Terrorism

[BattleMoose]

After I wrote that post, the idea of militaries using reprisals to keep a population in check, behaving, certainly comes incredibly close and perhaps that should be classified as terrorism.

Perhaps the most important difference is that the military is again in plain sight and generally quite open about its reprisals, which to be blunt, would have little effect if they weren't public. Although I am not sure that this should be excluded, perhaps we should consider that terrorism.

[tofupekoni]

I can't see what planting bombs and killing civillians or military personel really has to do with defining what is terrorism. And I can't see how anyone could be called "a terrorist". It would be like saying individual reporter is "a media".

I however could define terrorism as an act of terrorizing (meaning wake fear in) people. Offcource these acts could be killing or damaging property/infrastructure but it dosn't neet to be. One could terrorize people by simply making them believe some acts have happened. Terrorism had been conducted and people would have been terrorized, but there couldn't bee any terrorists. Even if attrocities had happened conductor of these would bee just "bomb plantters" or "Hostages" or "shooters".

So terror shoud be pretty self explanatory term. As in "terror movie", a state of fear. Bringing that state of fear to the people would be terrorism.

terrorism [ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized

[Azrael]

I can't see what planting bombs and killing civillians or military personel really has to do with defining what is terrorism.

Discussing examples of behavior that is commonly called "terrorism" and drawing comparisons helps to delineate the behavior(s) in question; the definition should follow from the behavior.

And while I'm sorry you can't see the importance, you did just copy-paste a dictionary definition. That's something I can't see the relevance of, especially when we're talking about a word that (it has been hypothesized) has been very recently misappropriated and politicized.

And I can't see how anyone could be called "a terrorist". It would be like saying individual reporter is "a media".

... you're aware that language does this frequently, right? Collective nouns vs individuals, behavior vs participants; they don't always have the same root.

The army => a soldier
A rebellion => a rebel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The quintessential concept of a terrorist, or a terrorist group is an outgunned out numbered group trying to inflict harm, subterfugely, so much so that the stronger side is encouraged to give in to their demands.

Don't ignore acts that are punitive or vengeful in nature. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing wasn't an attempt to get the US to give in to his (non-existent) demands.

[morriswalters]

The fact that McVeigh didn't have demands doesn't make the matter less political or mean he lacked a goal, it may be perceived as less coherent or rational in terms of his strategy for achieving his goal.

[Azrael]

Nor did I claim it was apolitical nor that he had a goal in mind.

In short, what's your point?

[morriswalters]

Do you believe he did or did not have a goal? In any case seeing attacks as punitive or revengeful affects that strategy used to defeat them. Terror attacks are a force multiplier. It's about the response. No matter what the purpose of the attack, measure it against the threat not the fear of the threat.

[BattleMoose]

The quintessential concept of a terrorist, or a terrorist group is an outgunned out numbered group trying to inflict harm, subterfugely, so much so that the stronger side is encouraged to give in to their demands.

Don't ignore acts that are punitive or vengeful in nature. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing wasn't an attempt to get the US to give in to his (non-existent) demands.

About 3 posts ago, directly dealing with actions of a punitive nature.

After I wrote that post, the idea of militaries using reprisals to keep a population in check, behaving, certainly comes incredibly close and perhaps that should be classified as terrorism.

Perhaps the most important difference is that the military is again in plain sight and generally quite open about its reprisals, which to be blunt, would have little effect if they weren't public. Although I am not sure that this should be excluded, perhaps we should consider that terrorism.

Never knew too much about Timothy McVeigh, save the fact that he blew up a Federal Building in Oklahoma, I did just read through the wikipedia article and now I know a little more. And it seems to me that that guy had some very serious mental issues. Did he really go through the corrections systems without being assessed? And if he did, what were these assessments?

He certainly was very angry about how he perceived the Government to be behaving and wanted it to behave very differently. In this context it would be hard to argue that his actions were completely apolitcal. His target was a representation of the Federal Government. Although it does seem that revenge for the Wako Siege was his main motivation.

If he was a mentally broken individual then I wouldn't consider it terrorism, I think it would be more equivalent to a serial killer. Certainly the actions do cause terror but the motivation for the actions would largely stem from a mental disorder, rather than a political agenda.

[tofupekoni]

Hmm.. Good critizim, Azrael!

My point was maybe lost, 'couse I for some reason didn't want to go there too much. Terrorism is allways actually conducted not by attakers, shootters, bomb plantters, but the mediamachine, witch not simply tells about happenings like in recent Oslo insident, but like has been done in GB or US, where people were terrorized by media, for political reasons.

The main similarities being attrocity of a very large scail happened in all three countries, but in Norway the people wasn't so much deliberately terrorized as in GB and US. Allso only the countries terrorized used the incident a pretext to a _large_ scail military action.

However I do not want to blame anyone about the actual killing and property damage, 'couse there is soooo much contradiction in data or to go there too much, 'couse it don't matter at all!

EDIT:
Oh, just came to my mind: "Terror (life) is what you make of it".

[ShaiDeshe]

I believe that, at base, the definition of an act of terrorism is not one concerned by international law.

The term, I believe, refers to using means of intimidation and anxiety to achieve a (political, financial, social, whatever) goal.
Classically, an employer who fires people at random in order to keep his workers in check is terrorizing them. However, it seems that the term has been propertied to political context.

[Headshrinker]

I would say as a rule of thumb spreading fear in the public to threaten a government. For example a serial killer who kills one person per week is not a terrorist, a man who will kill one person every week unless the president moons the TV is. A nation that bombs a city to show they can destroy any target they wish to threaten the government DIRECTLY isn’t.

In the UK I believe one of the legal definitions is you have to target a group. Killing two of your friends isn’t terrorism as you targeted them, killing the occupants of a car is as you targeted the car.

[iCryBlood]

Except that's really not terrorism at all. That's a classic insurgency fighting against a military force.

Planting homemade bombs on roadsides to target convoys involved in the conflict: Insurgents.
Planting homemade bombs in markets to kill civilians not involved in the armed conflict: Terrorism

Would that make the Taliban insurgents then? Also, I don't think terrorism is very justified. I understand 9/11 happened, and America went to attack the middle east. But why exactly did the terrorists behind 9/11 attack America in the first place? Did we piss them off?

[Jplus]

Did we piss them off?

Evidently.

[Azrael]

Except that's really not terrorism at all. That's a classic insurgency fighting against a military force.

Planting homemade bombs on roadsides to target convoys involved in the conflict: Insurgents.
Planting homemade bombs in markets to kill civilians not involved in the armed conflict: Terrorism

Would that make the Taliban insurgents then? Also, I don't think terrorism is very justified. I understand 9/11 happened, and America went to attack the middle east. But why exactly did the terrorists behind 9/11 attack America in the first place? Did we piss them off?

Yes, the Taliban is running an insurgency, after having been ousted from governance of Afghanistan and been unable to fight a 'traditional' military action. Remember that the Taliban is not Al-Qaeda; Al-Qaeda are terrorists who attacked a civilian target on 9/11 to punish the US for (among other things) their support of Israel and 'meddling' influence in other Arab countries.

Next time, it might be helpful to try to get a handle on the basic historical facts?

[Apeiron]

While terms have become greatly muddled and propagandized, I always thought there was pretty broad support in the past for the idea that:

Terrorism: A non-military force attacking targets that have no military value.
Guerrilla (now Insurgent; see also Guerrilla Warfare being called Asymmetrical Warfare): An organized, but non-military force attacking targets that have military value.
War Crime: A military force attacking targets that have no military value.

And I suppose a couple others would be needed:
Military: Officially recognized armed forces (standing or otherwise) of an established government
Civilian: The controversial one, right? Person who does not take up arms in an armed conflict

This is very close to the mark.

You could further specify that terrorists seek to influence their opponents via terror, that terrorism is not about the cause but the methods. You would be a "Tastes great!" terrorist if you planted a bomb in a "Less filling" bar.

Terrorists and guerillas are civilians in that they are NOT military sworn to some nation and under some gov'ts control. A popular and largely political myth is that civilians are always innocent. If a civilian engages in combat they become unlawful combatants. They are supposed to stay the hell out of the fight (for their own safety). The fight is between the gov'ts, not the people. When a civilian shoots at a soldier, they forfeit that protection. The soldier must then follow the doctrine of proportional response. Non-lethal to non-lethal, lethal to lethal. Throw a rock and you might get a rifle butt in your face. Shoot at him, he shoots back.

While we're on this: If a legitimate target is withing an non-legit target, the non-legit part becomes fair game. If you put a SAM system on top of an orphanage then that SAM site can expect a HARM to come barreling down on them. Whoever placed the SAM on the orphanage has committed a war crime, not the pilot that shot back at it.

i taught Law of Armed Conflict classes in the USAF. So yes, i DO know what i'm talking about.