NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think the attacks on London are a criminal act or an act of war? Why?

I consider them an act of war by radical terrorists.

It is, essentially a criminal act, since it isn't perpetrated by the armed forces of a nation state. The problem is, it is almost an act of war, since it was perpetrated by the same group that is supporting insurgent forces in a real conflict.
That really makes it something on its own, a terrorist act, that can't be considered solely criminal or war-like.

I have to say criminal by definition. But I personally feel that it's an act of war by intention - they would be doing this anyway if they were organized by government, and from their point of view it is an act of war. Sort of an act of war without a declaration of war.


What is Terrorism? ----- to top

Definition2:
Terrorism is destruction of people or property by people not acting on behalf of an established government for the purpose of redressing a real or imaginary injustice attributed to an established government and aimed directly or indirectly at an established government.

Not all cases of destruction of people or property are terrorism. The important definitive characteristics of terrorism are:
the act of destruction is performed by a person or group of persons not acting on behalf of an established government ,
the act of destruction is performed to redress a real or imaginary injustice, and
the act is aimed directly or indirectly at an established government, who is seen as the cause of the injustice.

Without these characteristics an act of destruction of people or property is not terrorism. It is either an accident, or an act of war, or a matter of internal policy, or an ordinary common law crime (murder, arson, etc).
If destruction of people or property is caused unintentionally, it is an accident.
If destruction of people or property is undertaken by or on behalf of an established government against another country, it is considered war, not terrorism.
If destruction of people or property is undertaken by or on behalf of an established government on its own territory, it is considered a matter of policy, not terrorism.
If destruction of people or property is undertaken without justification, it is considered an ordinary common law crime, not terrorism.
If destruction of people or property is not aimed against an established government, but is aimed at a private individual or group, it is considered an ordinary common law crime, not terrorism, even if such act is aimed at redressing a wrong, because disputes between private individuals should be settled through an established legal system operated by an established government, not by taking law in one’s own hands.

http://www.truth-and-justice.info/defterror.html

<snip>Your missing the terror in terrorism in your definition though. It's important to add that it's about using fear as the main weapon.

I have to say criminal by definition. But I personally feel that it's an act of war by intention - they would be doing this anyway if they were organized by government, and from their point of view it is an act of war. Sort of an act of war without a declaration of war.

Thank you, pretty clearly defind.

What is Terrorism? ----- to top

Definition2:
Terrorism is destruction of people or property by people not acting on behalf of an established government for the purpose of redressing a real or imaginary injustice attributed to an established government and aimed directly or indirectly at an established government.


Terrorism is actually very hard to define fully, which is one of the problems the UN has faced in dealing with it.
Your definition is not wrong, but it neglects government-sponsored terrorism, which also exists.

They are dumbacts

Haha, get it? DumbACTS! Sounds like dumbASS! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

http://img285.imageshack.us/img285/5863/11206341245848vs.gif

*realizes everyone is staring at him*

Dammit. Where're my meds?

Terrorism is actually very hard to define fully, which is one of the problems the UN has faced in dealing with it.
Your definition is not wrong, but it neglects government-sponsored terrorism, which also exists.


Government-sponsored terrorism only means the government is sponsoring terrorist groups and if the acts are carried out against another government then according the definition provided in post #3 it is not terrorism but an act of war.

I think these definitions are pretty clear.
3 entries found for Terrorism. www.dictionary.com
ter·ror·ism P Pronunciation Key (t r -r z m)n. 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.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


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 [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

These acts are acts by individuals who do not represent a nation or people, and as such they are purely and simply criminal acts. They may well represent an organisation, but that does not move the acts away from the category of criminal into being acts of war any more than a mafia shooting is an act of war.

They are politcally motivated, that does not stop the act from being criminal.

The biggest misnomer of recent political history is "The war on terror", as terror is not something that war can be declared against in any way, and the acts of terrorists are nothing more then murder or attempted murder for political ends.

Do you think the attacks on London are a criminal act or an act of war? Why?

I consider them an act of war by radical terrorists.

It's an act of war. America and Britain are at war with Al-Qaeda.. thus it's war.

I suppose Al-Qaeda sees the Americans and British as terrorists too.

Sort of an act of war without a declaration of war.

Al-Qaeda declared war on the United States and any other country that helped them occupy Arab land in 1996.

Bush/Blair declared war on Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks.

It is a war!

Now I don't want to take Celtlund's thread off track at all, but here's a question to consider for the right time or place:

Would it benefit us to declare war on as yet undetermined organizations or groups of individuals? Declarations of war, as far as I know, are issued to nations.

Since it's unlikely that terrorists will form a nation, and if it weakens our means of recourse (I'm thinking legal options) by not having such a declaration, could we declare war upon groups who by their intent or stated intent mean physical harm to our government or people?

Is this possible? Would we benefit?

Al-Qaeda declared war on the United States and any other country that helped them occupy Arab land in 1996.

Bush/Blair declared war on Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks.

It is a war!

Yes, agreed. But not all terrorists belong to Al-Queda, and it is expected that there will be considerable morphing in the future.

I'm thinking it's not the name of the organization as much as the intention to harm governments and citizens they don't like.

It's an act of war. America and Britain are at war with Al-Qaeda.. thus it's war.

I suppose Al-Qaeda sees the Americans and British as terrorists too.


A question Steph. If we are at war with Al-Qaeda, how will the state of war end. Who will sign the peace treaty or armistice?

It just does not make much sense does it. Yes we are fighting terrorists, but we are not at war. War is a national state, it is a conflict of one state with another or a conflict for the control of a stste. Al-Qaeda is not trying to control the USA or the UK. They are trying to attack a culture and belief system using violence. This is not war, this is terrorism, this is intolerance, this is criminal activity. Nothing more, nothing less.

A question Steph. If we are at war with Al-Qaeda, how will the state of war end. Who will sign the peace treaty or armistice?

It just does not make much sense does it.

I agree with you, but it doesn't negate that is what Bush did. I suppose one could argue that declaration was made on Afghanistan and Iraq in place of Al-Qaeda. As both were declarations of war.

According to the Hague Conventions a declaration of war can be made in 3 different ways.

1) A formal declaration

2) An invasion of a sovereign country

3) Giving an ultimatum.

As Bush himself has said many times, "We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" Well of course that logic is flawed, but that was Bush's logic. So.. I don't know. As far as the "rules" of war goes, technically they're all still at war.

Don't glorify what they do. It's a criminal act like any other bombing (nightclub bombs, IRA etc.) They are criminals, pure and simple, they can delude themselves however they like but all they ae is criminal unless we choose to glorify them.

Now I don't want to take Celtlund's thread off track at all, but here's a question to consider for the right time or place:

Would it benefit us to declare war on as yet undetermined organizations or groups of individuals? Declarations of war, as far as I know, are issued to nations.

Since it's unlikely that terrorists will form a nation, and if it weakens our means of recourse (I'm thinking legal options) by not having such a declaration, could we declare war upon groups who by their intent or stated intent mean physical harm to our government or people?

Is this possible? Would we benefit?

Although I think it might be a good idea to have a formal declaration of war on terrorists, I'm not so sure it would be legally possible.

Do you think the attacks on London are a criminal act or an act of war? Why?

I consider them an act of war by radical terrorists.
Those acts are both acts of war ( albiet by a non-state entity ), and acts of terrorism. When you undertake to kill civilians as a policy, you automatically become a terrorist, whether affiliated with a particular government or not. As far as I'm concerned, people who commit such acts should be summarily shot or, if captured, subjected to whatever means are necessary to extract information about other terrorists and terrorist acts. They fall into the same category as pedophiles and serial murderers and have voluntarily placed themselves "beyond the pale" of what can even remotely be considered "human."

I strongly condemn all the terrorist attacks that have been perpetrated in London, and whenever and wherever terrorism happens, all of us should strongly and unequivocably condemn it.
My nation, Turkey, has for long and is still suffering from hideous terrorism: we are all with you in this fight against this evil scourge.
I think that those acts are of course criminal acts but also acts of war because they are breaking the peace that exists.