NationStates Jolt Archive

The definition of a terrorist is one that strikes terror among a group of people, typically civilians.

In WWII we went off to Japan and destroyed the civilians there. They attacked our military base. We attacked their wives and children. Most people get caught up thinking that terrorism is just Islamic extremists that go around blowing themselves up. Obviously its much broader than that.


Yes opal isle I got this from LKL. I just watched it on tivo a few minutes ago.

We can argue that every single damn nation was a terrorist nation at one point. Does it all matter and is it really worth our time saying the obvious?

But the real thing of it is...if it weren't for terrrorism, America wouldn't exist.

Yes, the conservatives need to open their eyes wider. Then again, that is an impossible feat, but worth a try.

But the real thing of it is...if it weren't for terrrorism, America wouldn't exist.
and if it weren't for terrorism, there would be no wars

Okay...I'm going to clarify my statement because obviously you people know little about American history...

The Sons of Liberty were a radical terrorist group which basically got the anti-British thing started. They're the ones who went around terrorizing the would-be stamp sellers so that not a single stamp was sold in the US. They're the ones who did the Bosten Tea Party. Etc.

Okay...I'm going to clarify my statement because obviously you people know little about American history...

The Sons of Liberty were a radical terrorist group which basically got the anti-British thing started. They're the ones who went around terrorizing the would-be stamp sellers so that not a single stamp was sold in the US. They're the ones who did the Bosten Tea Party. Etc.
*shrugs*
and the British didn't terrorize civilians during the Boston Massacre that killed *cough*five*cough* PEOPLE?

*shrugs*
and the British didn't terrorize civilians during the Boston Massacre that killed *cough*five*cough* PEOPLE?
All five of which were killed in self-defense, as John Adams himself proved as the trial lawyer of the british soldiers.

[QUOTE=Opal Isle]Okay...I'm going to clarify my statement because obviously you people know little about American history...
QUOTE]

You're so kind. /wtf

I think the definition in the original post is silly. Because Stephen King fits that definition of a terrorist. He strikes terror into large groups (usually civilian). Unless you mean that terror is super-fear like a fear of pain or death. Let's just say terrorists use force or the threat of force to scare or harm.

I think there's a crucial difference between freedom-fighters and terrorists. Terrorists target civilians on purpose. And yes, I think bunches of governments have been guilty of this. As a matter of fact, one could easily see how all governments use force against civilians.

That's what governments do. If I do something crazy like rob my neighbor or try to develop my business in too many directions, the government exists so that it can punish me to some degree. So governments, by definition, are organizations that target civilians. Right?

By that logic you could argue that almost every nation is terrorist, we all have militaries for the sole purpose of making people afraid of fighting us. Those people were at war, they knew something like that could happen, they were warned. I think the word terrorism mainly means making people afraid to live their normal lives, by attack civilians at random times in random places.

All five of which were killed in self-defense, as John Adams himself proved as the trial lawyer of the british soldiers.
THEY THREW SNOWBALLS AT THEM AND SHOUTED MERE TAUNTS!

*shrugs*
and the British didn't terrorize civilians during the Boston Massacre that killed *cough*five*cough* PEOPLE?

dude, the boston massacre was touched off by people throwing rocks at soldiers and daring them to shoot.

THEY THREW SNOWBALLS AT THEM AND SHOUTED MERE TAUNTS!

actually, it was rocks and they were also shoving them. the soldiers were all acquitted of any wrong-doing after being defended by a future american president.

By that logic you could argue that almost every nation is terrorist, we all have militaries for the sole purpose of making people afraid of fighting us. Those people were at war, they knew something like that could happen, they were warned. I think the word terrorism mainly means making people afraid to live their normal lives, by attack civilians at random times in random places.

Well, the U.S., like many nations at various points in history, is an occupying force. We have settled in bunches of places around the world. As an occupier, we might not be at open war (but that's really just because we're winning to an obscene degree). If we suddenly leave a country we're occupying, the forces that were originally resisting our presence are likely to emerge again. So if we're occupying a place, it's as if the conflict is still on and they can go ahead and nuke our civilian populations without remorse? I think if somebody in Iraq managed to get one of those WMDs Bush is looking for and shipped it to New York, we'd be pretty quick to label that an act of terrorism.

ACTUALLY...
It started as snowballs, then turned into snowballs with rock filling...

ACTUALLY...
It started as snowballs, then turned into snowballs with rock filling...

true. in any case, the boston massacre looks downright justified compared to some of the shit the state pulls on protestors and gets away with today.

true. in any case, the boston massacre looks downright justified compared to some of the shit the state pulls on protestors and gets away with today.
or on other sovereign nations...

You should read some Noam Chomsky.

ACTUALLY...
It started as snowballs, then turned into snowballs with rock filling...
hardley comparable to muskets

hardley comparable to muskets
I have to admit that if I were in the shoes of a British soldier, I'd most likely want to fire my musket at those pesky people too...however...I've also heard that the first shot was fired accidentily when a soldier was shoved and dropped his musket, shooting up in the air and then in the confusion, the other soldiers opened fire.

or on other sovereign nations...

or at least the people who live in them

Well most defintions of terrorist try to include the idea of targeting civilians, instead of incidentally doing so. Seriously, if Iraqi insurgents blow up a UK military base and kill 50 soldiers and the explosions terrify a bunch of Iraqi civilians, that' s not usually considered terrorism.

If the US drops bombs onto a Japaneese Fleet to destroy the ships that not terrorism, even though it might terrorize some people. If the US drops bombs on a Japeneese fleet in a harbor to destroy the ships and some of the bombs fall on civilians near the fleet, it will doubtless terrorize civilains and even kill some, but it's not terrorism. If the US targets civilain houses in an attempt to create a state of terror in the Japaneese people, that's terrorism. In WWII however, you want to stay away from Japan where there were no clear cut cases of terrorism and go to the other front,Europe. Look into the firebombing of Dresden, for no military purpose and intended to terrorize the population of Germany.

I have to admit that if I were in the shoes of a British soldier, I'd most likely want to fire my musket at those pesky people too...however...I've also heard that the first shot was fired accidentily when a soldier was shoved and dropped his musket, shooting up in the air and then in the confusion, the other soldiers opened fire.
any excuse to justify an action...

The definition of a terrorist is one that strikes terror among a group of people, typically civilians.

In WWII we went off to Japan and destroyed the civilians there. They attacked our military base. We attacked their wives and children. Most people get caught up thinking that terrorism is just Islamic extremists that go around blowing themselves up. Obviously its much broader than that.


Yes opal isle I got this from LKL. I just watched it on tivo a few minutes ago.

You forget the fire-bombing prior to the nuclear attacks and the strategic bombing of Germany in WW 2. Then there would also be the sniper attacks on
British officers during the revolutionary war. Considered cowardly at the time, but we won there too.

Throughout history, the winners write the history books. Ask of any great Empire and the answers are always a record of those slain.

We even managed to win our own civil war.





:headbang:

I only ask: What cost to be the best?


Jim SC

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

One could argue that the government of the USA is currently a terrorist organization. The continuing of the inappropriately named PATRIOT Act, the further erosion of our civil liberties, all because the government keeps raising the color code of the threat warning everytime people seem to have a problem with the U.S. Constitution being even further shat upon.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Thomas Jefferson

The definition of a terrorist is one that strikes terror among a group of people, typically civilians.

In WWII we went off to Japan and destroyed the civilians there. They attacked our military base. We attacked their wives and children. Most people get caught up thinking that terrorism is just Islamic extremists that go around blowing themselves up. Obviously its much broader than that.


Yes opal isle I got this from LKL. I just watched it on tivo a few minutes ago.
according to the current administration's definition of terrorist, every person who founded this country was terrorist.


WE ARE A NATION OF TERRORISTS

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Thomas Jefferson
benjamin franklin

A terrorist is one who fights not as a soldier of an army of a country, but as a secretive organization that targets civilians only. We are not, or never were terrorists, as during WW2 we were at war with the Japanese, our uniformed army was fighting against their uniformed army. The only time we specifically targeted civilians was during the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagaski, but that really SAVED lives as MILLIONS would have died if we had to invade the country. It was a tactic that ended the war very quickly. It was not terrorism though.

Please read the Patriot act prior to making comments on it.

The Patriot Act allows the government to conduct the same kind of investigations that they have been able to against drug dealers and the mafia.

It wasn't a problem when Kennedy did it for the mob, and it wasn't a problem when Clinton did it against drug dealers...but when Bush does it, the reaction from the left is that it takes away our rights. Our rights to what? Blow people up?

A terrorist is one who fights not as a soldier of an army of a country, but as a secretive organization that targets civilians only. We are not, or never were terrorists, as during WW2 we were at war with the Japanese, our uniformed army was fighting against their uniformed army. The only time we specifically targeted civilians was during the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagaski, but that really SAVED lives as MILLIONS would have died if we had to invade the country. It was a tactic that ended the war very quickly. It was not terrorism though.
i know that, but im saying according to the current adminsitration's definition, that being anyone who fights the occupying force is a terrorist

Please read the Patriot act prior to making comments on it.

The Patriot Act allows the government to conduct the same kind of investigations that they have been able to against drug dealers and the mafia.

It wasn't a problem when Kennedy did it for the mob, and it wasn't a problem when Clinton did it against drug dealers...but when Bush does it, the reaction from the left is that it takes away our rights. Our rights to what? Blow people up?
maybe thye had to have proof in the clinton and kennedy things because under the patriot act its "they are a terrorist" give minimal evidence then do whatever you want

They still need to get a Justice's approval before holding someone or searching, or wiretapping.

They still need to get a Justice's approval before holding someone or searching, or wiretapping.
with miniscule evidence to support the terrorist theory

and except for wirte tapping they only need to justify it after its been done

They still need a warrant, just like anything else. Same as investigating anything else. And yes, if they have probably cause they can start investigating before getting a warrant...just like anything else.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Thomas Jefferson I suggest checking the quote, I've only heard it attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

I suggest checking the quote, I've only heard it attributed to Benjamin Franklin.
i corected it a bit ago

They still need a warrant, just like anything else. Same as investigating anything else. And yes, if they have probably cause they can start investigating before getting a warrant...just like anything else.
no i dont recall them being able to search your house or arrest you only on probable cause

i corected it a bit ago
Yeah, I just wasn't sure your claification was clear enough and wanted to make sure it was understood.

Ask any law or criminal law student. For instance, if a cop hears a gun shot in a home, he can enter the home arrest the shooter without waiting for a warrant. The probably cause is hearing a gun shot. That's how it works. But if a cop just enters the house for no reason, and finds a guy had just killed someone, the guy would end up being let off because the cop had no reason to enter the house and that would be an illegal search.

Ask any law or criminal law student. For instance, if a cop hears a gun shot in a home, he can enter the home arrest the shooter without waiting for a warrant. The probably cause is hearing a gun shot. That's how it works. But if a cop just enters the house for no reason, and finds a guy had just killed someone, the guy would end up being let off because the cop had no reason to enter the house and that would be an illegal search.
i dont think the cop can just storm in im sure he can go see wth is going on, now if he goes to see whats going on and therei s a guy with a gun and a dead guy on the ground now thats a bit more than probable cause

All government is terrorism because it is backed by violence and the threat of violence. That's what police and military are for.

i dont think the cop can just storm in im sure he can go see wth is going on, now if he goes to see whats going on and therei s a guy with a gun and a dead guy on the ground now thats a bit more than probable cause
Actually he can storm in, but that has to do with the possible violent nature of gun shots - if a police officer (or even a private citizen but this is trickier) has reasonable cause to believe that someone is in imediate danger they can enter forcibly. Gun shots, sounds of someone being beaten up, screams of rape and such fall into this category. When there is reasonable cause to believe a crime is being commited but not that someone in is imediate danger, then forcible entry is usually not allowed, but even then there are some exceptions - these get tricky.

The intention of the atomic bomb was not exactly to hurt civilians. It was just in military strategy that was used.

Terrorist attacks are meant to kill innocent people to emotionally attack a nation.

The definition of a terrorist is one that strikes terror among a group of people, typically civilians.

In WWII we went off to Japan and destroyed the civilians there. They attacked our military base. We attacked their wives and children. Most people get caught up thinking that terrorism is just Islamic extremists that go around blowing themselves up. Obviously its much broader than that.


Yes opal isle I got this from LKL. I just watched it on tivo a few minutes ago.
The US was and still is the biggests, baddests terrorist around.

The definition of a terrorist is one that strikes terror among a group of people, typically civilians.

In WWII we went off to Japan and destroyed the civilians there. They attacked our military base. We attacked their wives and children. Most people get caught up thinking that terrorism is just Islamic extremists that go around blowing themselves up. Obviously its much broader than that.


Yes opal isle I got this from LKL. I just watched it on tivo a few minutes ago.

THE USA IS A TERRORIST NATION RIGHT NOW!!!
The government hand selected which reporters could and couldn't go into Iraq to cover the war. All that the news media does is spread fear into the people. There is so much talk about the fear of another 9/11 style attack. With increase security measures, we should not even have to worry about this, but people are more afraid then ever! People are afraid to speak out agaist what they see happening because they don't want to get blacklisted as terrorist supporters. More and more people are buying SUV's because they fear getting crushed in a small car. When you live in fear, you feel dependant for the government to protect you. Bush's cabinet wants people to be afraid of change. They want to inspire fear of terrorism, so that the people will back their unjustified crusade (while they profit quite handsomely in the process).
And all of that is just the mass histeria fear that they directly spread. What about my best friend who is Indian and has to be careful where he walks at night because he is has to fear for his own safety from drunk college kids throwing bottles or fists at him simply because of the stereotype against Middle Easterners. What about the Patriot Act? You can't tell me that some of the shit in there doesn't scare you. And this is just issues from the war on terror. There are countless other ones from every part of life, whether it's fearing carbs, or urban areas, or unshaven men. We isolate ourselves into instablity. Then what about the social norms that we all create for ourselves. Women afraid to wear anything other than high heels to work. Parents afraid of having kids with long hair.
Back in the days when the quotes you heard from your president made you feel proud to live in this coutry, instead of ashamed that such a bumbling moron could ever exist, let alone be in charge of a country, a guy named Roosevelt said "there is nothing to fear but fear itself". That is more true today than ever.

All government is terrorism because it is backed by violence and the threat of violence. That's what police and military are for.


Not all government, just those that rely on police and military threats to control their own people. This is why we dethrowned Hussien. Lets not let us live in the same situation. That would be hypocritical.
Use your imagination. There are other better ways. Peace can actually work.

At the rate this thread is going, you people are going to scream terrorism everytime a person shoots a gun.

Not all government, just those that rely on police and military threats to control their own people. This is why we dethrowned Hussien. Lets not let us live in the same situation. That would be hypocritical.
Use your imagination. There are other better ways. Peace can actually work.
right, and the governemnt isn't going to throw me in jail if I don't pay my taxes.

I don't agree with Letila's definition of terrorism, but if we accept it, then all government is terrorism.

I'll cut this off at the head. The definition of "terrorist" is one who commits acts of violence for a political ideal, but aren't the armed forces of a recognized nation.

The definition of a terrorist is one that strikes terror among a group of people, typically civilians.

In WWII we went off to Japan and destroyed the civilians there. They attacked our military base. We attacked their wives and children. Most people get caught up thinking that terrorism is just Islamic extremists that go around blowing themselves up. Obviously its much broader than that.

That happens in all wars.

A stronger argument would be that the United Staes of America is the only country in the world to be charged with terrorism by an international court. I believe it was for the central American Contras, who were actually trained in the USA.

I would add a few other countries to that list myself, but just remember that. ^

If the US targets civilain houses in an attempt to create a state of terror in the Japaneese people, that's terrorism. In WWII however, you want to stay away from Japan where there were no clear cut cases of terrorism and go to the other front,Europe. Look into the firebombing of Dresden, for no military purpose and intended to terrorize the population of Germany.
Dresden was Terrorism just like in Japan...

the United Staes of America is the only country in the world to be charged with terrorism by an international court. I believe it was for the central American Contras, who were actually trained in the USA.
^
Im sure there is other Countries that deserve to be charged...
I was A Beleiver...I beleived the USArmy was the "good-Guys"
the incident that opened my eyes was the Mining of the Nicaraguan waters...That was like cutting the fingers of a defenseless Child...There was no way for Nicaragua to get back at us...for me it was Shameful

Shit, by that definition any time there’s a war, all parties involved are terrorists. I think a better definition of a terrorist would be a small army that is unable to withstand a direct assault against their enemy. Tossing out conventional warfare, they employ hit and run and/or suicide tactics. Their objective is to demoralize the enemy and destroy the trust between their enemy and it’s people. Which is easy to do because their enemy is always on the defensive and seldom gets a chance to be on the offensive, and is always keeping them on edge. Their hope is that their enemy will get tired of fighting and just go away.

Shit, by that definition any time there’s a war, all parties involved are terrorists. I think a better definition of a terrorist would be a small army that is unable to withstand a direct assault against their enemy. Tossing out conventional warfare, they employ hit and run and/or suicide tactics. Their objective is to demoralize the enemy and destroy the trust between their enemy and it’s people. Which is easy to do because their enemy is always on the defensive and seldom gets a chance to be on the offensive, and is always keeping them on edge. Their hope is that their enemy will get tired of fighting and just go away.

no, that's more like guerilla warfare.

I'll cut this off at the head. The definition of "terrorist" is one who commits acts of violence for a political ideal, but aren't the armed forces of a recognized nation.

beh, that just means that all rebels are terrorists, at least one side in a civil war is made up of terrorists, etc.

Dresden was Terrorism just like in Japan...Well Japan was less clear cut. Killing civilians was not the intent of the firebombing. The primary target was not the civilians, but the Japanese industry. Terrror was an expected effect, but not the primary effect hoped for. This makes the firebombing of Japan somewhat ambiguous as terrorism. Good old mens rei.

A stronger argument would be that the United Staes of America is the only country in the world to be charged with terrorism by an international court.Actually . . . Libya, United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Netherlands, and Portugal have all been charged with terrorism, and I'm not sure this list is somprehensive.

Terrorism in WWII?

Ok?

How is it terrorism when the countries in question are in a state of declared war?

Hmph?

Wonders if the word terrorism is getting over used these days.....

I'll cut this off at the head. The definition of "terrorist" is one who commits acts of violence for a political ideal, but aren't the armed forces of a recognized nation.

Well, whatever the reason for violence, attacking a nation when not a recognised nation makes you a terrorist, which makes George Washington and friends terrorists, though most Americans would prefer the term 'Freedom Fighter', like most terrorist supporters. It's like some call Bin Laden and Arafat terrorists, some call them freedom fighters.