What's ur definition for terrorism ?

[Derar]

Bush said that he was fighting terrorism ...... but he didnt yet define terrorism , some ppl say che was a terrorist , but also they didnt give a definition for whats terrorism , the whole world is fighting terrorism ( as they say ) , but noone so far gave a clear definition for terrorism !!

so what's YOUR definition for terrorism ?

[RedCeltic]

The US calles people "Freedom Fighters" when they agree with them... and Terrorists when they don't... What's the diffrence? There is none.

[Son of Scargill]

I believe Lil' George defined terrorism as"anyone who attempts to destabilise,or force their views on ANY established government,by force,or threat of force."
It's not an exact quote,and he probably slipped in"misunderestimate"somewhere as well,but if that's the case then you'd better head for the bomb shelter RedCeltic,'cos the B-52's will be heading your way.
I don't like the idea of anybody getting the s**t bombed out of them,for whatever reasons,but the idea that dropping a plane load of bombs from 20,000ft. is somehow civilised,and therefore not terrorism just doesn't cut it with me.

[Guest]

You kids still haven't figured it out? I guess threads like this will continue to sprout up as long as the concept of terrorism continues to be a brain-teaser for you. Good luck!

[Son of Scargill]

Yep.Terrorism is a concept,and whilst there are 2 human beings on this planet the possibility of violence in one form or another exist.That's why I disagree with the supposed"War on Terrorism".How can you fight a concept.All that's going to be achieved is that a lot of people will be pissed off,Bush,Cheney and others will make a lot of money out of it,and the Republicans will ride into another term of office on the back of it.Not a nice thought.

[Guest]

The old "they'll make money off of the deal" theory. Always a crowd pleaser. I can't imagine there was any other motive than money. Good work. And if you're still wondering what an example of terrorism is, the assholes that blew themselves up in Jerusalem today would be a good one.

[Guest]

Terrorism the ACTUAL definition:
ter·ror·ism
'ter-&r-"i-z&m
noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
Dubya's and the US's definetion of terrorism:
anything that goes against the US's ideas and interests

[Freiheit]

TERRORISM:
a organisation which has the aim to kill as many ppl as possible. it doesnt care to kill kids and women. they dont fight the soldiers, they fight the civilians.

a organisation which fights soldiers to get independent or to get a new political or economic system, like the nordalliance, this groups are no terrorists, they are just rebells/renegades etc.

[Son of Scargill]

Quote: from Guest on 8:06 am on Dec. 2, 2001
The old "they'll make money off of the deal" theory. Always a crowd pleaser. I can't imagine there was any other motive than money. Good work. And if you're still wondering what an example of terrorism is, the assholes that blew themselves up in Jerusalem today would be a good one.


So Bush Snr. doesn't now work for The Carlyle Group(Oil and Defence contract interests)whilst his son is Prez.And Dick Cheney wasn't CEO of Halliburton Co.(He has temporarily stood down to focus on govt.issues,although he still has shares in the company.)Halliburton Co.the biggest oil services company on the planet.He also sits on the board of Lockheed Martin,so no conflicts of interests there.Cheney is in favour of dropping sanctions against Azerbaijan so Halliburton can deal with that nation,he really doesn't give a shit about the ethnic cleansing of Armenians there.Frank Carlucci,Jim Baker and Rich Darman(republicans with Bush connections.)obviously don't work for the Carlyle Group either?Wow! I've got them all wrong.
And as for that fuckwit in Jerusalem,can you tell me how that is REALLY different to carpet bombing villages,or training bastards to murder,rape and torture their way through Central and South America,'cos I can't see the difference,and neither can the famillies of the victims either.Brutal death is brutal death whoever does the bombing.

(Edited by Son of Scargill at 9:19 am on Dec. 2, 2001)

[Kez]

Maybe i read it on this forum but,
One reason why America is overturning the Afghan government is so that they will be able to pipe uzbek oil to allied lands, as opposed to through Iran or Russia.
Thats why they are clearing the taliban from afganastan

comrade kamo

[revolutionary spirit]

Collins Dictionary says that terrorism ''is a group/organisation that uses violence to achieve their goals''

[Kez]

Using that defentition shouldnt we all come up with the conclusion that SOME terrorism is good?
eg if french partisans killed nazi's , then without a doubt that would be good as well as violent?or ches use of violence against the latin dictatorships?

comrade kamo

[Derar]

well thats not called terrorism ........
there is no good terrorism and bad one, its either terrorism or not ...
if u think something is useful and good, then its not terrorism......
thats why each one has a different definition for it ......

[Drifter]

i've awlays seen terrorism as something directed against the civillian population

[Moskitto]

I remember a topic like this somewhere else.

My definition would be

Indiscriminate and untargeted attacks generally using bombs or occassionally using firearms to achieve political goals.

By this definition I'll use Israel and Palistine to use comparisons

Israel launching missiles into Palistine simply because "A terrorist lives there" would be terrorism because it isn't too well targeted and gets more than the target and often not the target itself.

Likewise a Palistinian suicide bomber going into an Israeli market and pulling the pins out of a few grenades and lighting some dinamite, Is likewise terrorism.

However Israel or Palistine deciding that "This guy isn't very good" and sending someone into his office with a gun, would be more of an assasination.

Basically, If there's a high chance of killing innocent people it's terrorism, If it doesn't it isn't. I think.

[thaddeus69]

terrorists are not freedom fighters. freedom fighters have a just cause and vision, men like che were freedom fighters. terrorists use the cover of fighting for the people to line their own pockets with blood and drug money. people like the IRA, INLA, UDA, LVF, UVF and UFF in belfast at the moment who will shoot drug dealers for "polluting" the country they are fighting for, whilst any one of these groups on their own import and deal in more heroin and cocaine than all of the "independant" drug dealers in ireland together. these men are scum. they dont represent the views of any person in my country.

[jose lopez]

well allwais the same,bla bla bla about terrorism, every body knows that terrorism is a word used to define the bad boys, and army, military.defense,goverment,police,democrazy,freedo m fichters.....and all those words that politics and critics use are the good boys, expecially in television adn movies.. but just because theres not an uniform doesnt mean that is not a war, or an army........its all the same.. the ones that have the power and the ones that dont have shit and are really mad............and yes che..was called a terrorist...but anybody that fights for an political idea is a terrorists, so what do we have to do....??? maibe get a bunch off millions of $ and run a tv channel and a couple off newspapers,, how about a couple off poor countries theres people there who work for free.....hummmmmm.....buy a bunch off brainwhased militarys..yes that sounds good..maibe that way I will not be recognised as a terrorist......yeah...good idea........

[celticsocialist]

The British government is as guilty of terrorism in Eire as any paramilitary group, the only difference seems to be that they are seen as a "real" army therefore they are not considered terrorists.
Some one also mentioned the Palestinian suicide bomber. Is it any wonder there is an abundance of these so called Muslim fundamentalists when they see christian fundamentalists like Bush and Blair commiting war crimes in Muslim countries.
If the killing of innocent people is terrorism, then the US and UK are the most active terrorists in the world at present.

[Moskitto]

If you think Bush and Blair christian fundamentalists then you haven't seen what some people in America are like...

[jose lopez]

A BUNCH OFF BRAINDEDWHASHED FULL OFF MCDONALS AND BURGER KING FAT BASTARDS..........well not all of them but problably a 90%......thanks that I left that coutry.....whow

[koba]

i beleive that the word terrorism means a violent action done to "terrorize" and not nesesarrily to achieve a goal.

Yet to often it is used to describe a group of people or an action which was made in order to achieve political goals which the person who calls the other person a terrorist ignores. For someone as Che or Marcos, or Zapata cannot and shouldnt be called terrorist for they may be using violent means but these violent actions are targeted specifically at the enemy, or group which they opose where as a terrorist is one who attack the general population.

And then (if i may bring along another argument) should the authors of the September 11th attacks be considered as terrorists ? For the general (and majority of the) american population has elected its governors and hasn't protested against its oppression towards other nations. So the general population of the U.S. are as guilty as their government, and may i remember you the majority of americans today support the invasion of afghanistan. So in a way cant the authors of the attacks be considered as "liberators" for they are the only ones who dared to throw a stick in the wheels of the american capitalist machine which is leading to general human decadance, and a passive and careless attitude who care only for cash and materials, and their actions is why the creation of a Palestinian is being reconsiderd. And they may be partly responsible for the push that may later on make the american economy fall later freeing us from capitalism ?. Or to the best of things these actions is like a slap behind the head to the americans to tell them its enough. So this was an attack on American culture and attitude and may lead to many positive changes in this world, even if many people have died. I know this is disturbing but its something to think about....

So as conclusion I beleive that the word Terrorist is used to define one which has used violent means to terrorize others and not to achieve a political point. I also think that its meaning is differant to all, and too often used irresponsibly to describe a violent action which one doesnt understand. for example many liberation movements are called TERRORISTS by the U.S. but not by the locals.


tell me what you think
ciao


-koba

[Derar]

i think u have a good point koba....

in my opinion terrorism is the violence done by an organization or government to achieve personal interests , or anything that's unnecessary , but which will achieve their selfish personal goals .