What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

I can't forget about why for heaven's sake. You gave the example as a response to my saying terrorism is unprovoked. That's all about why.So if the US actions were unprovoked I'd call that an act of war against Canada.However, I might change my mind about actions taken by independent Canadians against soldiers or American buildings etc. That would still be terrorism because war is not conducted by individuals. So I'm modifying my definition.I still like my basic definition, somewhat modified: Terrorists are ideological highwaymen. Criminals.They theoretically could be romantic defenders of some great principle, such as the groups that tried to take down Hitler. But nothing in action at the moment qualifies as that.If the US invasion was provoked by Canada, or like the case of Lebanon, by terrorists who had taken over Canada, then Canada started the war. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So you agree that "terrorism" or "non-terrorism" is relative to the history of the conflict.How far back in history can we go to find justifiable provocation?

---

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

Faith writes:

quote:

---

That would still be terrorism because war is not conducted by individuals.

---

So what about individual actions - and there were many - taken during the American Revolution and during the Civil War? What about individual actions taken against the Nazis during WWII?

... get your invasion out of my country?I concur that the behavior is criminal, but I also think they consider the reason (by whatever ideology is involved - religion, anarchy, freedom, ... etc.) justifies the action, and this needs to be recognized.To deal with the terrorist you need to (1) treat the individuals as criminals, to be found, brought to justice, convicted (when guilty) by police action not military, and (2) deal with the ideology that generates new terrorists (especially if it is based on injustice or discrimination of people).If you remove the cause of people becoming terrorists, the supply WILL dry up. If you can neutralize the ideological argument, either by accomodation or by some practical alternative, then it can't be used to draw new people to a {glory cause} based on it.England ended the terrorism of the IRA by dealing with the causes of people becoming terrorists there.Isreal hasn't done this (they two-step it, forward and back), nor has Botch in Iraq\Afghanistan, so continued {military} action creates more new terrorists than it kills: it's both {too blunt and indiscriminate} a weapon and it doesn't {solve} the problem.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I also wonder who fought in the wars if it wasn't individuals ...

I assumed immediate provocation as in the case of the present war in Lebanon.

Semantic gameplaying. Sorry I wasn't precise enough for you, but obviously I meant groups of individuals acting on their own as opposed to an army acting on authority of and on behalf of a nation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Israel can't remove the cause of the terrorism against them because it's motivated by religioideological hatred of Israel.

You have to be more specific than that. I said some causes are romantic and righteous in the very post you are answering, such as the people who were trying to take out Hitler. I don't know what individuals you were talking about in the American Revolution or Civil wars, who they were and what they were aiming to do.But I think terrorism isn't aimed at specific targets for specific strategies so much as simply aimed to cause terror among a population. Intimidation, nothing rational.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We're talking about terrorism and about what might provoke potential terrorists to commit acts of terror. Can you clarify how that applies to the present war in Lebanon?I'm assuming that you consider Hamas and Hezbollah to be the terrorists. I don't care how they may or may not have provoked the Israelis. I'm interested in what provoked them to resort to terrorism.

---

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

We are? I thought this started out with my saying they are the aggressors and that nothing provoked them. Nothing provoked them in this present Lebanese case, or at any time in relation to Israel going way back; and I've given broad definitions of terrorism as not being provoked in any sense at all, but motivated strictly by ideology or beliefs. Maybe also face-saving, jealousy or envy, but not actual provocations. As I've said I believe, Hezbollah and Hamas are dedicated to killing Jews and getting rid of Israel for no other reason than their own motivations. Their surface motivation is Islam's directives to take the world for Allah; A hidden motivation could be envy of Israel. Hezbollah has set itself up in Lebanon, where it is a serious threat to Israel. Israel's actions against Hezbollah are strictly defensive. As I've said over and over and over again: nothing whatever. No provocation. Only their own motivations. They are the aggressors. They are motivated by Islam's ideological insistence on ridding the world of infidels, starting with ridding the Middle East of Jews. I'm sure this involves other motivations such as envy as I say above, but they have not been provoked by Israel in reality, except in the way we feel "provoked" by someone we're jealous of or just dislike. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It did - which is why I've been trying to pry you away from the situation in Lebanon. If we're going to understand terrorism and what makes it tick, we have to understand what motivates all terrorists, not just Muslim terrorists.Is unprovoked hatred the cause of all terrorism? In the same sense that I can "defend" Canada by attacking targets in the U.S.? In the same sense that I can "defend" myself by hunting down people who might attack me?Where is the line that I can not cross in defending myself?

---

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

Dude they want our oil sands sooooo bad, I guess I'm justified in a pre-emptory strike on the closest US refinery/Oil company building._{Dear NSA man/lady/genderless robotic killing machine who is reading this: it's only sarcasm, please do not send your black helicopters to pluck me out of my nice warm bed and disappear me}Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

You make it sound like they've come in from outside - but Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shia organisation. It was created in Lebanon by the Lebanese as a direct result of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.It's ideology is based on that of Ayatollah Khomeini and it receives support from both Syria and Iran but it remains a Lebanese organisation.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

So you {conclude\concede\admit} that ultimately Israel will always have terrorism or it will be defeated by terrorism -- that it cannot win?Conversely, How does this render it impossible to remove?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.