What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

I think the biggest question is 'Who is innocent?'After all - it isn't George Bush that runs the USA its 'We the people', so anything that the US does (it could be argued) is the responsibility of its citizens. Who is truly innocent is in the eye of the beholder and thus so is who is a terrorist.Unless, a terrorist is someone who targets people that they themselves consider innocent...

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.

Horizon did a program which I recently saw about suicide bombing (revolving primarily around the London bombings) which was a psychological outline of terrorism.Here is a brief.

And the one thing that defines Western response has been falling for it I see that Blair has finally grasped the reality of the situation and that force alone will never win the battle against extremism (he markedly didn't use the phrase war on terror) Terrorism is defined sketchily as we all know - but history has shown us that wherever there is civil unrest, the leaders that took the hardline only ended up increasing unrest/revolt. The leaders that took the understanding approach (but with a hard line), have had eventual success in squashing the problems.Terrorism covers such a wide range of tactics - some terrorists are overt, however masquerading as civillians to increase civillian death toll as a recruitment tactic is increasingly used - that it makes it difficult to pin a definition down, even for subgroups such as Muslims. However, patterns do emerge.Essentially, those who break the conventions of war to spread fear from one party or another. The intention of this fear is to provoke a reaction. That reaction may be political change or it may be a military response that kills civillians and helps increase sympathy from the community that the dead civillians belong to (increasing the ability for the terrorists to 'fade' away and hide weaponry).New tactics are always being added to the list, and refinements are no doubt made.Finally, I think it need to be stressed, that even though the tactic is an illegitimate method for political gain, that does not mean the root causes of the dissent are invalid; they should still be addressed to help stem the tide. Deception has been an itegral part of all warfare, legal and otherwise, so in the end - its not a useful property to help define things.

I'm not sure that they are regarded as morally equal, but they are held to the same moral/legal system and Israel is held to a higher standard in many ways because they are a member of the UN. The UN is very vocal in its attacks against extremism and has been since before September 2001.

quote:

---

Such extremism may threaten an entire society (Yemen), certain categories of individuals such as artists (Chad) or teachers (Egypt), or certain religious minorities (Mexico and Somalia). It is important to note that religious extremism acts as a cancer in any religious group, whatever the denomination, and that it affects the members of that group just as much as those of other religious groups.

​

...

​

Moreover, the fact is that religious extremism is not yet in retreat and seems set to continue to pose a threat, sometimes to entire regions. The major religions are no strangers to extremism and are sometimes exposed to these terrorist manifestations, which spare neither Governments nor the governed. It is vital to combat this religious extremism by taking action against both its causes and its effects and by getting States to define a minimum set of common rules of conduct and behaviour with regard to it.

---

And of course Annan himself:

quote:

---

" Terrorism is a global threat with global effects; ... its consequences affect every aspect of the United Nations agenda from development to peace to human rights and the rule of law. By its very nature, terrorism is an assault on the fundamental principles of law, order, human rights, and the peaceful settlement of disputes upon which the United Nations is established. The United Nations has an indispensable role to play in providing the legal and organizational framework within which the international campaign against terrorism can unfold".

​

Kofi Annan
UN Secretary-General
4 October 2002

---