What is a terrorist?
 

People use this term so loosely today. What quantifies being a terrorist?

Dictionary.com says terrorism is
This is very vague. The US could easily be included by this definition.

Are Palestinians fighting for a home terrorists? Is someone who gives money to Palestinians relief agencies terrorists? Is an Iraqi fighting for his countries freedom a terrorist?

Somehow I don't think our government's current interpretation of the word is correct. It seems that our government believes terrorism is anyone who is willing to fight for something they believe in that we don't believe in.

I think we need to stop using this word so loosely because it is going to loose its meaning. Is Cat Steevens a terrorist? Obviously no. Does he have terrorist ties? Well if giving money to Palestinian relief agencies that may use the money in non-kosher ways is aiding terrorism then i guess he does. But then again doesn't the US giving money to Saddam, Saudi Arabia, Taliban, ect constitute to supporting terrorism?

Let's face it we have been very hypocritical using this word. The guys who flew planes into the towers are terrorists. The guys who took over the school of children in Chechnya are terrorists. Eric Harris and Dylan Kleabald are terrorists. But the people fighting in Iraq are not terrorists.

I think the difference, and it's a HUGE difference, is the fact that they willingly and purposefully attack civilians. The US does NOT kill women, children, and non-combattants on purpose. They go after them will all the savagery of a wolf over an infant.

Well i'd disagree with you on that statement. If you drop a large bunker buster bomb in the middle of a city you are knowingly killing civilians.

This word you speak of: "Terrorist",
you must be in error, good sir.
For, truly there are no Terrorists;
only Freedom Fighters pure.

the end.

Terrorists fight not for Freedom. :rolleyes:

a freedom fighter is a terrorist who has won as the winner writes the history

bullshit.

Evil men who do evil deeds cannot claim to fight for freedom. Those who strive for change through civil disobedience and peaceful means are the true heroes. (MLK Jr. and Ghandi, to name a couple) Aggrandizing those who attack innocents to some sort of moral high ground is short sighted and will only further their cause of evil and violence.

Men and women who do not feel powerful in their own skin use violence as a way of garnering respect and power...

I believe powerclown was being sarcastic here guys.

Terrorists primarily use fear and murder in their attempts to bring about political or social change. While some here may call the US (or the founding fathers of the US) terrorists and like to play cute word games about what constitutes a terrorist, terrorists are far from what should be considered heroes or freedom fighters. They are basically the sociopaths of the international commmunity. They ignore the civilized world's definitions of right and wrong and abide by no laws beyond the ones they create in their own minds. They show no regret or remorse about the purposeful targeting and murder or torture of civilians in order to bring about the greatest possible pain to other members of society.

short definition: a terrorist is someone who uses violence outside of LOAC to enact political or religious change.

A terrorist is one who attends Fort Benning in Georgia. Go America.

http://www.newhumanist.com/soa.html

http://www.zpub.com/notes/terror-camp.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1117-06.htm

Terrorism as a definition changes every week. There are many policies which I would personally classify as 'terrorism', regardless of the responsible government or what their media tells me to believe.

Words like terrorism can easily be exploited for political purposes. By either side.

Wars are fought to be won, and i have no doubt that our military would be killing as many civilians as possible if we thought it would win us a war in a way acceptable to the american people. As it stands now, we have "collateral damage". We avoid civilian deaths unless they can be justified in the context of a larger goal. For the "terrorists" civilian deaths are a means to the larger goal. There is only a difference of degrees between our tactics and theirs.

Terrorists are 'the bad guys' Who the bad guys are depends on where you were born, where you grew up, the colour of your skin, and the money in your wallet.

Somethings are unclear.

Some Lines are blurred.

But people who intentionally kill civilians, use civilians as human shields, and use schools and religious buildings for bases of operation are terrorists, pure and simple.

The US does not do this.

We would also be well on our way OUT of Iraq if not for the "Freedom Fighters".

On Iraq, take a look at the following, and just spend a little time *thinking* about it

http://snipurl.com/99kt

All warfare is evil, paid soldiers have killed more civillians than have been murdered by terrorists. The US, and any nation engaging in warfare DOES do this. It's just that they also have the money, and a better control of the media you get to watch.

I'm not condoning the practices of desparate and frightened people, but I am trying to point out that there is NO moral highground that we can pretend to occupy. Any attempt to do so is outright hypocracy. If you want to feel better about it, then console yourself that you're probably on the winning team, but please don't try to justify the murder of thousands of innocent people, or try to make out that it's the 'right' thing to do.

When the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki did they intentionally target civilians?

Are these 2 terrorists?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdon...0C9FDC6244.jpg


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdon...337A8E57D8.jpg

It all depends on perspective.

Terrorists ARE "Freedom Fighters", but not literally, of course (well, depends on the situation).

The reasons behind the actions of "terrorists" are actually pretty legitimate. Al Qaeda hates the USA NOT because we have freedom, but because we occupy their lands that they consider holy (amongst other things). They, of course, take the most extreme interpretation of their religion and act upon it, which obviously isn't the way to go about handling things.

That shouldn't be so unusual or wrong to most people considering we have plenty of leaders who also do the same exact thing. We have plenty of leaders who make drastic unnecessary actions and misinterpret certain writings.

What about Iraqi opposition? Any time a car bomb goes off, it's a terrorist attack. Pleeeeeease..

You also need to realize that our country really isn't a role model, so if you complain about terrorists then you should also complain about the wrong actions our country currently makes or has made in the past. It's actually quite funny the amount of people who talk bad about terrorists but act like this country (USA) does no wrong. Amazing!

The word terrorist today means something VERY different than what it meant 10 years ago. Today it more or less means "anyone who doesn't agree with us or wants to kill us" aka "enemy" or "opposition". Instead of using those terms, they say "Terrorists" simply because the public is easily swayed by that word.

The word "terrorist" today could easily be applied to many things throughout history. Hitler is now a terrorist. The white men who owned slaves are terrorists. The british forces during the revolution are now terrorits (and we were terrorists to them). The pilgrims who slaughtered innocent indians and stole their land that we now live in are also terrorists. Ceasar? Terrorist. Napoleon? Yep!

I think politicians have done an amazing job in changing its meaning.

[edit]
I also hate how Bush is making impressionable teens (and in many cases, adults) even more stupid with his, "Terrorists hate us because we are free." Ask any teen why terrorists want to attack us, and they'll ramble off that bullshit line.

Couple of things.

It was an all out war.
The Japanese earned it after what they did in China.
It has been refered to as terror bombing.
It saved about 1 million Japanese lives and 300,000 American lives.

http://www.latefinal.com/archives/massgraves.jpg


http://www.detnews.com/pix/2003/12/07/a04iraq1.jpg


http://september12.typepad.com/blog/...lded_skull.jpg

http://september12.typepad.com/blog/...man_crying.jpg


Its time you got a grip Rekna and a sense of proportion. Its sad when innocent people die. Its also sad that you blame the US for crimes and wish these people were back in Saddams hands. Its the only logical conclusion. If people like you were in control Iraq would still be in Saddams power and more images of the above would be occuring. I find that disgusting.

First off none of those people mentioned are considered "terrorists".

I hate to make this a partisan issue, but the left seems to honestly think that those of us on the right think everyone in the world who disagree's with "us" is a terrorist.

Al Qeada: Terrorists. They promote their idealogy and agenda by creating social choas and disorder by murdering civilians.

Iraqi Freedom Fighters: So long as they are not the ones killing their fellow country men, as long as they stick to fighting the US soldiers, they are not terrorists.

The Founding Fathers: Not Terrorists. They were in open war with a regular army, just because in some instances they decided to hide behind tree's and not volley, doesn't mean they were terrorists.

Hitler: One of histories biggest assholes, not a terrorist. He had the power, he had no real agenda he needed to push through terroristic means.

Pilgrims: Yeah probably, let's face it, some of the shit these people did would be considered terrorism. Fundamentally though, their actions were not solely political.

Slave owners: Not terrorists. They weren't pushing any idealogy, these motherfuckers were just living in a different time.

Furthermore I know all about cultural relativism, it's not a tough concept to grasp. But I swear anyone who says in this "War on Terror", people of the likes of Al Qeada or insert (islamofacist terror group) isn't evil only misunderstood, you need a serious reality check and evaluation of your personal moral fiber.

All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Ahhh, the latest Wingnut meme.....liberals wish Saddam was back in power because of their opposition to the war. Of course, this ignores the shifting justifications for said war, from WMD to terrorist links and, finally, for the good of the Iraqi people. That last excuse didn't emerge until the other excuses had blown away in the desert wind. Would the American people have okayed the invasion of Iraq if "spreading democracy" was the only justification? Probably not. Is George Bush really concerned about the spread of democracy and the plight of oppressed people world-wide? Considering the company he keeps, probably not (if you look at the flow of American foreign aid, it disproportionately flows to dictatorships and banana republics...this is true under Democrat presidents as well). Realpolitik is realpolitik. It takes a true believer not to see the light glaring through the giant holes in that argument.

Accusing "liberals" of pining for Saddam is a nice diversion from questions about the disinformation campaign that got us into the war, but it has little to do with reality.

The people of Zimbabwe and the Sudan await your intervention immediately, Ustwo


SLM3

By the definition set by the Bush administration (and the media), yes, they would be terrorists.

Don't look at me, they're the ones misusing the term ;)

:lol: haha you're insinuating that I'm saying they're misunderstood? Ah hahahahah, more of the "if you're not with us, you're against us". Classic. :thumbsup: (either that or you need to read more carefully ;))

thx for the post mojo... i would've responded similarly but lacked motivation.

one issue though, i don't think you can't discount some iraqi "freedom fighters" from the terrorist label simply if they limit their killing to U.S. soldiers. their tactics keep them in suspicion... they don't wear uniforms, they don't conform to LOAC, etc. that may not be a terrorist in the same sense that al qaeda bombing a disco would be, but it could be argued that it they still fit within a larger umbrella of what we describe as "terrorism."

Terrorists, by the nature of the United States' societal definition, are people that fight using means that are not openly accepted in large-scale warfare. Targetting civilians, non-violent institutions, and non-combatants as a way of spreading fear in order to force a political or religious opponent to submit to one's demands seems to be a reasonable definition of terrorism. The freedom fighters in Iraq seem, to me, to be only trying to escape the grip of "Big Brother" (the United States). Terrorism is defined on an individual and cultural basis, so what to us is terrorism may be to others merely their duty to their country, religion, or ideals.

As much as people on this board love the term terrorist, maybe it's safe we call the Iraqi Freedom Fighters "illegal combatants" =P

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...clown/Arm2.jpg
Noooo...just an armadillo.

hahaha, so there are now "rules" in war? Hm... so anyone not following the rules is a "terrorist"?

"Hey, that's not fair! You aren't part of the Iraqi army!! THE RULES SAY YOU CAN'T DO THAT, SO YOU ARE A TERRORIST" :lol:

I made reference to actions that would be defined as war crime; things that are defined as "standards" by many nations world wide, such as, mentioned in my above post, targetting non-combatants for the purpose of spreading terror to a degree that might force an opponent to compromise. I made no reference to "rules" of war, merely to actions that are labeled as unacceptable in a large-scale violent conflict.

Actually there have been rules in war unwritten and written for several hundred years.

Anyone who doesn't follow the rules is an illegal combatant, not necessarily a terrorist.

Actually, the whole "illegal combatant" category was created as a way to skirt the Geneeva Conventions, which I believe are the "laws of war" that you are referring to. The Bush administration argued that since these enemies were not conventional soldiers that the Geneva rules shouldn't apply, allowing them to do such things as detain suspects indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing them to seek counsel. A great example of the administration's love of freedom that irritates those terrorists so much, right?

I suppose you don't know about the Geneva Convention. This protects YOU and ever citizen of Eurpoe, U.S., or some countries in Asia and South America from chemical weapons, expanding bullets or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering, projectiles from baloons, being inhumanely treated as a POW, being killed after surrendering, being attacked if sick and injured, starved by an invading country, having civilian ships from being attacked, and talking privately when captured. If those rules are ignored by members, they are guilty of war crimes and are subject to prosecution by a world court.

There are rules in war. There are countless treaties just like the Geneva Convention to make war as sane and fair as it can possibly be. BTW, I realize that war is not rational or fair, but when it happens, we need to control the destruction as much as possible. For example: Hague laws were broken by Iraqi troops who waved a white flag and then opened fire on U.S. soldiers who approached to accept the surrender. The reason it is wrong is that if one group breaks this, then those who truely surrender will not be trusted. This is not fair for those who truely want to surrender.

Terrorist, in the case as described above, is a radical person or group officially independant from any goverment, that caries out unlawful attacks in order to force their beliefs on others. That's at least my take on what it means as of now.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong Cthulu...

This is not some idea made up by Bush...

The above is the summary of the Hague convention of 1899, more then a hundred years before Bush.

I disagree with the term "freedom fighters" to describe the Iraqi militias that are fighting our soldiers. Resistance fighter is a much better description. I would say a terrorist is one that kills civilians intentionally to make war as unpalatable as possible or to further their political goals. It is one thing when armies clash out in the fields far away from a civilian populace, because there it is distant and can be ignored more easily by the public. It is when the violence is happening in the streets that the horror of war becomes appearant.

And yes, there are rules to war. There have been since antiquity. Of course, different cultures will have different rules, and the rules will be broken, yet they still remain.

That's silly. If there are rules for war, then why don't they just make war illegal to begin with and avoid it all?

That's like saying, "It's perfectly okay for you guys to end the life of another person, but you must follow THIS set of rules!"

[edit]
I knew about the Geneva Convention, well... a part of it. I just thought it had to do with humane treatment of prisoners.

Unfortunately, civilian populations have been targeted ever since the advent of "total war," which became commonplace during WWI. By your definition, the Allie's firebombing of Dresden in WWII would qualify as terrorism. Battle on distant fields for from civilians probably hasn't been common since the Civil War era.

Damn, but it's hard to nail down a definition for this pesky word.

:lol: Idealism has zero place in this conversation. People are always going to go to war, so the idea of conventions and treaties is to limit the destruction as stated in numerous other places on this thread.

It's pointless either way, but okay.

[edit]
Meaning.. in a war, there's ALWAYS one side (typically the side that's losing) that will do *anything* to protect themselves. Who's gonna procecute you once your dead? In the case of Iraq.. who are you gonna prosecute when it comes to "illegal combatants" and car bombing? That and.. how do you know they aren't part of the old military? That whole thing doesn't really apply in this case.

i think total war was introduced in modern times as a part of the U.S. civil war.... just ask the citizens of atlanta. at least i'm sure that it played some part in the second half of it.

you are all forgetting the big honcho of all war law: the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

^
|

that's a good primer on it.

I was waiting for someone to mention the fire bombing of Dresden. Yes, it was terrorism. So was the fire bombing of Tokyo (which, by the way, killed more people than both atomic bomb drops). I will stand by my definition.

Stompy, whether you choose to think so or not, there are rules to war. The Geneva Convention is one of those rule sets, and is suppose to be followed by every faction that agrees with it. Under the Geneva convention it is illegal to use a shotgun to kill an enemy combatant, you cannot use .50 caliber and larger guns against enemy troops, ammunition for small arms must be "ball" ammunition, and cannot mushroom past a certain extent, etc. As I said though, no rule goes unbroken, and the rules of warfare are no exception.

I was wondering if anyone was going to call me on that...yes total war started with the Civil War, but I don't think that the large scale targeting of civilians as legitimate targets of war started until WWI.