Terrorists.

THIS IS A FUN, ROBUST, DEBATE. DON'T TAKE IT TOO SERIOUSLY.

I'd be interested to know what *you* think a terrorist is. I don't want dictionary definitions or URLs, I can find those myself. I want to know *your thoughts*.

If your definition of terrorist would prevent you from doing whatever you would do if your country got invaded by a hostile power then you lose, thanks for playing, try again.

Have at it, but remember: THIS IS JUST FOR FUN.

Got that?

The Cardinals are terrorists. Go Cubbies.

There are 3 variations of Terrorists:

The Class 1 Terrorist - A diabolic killing machine forged in the fires of hell from pure evil and unintelligible dogma, programmed to kill freedom and freedom's enjoyers, without any determinable cause other than his/her pure evilness.

The Class 2 Terrorist - A diabolic killing machine forged in the fires of hell from pure evil and unintelligible dogma, programmed to kill Islam and Islams's enjoyers, without any determinable cause other than his/her pure evilness.

The Class 3 Terrorist- Anyone who
a) disputes the definition of a Class 1 or 2 Terrorist (dependant upon geographical location) on anypoint and/or
b) believes that there should be limits, restricitons or discernment in the liquidation of suspect Class 1 or 2 Terrorists


[Edited on Sep 06, 2004 by Mr_Black]

Go on, have a go, it's just a bit of fun.

I love you, Demetrius Z.

The Philadelphia Parking Authority are terrorists.

I hope they all die of gonorrea.

Homeless People are terrorists

Stop bothering me for money, food, handjobs

No one wants to define terrorist?

God is a terrorist, Kill him.

Terrorists...

mmm...fun and robust.

Someone who uses violence or the threat of violence in a public attempt at forwarding his/her/their goals, or to exact revenge on those who oppose said goals. Does not include violence for the sake of violence (ie. serial murders, mass murders without a reason beyond mental instability) This is my definition. I know it could include alot of things that you wouldn't normally think of as terroristic activity. Normally, for some strange reason, it is aimed more at those whose goals are religiously oriented, but why? Does it matter? If it's just for money, isn't that enough? Isn't robbing a bank, and shooting someone as an example or holding the threat of death over the bank tellers heads terrorism? Sure it is. War is not included of course. It never is. War is always alright, even if it's in revenge, or serves no purpose, scares a shit load of people, kills the innocent, wasn't justified, etc. Hell, war is just good fucking business. Especially if you can make money, and get rid of a failed business partner all at once. Oh, and it IS terrorism if the other side in a war actually attacks you during said war. It's NOT terrorism if the terror arises from actions more than one level deep. So, if the khurds get gassed by someone, the person who does the gassing is a terrorist, but not the ones who gave him the chemicals. Cuz hey, biological weapons don't kill people, insane megalomaniacal dictators do. Or maybe it's all about media support. If more than two major media outlets support your actions publically, then it must be okay, and therefore not terrorism. Allright, fuck it. Terrorist = Everyone But Me. There, now I'm living in complete and utter fear. Terrorists, dolphins, the colorblind... they are all out to get me!

I'm grateful that someone has finally had a go.

But your definition would make many people terrorists if their country was invaded, so I guess it fails my test in my first post.

This is an interesting point. How many people have died as a result of terrorist action over the past ten years, versus how many people have died at the hands of criminals over the past ten years?
I'm curious to know the costs involved too. But then I guess without robberies all those insurance loss adjusters would be out of work.

Hehe.

That's just it. The definition is pointless. Unless you throw in religion, the definition will always point back at you somehow. And if you do throw in religion, how deep do you go. Does the terrorist have to actually vocalise said beliefs while commiting the acts, or can it be a hidden agenda? IE. abortion clinic bombings are terroristic activities, designed to instill fear for furthering goals, But what about shock and awe? Wasn't that supposed to instill terror in our enemies, and make them turn tail? Didn't lots of people die that weren't our enemies? Aren't we (the US) a religious country? Our president would like to think so, and talks about it publicly quite a bit. Sooooo...... where is the line drawn. If you ask me, none of it is good. If Bin Laden had his own country, and declared war, and attacked military installations, and 'accidentaly' hit some buildings with missiles, it would be war I suppose. The end result is the same... Too many dead in the name of religion and money.

I've been thinking about this lately, so here's my go at it:

Someone who rejects the notion that direct confrontation with military, social or political opponents is feasible by any accepted means, including the tactics of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, and who as a result utilizes tactics that are decentralized, providing no coherent point for counterattack, and designed to demonstrate levels of violence, inhumanity and sadism that are calculated to be either an unacceptable risk by the opponent, and/or of such severity that, if they occur, they will result in the elimination of the opponent by its own supporters.

That's the best I can come up with for now.

Do you really need religeon in there?

Many IRA members are catholic , but that doesn't make 'the Irish problem' a religeous war.

I'm suprised that the anti's are allowed to go that far with their protests.

I'm thinking about this a bit more before I reply to it.

I certainly wouldn't use the term terrorist in the same paragraph as "Just for fun".

One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter as they say. I don’t think there's ever a place for achieving any political or religious end through violence.

Extremism in any capacity is for fools. I'm tried of brainwashed, tunnel-visioned fanatics taking their shit out on innocent people...which now includes women and children.

It never works. When was the last time a terrorist achieved their aim through 'terror'?

It’s wrong to call terrorists cowards, as they are often willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. I wouldn’t stop at labeling them cunts though.


[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 by hoisin]

See, that's pretty good, but imagine a group that only attacks military targets using, say, suicide bombers. Would they be terrorists?

What happens if they attack military targets, and political targets?

What happens if the political targets *are* military. For example, General Pervez MUSHARRAF in Pakistan?

I think Infra has a good grasp of it.

I'm not sure that I would always consider suicide bombers to be terrorists. I'm not sure that the restriction to political/military targets would change it either way, either. (I added the political and social to the list because I think that the key element in defining terrorism is the production of a kind of ethical paralysis in the target, or disruption and inwardly-directed counterreaction in its supporters; it can be directed at any group or structure.)

For me, what separates terrorism from other forms of violence is that terrorist tactics seem to specifically target human revulsion and horror, counting on the opposition to be unwilling to accept its costs above a certain level of atrocity. It banks on the idea that there are certain things that the opponent or its supporters simply cannot stomach and will not allow.

...because it is a Ghod given right to be able to drive what you like, where you like, how you like, and then park it wherever you like, and fuck other people, fuck them up the arse, especially the ones who own the land that you choose to park on, the fucking fuckers?

terrorist: one who uses violence

a) against noncombatants
b) as a member of an organization
c) where that organization is broadly speaking political

We need (a) so that we don't have to call legally acting soldiers terrorists, (b) so that we don't have to call Ted Bundy a terrorist, and (c) so the we don't have to call the mob terrorists.

Not that there is nothing wrong with legal military action, serial murder, and sending folks off to sleep with the fishes. That stuff is really awful, most of the time at least. But its not wrong because its terrorism; terrorism is a different sort of beast.

my mom used to call me a terrorist when I was a little kid.

Isn't carpet bombing 'violence against non combatants'?

How about landmines?

So far, this is the best one I've seen, but there's a bunch of stuff on the edge military action that I'm not sure about.

Yeah, those are hard cases. I'm inclined to deal with them by drawing a distinction between intended effects and side effects. So, when a soldier plants a landmine, he intends for that land mine to blow up an enemy combatant if it blows up anybody at all. Of course the land mine might blow up a civilian as a side effect. But for the purposes of whether an act of violence counts as an act of terrorism, side effects don't matter. What matters is whether the act is intended to hurt combatants or noncombatants. Land mines are intended to hurt combatants, so planting them does not count as terrorism.

Of course it is possible, probably well nigh actual, that in some cases soldiers have planted land mines with the intent of blowing up civilians. In that case the soldiers count as terrorists.

Similarly with carpet bombing. The British carpet bombed German cities during WWII, resulting in 300,000 deaths and 780,000 serious injuries. Most of these deaths and injuries were civilian. Now at the beginning of the carpet bombing campaign, in 1940, the british Bomber Command was explicitly forbidden from aiming indiscriminately. Instead they were orderd to aim at military targets like munitions factories and such. One of the purposes of that order was to keep from engaging in terrorism.

Later in the campaign, in 1942, the orders for Bomber Command were changed. They were ordered to aim at built up civilian areas! Peaceniks of the world were thoroughly infuriated. And, in fact, the Bomber Campaign has come to be called the 'terror bombing' of German cities.

So, to make that long story short, this view that what makes an act terrorist is who it is aimed at (as opposed to who it actually hits) serves to deal with the land mine and carpet bombing cases.

i've heard that ninjas are terrorists.