I have been thinking about terrorism and what it is.

There is the obvious one, the use of terror on a population to achieve political aims.

Is collective punishment terrorism? some terrorists say that if you voted for a leadership then you are responsible for them and they will hurt you, others say that if you participated in choosing a leaderhip, even if the one you wanted didn't win, then you are culpable and others say that attacking the population will force a change of leadership.

I am thinking of the middle east in particular. Israel attacking the whole gaza strip for example, not just killing hamas members but destroying the infrastructure such as bombing factories or the power plant for example.

Is this terrorism or is it legitimate, not just because a state has done it, but in itself. Israel could clearly cause tens of thousands of casualties but doesn't. does the fact that israel ( well supposedly) doesn't target civilians but but militants, make this method okay.

Hamas plainly targets civilians indiscriminately.

Is the fact that it does so but kills only a few compared to israel's not targeting civilians but managing to kill many, make it worse ( or is that a meaningless comparison phrase,)

should hamas only target soldiers, should it only target soldiers who are fighting ( i.e. not blowing up soldiers in bars).

what if it used bombs to make life impossible, but didn't kill people
ie. plant bombs on roads and tell the army in advance. making life very difficult for people on a regular basis


Crucially what if civilians try to disrupt civil life to massive extent.

I am thinking israel arabs. what if they parked cars in main thoroughfares,
what if they damaged roads without using bombs, or damaged electricity plyons or used the computer viruses to crash the internet. or put holes in water mains.
or had 100 in the main roads during rush hour in tel aviv


the latter causes damage and you could be prosecuted, but its non violent It causes massive problems, is it still terrorism

well, there you are, the *big* questions nobody has been able to answer authortatively yet.

Rattler

"Terrorism", "Terrorist" is like said in definition by Ramones lyrics in "Surfing bird" song...it´s a word.

As Rattler said...more or less my thoughts don´t go so far away.

I think in early XIX century when Spain was in war in Spanish territory with Napoleon soldiers many civilians were gunned (Fusilamientos del 2 de Mayo, painted by Goya), if they knew the world they have called the resistence members terrorists. If asked to Spanish, they would have called them heroes.

Meaning of words is given by them who use them. We are puppets in de sinister hands of politics.

Best

I'd have to say when acts of violence is used against innocent people for personal gain would be terrorism whereas acts of violence to infrastructure is to keeping the enemy busy rebuilding and costly both to state and leadership.

Terrorism is defined by a countries media.

For example, im pretty sure none of us on this forum view Nelson Mandela as a terrorist, right? Well when the, to cut it short, "Bad" government was still around in South Africa they labeled Nelson Mandela as a Terrorist [Though Nelson preffered being called a Saboteour for some reason]

In Australia, people say terrorists are "People from the middle-east and Osama Bin laden"

In Serbia, people say terrorists are "The KLA and the Albanians"

Depends what country you are in, really. There is no accepted definition of terrorism in the United Nations.

Originally Posted by GG9909

I'd have to say when acts of violence is used against innocent people for personal gain would be terrorism whereas acts of violence to infrastructure is to keeping the enemy busy rebuilding and costly both to state and leadership.

There are no wars without innocent people dead. Terrorism with no war declaration between countries is just killing for the simple act of killing, like happened recently in Spain.

All human brains are twisted and we just think in doing as much painn as possible without thinking more than in ourselves and interests. Agent orange, napalm, H bomb, cal 5.56, etc. (do you think cal 5.56 is used to hurt and not killing?? It´s used because when wounded men are on battlefield you have then the opportunity to haunt some more who are trying to pick him up and because wounded man unstablish morality of fighters and rest capacity of response in background medical services and increases costs of war to the country. I dead man doesnt stand for hours shouting in nobody´s land and calling his mother/wife. I wounded one does and nerves of comrades explode)

Many times even the comrades tried to finish their suffering throwing granades or shooting them when nobody could rescue him in past wars.

Actually many "terrorists" are simply killers that use that name for covering their acts for having the full benefits of this complete hipocresy freedom and liberty laws we have. Also we can find countries that are true terrorist (killers) with the allegation they are gonna spread the liberty or act like terrorist calling terrorist the front side.

Puppets show began time ago, nor memory reminds. Village use to believe what the chiefs deicide what they should believe.

Best

Originally Posted by Zastava-Arms

Depends what country you are in, really. There is no accepted definition of terrorism in the United Nations.

Of course, because UN do not even know where their arses are. I am still thinking about Iraq war.

We suffered some bomb attacks one day in trains (more than 100 deads) suppose they where made by muslims because of Spanish old government in Iraq where we had troops. (Many others think behind those muslims was also ETA (our personal **** terrorists))

That happened just before elections, until that moment we had been in Iraq with no casualties. Then came all those maifestants on the streets shouting out loud that we had to leave that war, etc. Actual president promised to leave Iraq and he won elections.

Spanish troops had to leave the scene in a little time, not with the honour they´d like. Many legionaries came here sad of the way it had been made. Spanish Legion likes action and there was even sad stories with Polish who blamed at them, when they where acting like ordered, not like wished.

But...we are still on Afghanistan. Goverment sells we are there spreading happiness and cheese sandwiches while we build roads, however same legionaries were in Iraq have told me that they usually answer firing attacks and that have killed Afghan fighters several times.

Our dead soldiers in Afgahnistan in this peaceful crusade for love is (including accidents) near 100. No one in Iraq I think.

I am still thinking what makes different Iraq from Afghanistan (forgetting the supposes massive destruction weapons). Radical muslim governments that acted like dictators with their subdits, and finally a disgusting politic way for occidental countries. Both "terrorist trainers", both exterminating the oppositors, etc, etc.

Just one difference, one works the petroleum and the other opium to finance their activities.

What still I don´t understand is why UN support one action and not the other. Of course someone should have to be, but still don´t know it.

Best

Probably speed things up if people were to read the previous two topics talking about the definition of terrorism.


definitions of terrorism


A better way to name "Terrorism"?

Pretty much beating a dead horse with a new topic that has all ready been overdone.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Probably speed things up if people were to read the previous two topics talking about the definition of terrorism.


definitions of terrorism


A better way to name "Terrorism"?

Pretty much beating a dead horse with a new topic that has all ready been overdone.

Yes I agree, we are lack of ideas and finally speak about the same continuously. Lazy do always go to last posts. "Mea culpa" aswell.

But anyway you can see a thread about international KFOR missions and at the end of post we are talking about which supermarket is cheaper or if Adam and Eve had tummy buttom.

I didn't realise it had already been done. I had a word search and didn't find what i was looking for and so started a thread. to be honest I wasn't really concerned with semantics, ie. your freedom fighter is his terrorist. but in terms of actions. especially the non violent but disruptive actions i described. or the moderately violent but non bloody attacks i also mentioned.