depends on. Maybe. Selling weapons to both sides, using military force to procure resources in other defensless countries, destroying every piece of land we can lay our hands on in the name of capital interest.. Those words came out of the mouth of an ex-special forces member who served in the US Army, by the way. I guess it's easier to get sick of corruption when you actually take part in it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

This would be reason number One. Stepping right into the heart of the Middle East to steal a sovereign (and globally reckognized) nation with the intent of imprisoning it's people (internment camps) and killing unarmed civilians (women and children being the majority), you'd think that would have been the obvious answer. Not because they "hate our way of life". Oneironaught was on the right course with this when he suggested that their reasons were the result of another conflict largely unbeknownst to us.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Targetting civilians is always awful but not always irrational.

Violating laws of war that were agreed to and established by the other powerful nations of the world is not exactly what I'd call rational. It's old news that killing civilians does nothing but strengthen the conviction of your enemy to burry you, and it makes you look like the bad guy to your allies and everyone else in the world. The only circumstance I can think of under which killing civilians could ever be justified is when the enemy intentionally kills your civilians first, and even then it's still shaky ground.

[quote=Universal Mind]
There was an extremely high likelihood that nuking the two Japanese cities would end World War II.
[quote]

Did you get that probability from somewhere or did you just make it up? Nuking cities with the intent of killing civilians could just have likely turned the rest of the world against us. Do you not agree?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

It's quite simple really. The difference between the oppressors and the oppressed is that only the oppressed call out for freedom. The Palestinian's are calling for freedom, they want their country back. They are being occupied, and their civilian's are being killed by soldiers who's equipment seriously outperforms that of their own 'soldiers'. There's a big difference between living in Jerusalem as a Jew (big deal) and then taking part in the Israeli expansion into lands that never belonged to them. Who do you think started the conflict? It was called PALESTINE before all of this happened.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Because driving Jews out of Israel is racist/creedist and irrational while stopping Japanese aggression was rational.

Stopping Japanese aggression was rational, but stopping Israeli is not ?!?!

According to you, extreme action is alright if it is rational, it was okay to nuclear bomb Japan because it would end a war.

This example would go with any war!

Do you think rationality picks a site?

Israel is in conflict with Palestine, THEREFOR it would be RATIONAL for Palestine to deal with Israel in extreme manner, like nuking.

Try to view things with a Universal perspective

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Considering that even the American news (NBC, at least, suprise) acknowledged that out of all of the Palestinian civilians that Israeli troops have killed, over a third of them were children. They've killed some 1,100 civilians just in the timespan of the recent Gaza conflict alone. So yes, Specialis, you'd be correct.

I would just hope for some more reaction from the western world, especially USA.

We just hear condemnetions of this obvious (allow me to say) massacre.

"The United Nations Security Council issued a statement on December 28, 2008 calling, "for an immediate halt to all violence", the Arab League, and the European Union made similar calls, as did Argentina, Brazil, China, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the Philipines, South Korea, and Vietnam. Libya pushed to issue a Security Council Resolution urging for a cease-fire, an effort which the US blocked, citing the failure of the statement made December 28.

On January 9, 2009, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1860 calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and a full Israeli withdrawal by 14 votes to one abstention (the United States), even though US diplomats had been involved in its drafting. Israel and Hamas both ignored calls for a ceasefire."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...3Gaza_conflict