Terrorism

[WUOrevolt]

What would you consider to be terrorism?

Would the Weathermen, ETA, ELN, FARC-EP, Al-Qaeda be considered terrorist groups to you?

What acts constitute terrorism?

Bombings of empty buildings, bombings of civilian places, hijacking planes, suicide bombings, etc.

[Janus]

Terrorism is the use of violence or terror in order to accomplish political objectives. So yes those groups could be considered terrorist groups. However, we must not forget that nations and states can also use terrorism and that the use of violence or terror by an established government or military is not justified when they base it solely on the grounds of morality and other "ideals".

[which doctor]

I would consider a terrorist to be someone who causes terror. I would consider those groups to be terrorists. I would also consider the US government as a terrorist organization, along with the US army. The word "terrorist" is one of the most misused words in the english language.

[WUOrevolt]

But fi a group were to plant a bomb and then call and get everyone out of the non civilian building target before the bomb went off to prevent any casualties, would that be terrorism?

[Vallegrande]

Terror : dread, fear,
-ist : an agent (of terror)

This can mean that anything, a bomb itself, or a natural disaster, can be a terrorist (except that's where "an act of God" comes in). And what about Samson, who killed himself in order to kill thousands more? I'd consider him to have been terrorist in the literal sense. Yet people draw the line between a terrorist and the religious aspect of it. As of now it is just used to stereotype or blame a certain peoples.

[WUOrevolt]

Would you consider the weathermen underground to be terrorists?

[ack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:54 PM
What acts constitute terrorism?
Terrorism is attacking civilians with a political cause in mind, and it is wrong. As Pro-America/close-minded as this sounds, attacking military targets is OK. If the 9/11 terrorists had succeeded in their attack upon the Pentagon/White House, that would not have been terrorism, whereas the hijacking of civilian planes and then running them into buildings full of civilians is unforgivable.

[edit]
I use 9/11 only b/c I know a fair amount about it. The above is adaptable to most situations involving combat.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:42 PM
Would you consider the weathermen underground to be terrorists?
Yes, they were using terror against the government to try to accomplish political goals.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by ack+Dec 22 2005, 11:58 PM--> (ack @ Dec 22 2005, 11:58 PM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 05:54 PM
What acts constitute terrorism?
Terrorism is attacking civilians with a political cause in mind, and it is wrong. As Pro-America/close-minded as this sounds, attacking military targets is OK. If the 9/11 terrorists had succeeded in their attack upon the Pentagon/White House, that would not have been terrorism, whereas the hijacking of civilian planes and then running them into buildings full of civilians is unforgivable.

[edit]
I use 9/11 only b/c I know a fair amount about it. The above is adaptable to most situations involving combat. [/b]
so, if i got a bomb, and blew up an army base, would that be terrorism?

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by xphile2868+Dec 23 2005, 06:14 AM--> (xphile2868 @ Dec 23 2005, 06:14 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 11:58 PM

[email protected] 22 2005, 05:54 PM
What acts constitute terrorism?
Terrorism is attacking civilians with a political cause in mind, and it is wrong. As Pro-America/close-minded as this sounds, attacking military targets is OK. If the 9/11 terrorists had succeeded in their attack upon the Pentagon/White House, that would not have been terrorism, whereas the hijacking of civilian planes and then running them into buildings full of civilians is unforgivable.

[edit]
I use 9/11 only b/c I know a fair amount about it. The above is adaptable to most situations involving combat.
so, if i got a bomb, and blew up an army base, would that be terrorism? [/b]
If everyone was evacuated, then I would say no.

[ReD_ReBeL]

I know this isn't the offical term for terrorism but i see it as , An act of violence which is purpously directed towards a civillian/s

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:38 AM
I know this isn't the offical term for terrorism but i see it as , An act of violence which is purpously directed towards a civillian/s
I agree with this, if you tell people to evacuate so as to not be injured or killed by a bomb, I dont think it is terrorism.

[KC]

What if the bomb accidentally goes off? Also, are soldiers civilians?

[ReD_ReBeL]

soldiers are not civillians i wouldent say, they are trained for combat , death and unjury is just a risk of being a soldier. Mebe off duty soldiers could be labeled civillians i dont know. But i wouldent say when thy are on duty that they are civillians.

[ReD_ReBeL]

What if the bomb accidentally goes off?

I would still count this as terrorism because if it accidently goes off at the wrong time in a civillian place, it was originaly intended to blow up a neutral target which is used commonly by civillians.
people try to excuse the IRA for blowing civillians to death once they have told them to be removed. But if they truely didn't want to harm anyone then why didn't thy not blow it up at night, when it is closed?
They might be fighting opression but there methods are extremely unorthodox and un-nessesary. To be honest i feel sorry for some Irish people , because they must fear being blown up everytime u walk into a shop.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:30 PM
What if the bomb accidentally goes off? Also, are soldiers civilians?
I would make sure that everyone was evacuated

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I think maybe that could still be considered terrorism. There were a few bomb threats at my high school about two months ago and if a bomb had actually gone off after everyone was evacuated, (especially if it was during the day) I'm sure some people would feel "terrorized". Also, according to the dictionary, "terrorism" includes acts against property. I consider attacking property or military "lesser terrorism" than attacking people. But attacking civilians is never right.

[Ownthink]

There is no such thing as "terrorism".

Period.

[Creature]

Terrorism depends on how you define terrorism.

If you consider terrorism any violent act by a nation to a politcal movement on a civilian poulation to instill fear for a political purpose to be terrorism, then 'terrorism' has been going on since time began.

If you consider terrorism to be any violent act for a political purpose then the way you see terrorism changes.

The word terrosim has lost meaning and every enemy of the state is thus labelled a terroist and anyone with any ounce of intelligence should not use the term.

[ReD_ReBeL]

ok but if we are on about Al-Queda and other groups which attack civillians then i agree with Che Guevara where he states that "Terrorism is for cowards"

[Ownthink]

If you consider terrorism any violent act by a nation to a politcal movement on a civilian poulation to instill fear for a political purpose to be terrorism, then 'terrorism' has been going on since time began.
The very reason why I said it does not exist, it is much like morals - No concrete definition.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:55 AM
ok but if we are on about Al-Queda and other groups which attack civillians then i agree with Che Guevara where he states that "Terrorism is for cowards"
Yeah, AL Qaeda is defanitely a terrorist organization. If you target civilians then it is defanitely terrorism.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by leftistmarleyist+Dec 23 2005, 11:05 PM--> (leftistmarleyist @ Dec 23 2005, 11:05 PM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 07:55 AM
ok but if we are on about Al-Queda and other groups which attack civillians then i agree with Che Guevara where he states that "Terrorism is for cowards"
Yeah, AL Qaeda is defanitely a terrorist organization. If you target civilians then it is defanitely terrorism. [/b]
Or instead of adding to the use of probably the most twisted word of the 21st Century, you could just call them Militant Wahabi-ists.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Dec 24 2005, 08:08 AM--> (Ownthink @ Dec 24 2005, 08:08 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:05 PM

[email protected] 24 2005, 07:55 AM
ok but if we are on about Al-Queda and other groups which attack civillians then i agree with Che Guevara where he states that "Terrorism is for cowards"
Yeah, AL Qaeda is defanitely a terrorist organization. If you target civilians then it is defanitely terrorism.
Or instead of adding to the use of probably the most twisted word of the 21st Century, you could just call them Militant Wahabi-ists. [/b]
What?

[ReD_ReBeL]

no i will refer to Al-Queda as terrorists as much as i want because i am not going to show any mercy in wasting my time specifically labeling a blood-thirsty unhumane coward of the fucking Al-Queda and the rest of them cowards who blow up innocent human beings! SHOW NO MERCY TO THE COWARDS!

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by leftistmarleyist+Dec 23 2005, 11:14 PM--> (leftistmarleyist @ Dec 23 2005, 11:14 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:05 PM

[email protected] 24 2005, 07:55 AM
ok but if we are on about Al-Queda and other groups which attack civillians then i agree with Che Guevara where he states that "Terrorism is for cowards"
Yeah, AL Qaeda is defanitely a terrorist organization. If you target civilians then it is defanitely terrorism.
Or instead of adding to the use of probably the most twisted word of the 21st Century, you could just call them Militant Wahabi-ists.
What? [/b]
Instead of referring to them using a much misused and twisted word such as "terrorist", you could simply refer to them as militant jihadists or more speciifically followers of the Wahabi sect of Islam.

But the word "terrorist" is entirely subjective and has been used by governments (more so recently, they've used other words in the past) to describe anyone who resists them using violent methods.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:18 PM
no i will refer to Al-Queda as terrorists as much as i want because i am not going to show any mercy in wasting my time specifically labeling a blood-thirsty unhumane coward of the fucking Al-Queda and the rest of them cowards who blow up innocent human beings! SHOW NO MERCY TO THE COWARDS!
Well, I would agree with you that they may be "unhumane" in their methods, at least to the general public. Many people (leftists included) are quick to point of the events of 9-11 in regards to how we should not support or give "good wishes" to organizations such as Al-Qaeda.

But, I ask you, how many civilians have died from US Foreign Policy? How many times has the American government attacked countries or bombed civilians in such a process?

Everyone seems to go apeshit over 3,000 civilians in America, but that is nothing compared to the likes of Vietnam, or more recently, the War On Terror.

Al-Qaeda and the like are rightly pissed at the fact that the "heathen Americans" hold bases in the Middle East and are imperialists in those lands. If America did not occupy the Middle East, organizations like Al-Qaeda wouldn't exist. For example, the bombing of the USS Cole, which was near a base in Yemen. They were completely justified in trying to drive the imperialist forces out of their lands. 9-11 was basically them saying "this is the last straw!". Attacking the WTC was a way for Al-Qaeda to strike back at America for all the wrongs it has done.

I do not offer Al-Qaeda support on the likes of their Idealogy, but mostly their fight against American Imperialism. I can see why they are doing it and agree with it.

[ReD_ReBeL]

yes i agree the yanks push people to far, but why coulden't Al-Queda not fight like proper men and fight the US military and the politicians who make these ridiculous policies instead of murdering thousands of people just trying to make a living. As for the leaders of Al-Queda they are the biggest cowards of all they recruit suicide bombers saying you will be rewarded by Allah and all tht crap , If Bin Laden or which other leader think suicide bombing is so good why dont they do it thereselfs?

[Ownthink]

yes i agree the yanks push people to far, but why coulden't Al-Queda not fight like proper men and fight the US military and the
No. Guerilla tactics and "terrorism" are a very effective way to wage a war. See Reality.


instead of murdering thousands of people just trying to make a living.
Well, what do you think America did to civilians of other countries since the late 1800's? What goes around comes around.




As for the leaders of Al-Queda they are the biggest cowards of all they recruit suicide bombers saying you will be rewarded by Allah and all tht crap , If Bin Laden or which other leader think suicide bombing is so good why dont they do it thereselfs?
I don't think it's because they are "cowards", it's because they are trying to wage a fucking war, and they're doing pretty good. Central Leadership never puts itself in harms way.


fucking fagget needs a good bullet in the head.
Homophobic language, even if misspelled, is not tolerated here.

[Re-visionist 05]

whatever fails to justify its end, through its means. In other words; pretty much every action any modern day leader of the free world has carried out.

[Rage]

I remember reading Ches Guerrilla Warfare book for the first time and noteing that he said that there was a diffrence in Terrorism and Guerrilla Warfare. In my opinion Terrorism does not actualy push your cause fowards, for example executing Jill Carroll, How will that help the insurgants? Sure they got attention but what they were trying to do is to get America to Release the all Women prisioners, which is not going to happen, so how will executing an innocent person help?


/,,/
Rock on!

[Tormented by Treachery]

Sadly, I think terrorism is effective. Simply put, the objective is to scare the civilians of the opposing nation into meeting demands for peace. The way to scare our public is to execute any and all Americans that venture into the Middle East, and that's what they're doing. It is adding to the anti-war movement going on in the US right now.

That said, I think it is cowardly and I do not approve of it, nor would I ever allow myself to be associated with an organization that was involved with terrorism.

[ReD_ReBeL]

No. Guerilla tactics and "terrorism" are a very effective way to wage a war. See Reality.

Yes very affective but shouldent be approved, it's not going to get you mass support. i'll stick by Che' quote 'Terrorism is for cowards"
Reality huh? Did the cuban revolution ever purposely kill civillians? No they didn't and u see what happened Mass Support and victory.
ANC never purposely targeted civillians and what happened.....MAss Support and victory(even though it wasnt just them alone).
chinese revolution never targeted innocents on purpose and ....Mass support and victory.
Al-Queda has bombed innocents and.....condemed , hated and failing.
IRA targeted civillians which damaged there support and......practically failed....

If starting to see a pattern?


Well, what do you think America did to civilians of other countries since the late 1800's? What goes around comes around.

So we should copy them, and stoop to there level?


Homophobic language, even if misspelled, is not tolerated here.

HAHA Ownthink aren't you not banned for being a dick? so you can hardly say shit like that to me.

[Goatse]

I think Ownthink was referring to the fact you said that the Al-Q should "fight like men."

Anyway, I would define terrorism as people who create terror. However not all terrorists are bad - the Red Army Faction, by that definition, however they only targetted specific people. They created terror among the upper classes. They rarely, if ever (?) attacked civilians.

Checking Wikipedia, it defines them as terrorists... however, it says this:


It operated from the 1970s to 1998, causing great unrest (especially in the autumn of 1977, which led to a national crisis) and killing dozens of high-profile Germans in its more than 20 years of existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

Not all terrorists are bad.

[The Grey Blur]

IRA targeted civillians which damaged there support and....
You've been told before that the IRA never targeted civilians - why do you persist in this shitty Pro-Imperialist propaganda?


practically failed
Oh yeah, what with them having the support of the Catholic Working-Class and Sinn Féin being one of the biggest Political Parties in Ireland... :rolleyes:


i'll stick by Che' quote 'Terrorism is for cowards"
How about you stick Che's quote up your ass

Stop being such a goddamn liberal and a child. Maybe when you have soldiers harassing and shooting at you you might feel differently.

Oh, and I can see you're also homophobic - why, you're just an all-round Beurgeois Liberal, ain'tcha? :)

[La Comédie Noire]

What would you consider Terrorism?

A buzz word State powers use to supress small groups of armed people when they fear they will be a danger to their Intrests.