definitions of terrorism

I guess the urban definition for terrorism is either:

A) A muslim [This mainly in the west]
B) A person that uses fear to demoralise a certain group of people or the entire human population
C) Anybody that isnt white [Mainly fascists for this one]

There is no agreed definition on it, however.
 
I'm looking for more than urban. "Urban" is ludicrous. Not all muslims are bad, likewise thee are non-whites that love America and freedom just as much as you and I.

I am looking for official definitions. I have asked the US Dept. of Justice, and they have actually refused to comment. Gets me to wonder if that's an indirect confession to their own acts of terrorism.
 
Domestic terrorism is terrorism committed by someone against his own nation. International terrorism involved terrorist acts and activity in several nations.
 
The use of "terror" as a weapon, in an attempt to achieve an end.

Now you must accurately define "terror".
 
Last edited:
I'm looking for more than urban. "Urban" is ludicrous. Not all muslims are bad, likewise thee are non-whites that love America and freedom just as much as you and I.

I am looking for official definitions. I have asked the US Dept. of Justice, and they have actually refused to comment. Gets me to wonder if that's an indirect confession to their own acts of terrorism.

I dont love America, nor do i dislike America. Its just, can you guys get a GOOD guy in government soon?

There is no accepted official definition of Terrorism. It is naturally hard to define, in the west, Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist. In the Middle-east, he is a religious freedom-fighter.

Thats why some people use different words for Terrorism [I prefer 'Complex Irregular Warfare', but its too long.]
 
Its just, can you guys get a GOOD guy in government soon?
You mean a more reliable President of the US? Uhhh, if you're not America then what the hell do you care? He's ours, whether we like him or not. We voted for him, you didn't. We pay the taxes he gives to countries like yours (so you really should be either thanking Americans every chance you get or pay it back). Most importantly, while countries are getting those same tax payer dollars that hard-working Americans GIVE we have to listen to the same third world cesspools scream "die yankee die". So until your country pays us back, you guys can start showing some gratitude.

There is no accepted official definition of Terrorism. It is naturally hard to define, in the west, Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist. In the Middle-east, he is a religious freedom-fighter.
And in 20 years they'll be blaming us again, saying we trained him, we had him wrapped around our finger, and how he was another yankee puppet.

Thats why some people use different words for Terrorism [I prefer 'Complex Irregular Warfare', but its too long.]
That's why I'm looking for definitions. Different definitions work for different people in different scenarios.
 
Communism was barely ever around America, so why should you lot have given a damn about it?

Im not Australian, i just live in this puppet country. I can assure you, our Kevin Rudd is Dubya's/Obamas ass slave. Thank your government? Im more likely going to invent a magical tree.
 
Well, Bush is gone and now we have an imposter filling his shows. Frying pan....fire.....you get the picture. As for who he has or had wrapped around his finger isn't for me to decide.

I would think that if your country can take care of it self just fine without our aid, then Rudd would not have become an ass-slave....
 
So what has this actually got to do with defining terrorism?

There are lots of politicians that I dislike but the list would go on forever. That said politicians are the ones that make defence / war and aid decisions, so they are a necessary evil.

But what about terrorism? Here's a wordy paragraph which is up for debate, it is my thought and by no means definitive, nor original:

"An irregular war, fought by opposing idealogies, normally a non state organisation against a state. The intention is to impose change, through the use of coercion, threats of violence and actual violence against the state and the perceived opposition of the terror group. It is characterised by small scale skirmish, attacks against "soft" targets and an unswerving devotion to delivering the message of the terror group by whatever means necessary and available. It generally will not involve larger scale conflict, as the state tends to have the financial (therefore technological and materiel edge)."

As my old English master said - discuss.
 
Well, Bush is gone and now we have an imposter filling his shows. Frying pan....fire.....you get the picture. As for who he has or had wrapped around his finger isn't for me to decide.

I would think that if your country can take care of it self just fine without our aid, then Rudd would not have become an ass-slave....


Australia CAN take care of its self. Its a big, large island [The largest], all types of terrain [Mainly desert]. Why shouldnt it be able to survive without American aid? Australia is just naturally a country that needs your guns, tanks, aircraft etc.

So what has this actually got to do with defining terrorism?

There are lots of politicians that I dislike but the list would go on forever. That said politicians are the ones that make defence / war and aid decisions, so they are a necessary evil.

But what about terrorism? Here's a wordy paragraph which is up for debate, it is my thought and by no means definitive, nor original:

"An irregular war, fought by opposing idealogies, normally a non state organisation against a state. The intention is to impose change, through the use of coercion, threats of violence and actual violence against the state and the perceived opposition of the terror group. It is characterised by small scale skirmish, attacks against "soft" targets and an unswerving devotion to delivering the message of the terror group by whatever means necessary and available. It generally will not involve larger scale conflict, as the state tends to have the financial (therefore technological and materiel edge)."

As my old English master said - discuss.

As you said before, Partisan [But on another thread], the media has its big index finger on the word 'Terrorism'. For example, the old, racist South African government absolutely loathed Nelson Mandela. They labeled him a 'Terrorist'. Thus all the SA media then kept saying 'Mandela is a enemy of the nation, he is a terrorist!'. Id like to see if anybody here thinks Nelson Mandela is a terrorist NOW??

The word 'Terrorism' depends on your location in this world. When your in America, you are going to say 'Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist'. If you go to Serbia, they will say 'Albanians are terrorists'. See? Depends on where you are FROM, where you LIVE, and what your RELIGION and/or IDEOLOGIES are.
 
Last edited:
Australia CAN take care of its self. Its a big, large island [The largest], all types of terrain [Mainly desert]. Why shouldnt it be able to survive without American aid? Australia is just naturally a country that needs your guns, tanks, aircraft etc.



As you said before, Partisan [But on another thread], the media has its big index finger on the word 'Terrorism'. For example, the old, racist South African government absolutely loathed Nelson Mandela. They labeled him a 'Terrorist'. Thus all the SA media then kept saying 'Mandela is a enemy of the nation, he is a terrorist!'. Id like to see if anybody here thinks Nelson Mandela is a terrorist NOW??

The word 'Terrorism' depends on your location in this world. When your in America, you are going to say 'Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist'. If you go to Serbia, they will say 'Albanians are terrorists'. See? Depends on where you are FROM, where you LIVE, and what your RELIGION and/or IDEOLOGIES are.

Balkan Mig, I haven't changed my stance, I do believe that media have a huge influence on peoples thinking, they sell news & fear sells, not forgetting their own corporate agendas, same goes for religious, political & idealogical points of view. I was simply trying to come up with a "simplish" definition, add to it subtract from it - but lets keep talking about it, the more we do the better we understand the potential threats & are able to counter them.
 
I guess the issue is that I don't understand the logic behind the defining of terrorism.

What one country defines as terrorist, another may not. One may see the insurgent strikes in Iraq & Afghanistan as terrorist. And they may be. If the strikes are done against the occupying military, then no. It's then guerrila warfare. But when it's a strike against a school or mosque in the name of freedom, then yes it is terrorism. It's doing nothing to the military occupying the country, instead it's punishing the innocent.

In this, I try to imagine who the insurgents really are. If they are not "freedom fighters", then they are....? What? And I am quite confident that freedom fighters would not kill their own people enmasse for freedom. That is going against the very same idea of what freedom is.

As for Balkan Mig, he's just a kid. There is so much he simply doesn't understand about what he said. I for one do not believe that Rudd is wrapped around anyone's finger. I firmly beleive that Australia is self-supporting.
 
Last edited:
The word 'Terrorism' is very vauge and unimformative. It is just a label used by many politicians that try to get into Parliament, the Kremlin, the White House and other buildings of government.

When some good, wise looking politician shouts out 'Terrorism must be defeated!', the crowd nods in agreement. Why? Because what they think is 'terrorism' is what they read in the newspaper, about 9/11, about Bali, about Beslan. They see the point of view the POLITCIANS want them to see, because it suits the politicians to get into government.

So I beleive 'Terrorism' is a word that has no meaning behind it, but has a lot of mental impact.

Terrorism is also over-publicized to a extent that people think Terrorism is EVERYWHERE. Look at the facts, more people are killed on American roads than people killed by 'terrorist' acts. It is a problem, but it isnt as such a big problem as lovely people like George Bush and co. portray it.

As such, the 'War on Terror' should be renamed to 'War on invisible people'. A 'terrorist' could be a casual looking civilian, that loves his religion/ideology enough so that he would die for it. If people are naive enough to beleive that terrorists always carry Ak-47's and long white robes with big beards, they are SADLY mistaken.

A good example is the Russian Revolution. The Tzar started rounding up Communsits/Marxists in the hope of getting rid of them, but how could he? Best he could do was TRY to find the 'big' people of Communism [Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky] and execute them. But Communism is a theory that suits people like builders, farmers, industrial workers..all the proletarians. So then, a Communist could be your neighbour, or your brother/sister.
Thus its near impossible to stop 'Communism' [Speaking from a 1917 Russia view]

So, how can terrorism have a definition, if people have different theories about it? Maybe its easier to replace the word with 'Rebel' or 'Mercenary'?

Also, even though im just a kid, doesnt mean im completely ignorant of whats happening around me. Its common knowledge that John Howard and Kevin Rudd are puppets of America [Keating wasnt really that much, thats why he was such a good Prime Minister].
 
I guess the issue is that I don't understand the logic behind the defining of terrorism.

What one country defines as terrorist, another may not. One may see the insurgent strikes in Iraq & Afghanistan as terrorist. And they may be. If the strikes are done against the occupying military, then no. It's then guerrila warfare. But when it's a strike against a school or mosque in the name of freedom, then yes it is terrorism. It's doing nothing to the military occupying the country, instead it's punishing the innocent.

In this, I try to imagine who the insurgents really are. If they are not "freedom fighters", then they are....? What? And I am quite confident that freedom fighters would not kill their own people enmasse for freedom. That is going against the very same idea of what freedom is.

As for Balkan Mig, he's just a kid. There is so much he simply doesn't understand about what he said. I for one do not believe that Rudd is wrapped around anyone's finger. I firmly beleive that Australia is self-supporting.

Hmmm, for me the logic in defining a threat enables you to understand the threat. I appreciate that labels can narrow the thought process, but you need a baseline to start from! This will guide your decisions on how to defeat the threat in the long term and engage it in the short term. It is not enough guidance to say that the bad guys are all Basques, wear shemaghs, or speak with an Irish accent ; that does not fulfill the enemy forces paragraph for soldiers and does not equate to a detailed briefing for a diplomat.

I agree that terrorist groups can be tricky, you can't always group them into a neat parcel, which most of us like! But we need to define the basics of a terrorist, if nothing else than to help the media differentiate between a violent bank robbery and an attack on a nation state, by a no state player. I'm sure that after a terrorist attack, TV execs picture scenes akin to Running of The Bulls in Pamplona, as a ratings measure!

If nothing else, if "we" have a common baseline to agree on, we can start talking seriously about how we could solve some of these issues, over metaphorical beers (in my case real time beers) and who knows, maybe one of those highly paid advisors could get an idea, or we might be better informed to elect our next politcal leader, wherever we reside.
 
Ive been thinking for a bit, and i was toying with this idea, what if we used more than one word to describe terrorism?

People wont always agree exactly on the definition of terrorism. One might say Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, the other might say Bush is etc etc. We will sometimes naturally disagree.

For example, instead of calling Taliban/Hamas/Al Quaeda etc. 'Terrorists', why dont we call them 'Religious fighters' or something similar? It isnt offensive, and it is much more simpler and gives a better description than labeling them as 'Terrorists'. See?

I think thats a good method, personally. Ill start trying to use it more now.
 
Well, "religious fighters" would cover a lot. A lot more than just terrorists.
I think that the labeling should be case specific. Hamas, Al Qaeda, NSM, Khmer Rouge, and others. Maybe Hamas could be considered religious fighters, but would Aryan Nations?
 
Yes, i guess they would. Aryan Nations is a extreme-right wing christian group which [Not sure if this is correct, i read about it ages ago] kidnaps and kills popes and religious leaders from other religions.

But we might as well call them fascists.
 
Back
Top