Terrorism.

[SpeCtrE]

no one seems to agree with the definition of terrorism. There are plenty of variations of spelling for that word.

Post how you define terrorism.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-&#39;is-tik/ adjective

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

[Enragé]

terrorism: the use of violence with the objective of creating fear among one&#39;s enemies

sometimes terrorism is useful (in this definition). For example, the creation of fear among the bourgeoisie by using violence and thereby showing the people that they can destroy the bourgeoisie was a method used in the period running up to the russian revolution.

[OleMarxco]

I oppose terrorism. Not because it is too harsh, but because it is TOO SOFT&#33; WE NEED A FULL REVOLUTION, NOT A PUSSY-ARSE "SABOTAGE" here, people&#33; :)

[bolshevik butcher]

terrorism- whatever opposes the U&#036;.

[More Fire for the People]

The use of violence against civilians to inspire fear amongst the civilians.

[DoomedOne]

Unconventional warfare used against civillians as a means of weaponry utilized by Organizations or Countries that have no chance of fighting back "conventionally." (Example: Pearl Habor, Japan could not fight conventionally so they unconventionally attacked civillians)

I am against terrorism but that does not mean hunting and killing terrorists is progressive at all. You have to cure the disease, not the symtoms.

[hobosexual]

terrorism is used a little way to loosely today, but then again a lot of words are.
and i think along with using words too often it changes the meanings a little bit.
people nowadays call anybody who attacks anybody a terrorist without it was a terrorist attack or not.

i would say that anybody who uses force/fear to force people to follow you or change their viewpoints is a terrorist

[KrazyRabidSheep]

The denotation of a word dosen&#39;t amount to a pair of dingo&#39;s kidneys

the connotation is all that matters

You can twist words around all you like and truely say nothing: people will think whatever they want

A wise person uses this to their advantage

[Loca_freak]

Terrorism is Killing in the name of Violence :ph34r:

[Enragé]

people, terrorism isnt fundamentally wrong. I think it was Lenin&#39;s brother who actually used it in Russia against the Tzars (he blew one up). Regardless if thats true (donno for sure), the fact remains that sometimes terrorism is necessary, however terrorism isnt random violence (though thats how its often interpreted nowadays). Narodnaja Volja (People&#39;s Will- if i remember correctly) was actually even a SELF-PROCLAIMED terrorist+ revolutionary organization in the years running up to the revolution in Russia. They used violence to instill fear among the bourgeoisie and aristocracy/nobility of russia, also, they thought, thereby showing the people their rulers were just people, who could be killed and overthrown.

[OleMarxco]

Terrorism is only justified (I THINK.....) if it&#39;s just against people guilthy some way or the other of someone innocent&#39;s misery, for their own gain or not....and if it furthers your cause, MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH&#33; :D

But no civilians....PERIOD. unless secretly armed.

[SpeCtrE]

If terrorism is the unholy war...

Do you consider Kamikaze suicidal dive bombing on US ships terrorism.

DO you consider HAMAS suicide Bombers terrorists.

Do you consider the Granma killings terrorist actions

Do you consider the killings done by shining path terrorist

Do you think that it is right for a government to resort to terrorist means when fighting a war is right

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 1 2005, 08:34 PM
terrorism- whatever opposes the U&#036;.
Or in your definition you&#39;ve previously used, anyone who opposes the UK or the Orange State with anything more than slogans.

[CheJoni]

I think no one can tolerate such a way of crime. Terrorism isn&#39;t a way of war, because terror attack citizens and not an army or the people , who are fould for
reprisals. Terror is an illigel way to scare someone. Terrorist don&#39;t have feelings about the person , who are killed. Maybe women and childrens.
But sometimes, person (like Mr.Bush) use the word "terror", to legalis their override against guerillas and other revolutionary groups. I believe this compare is an affront against people like Che.

:angry:

[Anti-establishment]

Terrorism is the use of terror, by anyone and everyone, whether it be the US army or Al Qaeda, the British Army or the IRA, so when Bush mouths off about terrorism, i ignore him, when Blair or thatcher mouth off, i turn the channel&#33;

So people can call anyone a terrorist, just as I can call the IRA freedom fighters.

[Redmau5]

Who gives a fuck what it means ? It&#39;s only a word.

You can call the IRA, ETA, Hamas or whoever you want terrorists, you think it&#39;s gonna offend them ?

[SpeCtrE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 03:30 PM
Who gives a fuck what it means ? It&#39;s only a word.

You can call the IRA, ETA, Hamas or whoever you want terrorists, you think it&#39;s gonna offend them ?
well, I think it offends them just a little tiny almost negligible bit.

But the point is I whether youjustify the use of Terrorism in fighting a war?

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by SpeCtrE+May 8 2005, 05:39 PM--> (SpeCtrE @ May 8 2005, 05:39 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 03:30 PM
Who gives a fuck what it means ? It&#39;s only a word.

You can call the IRA, ETA, Hamas or whoever you want terrorists, you think it&#39;s gonna offend them ?
well, I think it offends them just a little tiny almost negligible bit.

But the point is I whether youjustify the use of Terrorism in fighting a war? [/b]
No, well not the deliberate targetting of civilians.

[Antijingo]

I would say that terrorism is the use of violence without significantly and tangibly furthering ones cause.

By that definition, it is possible to attack civilians without being a terrorist if you are engaged in conflict where you could gain a decisive advantage through the ‘neutralization’ of a certain group of civilians, perhaps those that work in a factory that manufactures reactionary munitions. This would be sabotage.

If your struggle has not advanced to the point that you need to worry about starving the enemy of fire power but you kill the civilians anyways then that is terrorism because you did not significantly and tangibly further your cause.

I would say then that even the killing of military leaders is terrorism if they don’t pose any direct threat to the cause, and the cause is not significantly advanced by their absence.

Just my thoughts.

[Enragé]

terrorism is merely the creation of fear amongst your enemies

For the US occupation, Iraqi civilians who do not accept the occupation are their enemies (which are most Iraqi civilians) therefore the occupational forces use terrorism against the population. The make them fear the US+UK etc, so they wont rise up in armed rebellion.

However, Navodnaja Volja (people&#39;s will) used terrorism to create fear amongst the Bourgeoisie. They made the bourgeoisie fear the proletariat and the people fighting on behalf of it, and tried to destroy the power of the bourgeoisie through fear.


So it has nothing to do with attacking a part of the population or not.

[bolshevik butcher]

Well i suppose it depends what you reguard as a legitimate target, i mean yeh i suppose a munitions factory is, but a soft drinks factory isn&#39;t.

[Rasta Sapian]

enemy of the state....................

[Fair_Female_Tribe]

The bombing of trains and many dead people in Madrid is a good example on terrorism.

[red_che]

Terrorism is the intentional, malicious attacks and use of force against civilians to create terror or fear among civilians and to create a political statement against enemies. That&#39;s how I define it.

Whichever way I see it, it is not a good way of furthering a polical cause. Even Lenin abhor the use of terrorism.

Communists do not utilize this method. It harms the people, and the proletarian masses (who are the real history-makers). One cannot get any support from the masses by creating terror.

Only fools terrorize the people.

[apathy maybe]

"[T]errorism is violence committed by those we disapprove of (http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,487098,00.html)."

"terrorism is violence we disapprove of (http://www.mideastjournal.com/neilmacdonald1.html)."

Terrorism is the threat or action of violence aimed or targeted at civilian targets for the purpose of changing public opinion or policy for political, religious or other reasons, but not for purely self-interested ones (kidnapping for ransom for example).
1 It can be committed by a state or non-state actor
2 It can include assassinations of political figures