What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

What??!! The Reagan administration HATED the government of Nicaragua. Do you have any idea who the Contras were? They were warlords from the Samoza government. If you read the history of Nicaragua Samoza (1 & 2) were horrific dictators that make Hussein look good. Anastasio Somoza II believed that feudalism was the ultimate form of government, and his generals became the leaders of the contras because they believed the owned sections of the country and wanted it back. Under Samoza thousands were butchered. The popular party in Nicaragua was under Chammoro and were opposed to both the Sandanista and Contras. yet they recieved no US support at all (even after being elected HW Bush refused to recognize Violta Chammoro's government as legitmate).

---

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"

Any hatred was not the kind of ideological hatred I'm talking about.Let's just say there are different versions of that story:Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David HorowitzIt was political action AGAINST an ideology and which side was the more brutal is contended.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think you missed my point. I was not supporting the Sandanista government (although the link you supplied contains outright falsehoods. I worked in Nicaragua in 1988 and spent many long hours talking politics with friends who live there). I agree that the Ortega government was often brutal and was certainly guilty of horrible human rights violations. But that does not justify the Contras. They were a terrorist organization through and through. During their time it was commonly understood that their aim was not to overthrow the Sandanista government as much as it was to punish the Nicaraguan people for overthrowing Samoza. They never engaged the Nicaraguan military on purpose but instead targeted civilians. One town I went to that had been attacked resulted in 100 civilian deaths and countless losses of homes.

---

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"

What I'm wondering is: How far can a national army go outside its own borders in "defending" its borders? At what point does a "defending" army become an invading army? And why can the invaded peoples not "defend" themselves from that army? How are Lebanese Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, fighting in Lebanon, the aggressors?

---

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

Maybe I missed your point as you say. I'm jsut trying to define "terrorism." Maybe both sides in Nicaragua were terrorists at different times. But in a situation of constant civil war I'm not sure the term is of any particular use. American motivation was not ideological but political nevertheless.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We're talking about MOTIVATIONS. I'm claiming Israel's are strictly defensive. I'm claiming they have not been the aggressors or provocateurs, that the terrorist Muslim groups have been the aggressors and provocateurs. If Israel is now an invader, they are still acting to defend themselves because of the origin of the conflict in the terrorist activities against them.The invaded peoples provoked the action -- in this case not the whole Lebanese people of course, but the terrorists among them. If they are now in the position of "defending" themselves, it's because they brought the invasion on themselves. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes.... because we aren't talking about the kind perpetrated by muslims..

Or Communists and Marxist revolutionistsOr the WeathermenOr the IRAOr the UnabomberOr Tim McVeigh and companyOr the KKKetc etc etc. All the above meet my definition of terrorists. The US Government does not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's what I've been trying to get at. At what point do Israel's actions cease to be defensive and begin to become offensive?Even if Hamas and Hezbollah did provoke Israel, at what point does Israel's reaction become aggression? Is there ever a point at which Israel's enemies are allowed to defend themselves without being branded as "terrorists"?

---

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

I agree with you there. But I think the issue wasn't that the US is a terrorist state, it is that the US has supported terrorist organizations. We are absolutely not alone in this, and there have undoubtedly been legitimate political motivations to do so. But it needs to stop.

---

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"

Not as long as they remain terrorists with their usual ideological motivation to do in Israel.I'm sure it's possible for Israel to act wrongly in the situation, but that doesn't take their actions out of the category of defensive.

Why? It's probably better than World War III.But now we're getting off topic.

That's what doesn't make sense to me. You claim that the terrorists are "criminals" and that Israel is justified in "fighting crime". But in Canada (and presumably the U.S.), if the crime-fighters "act wrongly", it is a crime - i.e. they become criminals.The Canadian Army will not bulldoze my house if I harbour terrorists. If I commit terrorist acts in Canada and run to hide in the U.S., the Canadian Army will not shell the U.S. trying to get me.Your "definition" of terrorism seems to be tailor-made to fit the people that you want to label as "terrorists". Everybody else conveniently doesn't fit your definition.

---

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

Yes, but imagine if Canada was as small as Israel and could be overrun in a matter of hours.The Army would do what it had to do to insure your countries survival.

Seems to me that by suggesting they could act wrongly I'm implying they could commit criminal acts, even in the defensive mode. Hard to compare the situations. Canada isn't surrounded by many times its area and population of enemies sworn to wipe it off the earth, or been forced by world opinion to pull back its borders time and time again to accommodate its enemies' ability to do it harm, or had its legitimately acquired land described as belonging to those enemies, who do not even include it on their maps. And Israel is shelling the Hezbollah camps, not Lebanon proper. Nobody else has given a clear definition of terrorism except me that I can see, just a bunch of fanciful rubbery ideas that could include anything. All definitions are "tailor-made to fit" what we believe they fit. Nothing underhanded there.