What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

Faith writes me:

quote:

---

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.

---

Like the French resistance in WWII, during the Vichy period. There were countless individual actions of killing Nazis, sabatoging their vehicles (causing accidents that sometimes killed innocent people), that sort of thing. There are references to such actions in the movie Casablanca.My point is not to trip you up, Faith, only to show that your definition needs too many exceptions in order to account for the differences in perspective. From an opposing viewpoint, the sort of actions I'm talking about would seem very similar to what you're calling terrorism.I've always preferred the fairly simple definition that terrorism is any action that, by its nature and regardless of whatever other motives might be at work, is designed to inflict civilian casualties and/or cause monumental civilian suffering.That way no one even has to die in order to consider an act to be terrorism; a hostage-taking would qualify. But to use my definition you have to accept that there isn't a moral absolute, even as regards terrorism. If you are sympathetic to Israel in this current action then you likely don't see the bombing of the Lebanese airport, power stations and major highways and bridges as terrorism, but for that very reason you have to accept the idea that a moral absolute is impossible.

quote:

---

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.

---

But that would seem to call into question whether 9/11 was terrorism. Surely the targets chosen that day were chosen to fulfill a specific strategy, and that strategy had, I think, more to do with disrupting the western-dominated world economy than causing terror in New York and Washington. That's why I prefer to simply set the standard at the targeting of civilians. Of course, that means that long-time Israeli PM Menachem Begin and even American President Harry Truman could be called terrorists, but like I said there are no moral absolutes.

I still like my definition just fine. Terrorism is ideology-driven criminal harm to others committed by independent groups or individuals. I keep changing words in it but only to clarify it, to get at what I mean.This definition certainly applies to 9/11.It also applies to the Unabomber. It doesn't apply to national armies.The French resistance killing Nazis in time of war was not ideology-driven. Accidents aren't criminal because they aren't intentional. Sad but that's war. Here we have the independent group but we don't have the other parts of the definition of terrorism I like.Terrorism targets civilians too, but national armies attacking civilians is not terrorism, it's war. I already agreed, however, back there somewhere, that it is reprehensible to do so even in war. That doesn't make it terrorism. Have to keep all the parts of the definition in mind.Difficulty defining something doesn't mean there are no absolutes. It just means difficulty defining something.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.

I believe so, yes. But I think adding "ideology-driven" hatred nails it down better. The Unabomber was ideology-driven. So were the Weathermen. So were the IRA. Not provoked, not about the usual causes of war, but motivated strictly by some nutty ideology or other. You individually? You'd just be a criminal nutcase. Not even a terrorist. Since you put "defend" in quotes I assume you mean there is no genuine provocation, just a delusion in your own mind.Sticking to the definition I've been trying to float, if it's truly self-defense and not ideology-driven it's not terrorism because self-defense is provoked -- really provoked, not "provoked" in your own mind. Israel is acting in self-defense against Hezbollah. They are also a national army, which by my definition of independent criminal activity is not terrorism. It's war.Your independent "self-defense" is certainly merely criminal. It's not ideology-driven so it's not even terrorism by my definition although I suppose if you have some elaborate crazy theory behind it, it might fall in that category. What line you can or cannot cross is outside this discussion, a question for criminal investigators.

That would be simple criminal activity. It could be terrorism if you have a delusional idea about the taking of *your* oil sands. If *you* are backed by the Canadian army, it's war.

Faith writes me:

quote:

---

he French resistance killing Nazis in time of war was not ideology-driven.

---

Oh? There was no anti-fascist ideology going on there? Certainly some of the mercenaries in France were motivated by anti-fascism.And your definition doesn't seem to comport with the Bush administration's. We've been led to believe for years now that 9/11 was executed - not entirely but in substantial part - by the government of Afghanistan with support from the government of Iraq. That's supposed to be the main reason we're at war there.And while we're on the subject of governments I'd like to get your opinion on actions by independent groups that eventually become governments, like the Sandinistas in South America or the Zionists in Palestine.

Then perhaps there were terroristic elements involved. Just a matter of plugging in all the facts involved, which aren't exactly at my fingertips. {edit: But I really don't think that resistance groups in time of war can be called terrorists.} If it's stealthy, undeclared war, it's terrorism. So I'll add that to my definition. I don't know enough about the Sandinistas. The Zionists acquired land in Israel legitimately, committing no acts of ideology-driven unprovoked aggression against anyone.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So do I take it that when the U.S. was supporting and funding the contras in Nicaragua, the U.S. was an international terrorist state.

the us is very often acting as a terrorist organization.

I would say not because the objective was political, not founded on an ideology of hatred. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Some groups within our armed forces and central Intelligence have resorted to extreme measures at times. Usually, however, we attempt to seduce the other guys rather than oppress or terrorize them. We only resort to eye for an eye tactics when they simply refuse to play Capitalist Monopoly with us and thrart our attempts to use the Park Place that they are living on.You see, it is a rather important piece of property, and if world resources are being used to promote competing ideological monopolies in the making, we simply can't afford to lose the game...hence we resort to ungodly tactics."why can't the entire world simply be a secular democracy?" we ask.

terrorism needn't involve eye-for-eye tacftics. it needn't even involve death.

I agree.Thats why I label Fred Phelps as a terrorist. Its mental as well.

I am not sure what you mean. So if al-Queda were to announce complete disbanding or cessation of violence we should stop searching for their leadership? The RATE of terrorist actions is what demands punishment? I for one feel that justice needs to be served. I personally cheer when I watch an 80 year old man being hauled away in handcuffs because he lobbed a pipebomb into a black church in the 60's. I think all of those American terrorists need to be hunted as vehemently as we hunt down al-Queda suspects. I think their financial backers and leaders need to be imprisoned or even tried for treason.We have in custody people who may have been bodyguards to bankers that handled suspected al-Queda finances. So I want to know why we are not hunting down those people who housed and fed Eric Rudolph. I want to know why the KKK is a legal organization (they have a cable channel in Louisiana for cryin in a bucket) when they have been strongly linked to terrorist acts and will continue doing so by their own admission. I think we need to be arresting them left and right and seizing their assets (including the banks that conduct their business). I suspect that sympathies may run too deep for this to ever happen.To illustrate: When we lived in Louisiana we went to a Mardi Gras parade in Youngsville. There we were horrified (as ignorant Alaskans) to see a Klan float with de-hooded klansmen in full regalia. There were some cheers and some boos from the crowd. The people we were with, educated fairly liberal people, made the comment that the klan were fairly harmless, misguided but generally good citizens. And commented that they did do a lot of good for the community like helping with fundraisers and such. Basically, they were treated like freakin' shriners. I was outraged. They are the KKK, they are a terrorist organization that should be completely undercover for fear they will be hauled away in chains. It showed me how tied those groups are to mainstream America.Since I am on a rant... I think that our current president squandered the chance to be remembered as one of the great world leaders of all time. When the attacks of 9/11 happened, he had the hearts of most of the world behind him. That opportunity should have been used to declare a War against Terror instead of a war against terror. I think all or most countries in the world have supported terrorism in some form. Typically this swept under the carpet and so is never resolved. This lack of resolution keeps the conflict open even after the initial cause is long gone. There are people dying today because of conflicts started in the 60's. Bush could have declared and end to it. He could have said it stops today. It was an opportunity for the US and other major powers to fess up to past mistakes and pledge to not repeat them. I think we would have had the world's support to punish regimes that violate human rights. Our military might (along with others) could have been used to back up a world declaration against terrorism in all forms. Instead we chose to make it a war against some Muslims that was conducted in such a way as to insure a perpetual war.

---

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"

Didn't I say I assume that the government has its eye on all suspected terrorist groups? How do you know they aren't searching for whatever needs searching for? I assume they are.Not being active means not at the moment a threat. I would assume that an active threat has higher priority for investigation and intervention than quiescent groups. This may be going on for all I know. But Al Qaeda is an active immediate threat and these others aren't. Priorities. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

i think most of hollywood is terrorism. and all of mtv. and we constantly attack others with it.not to mention the horrible crap the government does sometimes.