What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

So we're agreed that their motivation is not malice and hatred.Let's remember also that we're not talking about "Muslim" terrorism but terrorism in general. Any motivation that applies to Muslims only doesn't answer the question, "What makes a terrorist a terrorist?"What made Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? So far, we've established that you were wrong about me. My track record is better than yours.

---

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

We got into the particular motives of Hamas and Hezbollah becuase you insisted they were defensive and they aren't. To generalize it, maybe a definition of a terrorist is criminal aggression on behalf of some ideal or principle prosecuted by self-created groups. Idealistic highwaymen.

I didn't "insist" anything. I pointed out the other viewpoint. Not bad. But you still have a couple of word-problems.What does "criminal" mean? Is it a "crime" to break laws imposed on me by somebody I perceive as an invader? Were the WWII resistance groups criminals, or terrorists?What does "aggression" mean? Does self-defense just mean wearing a Kevlar vest? Or does it mean shooting you before you shoot me? Or does it mean hunting down people who have "illegal" weapons because they might shoot me?

---

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

Aggression means it was not provoked by the person you are attacking.Criminal means doing that.

Good point.. Though it got me thinking: isn't this (in some cases) more a 'practical' approach? I.e. they would *love* to actually kill all the 'enemies', but they happen to not have the means to achieve that. So they settle for killing a substantial number, combined with terrorizing those who they were unable to kill.

That's another important one, IMO. It may well be that a lot of 'terrorism' would take the form of general warfare if both parties happened to be of comparable military strength? If one party is significantly weaker, it is not going say "ok, we put our warfare resources against your's, and it turns out we are too weak to pose a threat in a direct confrontation. So you win!". Instead, every conceivable other means will be used to get around this.One factor in 'terrorism' might be that one party is THAT MUCH significantly weaker, that they effectively lack the means to successfully attack anything less vulnerable than innocent civilians. With a sufficient level of desperation, it could go down that path...Maybe handing out sophisticated weaponry to 'insurgents' might stop terrorism??

I don't think that's quite fair. Killing the enemy is seldom the goal of any war - it's a means to an end.Sometimes, terrorism is just a way to draw attention to a problem - on the theory that any publicity is good publicity, bad attention is better than no attention at all. Would we know anything about the Palestinians if it wasn't for terrorism?Or, as in Iraq (and need I say Vietnam?), killing invading soldiers can sway public opinion back home against the war. How many victims is not as important as conveying the idea that anybody could be a victim. In Europe, the mass-transit systems are often targeted because everybody uses them. (Somebody living in Oklahoma would not be as terrorized by a subway attack as by a collapsing building.)The location itself can also have value to terrorists. The World Trade Center symbolized American economic imperialism, the Pentagon symbolizes American military imperialism....But trying to kill as many as possible is not the most effective way for a terrorist to achieve his aims.

---

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

What constitutes "provocation"?If the U.S invades Canada, am I justified in shooting American soldiers? Am I justified in blowing up their barracks?Am I justified in crossing the border and shooting American soldiers on their own ground? Am I justified in blowing up their barracks even if there is a risk of killing civilians?

---

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

What about Fred Phelps? What about the bombings at abortion clinics?Jesus was never a terrorist because he taught "turn the other cheek"
but I'm not so sure about many of His followers.Even today.

You have a point. Does anyone seriously doubt the ability of any major terrorist organization to unleash either a dirty bomb, a virus, or even a nuclear device should they so wish?They may well already have these capabilities but do not use them against the U.S. because of the responses. (not to mention public opinion.Its far better from a P.R. standpoint to have a teenager throw a few rocks and then get chased by five soldiers----and have it appear on the world news!

What has Fred Phelps done that could be called violence of any sort? (I really don't know, but I haven't heard that)Bombing abortion clinics I would call terrorism.

Oh if there is really some dire threat and real war actions I suppose so, though it is so hard to imagine such a threat I can't really wrap my mind around it.But if Canada had been hijacked by an Australian, British and Canadian terrorist group, say, that was terrorizing the people and dominating the government there, because they wanted to attack the US, and were building up an arsenal on the border, and were responsible for various terrorist acts in the US already -- then the invasion by the US is justified as a defensive move, and that's war. And I guess you can declare a state of war and do everything you asked on that basis, but you can't claim that Canada was not the aggressor. It's war now, and Canada started it, or at least the terrorists that are running Canada did.I meant NO provocation. Hezbollah has committed a LOT of provocation against Israel, as has Hamas, and Israel's actions have been defense, when it has acted at all. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't have a good definition of a terrorist outside of "I knows one when I sees one". I do fear the term is becomming more and more an amorphous definition that is being used by nations to incite emotional responses. Basically coming to define anyone a government doesn't like (I am in no way just including the US in this). I fear that it could become a blanket term for any individual or group that is unpopular.That being said, I have to make the point that who is being called a terrorist might share equal importance with who isn't. The attacks on our country on 9/11 were truly horrific. But I find it somewhat disturbing that domestic terrorism by our own citizens has stirred so much less emotion (I am not saying no one cared, I am talking relative scales). When I watched the Oklahoma City bombing on television I thought it spell the beginning of the end for the radical right (or left for that matter) in the US. While it was one of the largest criminal investigations in US history the overall result was to identify a few individuals as perpetrators and not place blame on the larger network of associations. I know personally one man (my brother) who cheers this on beause he believes it shows that the government is afraid to after the 'real' organizers. I don't think this is the case at all, but I do believe he is not alone which therefore makes the perception dangerous. McVeigh is idolized by many people in militant right groups (at least in the more extreme ones). Is it possible that at least a few of them might seek that kind of immortality? What about the KKK? Aren't they a huge terrorist organization in the US? Christian Identity? OSA?The war on terrorism would, IMO, be a lot less hypocritical and have a lot more popular support if they also went after "Christian" terrorists in the US. This includes tax patriots, neo nazis, the klan, violent pro-lifers, etc. All of these groups use violence against innocents and civilians to frighten people into following their wishes. Just my opinions!

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Some or all of those homegrown groups may be terrorists, but they aren't CONSTANTLY in action, they aren't issuing threats and warnings, there isn't this constant sense that they could show up in a mall with a bomb strapped to them, or hijack something and so on, and I'm sure the government has its eye on them. Nobody says they aren't terrorists, they just aren't doing anything at the moment. Muslim terrorists on the other hand are in action all over the world, and their actions are often played down too it seems to me, often not identified as terrorist actions, but misrepresented as just part of some local conflict or other. THAT is scary.

I'm trying to stay away from specifics - especially Muslim/Israeli specifics - because you don't seem able to be objective about specifics.Forget about Muslims. Forget about "terrorists" taking over Canada.The example I gave was the U.S. invading Canada. Forget about why they hypothetically invaded Canada - they hypothetically just did.What am I, as a Canadian, justified in doing to oust the invaders from my country? Can I blow up buildings in the U.S.? Even if some civilians get killed?

---

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