What exactly is terrorism?

Don't give terrorists the same legitimacy as nation states.

from JoeUser Forums

Terrorism, by definition, is the act of performing random acts of violence towards a civilian population for the express purpose of creating fear and uncertainty and is performed by persons with no definitive origin.

Al Qaeda wasn't targeting some person in the world trade center. They were simply murdering as many people as they could in the most arbitrary way to instill fear and panic amongst their enemies.

Moreover, if a military aircraft from country X wrongly bombs a building full of civilians in country Z then country Z has many options available to them.

Consider how much simpler things would be if the WTC had been attacked by say the government of Iran or some other nation state.

What's nice about nation states is that they are much easier to be held accountable.

The minute you give terrorists the same legitimacy as the governments of nation states you might as well throw up your hands and argue that criminals have their own legitimacy as well. Terrorists are just another form of violent criminal who have simply passed a threshold beyond what can be dealt with by civilian police forces effectively.

politics
10,522 views 35 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Terrorism, by definition, is the act of performing random acts of violence towards a civilian population for the express purpose of creating fear and uncertainty and is performed by persons with no definitive origin.

a more accurate (and accepted) definition is the one you'll find in dictionaries. terrorism is use of violence (threats or acts of violence) by individuals or organized groups as coercion or intimidation (against a government or population) to achieve political goals. terrorism is therefore not random in intent (although the acts may victimize randomly) nor limited to civilians. im not sure what the no definitive origin thing means but since the point is achieving a goal, its rare that terroristic acts go unclaimed.

so what?

theres no justification for political extortion or serial assualt/murder (which is what you seem to be actually describing) leaving out the political intent aspect muddles the issue making it more difficult to understand or arrive at a solution.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just after the 9/11, french magazines tryied and failled to give a definition of terrorism. It's like there is more than one hundred definition in the world.
Because the dictionnary seems always a reference point or start to debat for people, it's always a wrong begining.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just after the 9/11, french magazines tryied and failled to give a definition of terrorism. It's like there is more than one hundred definition in the world.
Because the dictionnary seems always a reference point or start to debat for people, it's always a wrong begining.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
i checked four dictionaries, all of which had pretty much the same wording.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Terrorism, by definition, is the act of performing random acts of violence towards a civilian population for the express purpose of creating fear and uncertainty and is performed by persons with no definitive origin."

Then an occupying force would also be terrorists ?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
If they perform random acts of violence towards civilians? Then yes, those would be considered terror acts in my book. My Lai? Terror... Dresden? Terror. Hiroshima? Terror. Anything yet in Iraq? Not yet.... Though Abu Ghraib wanted to start closing the gap, fortunately we squashed that. Yes *we* squashed it, American papers broke that story, American investigators stopped, and the American system is fixing it. Get that from Osama or Arafat. 
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
What about Israel, or rather Ariel Sharon and his people ?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then an occupying force would also be terrorists ?


Occupying forces have a definite orgin.

Governments are public entities that can be held accountable for their actions. Terrorist groups are anonymous entities that generally avoid accountability for their actions.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
So then I hope after this everyone agrees that when the administration refers to the opposition forces in iraq are "terrorists and thugs" is pretty poor.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
You've lost me on the definite origin bit. Eta has an origin in the Basque country, the IRA in Ireland, the ANC in South Africa, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the KLA in Kosovo...I could go on, but you get my point. All of these groups have definite origin and all are/were terrorist organizations.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Origin as in a nation state responsible to a government.

Kingbee - your definition and mine are essentially the same. Let's not get into a debate over semantics. Terrorist acts do have an end goal but their application of violence is arbitrary in the sense that they're not trying to kill any particular person typically but rather cause as much mayhem and destruction as possible.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Governments are public entities that can be held accountable for their actions. Terrorist groups are anonymous entities that generally avoid accountability for their actions.

very few terrorist 'missions' go unproclaimed by the perpetrators.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Origin as in a nation state responsible to a government.

how should we classify a nation-state which engages in or funds violent intervention that anticipates inflicting civilian casualties in the tens or hundreds or thousands of thousands with the express purpose of destabilizing and/or overthrowing the elected government of another sovereign nation with which it is not officially at war?

more to the point, if the target nation and its people are unable to prevent such intervention because it/they are significantly smaller and lack the resources to do so, are its citizens any less terrorized--or less deserving of justice--because their deaths and losses arent the consequence of a single coordinated attack?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's not get into a debate over semantics

that wasnt my intention. the title proposes to explain terrorism exactly. i was suggesting a more precise focus might be useful in that regard.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wouldn't call those groups fighting the U.S. troops in Iraq terrorists, but I would call the group responsible for the beheading of Berg terrorists.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
anyway, things like the Lockerbie bombing (among others) are usually thought of as terrorism but doesn't meet the definition here.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
the Lockerbie bombing (among others) are usually thought of as terrorism

actually lockerbie is different in ways that initially conform to draginol's definition. without the trail of evidence that linked the bombing to libya, it could have as easily been explained as insurance fraud, a crank who lost his shirt by investing in pan-am stock or just an act of mass murder for its own sake.

once the libyan connection was established, there was a rationale (revenge) however skewed it may seem. since libya, in effect, entered a nolo plea and paid reparations, it was the act of a specific nation-state.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #6 By: Marten Langbraten - 5/28/2004 4:00:47 AM
...Then an occupying force would also be terrorists ?



Reply #7 By: greywar - 5/28/2004 4:33:33 AM
If they perform random acts of violence towards civilians? Then yes, those would be considered terror acts in my book. My Lai? Terror... Dresden? Terror. Hiroshima? Terror...



Reply #8 By: Marten Langbraten - 5/28/2004 4:43:01 AM
What about Israel, or rather Ariel Sharon and his people ?


The key here has to be the link to the nation/state. Terrorists operate without "bona fides" of being a nation. They have no accountability on the world stage. When a nation commits an act of "terror", the world can choose to hold them accountable in terms of diplomatic, military, and economic means.

So what about "Freedom Fighters"? When does a group stop being a "Terrorist" and start being a "Revolutionist"? Well, pragmatically, when they win. This is more than simply a point of view designation. When they successfully take control of the government, they assume the responsibility and accountability of a sovereign government. To be sure, the world may remember and choose to hold them to account for the means used to achieve that power. But to move forward, they now have to "play by the rules" of international diplomacy, or suffer the consequences on the world stage.

So, when a nation commits an act that is deplorable and "terroristic", it is not terrorism. It may be many bad things, but it is still something different than a group of private individuals that commit crimes to achieve a political effect.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry if I over quoted in the last post. I saw that discussion at work earlier today, and I didn't have a chance to comment until now.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
So lets agree that act of terrorism can be performed by both a terrorist group and a nation.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
"! terrorism is use of violence (threats or acts of violence) by individuals or organized groups as coercion or intimidation (against a government or population) to achieve political goals. terrorism is therefore not random in intent (although the acts may victimize randomly) nor limited to civilians"

The church says "youre going to hell if you do not........" thats a threat !And it aplys to all those who do not...also goverments..So.....the church is a terrorist
organisation. ;>
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
.....the church is a terrorist organisation

most qualify
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Indeed. Anything or anybody with rules and punishments for those rules, even supernatural ones, practices terrorism... Peace Corps is evil!