NationStates Jolt Archive

I have not noticed any remarkable traits about terrorists other than the fact that they are not representatives of any government.

What in your opinion distiguishes a terrorist?

According to the way the U.S. definitions works, if they are a rebel force that is liked by us, they're freedom fighters. If they're not, they're terrorists. If we're neutral, they're guerillas.
As for me, I'd say it would be anyone who is using the only method they have to fight, but for something unworthy. For example, if someone bombed Grand Central Station in New York because he thought anime likers were opressed, that would be unworthy. Protecting your religious freedoms however, is worthy, which makes Al Queda more of a freedom figheter organization in my mind, though I do not support their methods or ideals.

I have not noticed any remarkable traits about terrorists other than the fact that they are not representatives of any government.

What in your opinion distiguishes a terrorist?

They're the ones shooting *at* us, not *for* us?

... or perhaps "they're the ones killing Us and not killing Them"

or " the one's fighting against Us in unfair ways - namely, ways They haven't warned Us about beforehand, or ways We can't prevent"

My personal definition is anyone who targets the civilian population with deadly force in order to achieve political or religious goals.

My personal definition is anyone who targets the civilian population with deadly force in order to achieve political or religious goals.

This definition doesn't add up because their hasn't been a war in history where civilians weren't targeted in order to achieve certain political goals.

So far Shaed has made the most sense, with reference to the unconventional tactics. So does terrorism require suicide, or maybe just the lack of a uniform?

This definition doesn't add up because their hasn't been a war in history where civilians weren't targeted in order to achieve certain political goals.

So far Shaed has made the most sense, with reference to the unconventional tactics. So does terrorism require suicide, or maybe just the lack of a uniform?
I guess you got me there, although in recent years there has been an effort to reduce civilian mortalities in war by the world's developed nations.

This definition doesn't add up because their hasn't been a war in history where civilians weren't targeted in order to achieve certain political goals.

So far Shaed has made the most sense, with reference to the unconventional tactics. So does terrorism require suicide, or maybe just the lack of a uniform?

Sense? Me? And there I was thinking I was just being bitter! Huzzah!
Have some alcoholic chocolates VO.
Or a cookie, if you dislike to chocolate/alcohol.

I guess you got me there, although in recent years there has been an effort to reduce civilian mortalities in war by the world's developed nations.

That is true, and to be applauded, but I have a feeling that that is only a result of being able to blow up entire cites with one missile.

Sense? Me? And there I was thinking I was just being bitter! Huzzah!
Have some alcoholic chocolates VO.
Or a cookie, if you dislike to chocolate/alcohol.

I will take the alcohol please. In particular, some of that fine Canadian Whiskey that bears my initials.

My personal definition is anyone who targets the civilian population with deadly force in order to achieve political or religious goals.

Under your definition the dropping of atomic bombs on the civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the Allied fire bombing of the city of Dresden, constitutes terrorism.

If someone bombed Grand Central Station in New York because he thought anime likers were opressed, that would be unworthy.
A true anime fan would never do that! They'd go after the FCC :D

Protecting your religious freedoms however, is worthy, which makes Al Queda more of a freedom figheter organization in my mind, though I do not support their methods or ideals.
A-Q isn't so much defending religious freedom, so much as trying to force their religion on everyone else (or at least to me)

That's not to say there aren't legit groups aimed at protecting religious freedom

EDIT: Here's is the dictionary.com definition of terrorism:
"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"
-I believe that the key word there is unlawful - (though yes, in times of self-defense one can use force)

Here's is the dictionary.com definition of terrorism:
"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"
-I believe that the key word there is unlawful - (though yes, in times of self-defense one can use force)

The difference between lawful and unlawful is often victory. Had the American Revolution failed would history (and the British) have judged those revolutionaries as unlawful?

The difference between lawful and unlawful is often victory. Had the American Revolution failed would history (and the British) have judged those revolutionaries as unlawful?
Correct - plus if it's in self defense, it all goes back to good old Lockean philosophy that only you know when your rights are threatened (and terrorists can misconstrue this to their liking)

Under your definition the dropping of atomic bombs on the civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the Allied fire bombing of the city of Dresden, constitutes terrorism.
Yeah, but back then it was almost unavoidable. The bombs weren't that accurate. If you want to hit anything you have to drop a shitload.

I have not noticed any remarkable traits about terrorists other than the fact that they are not representatives of any government.:gundge:

think before you type...a Terrorist may or may not be on the Government side.

Anyone who, lacking direct governmental support (basically a nations military) who attacks civilian or government targets to acheive political goals and to circumvent the electoral process.

Terrorist: anyone who is not on my side *sarcasm*

Terrorist is a rhetoric term. Governments use force to keep people in line, yet no one calls them terrorist organizations.

A terrorist is someone who deliberately (emphasis on deliberately) kills innocent people (not military or government) for their cause.

http://www.honestreporting.com/m/legacy.asp

A terrorist is someone who deliberately (emphasis on deliberately) kills innocent people (not military or government) for their cause.
So the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was terrorism? Because the main victims were civilians...

A terrorist is someone who deliberately (emphasis on deliberately) kills innocent people (not military or government) for their cause.

Just like when the US nuked Japan and killed thousands of civilians.

What in your opinion distiguishes a terrorist?
To kill the mostest people with the leastest effort? [ with apologies to my namesake, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA ]

Just like when the US nuked Japan and killed thousands of civilians.

I don't have a well informed opinion on that, because they weren't doing it randomly, it was retaliation for Pearl Harbor and it was to ultimately end the war with Japan. Which it did. So, honestly I don't know if it's considered terrorism.

Just like when the US nuked Japan and killed thousands of civilians.

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

Yes you are right, but to be sure, lets check
1.calculated/premeditated - check
2.violence - quadruple check
3.against civilians - check
4.attain political or religious or ideological goals - check, political (Japanese surrender)
5.intimidation/coercion/instilling fear - check (threat of more nukes on more cities led to the surrender, also can be argued that it was done to scare the USSR)

According to that definition, which is pretty fair, the U.S. nuking Japan was terrorism, war or no war. The same goes for fire-bombing Dresden.

Bombing Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Dresden or Hamburg or Berlin or Tokyo or London or Coventry or Leningrad or Stalingrad.... none of that is terrorism.

What defines terrorism as we understand it is the calculated use of force by non-soldiers (defined as those people who do not follow the international rules, laid out in the International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Article 9, as to what soldiers must do to be considered soldiers) for political purposes.

The definition of a soldier, from the International Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War from above; also, Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article 4, section 2:
1. That they be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. That they have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. That they carry arms openly; and
4. That they conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. In countries where militia constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination 'army'.

Otto Skorzeny's commandos in the opening salvoes of the Battle of the Bulge were not considered soldiers, and thus were eligible for execution, because they violated #2, more commonly interpreted as "Wearing a uniform". In this case, they were German army soldiers wearing American army uniforms and thus were legally spies.

Similarly, the bulk of the inmates at Gitmo are not soldiers. Specifically, the Geneva Conventions apply only to soldiers (Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions again).

Terrorists/freedom fighters/guerillas are largely seperated by whether or not their fighting for your cause. No matter what they're called, they can expect little to no good treatment if caught by the other side (who undoubtedly calls them a nastier name than you do)

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

Yes you are right, but to be sure, lets check
1.calculated/premeditated - check
2.violence - quadruple check
3.against civilians - check
4.attain political or religious or ideological goals - check, political (Japanese surrender)
5.intimidation/coercion/instilling fear - check (threat of more nukes on more cities led to the surrender, also can be argued that it was done to scare the USSR)

According to that definition, which is pretty fair, the U.S. nuking Japan was terrorism, war or no war. The same goes for fire-bombing Dresden.

The problem with this is that the agents of "Terrorism" in this case were agents of a nation-state acting under orders and in compliance with the treaties and conventions I've mentioned. Nation-states cannot be terrorists, and their agents - soldiers - can only be terrorists if they act without guidance from their superiors.

We can CALL what they do terrorism, but no one's going to see it that way.

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

Yes you are right, but to be sure, lets check
1.calculated/premeditated - check
2.violence - quadruple check
3.against civilians - check
4.attain political or religious or ideological goals - check, political (Japanese surrender)
5.intimidation/coercion/instilling fear - check (threat of more nukes on more cities led to the surrender, also can be argued that it was done to scare the USSR)

According to that definition, which is pretty fair, the U.S. nuking Japan was terrorism, war or no war. The same goes for fire-bombing Dresden.

And when will the American admit this? Never, I suspect.

terrorists tend not to have the power to actually engage the government forces of their target in even indirect combat, therefore they are forced to rely mainly on soft target attacks.

guerrillas have the ability engage the forces of the government at least in selected areas in small numbers.

insurgents can engage in large scale conflict with governmental forces or high numbers of smaller attacks.


these are just my personal definitions.