What is a terrorist

[CheMN]

Terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

This is the definition from the dictionary. But if you go by this then that owuld be that George Washington was a terrorist; he tried to coerce Britain to give America independence. I recently saw a security report showing where terrprist were striking in the world, it also showed what type of terrorist affiliation it was connected with. When I saw south AMerica almost every country had terrorists attacking it. And every country that had terrist problmes labled them as Marxists.

Right now Columbia is in civil war, the drug lords are battling eachother and slaughtering everyone who gets in their path. Yet they are not labled terrorists because they are not trying to overthrow the government. If you try to overthrow a dictator and his regime, you are a terrorist. Now this is according to a security report by a private AMERICAN security organization. (ahem Blackwater)

Now I put this under history because history is what decides who is a terrorist and who is a patriot. Geroge Washington and Che Geuverra if followed by what we define as terrorism, were terrorists. But they were, they were patriots because in the eyes of history that changed the world forever.

[Organic Revolution]

by there deffinition, all violent struggles are terrorism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Hitler changed the world forever, is he a patriot?

And it's Colombia

[CrazyModerate]

A terrorist is someone who attacks a civilian or innocent individual, or group of people, with the goal of defeating those people's leaders. It doesn't make much sense to me.

If these colombian war lords are fighting a conventional war in which soldiers kill soldiers, they aren't really terrorists. Terrorism is the act of killing civilians to further one's goals. Israel and the USA have practiced terrorism in this way.

[Scars]

Terrorism is attacking non-military/political people or property in order to intimidate or influence for political gain. The LTTE assassinating a government minister is not terrorism, the USA dropping bombs on civilians is.

[Comrade Sean]

There are 3 main terrorist groups in the world. The governments of the u.s.a. britain, and ofcourse israel ( lower case letters used intentionally). Most labelled "terrorists" are actually freedom fighters like the F.A.R.C. in Colombia or Sendero Luminoso in Peru etc.

[Scars]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 19 2005, 08:26 AM
There are 3 main terrorist groups in the world. The governments of the u.s.a. britain, and ofcourse israel ( lower case letters used intentionally). Most labelled "terrorists" are actually freedom fighters like the F.A.R.C. in Colombia or Sendero Luminoso in Peru etc.
However some are. I would deem the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, most of the Sunni resistance in Iraq and others to be terrorists.

[Anarchist Freedom]

By definition of the Us patroit act. A simple thing such as speeding is an act of terrorism if they so please.

[slim]

Terrorist is a word synonomous with freedom fighter.

The word is propagandist and i refuse to use it. The IRA were "terrorist thugs" as the Sun put it. What i see is a minority of people protecting themselves against an army of rapists and murderers.

Iraqi terrorists are trying to feed their families from the ruins of their towns and cities whilst their religion is being defiled in their own land. Brits get touchy when muslims wear headdresses saying "keep their own culture in their own country", fuckin hypocrites. Ignorant fucks. We are invading other countries killing their people and raping their 5000 year old culture. Who are we to stand their and talk about our nation's values.

Basically a terrorist is "the bad guy". The one who is being oppressed by the majority. The school kid who fights back against the bully.

We are the kids that stand by and let it happen.

[Dark Exodus]

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism)

A terrorist has to be a non-state entity, thats what the word refers to so please restrain your urge to misuse the English language.

See Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism) for the correct word.

'Terrorist', 'Terrorism' etc. has become a buzz word since the WTC incident.

[Enragé]

Terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Terrorism is trying to create terror/fear in the hearts of your enemy. It is a (military) tactic, nothing more, nothing less.

[Le People]

Terroism is a group of revolutoinaries who fight with out the backing of the masses and mostly alienate them.

[slim]

DE,

Nice work but the word has been used as a buzzword since long before that. In the 20s the IRA were "terrorist murderers". I dont know about the term before that date but i think it originated in the 1880s in Turkey. Im not certain but i think it is.

Le people,

That is a biased view. The IRA had the support of their people. Al-Quida obviously have support somewhere to get all the money to obtain arms and explosives, set up communications and if the brainwashing camp theory is correct then that must cost a lot too. They must have support but our propagandist governments want to brainwash us into one close minded perspective. The revolution will free our minds from this and will produce a more liberal free thinking society.

NKOS,

I have to agree with your statement. Its not the whole story but its along the right lines.

Slim. HRA.

[CheMN]

I believe that you all make good points but one thing that we need to see in terrorism is that applying fear is only a half step towards a goal. What is the point of killing people for fear if you will not use the fear for a greater purpose. In Iraq the insurgents are attacking "non-combatant" locations to instill fear in the population. But why? Possibly so that the people turn against us and force us out of Iraq. Or maybe they are attacking American-freindly locations so that no one will help the american army.

I'm just rambling but terrorism always has a higher purpose than fear.

[Fidelbrand]

Terrorism i guesss have 2 causes:

1) For fun (now fuck that! simply disgraceful)
2) For retaliation when one was disrespected and don't have enough $ to launch a battle.

[Le People]

Yes, the IRA and Al Quelida have some strong support, but I do have to say to the whole British Ilses, the IRA is a scorn. I'm for organization of a mass inssuretion, kidnapping, and assasnatoin when it comes to urban revolution. I find the October Revolution as a guid.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Originally posted by Le [email protected] 22 2005, 02:13 AM
Yes, the IRA and Al Quelida have some strong support, but I do have to say to the whole British Ilses, the IRA is a scorn. I'm for organization of a mass inssuretion, kidnapping, and assasnatoin when it comes to urban revolution. I find the October Revolution as a guid.
In the October Revolution when they took the palace there was pretty much little to no resistance, which would be the opposite of how it would be now, so that is just a bit off, in my opinion

[Enragé]

In Iraq the insurgents are attacking "non-combatant" locations to instill fear in the population

Zarqawi does that, not mainstream insurgents.


maybe they are attacking American-freindly locations so that no one will help the american army.

well yes and something could be said for that.


(P)IRA was urban guerilla, as is the mainstream iraqi resistance. Why? because they did/do not use fear to get to their goal, they simply want to make the occupation too costly for the occupying forces to remain.

And do not think just because the Provisional IRA has disbanded that its over in the occupied six, there are still the splinter groups Continuity IRA (with Republican Sinn Fein as the political branch), the Real IRA and the currently on ceasefire Irish National Liberation Army (INLA), with the Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) as its political branch.

[slim]

The PIRA was not completely urban. It had many units in the towns for the simple reason that, that is where the catholics live and to defend these communities violence was used.

Many actions were taken in the countryside. Most of the arms dumps were in the countryside and the murder of Lynch in 87' was in a small village surrounded by the SAS scum.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 04:52 PM
Terrorist is a word synonomous with freedom fighter.

The word is propagandist and i refuse to use it. The IRA were "terrorist thugs" as the Sun put it. What i see is a minority of people protecting themselves against an army of rapists and murderers
The IRA fought the army by killing civilians? Interesting...

Both State terrorism(USA, UK), individual acts of terrorism, and terrorist groups such as Al Queda are all wrong. They fight their wars by killing civilians.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Aug 26 2005, 02:19 PM--> (CrazyModerate @ Aug 26 2005, 02:19 PM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 04:52 PM
Terrorist is a word synonomous with freedom fighter.

The word is propagandist and i refuse to use it. The IRA were "terrorist thugs" as the Sun put it. What i see is a minority of people protecting themselves against an army of rapists and murderers
The IRA fought the army by killing civilians? Interesting...

Both State terrorism(USA, UK), individual acts of terrorism, and terrorist groups such as Al Queda are all wrong. They fight their wars by killing civilians. [/b]
Agreed.

[OleMarxco]

Well, I too agree with that statement, al'tho only I have some objection's to it, but I still broadly agree with since it explain's what our attitude should be; Against all kind's of harassment of innocent's ;)

So here's my hold o'ris. "State-Terrorism" is rather dubious - and don't forget Soviet! (They count too, don't cling at'rem 'cuz they claim to be "real" leftist - just like gangsta's say, "we're real!" when they're not, just 'cuz they need to convince us) Q'ed ~~ It's more like, because of suspect's of terrorism they terrorize or because bombin's "spill-over" :P

Invidual act's of terrorism are banditry, thievery, muggin', and the like, in my eyes, 'specially, but if not limited to, Organized Crime - Mafia's. Not the IRA...or the Al Quiada. Now this might sound shockin', but they aim for ideal's; Goodfella's for money. "High-risk and Renegade Venture Capitalist's" I like to call them..Kinda silly, 'tho, but who care's, right? Sure, civilian's get killed in both cases, but it depend's on what the group's aim at. I don't think it's their goal - Just to hurt specific industries, whether or not there's people there. Jus' think about it: The WTC? General Buisness. The London Sub-Train station? Meant to hit the transport-buisness. It's the "spillover" there too. But I don't like them much either :D

Plus, ONE MORE THING. Important: To label a Terrorist as 'freedom fighter', is wrong, then freedom fighter looses it's meaning and Terrorist too. Terrorist is supposed to be the word for people who uses, well, sort to say, "very unconventional mean's", not "fighter for ideal conditions for the people"....Like, someone immediatly becomes idealistic and political as soon as they take hostages and threathen with bomb's, etc. It's a totally different thing, it could be a fighter for freedom, but a freedom-fighter don't have to be a terrorist, perhaps only a guerrila with alot of rifle's, etc. Or a demonstrant. Whatever the mean's.....

Sometimes civilian's aren't entirely un-guilthy, either :)

[Technique3055]

This is an extremely interesting question, and I really don't think a definate answer, to be accepted by people of all beliefs will come about.

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

By that definition, we can basically call anyone who ever fought in a war a terrorist. I think it's safe to assume all wars occur because of some conflict within beliefs, and thus people on either side of a war are trying to use force and violence to intimidate societies or governments into changing their ideological or political beliefs. The George Washington thing war brought up earlier. He used force and violence (the American Revolution) with the intention of intimidating a certain government (the British government). This violence was brought about by ideological or political reasons (He wanted to be free of taxes and such).

Anyone can be twisted into a "terrorist" by fundamental standards, and that is the reasoning why "terrorism" can never be defined as a concrete term. The standards that most of us define terrorism as are moral standards involving the words "right" or "wrong." Moral standards are something else that people will disagree about, and that's why they can't be defined as a concrete term either. "Right" and "wrong" are not a democracy. I'm sure there are people out there who think what Hitler did was "right," but that's all because moral standards (and thus, fundamental standards of terrorism) cannot be indefinately defined as one thing or another.

[Vallegrande]

A terrorist is simply one that is not heard. Terrorism is the result of ignorance towards a group of people. Hence the US ideology of not negotiating with terrorists.

I found this on OED online. It's interesting to read the history of when it was first used:

terrorism
1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).
"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]
General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste. The tendency of one party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in World War II (e.g. in the "Spectator," Oct. 20, 1979).

[Bannockburn]

I think one poster used it well. Terrorism, and terrorist are used for propaganda. A lot of people here have put up a definition close to that of the official US definition of terrorism. Its such a broad concept, that is can be applied to everyone or any state.

To use Chomsky's argument, the United States government has been the leading terrorist state both directly in the Indochina wars, and Iraq, and indirectly with proxy death squads in Central America. This is by their own definition.

Again, another poster said that he refuses to use it. I think that is a good idea. Its simply another term to be applied to any group or state that doesn't comply to the interest of powerful states. Its like McCarthyism, 21ist century.

If you think about it, the United States can't even stand under their own rigid standard of, “those who harbor terrorists, and terrorist”. Well the US government has harbored Cuban exile terrorist to undermine Castro for years. They are in Miami. So, be their very own definition, the United States government is both a leading terrorist state, a leading state in sponsoring terrorism, and a state that also harbors terrorists.
Finally, if you think about it, today's war on terrorism, is simply another version, be it change in target, but not in form, of the communist red scare and domino theory of the 50' to early 90's. Like communism, its an 'ideology” (I like how Bush uses that: he uses a Marxist term, something the US is so against) that if not contained, and stopped it will spread like a deadly virus. Its the exact same thing.

[Morpheus]

"Terrorist" is just a perjorative term for someone or something you strongly dislike. It's like "evil" or "asshole" - it's entirely subjective. It's mainly used by governments & their supporters to disparage their opponets.

[CheMN]

I believe that we can all agree that terrorists make their points by attacking civilian targets and not military targets

[RedStarMilitia]

well by the use of this definition of terrorism it would seem that my country (UK) and America are partaking in terrorist acts - killing civilians, terrorising "enemies" and putting terror into their enemies.

I believe this is a massive hypocracy placed by bush/blair - they are fighting "terrorists" but are becoming terrorists themselves.....

[Comrade Sean]

Hey slim what is the HRA?

[RedAnarchist]

If i kill an unarmed civilian in purpose - i'm a terrorist
If i invade another, weaker nation with an argument based on a pack of lies - i'm a terrorist
If i blow up 52 people in trains and a bus - i'm a terrorist
If I kill Palestinians in refugee camps - i'm a terrorist
If i spray Agent Orange, destroying 955 of Vietnam's fertile land - i'm a terrorist

[slim]

Comrade Sean,

The HRA is my radical political group. Its the Human Rights Association (i wanted HRArmy but it would have caused an easy target for propaganda lol). We aim to fight the system in the UK from 2007 and spread influence and support from there. We will fight to end the corruption and tyranny of the capitalist state. The death of free speech, free movement, free association and freedom of choice will contribute to their downfall.

Knowing our just state it wont be long before we are on the list of terror suspects and are imprisoned by our fascist rulers.

Slim. HRA. Sil Anmachadhra.

[Vanguard1917]

You cannot compare anti-imerialist organisations like the IRA with "Islamic terrorism".

The IRA was not a terrorist organisation. It was an army that used guerilla tactics to free Ireland from British imperialist rule. The IRA had very clear political aims, it had a very substantial connection with significant sections of the Irish population and anti-imperialists all over the world (and, partly for this reason, it chose its targets very carefully), and it was a product of a wholly progressive movement (namely, anti-imperialism).

"Islamic terrorism" has no serious political aims worth mentioning, it doesn't have any support base worth mentioning, it targets civilians in its "spectacular" campaigns to create fear, and it is a wholly non-progressive movement that is a product of reactionary currents existing in Western society.

[Hachi-Go]

Terrorist: Noun, Someone who looses a war.

[Free Palestine]

If i blow up 52 people in trains and a bus - i'm a terrorist
If I kill Palestinians in refugee camps - i'm a terrorist

The violence of the oppressed and of the oppressor are not deserving of equal condemnation. Take a young Palestinian man, a desperate and poor refugee dweller, from Gaza who lives in horrendous conditions and is forced into a miserable enclave - all of it imposed by Israel - who straps dynamite around himself and detonates it in a crowd of civilians. I don't condone or agree with it, but it is understandable. It is understandable from the point of view of a human being who feels himself being crowded out of life and all of his surroundings, who sees his fellow Palestinians, his parents, sisters, and brothers suffering, being injured and killed. He wants to do something, to strike back. That can be understood as the act of a truly desperate person trying to free himself from unjustly imposed conditions. Living in an enviornment so hopeless and unbearable, that death is perceived as the only escape. It's not something I agree with, but at least I can understand it. When you look at the horrendous economic and political conditions under which Palestinians have lived for generations, it is easy to understand why suicide bombers would exist.

What about the brutal occupation and Israeli STATE terrorism that CREATES them. For over 50 years the Palestinians have been living under the gun: dispossessed of their land, massacred, and displaced from their homes.

[Le People]

The London train bombings should what assholes terrorists can be. In my view, the time honored tactic of trashing is something we should all study from the aged book Steal This Book! by Abbie Hoffman. If you rob a bank where rich people bank to fund the organization, I have no problem with that. Radom bombings of cillivallians is stupid and counter productive.