NationStates Jolt Archive

i was once told that the term terrorist was first used to describe the israeli attacks on british occupyin forces after its initial creation after WWII. is this true or is it like many of my child hiood memories and just a lie

i was once told that the term terrorist was first used to describe the israeli attacks on british occupyin forces after its initial creation after WWII. is this true or is it like many of my child hiood memories and just a lie
It may be were the term came from (I don't know for sure), but terrorism most definitely existed before post-WWII...

If you think about it, the Americans were terrorists during the revolution, we sought to disrupt the current government of the time, their ideas were extremely radical for the time, and there was a little bit of guerilla warfare used on America's part... it really just depends on the intentions though, I guess, you know, what they want out of it...

If you think about it, the Americans were terrorists during the revolution, we sought to disrupt the current government of the time, their ideas were extremely radical for the time, and there was a little bit of guerilla warfare used on America's part... it really just depends on the intentions though, I guess, you know, what they want out of it...
Actually, there was an American terrorist organization at the time. It was called the Sons of Liberty.

If you think about it, the Americans were terrorists during the revolution, we sought to disrupt the current government of the time, their ideas were extremely radical for the time, and there was a little bit of guerilla warfare used on America's part... it really just depends on the intentions though, I guess, you know, what they want out of it...
Still, except for a few radicals, we didn't do something like detonate a bomb in a large crowd.

i was once told that the term terrorist was first used to describe the israeli attacks on british occupyin forces after its initial creation after WWII. is this true or is it like many of my child hiood memories and just a lie
I think...They Invented Terrorism.
For sure...the Jews were the first to Use Terrorism in the Midle-East.

Terrorism has existed for thousands of years, basicaly one clan would conduct raids against another clan, killing men, women, and children. Its been around long before today's religions.

I think...They Invented Terrorism.
For sure...the Jews were the first to Use Terrorism in the Midle-East.
They didn't "invent" terrorism. Just the modern day variant.

I think...They Invented Terrorism.
For sure...the Jews were the first to Use Terrorism in the Midle-East.
BTW...At that point and time...they were justified to use Terrorism...JMO

BTW...At that point and time...they were justified to use Terrorism...JMO
How so?

They didn't "invent" terrorism. Just the modern day variant.
You dont have a clue what im talking about...

You dont have a clue what im talking about...
Then clearify what you are speaking about.

How so?
They wanted to be Free...
like I said several times...terrorism is usually used to figth for Freedom.

They wanted to be Free...
like I said several times...terrorism is usually used to figth for Freedom.
So the Brits where oppressing them?

Then clearify what you are speaking about.The Jews were slaves..they Used Terrorism To Gain their Freedom...And they succeded.

So the Brits where oppressing them?
No...the Egypcians.

The Jews were slaves..they Used Terrorism To Gain their Freedom...And they succeded.
Slaves? Of whom? As far as I know Britain abolished slavery in the 19th century.

No the Egipcians.
Eeeh..?? Egyptians?

The Americans used guerrilla warfare against the British soldiers. The jewish terrorists in Palestine blew-up for example, The St. David's Hotel. Killing innocent people. Hence the different wording.

Slaves? Of whom? As far as I know Britain abolished slavery in the 19th century.
I said the Jews Invented terrorism...so it has to be wayyy before the 19th century.

I said the Jews Invented terrorism...so it has to be wayyy before the 19th century.
And what kind of terrorism are you reffering to then? The Red Sea thingy?

And what kind of terrorism are you reffering to then? The Red Sea thingy?
Red sea? no dude.
It was the Nile...it was contaminted with dead people/animals Blood...
They also destroyed the Egyptians ecosystem..and Provoked a horrible famine...

that was followed up with Unmentionable Diseases

They didn't "invent" terrorism. Just the modern day variant.

Actually the Dutch Boers during their war with the British consisted of terrorist attacks and gave rise to the initial use of the idea of concentration camps.

The first terrorists were the hashishiyya, which pre-date the modern Zionist terror movement of the 40's, by some 900 years.

Actually, terrorism, as well as biological warfare, has been around at least since the middle ages. Armies would beseige a castle and then use catapults to lob dead animals (cows, horses, etc.) over the walls.

As for the Haganah/Irgun terrorism that Von Witzleben is talking about, if I remeber corrcetly, warning was issued, and later the Haganah suppressed the radical Irgun to turn Israel into a working contry. The Palistinean terrorist groups need to be suppresed before any solution can be reached.

The Americans used guerrilla warfare against the British soldiers. The jewish terrorists in Palestine blew-up for example, The St. David's Hotel. Killing innocent people. Hence the different wording.
The Sons of Liberty didn't use Geurilla Warfare. They used terrorism.

As for the Haganah/Irgun terrorism that Von Witzleben is talking about, if I remeber corrcetly, warning was issued, and later the Haganah suppressed the radical Irgun to turn Isreal into a working contry. The Palistinean terrorist groups need to be suppresed before any solution can be reached.
The IRA and ETA usually put out warnings as well. And are still considerd terrorists.

The spelling of the Jewish homeland is Israel.

The Sons of Liberty didn't use Geurilla Warfare. They used terrorism.
In case anyone is still confused: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sons.htm

Actually, God was the first terrorist. I mean, look at all the threats in the Bible. And He's free to do absolutely ANYthing, right? We're screwed, basically. By the way, I'm a Jew. No, we're not terrorists. Yes, the Stern Gang used terror, but most Jews opposed them. Unfortunately, some consider the Stern Gang to be heroes. I don't. Right now, it's the Palestinians who strap bombs around their waists and deliberately blow up innocent Isreali women and children who are the REAL terrorists. And the hijackers who flew the planes into the World Trade Towers. As far as I know, no Jew has strapped bombs on himself (or his children, as some Palestinians are wont to do) to do the same to innocent Palestinians. It's a shitty world, I'm afraid. Every terrorist invokes God's name, and God remains silent, as always.

"ter·ror·ism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Couldn't you say that this has been around since the beginning of civilization?

"ter·ror·ism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Couldn't you say that this has been around since the beginning of civilization?

Since the beginning of law and organization.

The first terrorists were the hashishiyya, which pre-date the modern Zionist terror movement of the 40's, by some 900 years.

how is zionism terrorism?

Geez There are so many topics about this I see. I cant believe people dont just realise that the term terrorist is a vauge and Rhetorical term.

"ter·ror·ism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence....

It's that 'unlawful' bit that's the sticking point, isn't it? If you have the weight of a national government behind you can claim some kind of legitimacy.

Lends credence to the phase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

To answer your question simply, no. The word terrorist in English was used to descriibe the Jacobins in the period of the French Revolution, and probably not earlier.

More complexly, maybe. You can say that the modern usage of the term is enough different from that applied to the anarchists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that it justifies consideriing the modern usage to date from the post-WWII period when it was used in Palestine. It's iffy, especially as there seems to be no concensus of what the modern usage is. You can pretty much take your choice on this one, and find reasons to justify it.

****edit: just reread what I said and the second part doesn't specifiaclly answer your question. There is a school which holds that first usage of the word terrorist the modern sense was refering to the actions of jews in post WWII Israel. You may very well have come across someone using this school of thought, or encountered someone who misunderstood this school of thought and presented as fact that the first use of the word terrorst refered to the Jews in post WWII Palestine. In otherwords, the facts supporting your memory may be wrong, but not necesarily your memory. ***

I feel like ignorance and bigotry were the first terrorists

Actually, God was the first terrorist...And He's free to do absolutely ANYthing, right? We're screwed, basically.
...
Every terrorist invokes God's name, and God remains silent, as always.
Well...since God is a Terrorist himself...what can he say?...there is nothing else for him to add.

moron

The first terrorists were the hashishiyya, which pre-date the modern Zionist terror movement of the 40's, by some 900 years.
how is zionism terrorism?

You didn't actually bother to read my post, did you? You just saw the word zionist and decide to flame me for it?
I never said Zionism was terrorism. However everyone else here seems to understand that the Zionist movement included terrorists - such as the Stern Gang.
Please read a little history before calling anyone a moron.

Well...since God is a Terrorist himself...what can he say?...there is nothing else for him to add.

But if we judge by Torcia's deffinition, God can't be a terrorist because he isn't really bound by laws, right?

as you differentiate between the bad terrorists and us 'the good guys' i cant help but notice you guys have a warped perspective. without any 9/11 induced hysteria, stand back and look at things in a more general historical context without getting bogged down by the semantics of Zionism. i am not going to oversimplify the situation by saying that there are only two types of terrorism but imagine terrorism as a continuum with all the forms of oppression or coercion falling somewhere in this infinitely long range.

You have terrorism as the only means of attack by a disenfranchised population living in either poverty or fear against a wealthy, aggressive and militarily superior occupying force. This is analogous to the Palestinian situation but also similar to Allied air operations during WWII where the luftwaffe and moreover the wermacht blitzed through Europe crushing all resistance, and finally the hashishiyya which were hired by British forces during the original Crusades back in the day when, believe it or not, the West was a massive underdog against a technologically advanced Muslim foe who controlled the trade, philosophy and social sciences of the day. Before you say 'Uh, but those historical guys didnt blow themselves up in crowds of civilians...', the hashishiyya did massacre villages of Morrocans, the RAF kicked the shit out of Dresden killing tens of thousands of civilians and on Allied advance to Rome (after the Normandy landings) we bombed every single village and hamlet along every road along those beaches for hundreds of miles - again killing many thousands of French and also destroying countless pieces of historical archictecture. So that is one end of the continuum if you will, the acts of desperation that are the only means of assault and are intended to ensure one's own security through unleashing the lesser evil (again before you start spouting rhetoric compare how many Palestinians die a day as a result of the continued intifada compared to how many Jews).

And on the other end of the continuum you have the terorism instigated by often powerful and wealthy states against already oppressed peoples in order to maintain the status quo of power. Whilst this is often referred or alluded to under the headiung' state sponsored terrorism' it is important to note that there is not necessarily some third party involved. An example would be the smallpox infected blankets given by the British to [i think] the Powhatans as a gift which decimated their villages and further weakened their resistance against Western Capitalism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki could also fall under this heading, as could the trade sanctions placed on Iraq that stopped medical supplies from being imported leading to further tens of thouands of avoidable, predominantly infant and elderly deaths. a final addition could be the CAP's subsidising of Western farmers to the tune of around $1bn per day which leads to huge surplusses of excess grain (remember those EU food mountains?) which we then dump on the third world at prices they can't compete with putting their farmers out of work and hamstringing their ecomonies. in essence for every dollar we give in charity we take two in unfair trade. this leads to hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths per annum. Then you have the Reagan/Contra thing, the Cheney/Sadam thing ... i really can't be arsed to go on its so depressing, but to conclude....

As far as Torcia's definition goes: '"ter·ror·ism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

it is definitely misguided, probably blind and most likely dishonest to only note actual force of arms when applying this definition. in our world economic force is far more devastating but if you DO only take the blinkered view that only physical force counts then the American and British public, in democratically electing officials that perpetrate terrorist actions are all -albeit indirectly - terrorists themselves.

Anyhow,

PEACE

-=K=-

as you differentiate between the bad terrorists and us 'the good guys' i cant help but notice you guys have a warped perspective. without any 9/11 induced hysteria, stand back and look at things in a more general historical context without getting bogged down by the semantics of Zionism. i am not going to oversimplify the situation by saying that there are only two types of terrorism but imagine terrorism as a continuum with all the forms of oppression or coercion falling somewhere in this infinitely long range.

You have terrorism as the only means of attack by a disenfranchised population living in either poverty or fear against a wealthy, aggressive and militarily superior occupying force. This is analogous to the Palestinian situation but also similar to Allied air operations during WWII where the luftwaffe and moreover the wermacht blitzed through Europe crushing all resistance, and finally the hashishiyya which were hired by British forces during the original Crusades back in the day when, believe it or not, the West was a massive underdog against a technologically advanced Muslim foe who controlled the trade, philosophy and social sciences of the day. Before you say 'Uh, but those historical guys didnt blow themselves up in crowds of civilians...', the hashishiyya did massacre villages of Morrocans, the RAF kicked the shit out of Dresden killing tens of thousands of civilians and on Allied advance to Rome (after the Normandy landings) we bombed every single village and hamlet along every road along those beaches for hundreds of miles - again killing many thousands of French and also destroying countless pieces of historical archictecture. So that is one end of the continuum if you will, the acts of desperation that are the only means of assault and are intended to ensure one's own security through unleashing the lesser evil (again before you start spouting rhetoric compare how many Palestinians die a day as a result of the continued intifada compared to how many Jews).

And on the other end of the continuum you have the terorism instigated by often powerful and wealthy states against already oppressed peoples in order to maintain the status quo of power. Whilst this is often referred or alluded to under the headiung' state sponsored terrorism' it is important to note that there is not necessarily some third party involved. An example would be the smallpox infected blankets given by the British to [i think] the Powhatans as a gift which decimated their villages and further weakened their resistance against Western Capitalism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki could also fall under this heading, as could the trade sanctions placed on Iraq that stopped medical supplies from being imported leading to further tens of thouands of avoidable, predominantly infant and elderly deaths. a final addition could be the CAP's subsidising of Western farmers to the tune of around $1bn per day which leads to huge surplusses of excess grain (remember those EU food mountains?) which we then dump on the third world at prices they can't compete with putting their farmers out of work and hamstringing their ecomonies. in essence for every dollar we give in charity we take two in unfair trade. this leads to hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths per annum. Then you have the Reagan/Contra thing, the Cheney/Sadam thing ... i really can't be arsed to go on its so depressing, but to conclude....

As far as Torcia's definition goes: '"ter·ror·ism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

it is definitely misguided, probably blind and most likely dishonest to only note actual force of arms when applying this definition. in our world economic force is far more devastating but if you DO only take the blinkered view that only physical force counts then the American and British public, in democratically electing officials that perpetrate terrorist actions are all -albeit indirectly - terrorists themselves.

Anyhow,

PEACE

-=K=-

WOW

...and on Allied advance to Rome (after the Normandy landings) we bombed every single village and hamlet along every road along those beaches for hundreds of miles - again killing many thousands of French and also destroying countless pieces of historical archictecture...


Clang!

Allied forces entered Rome after the landings at Anzio on June 5th 1944, while the Normandy landings didn't happen until June 6th 1944. There was no directed advance towards Rome after D-Day from the Normandy beaches (unless you count the advance towards Paris, which was at least in the appropriate compass direction).

Well, as can be seen by the above, almost everyone can be labeled a terrorist. I think we have a problem. If you can stick the label 'terrorist' on anyone you like who are using a little bit of force, then the label means nothing. The only ones not labelled terrorists would be those who did nothing to stop others terrorizing.

Folks, I think we need a new definition! A definition who states what kind of fighting we can accept, and what kind we can't accept.

I, for one, can't accept actions targetet towards civilans with the goal of creating political pressure. To me this is the basis for what I consider terrorism.

This has the consequence of the Israeli government not being terrorist, while the palestinian 'freedom fighters' are terrorists. Why? Because, even though the Israeli also kill civilians, the civilians are not the goal. But the terrorists tend to hide among the civilians, using them as a shield, and therefore attacking the terrorists unfortunately also kills civilians. The palestinian 'freedom fighters' on the other hand targets random civilians with the primary goal of creating hell for the Israeli government.

That's my oppinion.

The Sons of Liberty didn't use Geurilla Warfare. They used terrorism.


The wording depends on if you were an attacker, or a defender.

okay - about the erroneous information about the storm up from Omaha and Sword by the Allied bombing of the surrounding populated environs: i hold that the details are correct even though i admit that the Allies target wasn't Rome, i'm told that it was in fact Berlin but until someone better informed authenticates this i can not be sure.

As for labelling everyone terrorists, i admit that it is a purely idealistic and even naive statement to hold that anyone who works within a system is responsible for actions taken in their name.

[might get boring here] In i think the late 1970s Noam Chomsky was interviewed by Bill Moyers. In the course of the interviewMoyers asked Chomsky how he could hold that Reagan was unpopular yet was elected by a landslide. Chomsky pointed out that Reagan was elected despite two thirds of exite voters disapproving of his policies because in America people realise that they are electing a predominantly ceremonial post - much becoming analagous to a hypothetical process in England where one might elect the Queen.

This has since been suggested by Gallup polls where around 50% of voters believe that all major decision making is done by either corporations or individuals with vested corporate interests. As voter turnout is consistently below 50% then it is very likely that those who are sceptical of the system don't participate further in the system.

Now back the point in question:

Whilst that totally undermines my earlier point and stresses that even though the consequences of our economy on many in the bleaker parts of Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa may be devastating - as the thinking classes engaged in political discourse it is likely that we constitute a large proportion of the cynical %50 of the population alluded to earlier. With our wider political awareness we appreciate the fragility of our voices and allow corporations and governments to run riot because to do otherwise would be an exercse in futility.

a further point raised was that terrorists should be defined by those who specifically target civilians: fair enough then: without showing hypocrisy then will you be willing to accept that the bombing of wedding parades in Afghanistan and Iraq by the USAF were targetting civilians? And as mentioned in the previous post- what abour Dresden by the RAF? What about the detainees at Abu-Grahib and Guantanamo Bay, whilst labelled 'militants' or 'armed combatants' if we ignore the Orwellian language, they are still civilians being terrorised. Similarly we allow the brutality of 'friendly' governments against their own and neighbouring civilian populations, like Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua (post Sardinista) and i know this is going to raise somebody's ire but Israel also. Israel and the United States still refuse to sign the UN treaty to abolish the use of torture as a means of reconaissance and intelligence gathering and when Israel highlights suspected Palestinian civilians as being suspected of aiding armed combatants then the rules of engagement allow for immediate detention without trial.

In all of the countries that we sanction and economically bully, our actions don't effect those in power - the ruling classes are always safe. it is teh lower, working classes that bear the brunt of our actions.

As the guy above proposed: the rules of terrorism don't so much apply to how one attacks another but rather seem to depend on who is attacked. When we are the aggressor we are 'liberating' causing unfortunate 'collateral damage' but the end is in sight and you 'can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs'. However, when we are the aggressed (i know that is probably not a word but its v.v.v.late) then the actions taken against us whilst causing far less civilian deaths and often perpetrated with the same declaration of liberty, God and freedom that we spearhead our military forays with, are given blanket media coverage and demonised as 'terrorism'.

The final point in response to the previous post is that whilst you say that the Palestinan militants favour targeting civilian over military targets you didn't mention that Israel receives mulit billion dollar loans from the US and being under the umbrella of US power enjoys the best military hardware including Blackhawk helicopters for conducting their official assassinations and armored bulldozers for demolishing suspected 'militant hide-outs'.

To quote Robert Kennedy, who may well have been quoting somebody else in turn - i don't know, " All it takes for the evil men to succeed is for the good men to stand by and do nothing". Political apathy is all well and good but i think that many people fail to recognise the consequences of not ensuring that their voice is heard in the political system; in the eyes of many people living inland in SE Asia where Coca-Cola deep bore wells have drained the water table to the extent that villages predating the written word are now only kept alive as they provide cheap labour for bottling plants. in the eyes of the many captives in detention centres (anyone else think that they are like concentration camps?) who will never receive a fair trial and also to the many people in Gaza, Jenin and Ramallah who saw the world turn a blind eye as the Green Line was trampled on.

'Shock' and 'Awe' are synonymous with 'terror' and yet we wear the badges of that Baghadad bombing campaign with pride: most accurate, most humane and most easily resolved war in history. over a year no and there is no water or electricity to the majority of the big cities. only one newspaper that i know of dares to send journalists outside of Baghdad without armed minders and the citizens live in fear of militias, the Americans and the fundamentalists- WE must share some of the guilt and some of the blame for the day to day terror in which the multitude of disenfranchised live their lives as it is failure to have our agenda represented that directly or indirectly caused their suffering.

Well, that is my opinion anyway:

PEACE

-=K=-

Well, as can be seen by the above, almost everyone can be labeled a terrorist. I think we have a problem. If you can stick the label 'terrorist' on anyone you like who are using a little bit of force, then the label means nothing. The only ones not labelled terrorists would be those who did nothing to stop others terrorizing.

Folks, I think we need a new definition! A definition who states what kind of fighting we can accept, and what kind we can't accept.

I, for one, can't accept actions targetet towards civilans with the goal of creating political pressure. To me this is the basis for what I consider terrorism.

This has the consequence of the Israeli government not being terrorist, while the palestinian 'freedom fighters' are terrorists. Why? Because, even though the Israeli also kill civilians, the civilians are not the goal. But the terrorists tend to hide among the civilians, using them as a shield, and therefore attacking the terrorists unfortunately also kills civilians. The palestinian 'freedom fighters' on the other hand targets random civilians with the primary goal of creating hell for the Israeli government.

That's my oppinion.

That's not just your oppinion, that's the truth. Of coure, it's not as simple as that, but the Palestinean "freedom fighters" need to be stoped before we will see a good solution. So far the all they have gained for their people is a very large fence.

Without being self-obsessed i really find it disheartening to say that an instinctive condemnation of Palestinan militants is all that constitutes a counter-agument. Can anyone on this forum either justify state-sponsored terrorism or provide some insight as to why an assault on a civilian population is tolerated, and in some cases actively promoted, when perpetrated and propagated by an aggressive state (usually America).

i'm not being controversial or provocative for the sake of it; the fact of the matter is that i really want to have as full an understanding of this state of affairs as possible and that means that i really want to hear any and all views of this topic. please post if you have any insight or opinion regarding this mattter.

Anyhow, as always,

PEACE

-=K=-

P.S. do people really think that the Security Fence is going to have an adverse effect on the living standards of Arafat, the PLO, the Brigades and such like? or will people be willing to admit that the concrete perimeter will predominantly hurt, impoverish or handicap the poorest stratas of an already ravaged civilian population?

P.P.S.has it also ever strck anyone that the Security Fence bears a more than passing similarity with the Berlin Wall and could more accurately be named an Apartheid Fence?

K

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

While I don't support the Palestinian terrorists, if I was a Palestinian I'd definatly be one. No way would I put up with the sort of occupation like that in Palestine and Gaza today. (gunman not suicide bomber - thats just stupid!)

Then again, if I was an Israeli I'd want to keep hold of all of Palestine because after all the wars Israel have suffered at the hands of the surrounding Arab nations they deserve it. I'd be the first to ship all the trouble-causing, suicide-bombing Palestinians back across the river into Jordan at gunpoint.

The Americans used guerrilla warfare against the British soldiers. The jewish terrorists in Palestine blew-up for example, The St. David's Hotel. Killing innocent people. Hence the different wording.

Your facts are a little screwy. The KING David Hotel was being used by the British Army as their Jerusalem Headquarters. Also, they got a warning call.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/King_David.html

Irgun leader Menachem Begin stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties and said three telephone calls were placed, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post, warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated.

On July 22, 1946, the calls were made. The call into the hotel was apparently received and ignored. Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying: "We don't take orders from the Jews." As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: a total of 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews. Few people in the hotel proper were injured by the blast.

While civilians were killed, they were not the targets. The Hotel bombing was an operation aimed at the British military.

So... how are the Irgun different from American Revolutionaries?

P.P.S.has it also ever strck anyone that the Security Fence bears a more than passing similarity with the Berlin Wall and could more accurately be named an Apartheid Fence?

K

The Berlin Wall was to keep East Germans from fleeing to the West. It has no similarity.