What is terrorism?

J

johnmacadam

Active member
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. :type:
 
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.
 
GG9909 said:
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. :type:
Click to expand...

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
 
Zastava-Arms said:
Depends what country you are in, really. There is no accepted definition of terrorism in the United Nations.
Click to expand...

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


http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/definitions-terrorism-t72440.html


http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/better-way-name-terrorism-t71338.html

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

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. :bravo:
 
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.
 
Terrorists kill for the sake of killing irregardless if it's their own people. Soldiers kill them (terrorists) for sake of trying protect the innocent. Over all yes, killing is wrong and wish it didn't happen but zealots find power with a gun, illiteracy of the world as a whole, makes for easy recruitment and easy blinding with lies, and as long as religion is held to be above government, there will be no peace. History has shown that and is not in huge useage in politics anymore (in free countries) as once was but gingerly respected. Our soldiers try to bring stability to countries gone mad with religion (not a total view just some) but lies to the illiterate and green light to kill anybody ...stalls bringing stability and peace. If the people of these countries could influence the 'insurgents' more (big wish, yeah) about peace then maybe all this killing may end. The blinders and lies have to stop first. I don't think for a minute that our soldiers are doing anything wrong when done to protect the innocent.:type:
 
what is terrorism

johnmacadam said:
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.<

Right.

>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.<

You claim the american, british, french or soviet gouvernments to be terrorists? Because, that is exactly as the germans got judged after WWII.

>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.<

destroying civilian Infrastructure deliberately is atleas a warcrime.

>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.<

I will not explicitely go into what israel does or not because that would lead to nothing than everyone attacking everyone. Anyway, in my opinion, if you launch missiles into a quarter crowded with civilians in the hope to kill 1 or 10 or 10 enemy fighters, thats a warcrime.

>Hamas plainly targets civilians indiscriminately.<

Do they? or are their waepons, just as the brits and americans claimed about their bombing of german cities (and vice versa) just not accurate enough?

>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,)<

In the end, it will be, the victor is always right. Even establishing international courts wont help because 1. they have no power to arrest suspects to put them on trial and 2. they wont be accepted, like the international court for warcrimes. E.g. the americans officially said it isbnt responsible and they will get their people out there even if they have to use force.

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

Targeting only fighting soldiers would be the "Knights" way. But why do you think we have the problem of assymetric warfare? Because often one side is technologically so superior you cant do anything else. Fighting a remote controlled drone with an AK 47 is quite useless.

>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<

I f life is impossible, you WILL kill people. beside that, AFAIK, deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure is a warcrime.

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

As in a general strike? Don't see anything wrong with that.

>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<

Well, we germans killed lots of artisans for doing that, but than, they are praised as heros now.

>the latter causes damage and you could be prosecuted, but its non violent It causes massive problems, is it still terrorism
Click to expand...
<

I'm sure if it really causes any trouble, it will be declared terrorism.
 
Re: What is terrorism? 2

I "define" terrorism as a form of combat you have real problems dealing with.
If you are a member of the PLO (for example in Lebanon), to you terrorism is a US battleship twelve miles of shore shooting sixteen inch shells 10 miles deep into what you consider important. Or an Israeli jet dropping a bomb from 8,000 feet on the same target. You have no way of combating a powerful military so, to you that is terrorism.
If you have 'just' an AK-47 and maybe you friend (down the block) has a RPG... your organization will use forms of combat that powerful armies or air forces can not combat. Whether it is a nuclear weapon wiping out civilians a city or your friends hijack a few airliners and fly them into buildings killing thousands of people.... it is a form of combat where those killed did know they were involved in a combat situation. Combat of any type is extremely bad for civilians caught up in it. So, leaving a bomb to kill the civilians of your opponent's homeland does not seem any worst than what your people suffer. You lost friends and relatives so placing a bomb at a bus stop and kill some of your opponent's civilians seems no worst than what you have endured. Tit for tat, just that simple.
Sometimes the hatred builds because a powerful country uses money to buy off your nation's leaders, and you plus your fellow citizens suffer while big companies elsewhere get richer.
Finding some people who are so upset or depressed about your surroundings situations that they are willing to die while killing civilians of your opponent's homeland... is not really that difficult!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top