What defines a "terrorist?"

[White Wolf]

This is a question I've been debating about with friends for a while, I thought it'd be interesting to get a wider range of opinions, so wanted to throw it out to all you guys to argue amongst ourselves :)

I'll explain what prompted the question in my head. I'm doing a spot of background research for a story I want to start to write, set up in Belfast in Northern Ireland, and one important statistic I got was the amount of people killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) during the Northern Irish Troubles. It clocks in at just a shade under 2,100 people - both legitimate military and paramilitary targets, and civilians. Now, compare this figure with the amount of people (military-aged males as well as civilians) who have been killed in the US Drone campaign in Yemen and Pakistan (just over 3,500 I believe), and a few questions have to be asked. What exactly makes a military or paramilitary group terrorists? If it's as simple as state sponsorship (i.e. the Republic of Ireland did not officially endorse or support the Provisional IRA during its campaign; whereas the Predator Drone strikes are the official policy of the White House) then the word probably needs to be wiped from all intelligent political discourse forever more.

What do people think? What separates a terrorist from a freedom fighter? I'm interested to hear some ideas!

[HairyHeretic]

What separates a terrorist from a freedom fighter?

Whether or not they share your viewpoint and ideology.

[White Wolf]

Whether or not they share your viewpoint and ideology.

Hahaha...that is probably it, yeah -.-'

[Moraline]

I think anyone that specifically targets non-strategic civilians is a terrorist.

IE: There is a significant difference between blowing up a bomb next to a navy ship as opposes to setting one off in the middle of a civilian street market or bus.

I guess what I'm saying is there is a difference is between military targets and civilians.
Some civilians can be considered military targets as well but it's clear that 2 children playing on the swings in a school yard are not military targets.

[Hemingway]

There's an excellent quote by Noam Chomsky on the subject.

One is the fact that terrorism works. It doesn't fail. It works. Violence usually works. That's world history. Secondly, it's a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it's primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn't count as terror. Now that's close to universal. I can't think of a historical exception; even the worst mass murderers view the world that way. So take the Nazis. They weren't carrying out terror in occupied Europe. They were protecting the local population from the terrorisms of the partisans. And like other resistance movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis were carrying out counter terror.

I think, at the risk of sounding insensitive, that one would have to be fairly ignorant of reality not to see that there's very little difference - not least morally - between what is being done by the US and its allies in certain places, and by the forces labeled by those same people as terrorists.

I think anyone that specifically targets non-strategic civilians is a terrorist.

It's a good thing you brought this up, because it highlights an essential problem with terrorism: The term has no clearly defined and universal meaning. It means whatever who is using it wants it to mean. Chomsky, in the above quote, bases his assesment on the following definition: "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." Which obviously makes no reference to civilians at all, and the deliberate targeting of civilians isn't a necessary part of it at all.

Which in essence means that world powers, the ones with the power to influence the actual discourse on terrorism, where the US has something like a hegemony, can apply whichever definition they like, when they like. It means that if a US drone strike kills a dozen civilians, or Israel uses mortars with white phosphorous, it's not terrorism because, after all, they were not 'deliberately' targeted. On the other hand, if a 'terrorist' carries out some attack that does not target civilians, then you apply a different definition, and it's still terrorism. Nevermind that under the same definition, the US and Israeli examples noted earlier are textbook cases.

[White Wolf]

What Hemingway said above is basically what I've come to believe, studying international politics and living in Ireland and the UK most of my life. Terrorism is a propaganda term, and nothing more. It is used by the pre-eminent power in a given context to vilify their enemies and turn public opinion against them. Again, using the tired old example that is closest to home for me, I'm going to drudge up the Troubles to reference my point:

Most people in the western world would consider the Provisional IRA as being terrorists. However, a British Army report finalised in 2007, summing up the experiences and lessons of the UK in Northern Ireland, went on record describing the Provisionals as professional, well-trained and determined fighters (in comparison with other Irish paramilitaries, who they described as little more than armed thugs). In other words the British Army were giving the nod to the IRA as being a legitimate fighting force - though the label of "terrorist" has stuck.

I guess the word "terrorist" is simply indicative of the overall state of political discourse in the western world; all we get from our political leaders and media outlets are talking points, hyperbole, half-truths and voter-friendly ideas. Never the true story, or the various facets of the true story.

[Moraline]

It seems to me in Chomsky's quote that he is defining every military campaign as an act of terror that gets redefined based on the victor (ie the strong). However, I think it only appears that way because the quote is taken out of context. In that quote he is defining the argument that the weak use terrorism and not the strong. He's then explaining how that is a wrong assumption.

Even Chomsky admits that violence is something that needs to be done to defeat a greater evil. So is it terrorism then when a violent act is committed to remove a greater evil and who gets to define that greater evil?

It's easy for us to sit by with media biased all around us and say that the US are committing acts of terrorism in foreign lands.

I choose to define terrorism on an individual basis (attack by attack). I use the micro-sample of a single act of terrorism to define it because I can see with clarity what the result is.

Therefore I define terrorism as any violent act committed against a non-military/strategic civilian because I can see with absolute clarity that there is no need for that person(s) to have been a target. Therefore it is an act of terrorism and to me it can't possibly be justified as an act of war unless the target is is proven to be something other then a purely non-strategic civilian.

[Callie Del Noire]

It's a difficult and hard point.

It could be argued that some of our own American ancestors who acted in the Revolutionary War could be called terrorists. Some, not all, acted against civilian supporters of the English. Who could be argued AT THAT TIME, were the legal authorities.

To me, there is a critical point to be considered. Are you fighting the authorities and trying to instigate change.. or are you trying to force YOUR change by force of arms and actions that will make all that don't support you fear you?

My first memory of terrorism was on January 7th, 1979. I was getting up after one particularly AWFUL flight to the Republic of Ireland. I had just slept 18 hours (jet lag + air sickness medicine is not a good thing for a 9 year old) and turned on the TV to be greeted by a car bombing that involved the death of a family. Not for any reason beyond the fact that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Terrorism is the determination that you are going to have your way and that anyone who might disagree with you must be crushed. If that means killing a child (or a dozen) because they don't fit in your world.. so be it. No cost, no act, is too high for you to get your due.

To me..that is terrorism.. the willingness to do anything...ANYTHING ..to achieve their goals.. even if by so so you taint and warp it.

[White Wolf]

My first memory of terrorism was on January 7th, 1979. I was getting up after one particularly AWFUL flight to the Republic of Ireland. I had just slept 18 hours (jet lag + air sickness medicine is not a good thing for a 9 year old) and turned on the TV to be greeted by a car bombing that involved the death of a family. Not for any reason beyond the fact that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The problem with trying to sort out the Irish example is that, as well as about 4 or 5 different factors that influenced the troubles, what you ultimately have is two diametrically opposed peoples in Northern Ireland (Unionsts and Nationalists, which can loosely - but not always! - be also sorted into Protestant and Catholic camps) who both have an equal and utterly incompatible legitimacy on their claim to nationhood. Ireland legally has as much right to be a united republic as Northern Ireland does to remain a part of the United Kingdom. So, to many Nationalists, the IRA is a legitimate army, while the UVF or even the British army itself are terrorists. To many Unionists, the British Army or even the UVF represents the legitimate army (the UVF began its existence, in 1912, as the legitimate defence force of the province of Ulster) while the IRA are terrorists. This goes back to the point, I guess, that a terrorist is only a terrorist if he isn't fighting for YOUR cause.

[Callie Del Noire]

The problem with trying to sort out the Irish example is that, as well as about 4 or 5 different factors that influenced the troubles, what you ultimately have is two diametrically opposed peoples in Northern Ireland (Unionsts and Nationalists, which can loosely - but not always! - be also sorted into Protestant and Catholic camps) who both have an equal and utterly incompatible legitimacy on their claim to nationhood. Ireland legally has as much right to be a united republic as Northern Ireland does to remain a part of the United Kingdom. So, to many Nationalists, the IRA is a legitimate army, while the UVF or even the British army itself are terrorists. To many Unionists, the British Army or even the UVF represents the legitimate army (the UVF began its existence, in 1912, as the legitimate defence force of the province of Ulster) while the IRA are terrorists. This goes back to the point, I guess, that a terrorist is only a terrorist if he isn't fighting for YOUR cause.

Did I say it was BBC/RTE Coverage of the 'Troubles'? It wasn't. (That day)

It could have been. But that moment it wasn't. It was either a German or Italian group on the continent.

The next day I got to see the fun of Ian Paisely talking on TV, riots in Londonderry, a discussion of the bombing of Lord Montbatten's boat the summer before.

Did I learn about terrorism by watching the Troubles? Yes. It wasn't my first exposure though.

Tell me this though LittleWhiteWolfy. What does a mixed religion couple have to do with Nationalistic Determination? That was one event I recall clearly. And BOTH sides have engaged in criminal actions, assassinations and bombings of such 'vital government' places such as schools. There are NO clean hands in the Irish 'issue'.

When you resort to bombing schools, mining public roads outside your 'country' and killing tourists for being 'in the wrong place at the wrong time', you lose a lot of standign with me.

[Hemingway]

It seems to me in Chomsky's quote that he is defining every military campaign as an act of terror that gets redefined based on the victor (ie the strong). However, I think it only appears that way because the quote is taken out of context. In that quote he is defining the argument that the weak use terrorism and not the strong. He's then explaining how that is a wrong assumption.

The definition, according to the book the quote is taken from, comes from a US Army pamphlet. I can't find it on any US Army website, but if you're curious, it's supposed to be taken from TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37. It isn't Chomsky's definition, in other words. Chomsky also goes on to explain why the definition is unacceptable from an official point of view. A quote from the same talk the other quote was taken from:

But there’s a problem. If you use the official definition of terrorism in the comprehensive treaty you are going to get completely the wrong results. So that can’t be done. In fact, it is even worse than that. If you take a look at the definition of Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy you find that it is a very close paraphrase of what I just read. In fact, Low Intensity Conflict is just another name for terrorism. That’s why all countries, as far as I know, call whatever horrendous acts they are carrying out, counter terrorism. We happen to call it Counter Insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict. So that’s a serious problem. You can’t use the actual definitions. You’ve got to carefully find a definition that doesn’t have all the wrong consequences.

It's easy for us to sit by with media biased all around us and say that the US are committing acts of terrorism in foreign lands.

I choose to define terrorism on an individual basis (attack by attack). I use the micro-sample of a single act of terrorism to define it because I can see with clarity what the result is.

Therefore I define terrorism as any violent act committed against a non-military/strategic civilian because I can see with absolute clarity that there is no need for that person(s) to have been a target. Therefore it is an act of terrorism and to me it can't possibly be justified as an act of war unless the target is is proven to be something other then a purely non-strategic civilian.

A definition like this has three possible implications: Either the US is guilty of terrorism, or those labeled terrorists are not, or the US is justified in killing civilians as the cost of waging war while their enemies are not. I can't see any others.

I'm personally not compelled by definitions of terrorism that emphasize intent. It was the intent of some organization to kill civilians, therefore it's wrong. It was not the intent of the US to kill civilians, therefore it's not wrong. I'm not convinced, because it seems to me that whether you intended to create terror, or it simply happens as a by-product of what you're doing, it's still the tactic you use. It's not necessary for the US to use drone strikes to assassinate their targets, murdering civilians in the process. It also isn't their right to do so within the borders of another sovereign state, but that's a whole other matter.

What about the Blackwater Baghdad shootings? If similar acts had been carried out by a group affiliated with another government, there is no way it would not have been labeled a terrorist attack. Armed mercenaries in the employ of an occupying state gunning down civilians in, say, downtown Manhattan? It's possible there wasn't a deliberate plot to create a situation like that - that there wasn't a shadowy conspiracy instructing the Blackwater people to do as they did. But I'm not convinced that matters to most of the parties involved.

Even Chomsky admits that violence is something that needs to be done to defeat a greater evil. So is it terrorism then when a violent act is committed to remove a greater evil and who gets to define that greater evil?

I'm approaching the limit of how much I feel I can subject people to my own thoughts in one post, so in short: I think the question is based on a misunderstanding of the definition, but in short, yes. Terrorism is still terrorism if it's used against a 'greater evil'.

[Chris Brady]

I think anyone that specifically targets non-strategic civilians is a terrorist.

To expand on this, the main reason that they attack non-military targets is to create fear and terror (hence the name), which is actually the main difference between 'real' freedom fighters and cowards.

The French in World War 2 fighting back in France taking on German soldiers, to kick them out of France, those were Freedom Fighters.  Car bombs in Beirut, Lebanon in front of schools, or restaurants, to strike fear for some political goal, that's Terrorism. 

It's not quite that black and white, but those are the main differences, that I've come to see.

[White Wolf]

To expand on this, the main reason that they attack non-military targets is to create fear and terror (hence the name), which is actually the main difference between 'real' freedom fighters and cowards.

The French in World War 2 fighting back in France taking on German soldiers, to kick them out of France, those were Freedom Fighters.  Car bombs in Beirut, Lebanon in front of schools, or restaurants, to strike fear for some political goal, that's Terrorism. 

It's not quite that black and white, but those are the main differences, that I've come to see.

Carbombs in front of schools etc. in places like Lebanon, Iraq or Northern Ireland is indicative of an entirely other issue though: sectarian warfare. Religious hatred and the idea that other, heretical sects must be wiped out. That isn't so much trying to instil "terror" in a population to reach specific political goals; it IS the political goal. They don't want to inspire fear in people; they want to wipe those people out. But is that "terrorism?" Or is it something else? Sectarianism?

[gaggedLouise]

Whether or not they share your viewpoint and ideology.

More or less yes. "My eight-year old niece understands that the key characters in the first Star Wars trilogy are terrorists" as someone put it - terrorists in the eyes of the Emperor and his people.

I think anyone that specifically targets non-strategic civilians is a terrorist.

IE: There is a significant difference between blowing up a bomb next to a navy ship as opposes to setting one off in the middle of a civilian street market or bus.

I guess what I'm saying is there is a difference is between military targets and civilians.
Some civilians can be considered military targets as well but it's clear that 2 children playing on the swings in a school yard are not military targets.

The incendiary bombing of Dresden by British and American aircraft in early 1945 would have counted as a war crime, and an act of terror warfare, if it hadn't been committed by the side that was going to win the war in a few months.  Strategically, even in terms of local tactics, it was next to 98% meaningless and it also snuffed out many thousands of civilian refugees (many of whom were Poles and Czechs, not Germans) who had flocked to the city recently, trying to escape the advance of the Russian troops through Poland.

Dresden was, at best, a railway hub of some importance (and a temporary centre of administration - some mostly civilian administration had been moved there from other places in the lands surrounding it), but it would have been much more effective to bomb the railway lines some way outside of the city. Actually the main railway station suffered fairly limited damage, while lots of residential areas and central parts of the city were engulfed in bombs and flames. Some factories were hit, but no less an authority than Albert Speer stated, when he was interviewed in jail after the Nuremberg trials, that recovery of the industrial capacity had been rapid

Unfortunately this is not unique, even if it's one of the most notorious examples. Imagine a carpet bombing of Pittsburgh or Quebec by a superior foe and you'll get the idea.

[Neysha]

This is a question I've been debating about with friends for a while, I thought it'd be interesting to get a wider range of opinions, so wanted to throw it out to all you guys to argue amongst ourselves :)

What do people think? What separates a terrorist from a freedom fighter? I'm interested to hear some ideas!

I like the United Nations definition in one of their many useless resolutions:

Recalls that criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, and all other acts which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature, and calls upon all States to prevent such acts and, if not prevented, to ensure that such acts are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature;

But the State Department has a decent one since most of the int'l ones pertain to intimidation of the population.

the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

[Oniya]

So, by the State Department's definition, it is impossible for a nation to commit terrorism?  I'm noting the specific phrase 'subnational groups', which I assume means 'smaller than a nation'.  (Whatever that means.  The entire nation of Luxembourg is smaller than the state of Rhode Island.)

[gaggedLouise]

The UN definition especially, but also the US State Dept. one, would have had many resistance organizations during WW2 or guerrilla fronts in Africa who were opposing colonial powers (Britain, France) or later rogue dictators (such as Idi Amin or Mobutu) - by these definitions, those organizations would have been classed as terrorists. Even if we all see their wider aims as legitimate.

The very nature of a resistance movement that has to work clandestinely and in a spread-out structure, often without a hard, rigorous leadership on all points, and without means of formal accountability up and down the lines (you stick with the people you trust and you generally follow orders without questions, or you're out, possibly dead) means there's an inherent risk of people settling private scores and dressing it up as "execution of snitches and enemy collaborators". Or raping women that are "of the enemy" or whose partners/husbands have been running errands for the enemy. After the victory that's all swept under the rug. There was a lot of all that in '44-45 in occupied France, especially after D-Day, in Spain during the civil war, on the counts of both sides, and in Central America in the 1980s, places like Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua (especially by the Contras and their henchmen). A lot of crappy and indefensible acts - but surely the work of the French Resistance and the Spanish Republican units was, as a whole, morally legitimate and very much needed?

It's no coincidence either that both Reagan and Thatcher classed the ANC, and Nelson Mandela, as terrorists. Yes, there were some unsavoury acts going on, in open attacks or more shady personal dealings - like the infamous "necklace killings" - but what the ANC engaged in was 95% an open and justified struggle against an evil system. And in tandem with that, the building of a civil society and civic cohesion in regions which the masters of the apartheid system wanted to keep down in a sea of filth.

[Hemingway]

So, by the State Department's definition, it is impossible for a nation to commit terrorism?  I'm noting the specific phrase 'subnational groups', which I assume means 'smaller than a nation'.  (Whatever that means.  The entire nation of Luxembourg is smaller than the state of Rhode Island.)

I love these word games our governments ( and others! ) play. I find it endlessly fascinating how languages is used and abused to justify and to condemn. It's really horrible, but I have a very real fascination with language, and this is very much part of it.

It makes me wonder about a few things. Would Academi ( formerly Xe, formerly Blackwater - they did it again! ) be classified as subnational? Would Hamas? With regards to the former, my answer would be 'yes', and with the latter 'no'. But, of course, that would mean that a company employed by the US government ( maybe that means they're not subnational? I'd hope not - for the sake of the US ) could be labeled terrorist, while an organization they already label as terrorist, couldn't. In the end, it doesn't really matter - the US has something of a hegemony on labeling people as terrorist, so maybe they should just come out and say it as it is: terrorists are whoever we say are terrorists - subject to change without notice.

[Shjade]

What separates a terrorist from a freedom fighter?

This is a meaningless question. Terrorism is a methodology; freedom fighting is a motivation. Freedom fighters might employ terrorism to achieve their goals, or they might not. Terror is certainly not always brought about for purposes of achieving freedom. They aren't comparable terms.

[Oniya]

maybe they should just come out and say it as it is: terrorists are whoever we say are terrorists - subject to change without notice.

I think this sums it up very succinctly.  There's a line in the movie/musical 1776 where Ben Franklin says 'A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal.'

[gaggedLouise]

This is a meaningless question. Terrorism is a methodology; freedom fighting is a motivation. Freedom fighters might employ terrorism to achieve their goals, or they might not. Terror is certainly not always brought about for purposes of achieving freedom. They aren't comparable terms.

No, but sometimes terrorism, state terror bombing, random acts of reprisal or the like are used under the banner of fighting for freedom. The Stern Gang, formed by Israeli jews who wanted to create the best possible frame (from their point of view, that is:  a position of strength and no place for compromises worked out at the negotiations table) for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, kept up a fighting/terror effort in the 1940s and up to 1948. They were effectively a band of professional assassins and rogue soldiers acting against civilians and politicians. It included Yitzhak Shamir, later to become prime minister of Israel. Their best-known deeds included high profile assassinations and the capture of an entire Arab village at Deir Yassin; the inhabitants were killed - men, women and children - and the women first raped. The body count of that attack is controversial, Arab sources say 254 dead, the Israelis say about half that figure and deny rapes.

The Irgun group, from which the Stern Gang had split off, included Menachem Begin. He coordinated their bombing of the British military and civilian headquarters for Palestine at the King David Hotel, Jerusalem, in July 1946. 91 people were killed, both British, Jews and Arabs, some of them civilians. At the time, Irgun were aligned with the Hebrew Resistance movement. They claimed a warning had been sent shortly before the bombing, whether there had been one is unknown.

There are many grim episodes of this kind, and not just in the Middle East.

[Dashenka]

Having witnessed the Moscow subway bombings from a bit too close, I'd say the definition of a terrorist is being Chechan.

[kylie]

Having witnessed the Moscow subway bombings from a bit too close, I'd say the definition of a terrorist is being Chechan.

          That only works until you find the odd person you didn't expect (Russian, whatever) doing the same sort of stuff.  This was a bit of a shock when it happened with Oklahoma City in the US...  And some people now, though it has been some time since that particular incident, overlook the possibility of "domestic" (and white, Christian, etc.) terrorism quite regularly.

         

[kylie]

          I don't think I'm surprising many people here by saying it, but...  There are actions you can more or less quantify, there are intentions that maybe you can or maybe not in any given case (e.g. could someone fighting for freedom also enjoy causing terror?  I don't see why not, beyond the potential utility of causing it)...  And then there are labels people are going to toss around anyway.

           So we can fuss about what "should" be called terrorism, but in fact it seems that people often go on much as they do with the term "Nazi."  Which is to say, there are multiple meanings for the label (or maybe, epithet?) too. 

Sometimes -- usually when it's directed at "outsiders" that one suspects their group could afford to actually target at minimal or acceptable cost -- it actually means, "That is something completely intolerable and we should attack them or somehow take action to convince them to stop it." 

However, on other occasions, it is used (whether domestically or internationally) as a tool of political rhetoric meaning, "I really dislike your point of view and I don't think I could bear it if people take you seriously so I'm calling it this and hoping it somehow serves to isolate you when I do -- even if I can't quite see myself in a position to actually bomb you [or perhaps even to have you jailed, though this is sometimes actually raised as a suggestion with this form].  (There are even tentative hints of this with Washington politicians recently trying to see who can get the last word on who is "holding the country for ransom," or if you prefer, perhaps even in comparing certain factions/parties directly to the KKK, or whatever historical militant group reference is in fashion.)

            Whatever you think of what actions should be called terrorism (or even if maybe none), the labels are still there.
 

[Toral Stimins]

In my view there is a very fine line between terrorist and freedom fighter. President Assad from Syria will call the opposition terrorists, but in the eyes of the Western world they might be freedom fighters. There has been a time that Al Qaeda was regarded as freedom fighters in Afghanistan (against the Russians), but a few years later they were the biggest threat. Cuban opposition is hailed in the US as freedom fighters.

Any form of opposition in WWII was either freedom fighter or terrorist, depending on who spoke about it. ETA (Euskadi Ta Askasuna) are classed as terrorists in Spain, but Freedom Fighters in Pais Basque.

Plenty of examples for that, PLO in Palestinia another one of those. But what about Brigata Rosso in Italy in (mainly) the '70s, Rote Armee Fraktion in Germany. They didn't fight for an actual place or country on the planet, but for a belief.

Was Robin Hood (if he ever existed for real) a terrorist (had they known the word). Was Jesus of Nazareth a terrorist in the eyes of the Romans?

[vtboy]

What qualifies as "terrorism" is a semantic and emotionally freighted question which only obscures the more important inquiries of whether, and under what circumstances, we are willing to tolerate acts of warfare which, either by design or as unavoidable consequence, will inflict death and suffering on what are generally termed "civilians". I doubt a war has ever been fought in which the combatants have assigned a higher priority to avoidance of likely civilian carnage than to attaining their war aims. The analysis is complicated by the fact that warfare can rarely be conducted with much effect in the absence of a significant, supportive civilian population. One might even ask whether there is much of a moral distinction to be drawn between combatants, on the one hand, and civilians who put war governments in power, manufacture armaments, feed armies, harbor suicide bombers, etc.

Ultimately, it is only the old question of ends and means, with the balance weighed by the victor.

[alextaylor]

You'll never find a general answer to this. I like what philosophy has to say about terms - make sure you agree on the same definition with the person you're discussing it with, before you begin discussion. The philosopher Mortimer Adler said that social science books are deceptively difficult to read because of this... you think you know what words like "economic growth", "quality of life", and "terrorism" mean, but there are too many people who use those definitions in very different ways that you can't actually compare two books on the same subject without 'translating' those terms.


Under the 'killing civilians' term, a lot of people can justify collateral damage as terrorism, which makes the USA the biggest terrorist during the War on Terror. You can define it as unconventional warfare, which is where the terms freedom fighter and terrorist often overlap.

[Shjade]

No, but sometimes terrorism, state terror bombing, random acts of reprisal or the like are used under the banner of fighting for freedom.

Freedom fighters might employ terrorism to achieve their goals, or they might not.

Yes, I covered that.

[White Wolf]

CAN I SAY SOMETHING?

Guys, I'm in awe. I've had political debate after political debate on every forum known to the internet...and it's here, me, a newcomer to Elliquiy, finds the most open, honest and civilised discussion on a fairly controversial subject I have ever seen in my life.

Thank you, guys. I wanted to just express how in awe I am of each and every one of you. The art of civilised conversation on political topics ISN'T, after all, entirely dead...even if it's just been relegated to our dark little corner of the internet.

Thank you all for restoring my faith in humanity :D

[Callie Del Noire]

CAN I SAY SOMETHING?

Guys, I'm in awe. I've had political debate after political debate on every forum known to the internet...and it's here, me, a newcomer to Elliquiy, finds the most open, honest and civilised discussion on a fairly controversial subject I have ever seen in my life.

Thank you, guys. I wanted to just express how in awe I am of each and every one of you. The art of civilised conversation on political topics ISN'T, after all, entirely dead...even if it's just been relegated to our dark little corner of the internet.

Thank you all for restoring my faith in humanity :D

You got us on a good week. :D

We've had some real nasty donnybrooks with enforced time outs, castration of posters and the whole nine yars.

[Oniya]

You got us on a good week. :D

We've had some real nasty donnybrooks with enforced time outs, castration of posters and the whole nine yars.

Week?  *glances around*  Has it been that long already?  ;)

[White Wolf]

You got us on a good week. :D

We've had some real nasty donnybrooks with enforced time outs, castration of posters and the whole nine yars.

As a Dubliner I resent the use of the word "donnybrook" to describe a fight. Donnybrook is where I got to college; one of our most affluent and beautiful areas in this Far City xD Hahaha

Why not call it a "Tallaght" or a "Clondalkin" or a "Falls Road"...Donnybrook...I've never understood that one :P hahaha

[Oniya]

As a Dubliner I resent the use of the word "donnybrook" to describe a fight. Donnybrook is where I got to college; one of our most affluent and beautiful areas in this Far City xD Hahaha

Why not call it a "Tallaght" or a "Clondalkin" or a "Falls Road"...Donnybrook...I've never understood that one :P hahaha

Because there's no one better to have on your side of a fight, of course!  :D

[White Wolf]

Because there's no one better to have on your side of a fight, of course!  :D

Nope, still don't buy it. See Dublin is split into the "Northside" (my side!) and the "Southside." Donnybrook is Southside :P

If you want backup in a fight, you need a NORTHSIDER watching your back :P hahaha

[Callie Del Noire]

As a Dubliner I resent the use of the word "donnybrook" to describe a fight. Donnybrook is where I got to college; one of our most affluent and beautiful areas in this Far City xD Hahaha

Why not call it a "Tallaght" or a "Clondalkin" or a "Falls Road"...Donnybrook...I've never understood that one :P hahaha

Cause if I say 'Newtowneforbes Soccer Match' you and I might be the only ones to recognize the inference..and I only know because it was on that field I got introduced to my first hurley stick.. right across the brow of my now crooked nose.

[White Wolf]

Cause if I say 'Newtowneforbes Soccer Match' you and I might be the only ones to recognize the inference..and I only know because it was on that field I got introduced to my first hurley stick.. right across the brow of my now crooked nose.

The Gaelic Athletic Association was founded by officers of the Irish Republican Brotherhood as a means to recruit young men into the IRA without the British noticing.

Basically...yeah. Expect violence :D Hahaha

[gaggedLouise]

I bet you knew this one already, Wolfy, I mean it sprang out of the woes that racked your country for a long time. One of the best songs ever on the subject, and a wonderful album.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ob1mPJ0q8


"We draw a line, the ink is fear.
You stay that side, we'll stay here.
It's far harder to keep it up
than to tear it down."

[White Wolf]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/vwWJ559qXGY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you want a Rebel song, look no further. There's far too many fantastic ones to choose from from all eras of the conflict, but this is my personal favourite, about the 1916 Rising :)

(Have we gone horribly off topic here or that? xD )

[Neysha]

Having witnessed the Moscow subway bombings from a bit too close, I'd say the definition of a terrorist is being Chechan.

Not all Chechens are terrorists. Some in fact are mobsters.

[kylie]

Not all Chechens are terrorists. Some in fact are mobsters.

         I'm just going to make a leap and assume you mean that some violence is paid for locally, or "just business" in American crime movie speech.  Though it could probably be argued that a big part of that business is intimidation and holding onto power -- which may be the same as terrorism, depending on who you ask.

         Apart from that, I expect you'd find quite a few Chechens who aren't so interested in violence and want to live out their lives doing other things.  Unless you really mean to argue it's seriously just a land of barbarians with nothing on their minds but violence and intimidation. 

[Adds.]  Come to think of it, having met a couple nice enough, productive seeming Chechens in other places, nah...  I really wouldn't go there.  So I'm a little sour on this particular sub-convo, though maybe I should thank Dashenka more for that.
 

[Dashenka]

         I'm just going to make a leap and assume you mean that some violence is paid for locally, or "just business" in American crime movie speech.  Though it could probably be argued that a big part of that business is intimidation and holding onto power -- which may be the same as terrorism, depending on who you ask.

         Apart from that, I expect you'd find quite a few Chechens who aren't so interested in violence and want to live out their lives doing other things.  Unless you really mean to argue it's seriously just a land of barbarians with nothing on their minds but violence and intimidation. 

[Adds.]  Come to think of it, having met a couple nice enough, productive seeming Chechens in other places, nah...  I really wouldn't go there.  So I'm a little sour on this particular sub-convo, though maybe I should thank Dashenka more for that.

Then why don't these nice enough people stand up and condemn the violence? I bet you they also want Chechnya to be an independant nation. They might not agree with the way it's done but they certainly won't condemn it. Maybe if they live abroad they will, because they see that it's wrong. If your country/republic/organization uses violence to specifically and deliberately target innocent civilians, you are a terrorist and by accepting or not condemning such attacks, you are a terrorist as well in my eyes.

[gaggedLouise]

If your country/republic/organization uses violence to specifically and deliberately target innocent civilians, you are a terrorist and by accepting or not condemning such attacks, you are a terrorist as well in my eyes.

I suppose you'd agree that the post-Stalin Soviet Union was a terror state then? Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 - at both of those times a government striving for democracy and the right to run  its own affairs, and its wide backing among ordinary people, was crushed in blood with ample use of armed forces and, after the victory, interrogation and crckdowns on those who had supported a regime that dared walk its own path and pay some attention to the people.

The capacity for terror of the actual Stalinist system, before 1953, looks so obvious that it would feel trite to point it out...the post-Stalin age is a bit more rewarding to discuss.

[Neysha]

Well it's likely probable that Dashenka has had interactions with Chechens before, only they've likely tended to be wholly negative if not mostly so. Which is standard. I've had similar interactions with certain sub groups of people which, while I know it's wrong, shades my expectations and opinions of said group in general. While I value growing up in a socially and ethnically diverse neighborhood and school, especially in how it equipped me with the tools to be able to tolerate and interact with others different then me, I do feel that the concept of diversification or multiculturalism to be something of a canard, if I'm using the term correctly.

When I went to university, I found people who grew up in communities often seperated to a degree from certain sub groups to be far more accepting to that groups culture and character and attitudes then one might find of a person who had interacted with them before oftentimes. There's no real point to this meandering post of mine I guess, but I'm trying to explore Dashenkas POV and wondering if it's anything close to what I'm saying.

[Dashenka]

I suppose you'd agree that the post-Stalin Soviet Union was a terror state then? Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 - at both of those times a government striving for democracy and the right to run  its own affairs, and its wide backing among ordinary people, was crushed in blood with ample use of armed forces and, after the victory, interrogation and crckdowns on those who had supported a regime that dared walk its own path and pay some attention to the people.

The capacity for terror of the actual Stalinist system, before 1953, looks so obvious that it would feel trite to point it out...the post-Stalin age is a bit more rewarding to discuss.

I agree :)

Well it's likely probable that Dashenka has had interactions with Chechens before, only they've likely tended to be wholly negative if not mostly so. Which is standard. I've had similar interactions with certain sub groups of people which, while I know it's wrong, shades my expectations and opinions of said group in general. While I value growing up in a socially and ethnically diverse neighborhood and school, especially in how it equipped me with the tools to be able to tolerate and interact with others different then me, I do feel that the concept of diversification or multiculturalism to be something of a canard, if I'm using the term correctly.

Let me put it this way... Had I not been delayed by a few minutes I would have been on the train and not coming down the stairs when the subway bombs went off. That's all the interaction I need with Chechens thank you.

*refrains from commenting more and risk a ban*

[White Wolf]

I can't imagine how traumatising that must have been for you, Dashenka :( My heart goes out to you.

At the same time, I think I should say, you know, the actions of one fringe element of society is no reason to paint an entire people in that light. Generalisation to such a degree is what leads to conflicts like Israel/Palestine or Northern Ireland, when innocent civilians are lumped in with the extremists hiding out in their midsts. You can't blame a Catholic baker if an IRA sniper kills a police officer, you know?

[Dashenka]

I can't imagine how traumatising that must have been for you, Dashenka :( My heart goes out to you.

At the same time, I think I should say, you know, the actions of one fringe element of society is no reason to paint an entire people in that light. Generalisation to such a degree is what leads to conflicts like Israel/Palestine or Northern Ireland, when innocent civilians are lumped in with the extremists hiding out in their midsts. You can't blame a Catholic baker if an IRA sniper kills a police officer, you know?

The Catholic baker would condemn the actions of the sniper.

[White Wolf]

The Catholic baker would condemn the actions of the sniper.

As, I'm sure, many Chechnyans have condemned the actions of Chechnyan separatists over the years.

[Dashenka]

As, I'm sure, many Chechnyans have condemned the actions of Chechnyan separatists over the years.

I'll believe that when I hear it.

[Callie Del Noire]

The Catholic baker would condemn the actions of the sniper.

Perhaps. But remember that two things work within a community that has Terrorist/Freedom Fighters. One is fear, you speak out and you become a target. You don't get to hear about the dissenting baker whose home as burned or shop was robbed for speaking out. There are a lot of stories, for example, in the West Bank where Hammas supporters have attacked political rivals (and vice versa), thought it seems more towards the moderate voices than more violent (ie well armed) rivals. Someone said, and I can't recall whom for the life of me, something along the lines of 'a Terrorist' neighbor is usually among his worse victims, the share the blame for his actions and number among his victims if they speak out'. Those people don't usually make the news. Unless they are a 15 year old blogger who had a big footprint outside her province for example.
The second reason is they understand WHY those actions are taken. They too, have lost family to useless wars, the Police, or drone strikes. I knew guys who ran money for the IRA who carried pictures of family killed by the Other side or who were shot witch 'nonlethal rounds' and died. I've talked to Arabs who cast a much wider net over family than most of my friends. Common blood, history and shared oppression is a very strong cement.

Does it make a church bombing, gassing a train station or putting a grenade in an air terminal trash can right? No. But it can explain why the more moderate and rational elements don't speak up. Fear and empathy with why the terrorist does it. That is a reason I am against Drone Strikes. Lack of human intelligence and lax rules of engagement are creating a new generation of Terrorsts.

[Neysha]

Being a vocal moderate can be a dangerous stance in contentious locales.

[Oniya]

Being a vocal moderate can be a dangerous stance in contentious locales.

*nods*  Just look at the Republican Party.

[Neysha]

*nods*  Just look at the Republican Party.

WELL PLAYED MISS!

*slow applause*

Well played...

[Oniya]

I figured the local moderates would get a laugh at least.  ;)

[Cyrano Johnson]

Yes, it's sure a shame no Chechens of any note thought to condemn the Moscow subway bombing. But on the upside, it's nice to see Dashenka continuing to perfect the art of trolling E with statements of absolutely blatant and open bigotry -- apparently all that's needed is to hint heavily "don't ask me any more about Those People" and leave the bigotry just sort of really unmistakably implied? (Although on that theory, the choice of phrases like "the definition of being a terrorist is being a Chechen" are a but puzzling...)

Anyway, on-topic:

terrorist

1. (n.) Someone who wages war by uncoventional means and/or for objectives of which one does not approve. (If one approves the objectives, then cf. "revolutionary," "partisan," "freedom fighter," "resistance fighter," "pro-Western rebels.")

2. (n.) A term useful for motivating soldiers to shoot people, whether or not they are actual enemies or engaged in actual hostile actions. Ergo people shot in the process of occupying a tract of the Middle East or Central Asia can be defined automatically as "terrorists," regardless of age or combatant status. (Also cf. "insurgent," "rejectionist," "jihadist.")

[Callie Del Noire]

I figured the local moderates would get a laugh at least.  ;)

If I wasn't so mad at being ignored and paying the consequences of my party leadership's hubris I might. I got confirmation. My job is on hold till the DoD has a plan for the New Years possible shutdown

[Neysha]

But on the upside, it's nice to see Dashenka continuing to perfect the art of TERRORIZING E with statements of absolutely blatant and open bigotry -- apparently all that's needed is to hint heavily "don't ask me any more about Those People" and leave the bigotry just sort of really unmistakably implied? (Although on that theory, the choice of phrases like "the definition of being a terrorist is being a Chechen" are a but puzzling...)

Fixed that for you.

:P

[Cyrano Johnson]

Well-played, madam. Well-played.  :-*

[Dashenka]

Yes, it's sure a shame no Chechens of any note thought to condemn the Moscow subway bombing. But on the upside, it's nice to see Dashenka continuing to perfect the art of trolling E with statements of absolutely blatant and open bigotry -- apparently all that's needed is to hint heavily "don't ask me any more about Those People" and leave the bigotry just sort of really unmistakably implied? (Although on that theory, the choice of phrases like "the definition of being a terrorist is being a Chechen" are a but puzzling...)

Anyway, on-topic:

terrorist

1. (n.) Someone who wages war by uncoventional means and/or for objectives of which one does not approve. (If one approves the objectives, then cf. "revolutionary," "partisan," "freedom fighter," "resistance fighter," "pro-Western rebels.")

2. (n.) A term useful for motivating soldiers to shoot people, whether or not they are actual enemies or engaged in actual hostile actions. Ergo people shot in the process of occupying a tract of the Middle East or Central Asia can be defined automatically as "terrorists," regardless of age or combatant status. (Also cf. "insurgent," "rejectionist," "jihadist.")

God your ignorance about Russia is staggering. If you really believe that Kadyrov means that, you are...

Well.. you did render me speechless on that one. Credit where it's due.


I believe a terrorist is what everybody thinks it to be. Unlike what CJ thinks, not everything can be solved or answered by giving it a definition. Because there's always somebody who has a different opinion on it. What I find to be a terrorist, might well be a hero for somebody else, making it very hard to find a definition for a terrorist which is globally supported. This goes for many more things.

[Cyrano Johnson]

God your ignorance about Russia is staggering.

So staggering that I was able to catch you out in a simple, bald-faced lie about what Chechens had or hadn't said in the wake of events like the Moscow bombing? That sure is pretty staggering.

If you really believe that Kadyrov means that, you are...

... probably aware of Kadyrov's reputation as being enthusiastically Moscow's man in Chechnya? Of the Kadyrovites having defected from the separatist cause in the late Nineties and being mostly notable since for their excesses in cracking down on guerilla groups like those responsible for the Moscow bombing?

Well.. you did render me speechless on that one.

Isn't that convenient. And unsurprising.

I'll tell you what I do know a little something about, though, is how bigotry defends itself and what can be expected from its proponents. The fact of the matter is that someone genuinely bigoted against Chechens -- the kind of person who, speaking theoretically, might be tempted to make blanket claims that "they're all terrorists" -- does not really care about what Chechens say or don't say about bombings. When they say they are "waiting" to hear "Chechens condemn" this or that, they aren't. There is no condemnation from any Chechen source that would be enough, since the person in question will simply find an excuse to dismiss any implications of such condemnations for their existing bigotry. Bigotry makes excuses for itself as being "realism" but in fact operates in the pre-real, the realm of kneejerking rather than of evidence... which is what makes it so prone to distortion and avoidance when the evidence gets inconvenient. One cannot reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.

I believe a terrorist is what everybody thinks it to be.

Which if you actually read my definitions above is their point. "Terrorism" is a largely meaningless term, a game of rhetorical Calvinball in which the rules change depending on the observer. A term that is "what everybody thinks it to be" really, in the end, describes nothing. Indeed, its entire value is that it describes nothing; that's what makes it so amorphous, so rhetorically handy as a means of painting whatever group one is hostile to as the villain.

[alextaylor]

terrorist

1. (n.) Someone who wages war by uncoventional means and/or for objectives of which one does not approve. (If one approves the objectives, then cf. "revolutionary," "partisan," "freedom fighter," "resistance fighter," "pro-Western rebels.")

2. (n.) A term useful for motivating soldiers to shoot people, whether or not they are actual enemies or engaged in actual hostile actions. Ergo people shot in the process of occupying a tract of the Middle East or Central Asia can be defined automatically as "terrorists," regardless of age or combatant status. (Also cf. "insurgent," "rejectionist," "jihadist.")

I was trying to say this earlier, but I like your words more :P

[Chris Brady]

I'll believe that when I hear it.

The issue, I guess, is that we're not hearing it.  But the real question is 'why'?

Take Egypt for example.  We hear all the time about how one side is attacking the other (I believe the Muslims were targeting Christian places of worship, someone correct me if I'm wrong, which was the focus) and nothing was being talked about how the non-radicals of BOTH sides were reacting.

However, if you dug deep on the internet you'd find (and someone linked these incidents in our Good and Cuddly section of the forums) instances of BOTH Muslim AND Christians forming rings around places of EACH OTHERS' worship, while the 'other side' was going through a religious ceremony.  Normal people standing up for peace among each other.  Things that aren't being reported by the news stations because it's not flashy, or ratings grabbing.

All we see of the Chechen conflict is the acts of the Russian army and potentially a small group of depraved radicals.  And I do agree with Dashenka with the statement that the Chechen people would probably like to be their own nation.  What we don't see is that under Russian rule, the Chechen weren't exactly treated with fairness and equality, and likely would have liked that to change, but the don't see the Russians (of which they only see the military of) changing.  So breaking off seems like the only option.  Sadly, they get some psychos and fanatics doing it for them.   We're just not seeing the non-radical side of it.  Probably because it's not 'sexy' news.

[Shadowclaw]

For me it just boils down to if they're attacking innocent civilians (especially children), and what exactly they're fighting for.

[mayovagn]

Terrorism, to me and what other definition should I care about, is -any- act of violence, coercion, any other palpable harm or threat thereof for any form of political purpose or gain.

A freedom fighter to me is anyone who struggles/fights in any way to establish, keep and maintain the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the many in any way shape or form.

Now, I don't expect any of you to necessarily agree with me. My views are my views. I am just sharing because I'm bored. *Smiles*



The upshot and full ramifications of the above definitions are quite eye opening if you think carefully.

[gaggedLouise]

Well, taking up arms to create a country of your own, for and by those you see as part of your own group (your nation, or whatever) - that *is* a political act. There's no way around it. And most times, setting up a new country, a new state, founded on some sort of shared bond by those who are in on the venture, isn't something that can be done in a void, on truly virginal soil. Or even with the claim that "there's a tyranny here which is known to oppress everyone in these lands, except for its own cronies - so this tyranny must be thrown out". Even in the thirteen colonies there were many people in 1776 and some time after who were not in on the idea of rebellion against the crown. Plus the slaves, most of whom presumably didn't have an opinion, and anyway they were never asked.

At best, you can make it appear to the world around that there were no viable claims to a particular part of the earth that you claim (or that one's forefathers claimed), before it was settled by the group you claim to belong to.  Or that the claim that your group is making is older and more steady, has better credentials than anyone else's. Very few communities of people - nations, speakers of a certain language etc - can say truthfully: "we didn't grab our land from anyone but nature".

Of course over hundreds of years, the tide of history often mixes together people who are living in a certain patch of the earth - such as in Britain where there were Celts, Angles, Saxons, Normans and lots of others - and they might get to feel a common identity. At the time when some people is/are trying to break out of the national melting pot, it's never going to look that simple though. And very often it will be violent or disturbing.

Not saying nations or nation-forming is wrong in any way, but they are eminently political creations. It's VERY iffy to work from the line that "some people have an absolute right to nationhood and a country of their own to live in - but others simply don't, they don't qualify as real peoples".

[Dashenka]

Sadly, they get some psychos and fanatics doing it for them.   We're just not seeing the non-radical side of it.  Probably because it's not 'sexy' news.

Or maybe they just don't excist?

For me it just boils down to if they're attacking innocent civilians (especially children), and what exactly they're fighting for.

That would make the US Army a terrorist organization.

Terrorism, to me and what other definition should I care about, is -any- act of violence, coercion, any other palpable harm or threat thereof for any form of political purpose or gain.

I guess I like that one.

[White Wolf]

Or maybe they just don't excist?

Dashenka, in 1974, the Ulster Volunteer Force detonated three bombs in Dublin and killed 26 people - including a baby. My aunt and uncle were caught in the explosions, but survived.

Today, I have a very good Northern Irish friend who is a devout Protestant and die-hard Loyalist as well as being a member of the Orange Order to boot. Nonetheless, we get on extremely well, and often discuss and amiably debate politics and the Troubles. It's hard to look past the extreme violence, it really is, but unless we're going to perpetuate that violence it's our DUTY to look beyond it and reach a hand over the barbed fire fencing. That's the only way to defeat people who spread fear and terror through violence.

[Dashenka]

Dashenka, in 1974, the Ulster Volunteer Force detonated three bombs in Dublin and killed 26 people - including a baby. My aunt and uncle were caught in the explosions, but survived.

Today, I have a very good Northern Irish friend who is a devout Protestant and die-hard Loyalist as well as being a member of the Orange Order to boot. Nonetheless, we get on extremely well, and often discuss and amiably debate politics and the Troubles. It's hard to look past the extreme violence, it really is, but unless we're going to perpetuate that violence it's our DUTY to look beyond it and reach a hand over the barbed fire fencing. That's the only way to defeat people who spread fear and terror through violence.

I see bombing Grozny off the map as a very good solution to this particular problem as well but I see your point. :)

[White Wolf]

I see bombing Grozny off the map as a very good solution to this particular problem as well but I see your point. :)

...No, I think you quite missed my point :P

[gaggedLouise]

I see bombing Grozny off the map as a very good solution to this particular problem as well but I see your point. :)

Come on now, lady. No one would be surprised if the retaliation move after that was bombings of Russian embassies in major cities around the world, or even an attempt to place a few time-set bombs inside the Kremlin.

[Dashenka]

That's probably why I'm not into politics. I wouldn't be very good at it :D

[Shadowclaw]

That would make the US Army a terrorist organization.

However, whether the cause of a group is just or unjust is also open to interpretation, and that is exactly why defining a terrorist is so difficult. That's why there's never a definitive answer everyone can agree on.

[Shjade]

However, whether the cause of a group is just or unjust is also open to interpretation, and that is exactly why defining a terrorist is so difficult.

Actually it's irrelevant. Justified terrorism is still terrorism. Your justification doesn't change your actions. Whether I hose you down because you're on fire or because I think it'll be funny, you're still going to end up wet.

[Shadowclaw]

What actions? Can you be more specific?

[Dashenka]

What actions? Can you be more specific?

Whatever your justification is, killing somebody is still murder. Blowing up a subway is still wrong and still kills people. Whether you do it out of religious beliefs, political motivation, or simply because you're an idiot.

[Shadowclaw]

Ah, I see. We weren't talking about the same thing then. Never mind then, you guys seem to be talking about something different than I was. :)

[Shjade]

What actions? Can you be more specific?

Purposely evoking terror, the act thereof, spec. utilizing violence and destruction.

[elone]

If we can't define a terrorist, then how can we have a "war on terror". Many politicians and world leaders, especially Benjamin Netanyahu, like to throw that phrase around.

I think it all depends on whose side you are on currently, and who the victors are historically. Anyone who commits an act against the US and it's allies are terrorists, but when the US and others bomb and kill civilians it is collateral damage.

Do you think we will ever see a headline in the US such as. "US Soldiers Murder 20 Taliban Freedom Fighters in Firefight"

Personally, I think the "terror" word has been used and abused much too often. Maybe we could just report what happened and leave that word out of the story.

[Deamonbane]

Terrorist and freedom fighter are two names for the same thing, both depending on your current point of view.

For example, the Boston Tea Party could be seen as an act of terror, destroying property over tax issues, which then, distantly sparked a war.

For example, I am sure that if the rebels in Syria had been in Saudi Arabia instead, the media would have been painting Islamic Extremists all over them.

The Taliban are painted as terrorists too, but look at it from their viewpoint. They are fighting against an enemy that is better equipped, better trained and better everything-ed. What do they have? Terrain advantage, and weapons that were relics during WW2. And they are fighting an invading force the only way that they can, by hiding in their land, and hitting wherever they can. Desperate times.

I don't say I agree with them. Just presenting what might be their point of view.

The point of the matter: Is Invading a country wrong? Yeah. Is attacking civilians wrong? Hell yeah. Is profiting from dragging out a war like that wrong? Yes. Is supporting it wrong? Yeah. Is using media and double-speak to cover up for atrocities committed for and against the so-called 'war on terror'? Of course. Two wrongs don't make a right, but until people get that, they will keep on trying, and using retaliation as an excuse to make billions. They really don't care about the lives lost on both sides.

[kylie]

          Since this sort of 'terrorist or freedom fighter' dichotomy keeps coming up...  I'm not sure it's such a neat either-or exclusion if you toss in some evidence.  Many wars have some parties involved that are not native to the specific area (state, regional territory in question) and may not be interested in protecting the place or its people per se).  Or if they do have some concern for protection, they may still be more interested in other ends they can achieve in that environment. 

If some branches of Al Qaeda say they just want to fight Western forces wherever they show up in the Islamic world, or even that they want to pursue some fundamentalist-inspired, pan-Islamic "Caliphate"...  Those are directions that may have some element of "resistance" in them that coincides with more local parties (assuming there are mentionable local parties fighting the US/West too), but then again they may not fit so neatly under the traditional concept of freedom fighters.  Some of these obviously seem to have quite something else they hope to gain, anything from personal operational experience for some individual fighters up to a grand political dream for one movement among so many groups.  Even in the American Revolution -- I'm not an expert but -- I gather, some French may have been quite interested in distracting or draining Britain, whatever else various factions in France made of the idea of a new country or idealism coming together.

          So to really describe where particular ideas start to gel (or mix and blur, as the case may be), we need more than a couple poles to talk about.  This starts to get at a broader problem: terrorism is properly a principle or a strategy adopted by actors themselves or not, whereas terror attacks or terroristic activities could simply be way that people (often now Western journalism, but whoever really is fine) report on certain specific events.  Even if both sides agree an attack was brutal, harmful to civilians, and sent a political message in the event, they may not agree on whether the idea behind doing the attack was actually something that properly matches a definition of terrorism.     

[Kekec]

There are two different kinds of terrorism: local terrorism and global terrorism. What Viet Cong did was local terrorism. What Kurds are doing in Iraq is local terrorism. But when the U.S.A. inject themselves into these conflicts under the pretense of bringing piece, that is global terrorism.

And in the words of Bill Maher: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in an airplane when it hits the building; you can say what you want about it, not cowardly."