Definition Of Terrorism
the_x5
the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">How do you define it?</div> <span style='color:gray'>This came up from a heated argument with a person in chat where contrasting points of view clashed the one guy thought the KKK were noble people, I and the others felt they were terrorists, and another person thought they were bad but not terrorists, so ignoring that discussion what do you think is the definition of terrorism.
To make things easy I have provided a large group of links via google <a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Terrorism' target='_blank'>here</a> for your reference.</span>
I want to hear what you have to say you would define it as if you were writing an encyclopedia or dictionary entry. I'll not give my reply but just listen to what you have to say.
To make things easy I have provided a large group of links via google <a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Terrorism' target='_blank'>here</a> for your reference.</span>
I want to hear what you have to say you would define it as if you were writing an encyclopedia or dictionary entry. I'll not give my reply but just listen to what you have to say.
Comments
There was some congressman from Ohio or something that tried to get anti-war protestors charged with terrorism, because their presence on the road caused terror among residents. What a laugh!
Seems like the KKK could only be considered terrorist.
Definition
---
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
Using these definitions you can prove that BOTH the United States, and the Muslims that find it in their nature to commit suicide via explosives in large areas, are terrorists.
Personally, I would go with the "undefinable but we all know it when we see it" cop out.
Jim has Skillz: If the use of force to coerce some one is terror, then are the police terrorists?
(e)kent: Is a state capable of terrorism? Is teh use of political terro by authoricatian goups, the nazis and the soviets particularly, any less a terrorist act becasue it was legal at the time?
Windelkron: is the use of military force against civilian targets in japan, firebombing of tokyo the atomic bombs, during world war 2 terrorism? Is the bombing of the marine barracks in lebanon an act of terroism or merely a truckbombing?
US Gov't Agency Definitions
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Department of Defense
The calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.[5]
FBI
[T]he unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives[6]
State Department
[P]remeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.[7]
( foot notes)
[5] United States Department of Defense, Office of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 1-02: Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms ( Washington , DC : United States Department of Defense, 12 April 2001 – As amended through 5 June 2003 ), p. 531. Online at: <a href='http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf</a>
[6] Counterterrorism Threat Assessment and Warning Unit, National Security Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorism in the United States 1999: 30 Years of Terrorism – A Special Retrospective Edition, (Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, 1999), p. i. Online at <a href='http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf</a>
[7] Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002, US Department of State Publication 11038 ( Washington , DC : State Department, April 2003), p. 13. Online at: <a href='http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/20177.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/20177.pdf</a> This document further states: “For purposes of this definition, the term “noncombatant” is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty.”
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- source: <a href='http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1564' target='_blank'>http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printve...documentID=1564</a>
As for terrorism I'd say its the same thing on a broader scale. I believe that Saddam was not a terrorist as the US government wants you to believe, he is just someone that the US has problems with and wants removed from office.
If government endorsement is one of your criteria, where would the Russian, American, French, and Chinese revolutions fall? None were government sanctioned, yet no one talks about Maoists as terrorists.
I don't think we should bother pinning one definition to the word. Because you can apply it to such a diverse range of cases a definition becomes irrelevant.
As far as I'm concerned a 'freedom fighter' should never have to threaten or attack public targets. But really, sociaties understanding of the issue is really vauge.
Personally, I think that terrorism is difficult to define becasue most terroists dont see themselves as terrorists. they see themselves as freedom fighters in extreme circumstances.
as an example: lets look at the assasination of archfduke fredinand in belgrade 1914. this is a case where the attacker views himself as striking a blow for freedom, in this case for serbian independence. The target was in a military uniform and the heir to the throne. <a href='http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWarchduke.htm' target='_blank'>pic here from June 28,1914</a>.
the act was exactly: violence aimed at political change. Princip is either a patriot/freedomfighter or a murderer/terrorist. it is all about perspective.
In this perspective, groups using tactics against military targets would not be considered terrorism.
I don't see why a state wouldn't be capible of terrorism. I see that the DOD was crafty enough to slip "calculated use of <b><i>unlawful</i></b> violence" in there, but why does legality have any bearing on terror? Similarly,
<!--QuoteBegin-Special K+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Special K)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And from that stems a discussion about the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom fighter'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't someone be a freedom fighter (insurgent?) and still be a terrorist? I think the problem is that governments (and organizations like DOD) dance in a desperate attempt to evade any statements that may cause necessary action under international law. Re: the US State department's refusal to label Darfur as "genocide." Anyone agree?
As far as I'm concerned a 'freedom fighter' should never have to threaten or attack public targets. But really, sociaties understanding of the issue is really vauge. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A freedom fighter (terrible term) is never a terrorist. Terrorists are the only terrorists. (sounds circular but let me finish)
The instant anyone attacks a nonmilitary target with respect to warfare they become a terrorist. You have to define it in a warfare situation, otherwise every malicious act could fall under the definition of terrorism. In this situation I define warfare to include the entire spectrum of fighting another group (including psychological means) with the intent to kill, harm, or repel them.
This means that a guerilla fighter (or the ill named freedom fighter) is not a terrorist. Only when they engage or aid in terroristic related activities do they become terrorists and at that moment cease to become 'freedom fighters'.
The idea that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist does not hold as the tactics define your group's classification.