How do you define terrorism?

[Kat =^..^=]

"Ones mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" Wrong they are both terrorists.The one who uses the term "freedom fighter" is simply either a terrorist himself, or a supporter of terrorism.

Is that right? is my opinion to that statement ...

Ghandi was a freedom Fighter, he didn't kill one person however, the repercussions of what he did threw India into a civil war where 1000's died. Did that make him a terrorist? or me a terrorist sympathiser?

[harry hackedoff]

Jon, could we have a more simplistic opinion, next time?
And before you respond, Deld, be careful, the cat’s got claws
Just read a piece by a French-Algerian about how fundamentalists have taken over secular Islamic communities in France (in particular) and Europe (in general) A Moslem himself, he calls the Islamic fundamentalists fascists and racists. They are posing an increasing threat to security on a Global level and he says that their eradication is a high priority, not just for Western ideals about "freedom", but also for the greater Islamic community. He said he was fed up " just hoping" that the town he lives in wouldn’t be blown up, so he infiltrated a Paris-based Al-Q cell. He travelled to London and met senior Al-Q planners. These people exist, they are traceable and they should be dealt with. States have a primary responsibility to protect their citizens. If these groups cannot be dealt with by legal means, i.e. evidence that will stand up in court, then there are other means. Civil liberties are fine. They come at a price and these people, who are fundamentally against our very existence, should be made to pay that price. That is my more simplistic opinion.
Le Maquis, the Yugoslav Partisans, Norwegian Resistance (Ling?) were groups financed, supplied and trained by the British Govt in a Total War with Germany. For the main, their targets were military and they tried to avoid civilian casualties. If captured they would often be tortured to death. They fought and gave their lives, to restore freedom from Fascist domination. They are Freedom Fighters. PIRA and the Stern gang are not.
Unless you think Violet Szabo was a coward and the Omagh bombers are heroes, of course.
Aye,

[Guest]

I would say terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilian non-combatants and freedom fighters are those who attack a military target. Although there are exception to the rule eg the Palestinians.

The rocket attack on that Baghdad hotel that nearly killed Paul Wolfowitz, i wouldnt classify that as a terrorist attack.

[Marina]

Hi there Harry,

I agree with you and the French-Algerian chap.
These manipulative individuals seek out naïve people particularly the youth especially at mosques and universities and start feeding this senseless anti-western fodder in the name of religion. Some of these Al-Qaeda recruits are from secular-moslem communities. These fundamentalists have created divisions among the secular moslem families and moderates. The financial funding of these so-called pseudo-islamic groups needs to be stopped and I think maybe infiltrating the groups is the only way to diminish their activity.

[Wholley]

URNU,
Descibe to me how the rocket attack on that hotel was not a terrorist act.
It did not nearly kill Wolfowitz as he was on the other side of the building and no-one knew he was even there.State and DOD have become a little skittish about letting the whereabouts of their senior administrators be known.
Wholley.

[Guest]

Because it wasnt full of innocent civilians.

[Whitey]

A terrorist is a man with a bomb, but lacks an air force.
We nailed more civilians in Afgahnistan than we did taliban, are we terrorists? I guess it is all subjective. The older I get the less clear and defined things become. Maybe Bush is right, we are at war. In that case we need to act like it.
As for the Izzy and arabs, look the arabs hit a bus the izzies hit a school yard, where do you draw the line?
Blacks target whites in America statistically concearning crime, are they terrorist's? Maybe the world is just full of ass monkeys, some are militant, others aren't?

[Matty]

Sticky, I think the iraqis made quite clear what type of war they were going to fight. This guerilla tactic seems there only way of inflicting substantial morale and collartoral damage on the US and UK forces. America didnt give the iraqis any warning when bombing specific targets in baghdad.Why should husseins men give any to the coalition?

This might be a long drawn out war but arnt they all?

What are the chances of Bush losing the election and the forces getting pulled out? (nil?)

[Whitey]

Matty,
As for Bush losing the election, I don't know. He might lose, but it will be a close election either way. The Iraq war has become much larger than Bush, say he isn't reelected I don't see our troops just coming home. Look at Vietnam, we knew in 1969 the war was finished, the NVA with their Chinese and Russian pals would keep up an attrition war, because that is how you fight a superior foe, but we stayed until 1973(Actually 1975) .
Our system responds quickly to fight war, just slow to withdrawl. Plus if we do just leave Iraq now I agree with Bush that it will become a terror state worse than before. Pulling out without some stability isn't a rational option at this point. We should have either left them alone, or destroyed the Iraqi Army, not allow them to simply say "I'm not playing anymore." I have a feeling that the attacks are the work of ex-Iraqi SF units. :fadein:

[Jason The Argonaut]

By Phillip Cryan

Justice

How does a definition of terrorism, such as the FBI's, get applied? Who has the authority to judge what counts as "terrorism" and what doesn't? Is there a level playing field, internationally, for the persecution of terrorists?

A recent comment made by Syria's Information Minister, Adnan Omran, frames these problems in a provocative, yet also precise and urgent, way: "The Americans say either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. That is something God should say." The original title given to the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan - "Operation Infinite Justice" - seems to confirm Omran's concern. President Bush has indeed stated, in his address to Congress, that "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Is our government in fact equating its judgments, policies, and military actions with the meting out of God-like "infinite justice"? If so, what kind of moral blamelessness do we ground such authority in?

A brief review of some U.S. political and military interventions over the last few decades reveals just how far we are - sadly, tragically - as a nation from having the kind of virtue and integrity required to wage such a war with a clear conscience and certainty of purpose. Following the FBI definition, our government has repeatedly, in country after country, used "force or violence" "unlawfully," "to intimidate or coerce a government, [a] civilian population, or [a] segment thereof," in order to achieve "political or social objectives." I will mention only a few examples.

I my self don't know how to define terrorism, so I'll grab some one else's input.

Here is the web site that I got this information from.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cryan1.html

[Frank S.]

JTA, your original question is a good one. There exists no international consensus in the definition of terrorism, which makes UN resolution 1373 basically useless.

Resolution 1373 describes in broad terms steps to be taken by States to freeze terrorist assets and financial networks, control arms and technology sales and transfers, control immigration, etc., etc.
But in the absence of agreement as to what exactly constitutes terrorism, how can they effect it properly?

More here:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

Quote:
Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature [*] that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).


[*] How about economic coercion?

[BenChug]

The US government while it declared a War on Terror itself doesn't have a definition of what "terrorism" is. The FBI and the State Department both have different definitions.

The key elements to terrorism are obvious to many — violence, noncombatant targets, intention of spreading fear, and political aims. But crafting a watertight, commonly accepted definition is difficult. Are attacks on military personnel or political leaders acts of terrorism? What about attacks on property? Must terrorism be physically violent, or is it enough to simply instill fear?

The State Department's definition holds that only sub-national groups, not states themselves, can commit acts of terrorism. It states the violence must be politically motivated, but does not mention instilling or spreading fear.

The FBI looks to the Code of Federal Regulations definition: "The 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." The FBI has labeled as terrorists groups such as the Earth Liberation Front, which has taken responsibility for destroying millions of dollars worth of property, but claims to be nonviolent and avoid hurting people. After the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, there is more pressure to agree on one particular definition.

The principal problem, is that many people believe there are cases where extreme actions are justified. But these people also believe the terrorism is always wrong. For example, that the United States bombed civilian targets in World War II, but few would call it terrorism. The action is widely considered justified by the fact that America had been drawn into a war with aggressor nations.

Some people have suggested the word is too often simply applied to whatever violent groups the United States opposes, pointing to the often cited claim that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

International law as the key to separating legitimate use of force from terrorism. If insurgents are fighting a "lawful war" using tactics accepted by international law, they are not terrorists. Terrorists are not insurgents, not guerrillas. Terrorists are beyond all norms. They don't recognize any laws. This is the essential difference between terrorism and other violence, and why there is no merit to claims by the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network that the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan is a terrorist act itself.

The best definition I have ever heard regarding terrorism is "I know it when I see it." This works because there is the exception to every rule and an abstraction to every definition.

[Whitey]

Terrorism is a new buzz word that is meant to encompass everything from Al Qeerda to the ass munch who paints his gangs name on the subway wall.

Like corporate scallywags could be tagged as economic terrorists. Dissenters, traffic violators ect... It is awsome really, if you got a guy pissing you off find something he does wrong and add terrorist to the end and voila get him a trip to GITMO.

Scarry isn't it? Accused Terrorist's aren't even allowed the Writ of Habeous Corpus, or any real due process of law. That is the main reason I don't trust the Feds anymore, they swear to uphold the law only to go back on their oath when ordered to or to accomplish an agenda.

If we'd lost WW2 the Neurmberg trials would have been very interesting, the father of the A bomb once said had we failed he'd been thrown to the firing squad. In short a terrorist can be anyone doing anything.

[Frank S.]

Like corporate scallywags could be tagged as economic terrorists.

Not in the West, probably not, but what about heads of third world (or non-nuclear) states who default on their IMF loans? And annex or threaten to annex neighbors to make up for their debts? Couldn't they be targeted as economic terrorists? Happened before, and recently, too.
Wonder what they make of Putin's interactions with Russian oligarchs?