When you see Palestinians blowing them selves and dozens of Israelis up, it is immediately branded as terrorim. If Israeli planes bomb refugee camps, it is an act of defense. The Palestinians do this because they haven't got tanks and planes. If they did, would it still be terrorism?
A car bomb goes off, planted by the IRA and it becomes a terrorist act. A car bomb planted by gangsters, equally as devastating, is called a gangland fued.
Russia bombs the hell out of Chechnya, killing thousands. It is again an act of defence. Chechnya replies with a few car bombs and hijackings, it is terrorism.
Russia invades Afghanistan. Act of terror. America gives the Afghans and Al Qaida weapons to kll Russians with. It is an act of freedom. A decade later, the Afghans are all 'terrorists'.
America attacks Saddam for killing his own people. Yet everyday dozens of people are killed in places such as the Congo and Angola. America doesnt step in to help them
Isreali soldiers occupy Palestinian land and shoot a few civilians. It is again called defense. Palestinians invade Israel and shoot a few Israelis. It is called terrorism.
Al Quida bombs targets, killing dozens (or thousands) of people. The IRA bombs buildings also killing dozens of people. We invade Afghanistan and give no mercy to Al Qaida and the Taliban. Yet, we makepeace deals with the IRA.
The IRA, ETA, FARC, Islamic Jihad, and many more kill thousands of people every year. No one gives a f@#k. America is attacked once, suddently a war on terror begins and ecveryone jumps up to help it.
America invades Iraq, apparently as part of its war on terror. Yet, it makes peace deals with Shi'ite Terrorist groups who oppose the Iranian government.
America removes Saddam and Mohammed Omar. Yet it makes deals with Gaddafi. It also ignores Algeria, Burma, China in Tibet, Saudi Arabia, etc.
America puts Cuba and North Korea on the axis of evil list. Apparently because they support terrorists.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - just look at Mandela, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Te Sung, Che Guevera
Share This Page:
How do you define terrorism?
How do you define terrorism?
The Best Is Yet To Come
I can't give an exact answer of how to define terrorism. However, one thing that an act of violence (however extreme) must have to be considered terrorism is political motivation. Thus gang wars etc are not considered terrorism.
As for 'state sponsored terrorism', a state has sovereignty and therefore has a monopoly of violence within its borders (i.e. it can legally use physical force within its borders). It can therefore eliminate 'terrorist groups' within its borders within the bounds of international law.
However, sovereignty also means that there is no higher authority than the state. Which means that states cannot intervene in other states matters as it is technically against international law. This of course means that GW2 was illegal as would be stepping in Zimbabwe or any where else. But GW1 was legal because it was in defence of one state (Kuwait) from unprovoked aggression from another (Iraq).
The Israel-Palestine issue is a difficult one. Technically both states are in the wrong because both are using force outside their borders without a recognised due cause. It could be argued that Israel is more wrong than Palestine because it is occupying Palestinian land. It could also be argued that Palestine is more wrong because it is using methods that are recognised as terrorism to achieve its aims whereas diplomacy would probably be more fruitful.
But then again would Palestine ever have got Israel to come to the diplomatic table without first using force to show how serious they were? The same issue with N. Ireland is slightly different as Britain will never allow a united Ireland until the majority of people in N. Ireland wish it so (this may happen in the near future due to the rising proportion of Catholics). Therefore all terrorism used by the IRA (and other Republican terrorist groups) is essentially pointless as it will not achieve their aim of a united Ireland. It may, however, serve to hurry proceedings along.
Anyway, a good post Jon and I hope I have added something to the thread no matter how much I went off course.
As for 'state sponsored terrorism', a state has sovereignty and therefore has a monopoly of violence within its borders (i.e. it can legally use physical force within its borders). It can therefore eliminate 'terrorist groups' within its borders within the bounds of international law.
However, sovereignty also means that there is no higher authority than the state. Which means that states cannot intervene in other states matters as it is technically against international law. This of course means that GW2 was illegal as would be stepping in Zimbabwe or any where else. But GW1 was legal because it was in defence of one state (Kuwait) from unprovoked aggression from another (Iraq).
The Israel-Palestine issue is a difficult one. Technically both states are in the wrong because both are using force outside their borders without a recognised due cause. It could be argued that Israel is more wrong than Palestine because it is occupying Palestinian land. It could also be argued that Palestine is more wrong because it is using methods that are recognised as terrorism to achieve its aims whereas diplomacy would probably be more fruitful.
But then again would Palestine ever have got Israel to come to the diplomatic table without first using force to show how serious they were? The same issue with N. Ireland is slightly different as Britain will never allow a united Ireland until the majority of people in N. Ireland wish it so (this may happen in the near future due to the rising proportion of Catholics). Therefore all terrorism used by the IRA (and other Republican terrorist groups) is essentially pointless as it will not achieve their aim of a united Ireland. It may, however, serve to hurry proceedings along.
Anyway, a good post Jon and I hope I have added something to the thread no matter how much I went off course.
-
Guest
- Guest
This is an excellent post:
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter it is very difficult to define
It is just sad that we all can't live on this tiny speck in space and all live side by side in perfect harmony, that would be Utopia
Perhaps if there was no oil and no religion on Earth this planet might just be a little less volatile.......ahhh yes I almost forgot The God Almighty Greenback..............
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter it is very difficult to define
It is just sad that we all can't live on this tiny speck in space and all live side by side in perfect harmony, that would be Utopia
Perhaps if there was no oil and no religion on Earth this planet might just be a little less volatile.......ahhh yes I almost forgot The God Almighty Greenback..............
-
Frank S.
- Guest
Pretty good answer I think, Danny.
I agree that sovereignty is what separates legitimate violence for the purpose of defending a state or its population from terrorist actions.
But I think it could be argued that the concept of sovereignty as defined after the Westphalian accords (supremacy of a state and freedom from outside control), an underpinning of the UN charter, is becoming obsolete in an age of globalization and transnational commerce and threats.
I take the view that most democracies which have a constitution (not all do) give sovereignty precedence over individual rights, no matter how open and free their respective societies are or appear to be.
It's interesting to note that the American constitution is the oldest such document still being considered the 'rule of the land' so to speak, after 225+ years.
One factor is that the US constitution not only recognizes but protects the rights of the individual, more so than other constitutions.
In most cases, federal law trumps state law, even if it is often contested in courts. But some consider it inadequate and therefore obsolete, opposing it on many fronts, from taxation to gun rights and abortion.
There were clear and painful examples of this in recent history, particularly during the Clinton administration(s), and it bears remembering that Clinton is basically a globalist. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Oklahoma City bombing could be used as examples.
To address the question of why the US constitution was such a lasting document, I'd say that it offered protection to immigrants more than any other, especially in matters of worship and expression. But it is showing its age in instances where it is used in attempts by minority groups to expand on their rights, rights perceived as infringements by larger and smaller groups alike.
This leads to more frequent books and media pieces attempting to address 'what it means to be American'. They usually fail.
Currently with the new pre-emptive doctrine, the US government clearly says that other states' sovereignty is secondary to the security of its own people, and by extension, the security of America's allies. This has been much talked about but not really debated in the mainstream in my opinion, with the possible exception of those other democracies mentioned above.
This leads many people to call America the real terrorist or at least a rogue state. Something they have called Israel for many years.
Anyway, as to the original question, I do wonder sometimes: when does mass murder become a terrorist attack? Such as the snipers on the East Coast a year ago, the poisoning of Sudafed tablets 20 years ago, disgruntled employees shooting up their former place of work, etc.
It sometimes depends on convenience or bias: why does the FBI not only investigate but infiltrate animal rights groups but not anti-abortion-groups when the latter's body count is much higher?
As we say here, possession is 9/10th of the law, or "life is cheap but toilet paper is expensive".
I agree that sovereignty is what separates legitimate violence for the purpose of defending a state or its population from terrorist actions.
But I think it could be argued that the concept of sovereignty as defined after the Westphalian accords (supremacy of a state and freedom from outside control), an underpinning of the UN charter, is becoming obsolete in an age of globalization and transnational commerce and threats.
I take the view that most democracies which have a constitution (not all do) give sovereignty precedence over individual rights, no matter how open and free their respective societies are or appear to be.
It's interesting to note that the American constitution is the oldest such document still being considered the 'rule of the land' so to speak, after 225+ years.
One factor is that the US constitution not only recognizes but protects the rights of the individual, more so than other constitutions.
In most cases, federal law trumps state law, even if it is often contested in courts. But some consider it inadequate and therefore obsolete, opposing it on many fronts, from taxation to gun rights and abortion.
There were clear and painful examples of this in recent history, particularly during the Clinton administration(s), and it bears remembering that Clinton is basically a globalist. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Oklahoma City bombing could be used as examples.
To address the question of why the US constitution was such a lasting document, I'd say that it offered protection to immigrants more than any other, especially in matters of worship and expression. But it is showing its age in instances where it is used in attempts by minority groups to expand on their rights, rights perceived as infringements by larger and smaller groups alike.
This leads to more frequent books and media pieces attempting to address 'what it means to be American'. They usually fail.
Currently with the new pre-emptive doctrine, the US government clearly says that other states' sovereignty is secondary to the security of its own people, and by extension, the security of America's allies. This has been much talked about but not really debated in the mainstream in my opinion, with the possible exception of those other democracies mentioned above.
This leads many people to call America the real terrorist or at least a rogue state. Something they have called Israel for many years.
Anyway, as to the original question, I do wonder sometimes: when does mass murder become a terrorist attack? Such as the snipers on the East Coast a year ago, the poisoning of Sudafed tablets 20 years ago, disgruntled employees shooting up their former place of work, etc.
It sometimes depends on convenience or bias: why does the FBI not only investigate but infiltrate animal rights groups but not anti-abortion-groups when the latter's body count is much higher?
As we say here, possession is 9/10th of the law, or "life is cheap but toilet paper is expensive".
Frank, a good post with many interesting points.
I agree with you that the system of state sovereignty as agreed by the Treaty of Westphalia is slightly outmoded if not obsolete. After all it was over 350 years ago.
Global corporations now have the power to intervene in state policy - witness the occurrence in Brazil when the state was forced to stop producing a cheap drug for AIDS.
States also do not recognise the sovereignty of other states as your point about the US illustrates.
I think it is time the UN charter was modified to reflect the current global situation or it risks becoming irrelevant.
I agree with you that the system of state sovereignty as agreed by the Treaty of Westphalia is slightly outmoded if not obsolete. After all it was over 350 years ago.
Global corporations now have the power to intervene in state policy - witness the occurrence in Brazil when the state was forced to stop producing a cheap drug for AIDS.
States also do not recognise the sovereignty of other states as your point about the US illustrates.
I think it is time the UN charter was modified to reflect the current global situation or it risks becoming irrelevant.
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
A difficult question, aye.
PIRA are terrorists, Le Maquis were not. That in essence, is my understanding.
Where it starts to get shakey, is when an event like GW2 happens. Might is often right and history does belong to the victors. What about the IMF and the suppresion of third world countries by the new rulers of the planet, namely the global companies who care only about bottom line figures?
PIRA are terrorists, Le Maquis were not. That in essence, is my understanding.
Where it starts to get shakey, is when an event like GW2 happens. Might is often right and history does belong to the victors. What about the IMF and the suppresion of third world countries by the new rulers of the planet, namely the global companies who care only about bottom line figures?
[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
-
Frank S.
- Guest
Harry, I read a couple analyses a while back attempting to define the current worldwide terrorist threat from Al Qaeda and its offshoots/ allies, and their conclusion was that this particular movement stemmed from resistance to globalization, rather than ideological or religious confrontation.
The US is often viewed as a transnational threat to other cultures and economies by a good many people. An amusing but noteworthy example is the movie "the gods must be crazy" from 1984, where African Bushmen find an empty Coca-Cola bottle discarded from a plane, as their attempts to return it brings them closer and closer to civilization, things get crazier and funnier.
Although the movie didn't have any political message, the subtext can apply to the topic in a way.
In certain parts of the world, what people know of America are Apache helicopters, cluster bombs, TOW and Stinger missiles. They may also happen to see some movies, bootlegged or not depicting scenes which are highly disturbing to their beliefs. As I watch TV here I sometimes wonder how devout muslims for instance would feel, seeing a scene in which the heroine walks around her apartment in undies in front of her children.
The US is often viewed as a transnational threat to other cultures and economies by a good many people. An amusing but noteworthy example is the movie "the gods must be crazy" from 1984, where African Bushmen find an empty Coca-Cola bottle discarded from a plane, as their attempts to return it brings them closer and closer to civilization, things get crazier and funnier.
Although the movie didn't have any political message, the subtext can apply to the topic in a way.
In certain parts of the world, what people know of America are Apache helicopters, cluster bombs, TOW and Stinger missiles. They may also happen to see some movies, bootlegged or not depicting scenes which are highly disturbing to their beliefs. As I watch TV here I sometimes wonder how devout muslims for instance would feel, seeing a scene in which the heroine walks around her apartment in undies in front of her children.
Terrorism consitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.
FBI Definition
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or 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.
FBI Definition
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or 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.
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
-
Frank S.
- Guest
That is not so much a definition anymore, as a statement of pre-requisites to initiate investigation, and it's fast becoming obsolete.
The State Department said in 2000 that there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. So right there, you can see that the State Department, the Department of Justice and their respective enforcement agencies, the DSS and FBI do not use the same criteria.
With new legislation put forth by Ashcroft's DOJ, Patriot acts I and II, that definition is encompassing a lot more than acts of violence...
Once again, convenience and bias enter into the equation.
Commercials tell us that drug users help finance terrorist organizations, others show SUV drivers at the pump, with a similar message...
Where does it begin and end? Ask the man who believes that Calico cats are proof of the existence of Satan... (Ashcroft, for those who think I'm joking).
The State Department said in 2000 that there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. So right there, you can see that the State Department, the Department of Justice and their respective enforcement agencies, the DSS and FBI do not use the same criteria.
With new legislation put forth by Ashcroft's DOJ, Patriot acts I and II, that definition is encompassing a lot more than acts of violence...
Once again, convenience and bias enter into the equation.
Commercials tell us that drug users help finance terrorist organizations, others show SUV drivers at the pump, with a similar message...
Where does it begin and end? Ask the man who believes that Calico cats are proof of the existence of Satan... (Ashcroft, for those who think I'm joking).
I think that one mans terrorit is another mans freedom fighter - which way you look at it counts. Peoples views will always be biased towards which they favor.
Hitler called the Commandos during WWII terrorists. We called them heroes because they fought for our freedom.
America calls Bin Laden and co terrorists. Some moslems call him a freedom fighter because he his fighting for thier shared beliefs.
Many Cuban people called Castro a freedom fighter because he fought against Batista and corruption. The US called him a terrorit because he was a communist.
Palestinians are called terrorits because they blow themselves and others up. If a British person blew himself and Hitler up during WWII, he would have become a national hero.
Hitler called the Commandos during WWII terrorists. We called them heroes because they fought for our freedom.
America calls Bin Laden and co terrorists. Some moslems call him a freedom fighter because he his fighting for thier shared beliefs.
Many Cuban people called Castro a freedom fighter because he fought against Batista and corruption. The US called him a terrorit because he was a communist.
Palestinians are called terrorits because they blow themselves and others up. If a British person blew himself and Hitler up during WWII, he would have become a national hero.
The Best Is Yet To Come
-
Guest
- Guest
Anyone recall Ben Gurion and all from the then Palestine in 1947 when these Israeli 'Terrorists' were bombing $hite out of us Brits, Israeli 'Freedom Fighters' to some, now the boot is on the other foot who do we tend to support in the West, those very same Freedom Fighters/terrorists...........such short memories
