What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

I agree with you that these were terrible black marks against America, very bad, very wrong thing to do. But many felt as I do about it at the time and still do. It's not like it's standard American policy, it was just very bad decisions made at the time. Not terrorism. Not made with any malice against the people but for desperately and badly determined strategic reasons.Terrorism might be defined as targeting the innocent as a policy out of sheer malice or self-righteous hatred. Might, I don't know what a good definition would be. It's more like criminal activity than like war. And while it probably has state support in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah and the like, it's not conducted by a nation but by self-appointed vigilante groups. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You may be right that malice can't be a defining factor but I'm not sure. I do know that self-defense as an explanation for the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah is self delusion to the max. Or the Weathermen. Or the bombing of the Oklahoma building.George Washington was acting on behalf of a people seeking nationhood, that had been discussed and discussed and argued and argued and not entered into lightly either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually, honestly, I don't think Hamas and Hezbollah WOULD say the same thing, except for propaganda purposes, not among themselves and in Arabic. They would say that they are prosecuting Allah's cause against the infidel.You just like that equivalence formula. Makes you feel good. Bears no relation to actual reality though.

My point in saying they are prosecuting Allah's cause was that they are not defenders but aggressors -- out to take the world for Allah. Politically incorrect to the max but the truth is. You also have who is the invader backwards. EVERYBODY who is not a Muslim is an invader according to them.That's OK. We will never agree. It's futile to argue anything here at EvC. The positions are dug in from the getgo.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There are always multiple motivations and causes. Perhaps terrorists are alienated from life in many ways and wouldn't be drawn to terrorism if things were working out better for them. I don't think that fits the profile of some of the 9/11 criminals though. So who knows. But the conscious motivation of Muslim terrorism is to take the world for Allah and defeat and punish his enemies.I'm glad you're pro-Israel but you're completely wrong about Hamas and Hezbollah.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.