What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

Hey Faith. Does this include your definition of terrorism? or definition of defensive actions?

And the point that I have been trying to make is... at what point does a country's "struggle for survival" become wrong? Is absolutely any action on their part justifiable?Jesus had a little saying about "turning the other cheek". Do you think that applies to individuals only? Or can it apply to individuals incorporated into nations?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Okay then, if we have two sets of criminals fighting against each other, why label one set as "terrorists" and not the other? Not at all. If we're talking about supposed "criminal" actions, then history and provocation don't even enter into it. If I rob a bank, does it matter why I robbed it? Does it matter how big the bank is?A crime is an act that violates a specific law, not just a national policy. Criminal acts are dealt with by law enforcement agencies, not armies. Criminal acts are tried in a court of law, not on a battlefield. Criminals are sentenced to be punished, not to have their neighbours' houses demolished. So the Canadian Army would be justified in shelling my property in the U.S.? Nonsense. Definitions have to be useful. Nobody else has given a definition of terrorism because it isn't as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. A useful definition may not be possible. I wasn't suggesting that you were being underhanded. Just biased.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What does that have to do with this discussion? Can Hezbollah overrun Israel? Can Hamas overrun Israel? Could Lebanon overrun Israel? Could the Palestinian Authority overrun Israel?Phat, we are talking about trying to define what makes a terrorist. Head towards the subject.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hear, hear, LM!You might find the OP (and subsequent discussion, at least to a point) in this old thread interesting in the context of what you wrote: Terrorism: Criminal Act or Act of War?. The definitions and discussion are especially pertinent to this thread, IMO. Let me know what you think.

That right there is a definition of sorts that is tailor-made to fit YOUR bias. You want to blur the meaning of terrorism because you refuse to believe that certain instances of violence are or aren't terrorism, quite irrationally.My definition is very useful, it gets right at what terrorism is, and distinguishes it from war and self-defense, with which you want to blur it.Terrorism is IDEOLOGY-DRIVEN. {I may have to modify this, not sure. It may sometimes be motivated by long-standing tribal feuds}Terrorism is aggressive, not defensive. Unprovoked. Motivated only by the ideology and whatever the ideology tells them to hate.Terrorism TARGETS civilians.Terrorism is done by individuals or independent groups, not by national armies.{edit: Terrorism is SNEAKY. War is declared, armies are out in the open, soldiers wear uniforms, but terrorists pretend not to be terrorists.}REMEMBER, to be terrorism by my definition, ALL OF THE ABOVE apply, not just one or two.I forget if there was more in my definition, but that's a very good start.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You keep assuming that I'm taking sides when I haven't taken any side. I'm trying to show that the "definition" of "terrorist" is blurry - and that your "definition" is particularly useless. You haven't shown that it is. I'm suggesting that some examples are get-out-of-my-country-driven. Those examples could be called "self-defense" instead of "terrorism". Not necessarily. The IRA terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland was (originally) aimed at getting the British invaders out of Ireland. It certainly was defensive, not aggressive. Nonsense. You're demonizing one set of terrorists and "defining" all terrorists by your misunderstanding of that one group. Not necessarily. The IRA campaign in Northern Ireland (originally) targeted British soldiers and police. The aim was to convince the British public that it wasn't desirable to continue their presence in Ireland. Terrorism is typically done by people who don't have a national army - so that distinction is particularly useless. All warfare is secretive. Armies seldom advertise their plans. Stealth bombers don't carry neon signs. Submarines are designed to be "sneaky". Yet another useless distinction.-------------If terrorism is "criminal" activity, why is it not treated like criminal activity? You don't see the Canadian Army shelling the U.S. to get criminals who have escaped there.A government that uses military means to combat terrorism is tacitly admitting that the terrorists are military combatants, not criminals.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

OK, you make some good points. I give up.{edit: YOu didn't make any good points until this post however.}Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Economic systems such as capitlaism providing the best products at the lowest prices. For example Walmart. Walmart invades other markets trying to undercut local goods and services. In this case Walmart hates that other companies or business are in the way of it taking more market share. Walmart stores target civilians in that they sell all sorts of civilian useful goods. Walmart is a independent group known as a corporation.So, based on your definitions Walmart is a terrorist organization. Bent on destroying countries through its retail products and low wages. And by exporting American culture through mass produced goods.Christianity and any oather religion can be inserted into your definition and be characterized as being a terrorist organization.At the definition made of terrorism is seen as lacking because it demonstrates that everything is terrorism. Thus the definition needs to be reexamined and changed. Something that is an answer to everything is an answer to nothing.Edited by Discreet Label, : Insertion of Christianity.

Isn't it that they use terror as a weapon, and attack innocent civililans, as well as ignore the geneva convention.It's not their cause, that defines them as terrorists.

There were no precision guided bombs back then, and when you are on your heels, and fighting for your very existance, I would think anything goes.As soon as the Americans developed the P-51, and was able to get fighters behind the enemy lines, and protect the bombers for precision attacks on military targets, the war came to an end. So I don't think the goal was to ever attack civilians, but on the other hand the Germans would attach sirens to their missles, and dive bombers to scare the enemy. They had missles and would just fire them, and not know where they were going to land. A terror tactic, if you ask me.Similar to what Hezbollah is doing with their rockets, while the Israelies are claiming precision attacks, on military targets.

This kinda flew in under the radar last week, but I chanced across it this morning and I must say I'm stunned. I can't imagine celebrating something like this.That bombing set off a chain of political events that resulted in the end of the British Mandate and the creation of Israel, which satisfied in full the demands of the Zionist militants who set the explosion. No doubt the Palestinians were paying attention, and they learned quite well the lesson that actions of that sort get results!I don't want to be overly condemnatory of Isreal; this was right at the end of WWII and the situation in Palestine was very complicated (much as it has been ever since). For decades, no one knew for sure whether the militants had actually placed a warning call to the hotel desk. Sometime in the 1970s, a batch of hotel records came to light and made it clear that a warning call was indeed made, but the records suggested that it came only a very few minutes - maybe five, iirc - before the explosion.But however moderate we might say this was as an act of terror, one would really have to construct a very complicated definition of terrorisn in order to excude it entirely.

Just for reference, here is the picture again.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am personally convinced that the main reaon we don't see more terrorism from the more extreme Jewish factions is that Israel is on top and has a powerful army. If the Jews were in the same position as the Palestinians are in, then I am sure that some would resort to outright terrorism.

Its amazing how the actions of Irgun are ignored by so many people. They claim to have warned the Hotel staff - but that doesn't mean it isn't terrorism. Still, no matter which way you cut it, bombing police stations (Haifa, 1947) and throwing grenades into cafes (Jerusalem, 1947) is terrorism. And of course there was the old Deir Yassin incident.As you said: It would probably have to include something like 'if, in our opinion, the ends justified the means, it wasn't terrorism'.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.