Terrorism

[SeaCat]

Terrorism. What is it? How do you define it?

Believe it or not there are many definitions of this term. (Over 100 accepted ones so far.) Sometimes this lack of definition can and does bite us in the butt.

In another thread Og made the comment that many Americans wuld agree with. He states that England has a lot of experience with Terrorism. (They do by the way.) Unfortunately many people don't think America has this experience as well. (We do.) Mainly this is because we never acknowledged it here when it was happening. (Hell in many cases we still don't.)

Now here is the question. (You knew there would be a question or two from me didn't you?)

What to you is terrorism and how does it affect you? Is it something you think about daily or is it something you don't really worry about? Do you see yourself ever trying to write a story about it?

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

Terrorism, to me, is violence by a non-national group for specific political purpose. Most often this purpose is to pressure a government into performing an act beneficial to the cause of the terrorists. Or to garner media attention for the cause of the terrorists.

9/11 was both.

There are lots of terrorist acts though that don't match these criteria of course. The first one that came to my mind that didn't fit was the KKK.

And as always, it's a matter of perspective. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

Terrorism hasn't affected my life at all. Except for making political forums a more unpleasant experience than usual.

 

[oggbashan]

Would I define organised crime as terrorism?

Was Al Capone a terrorist? The Mafia?

Were Native Americans terrorists? Were those who killed Native Americans terrorists?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The Allies encouraged the resistance fighters in World War II. The Germans and Italians considered the resistance fighters as terrorists - civilians with no uniforms killing by unfair means. Were the Germans right?

I believe that the definition of a terrorist is often political.

Og

PS. To answer your questions:

1. Terrorism to me is a random attack on people who are not threatening you without consideration of whether the people killed and injured are supporters or opposers of your "cause".

2. Do I think about it daily? No. At the height of the IRA's mainland UK attacks I went about my normal life slightly aware of the possibility of suspect packages etc. I had some responsibilities for the security of buildings so there were plans for what to do IF an attack happened - for example NOT to evacuate a building immediately after a bomb blast because a second bomb might have be placed to injure those evacuating - and those plans were reviewed whenever the alert level was changed or different IRA tactics were seen.

3. Would I write a story about it? Unlikely - I know too much that I might inadvertently include in a fictional scenario.

 

[Liar]

The way the words are used, I'd say that...

Freedom Fighters
Resistance Movement
Guerilla
Rebels
Insurgents
Terrorists

...are interchangeable. What you call it is a question of whose side you're on.

For me personally, Og's definition is pretty close.

1. Terrorism to me is a random attack on people who are not threatening you without consideration of whether the people killed and injured are supporters or opposers of your "cause".

But I'd like to add that the cause is a political one. And that the desired effect of the terrorist act is to inflice fear. As in "do as we want, or it'll happen again." A random psycho shooting spree at the post office is not terrorism. Because there the cause is generally some variation of "I'm insane and I want to kill people."

 

[SeaCat]

One of the reasons I posted this question is because of the way Terrorism is perceived here in the Untied States.

Soon after the attacks of 9-11 I heard the comment that the United States had never dealt with terrorism. That got me to thinking and I had to stop and shake my head.

It wasn't because we have never dealt with terrorism but because we never admitted to it. (We are after all the United States. No one would dare attack us.)

In the United States we have dealt with terrorism, we just never classified it as such. According to the most common definitions of terrorism we have dealt with more than a couple groups. The Black Panthers, K.K.K., and several others come to mind. Let us also not forget people like Timothy McVeigh. Some would even consider the Branch Davidians as terrorists. (There is one other group that stands out but I will not raise their name because of one person here whom I truly admire.)

This being said, Americans are naive about terrorism. All most people know about it is what they read in the newspapers, and that is filtered. Few if any Americans for example know about Operation Nimrod and Princess Gate.

9-11 was a shock to many because they didn't think it could happen. Unfortunately this shock is being used to excuse injustices.

Cat

 

[BoomerP]

I am so sick of this word. It's one of the most overused words in the media and hearing it almost pisses me off as much as when I hear someone say "It's not politicly correct"

It feels like people have forgotten what terrorist means. Like it's a word used by ignorants. Anyone who's different, thinks something else, does something else etc.. is a terrorist

Just replying about it here gets me worked up. And honestly I am sick to death of hearing about 9-11 aswell.

 

[Liar]

In the United States we have dealt with terrorism, we just never classified it as such.

And now that you discovered the word, you classify everything as it.

Oh, not you, but the fear mongering reactionists in your government. And everyone who happily or unknowingly drink their haterade.

 

[JagFarlane]

-Sigh- Why do I see this thread going the way of most political threads? Decent question to start, good answers to begin...then declining rapidly into a cesspool of bickering, name-calling, and otherwise random statements.

 

[Liar]

-Sigh- Why do I see this thread going the way of most political threads?

Not a clue.

Because I mentioned that the use of the word has changed in the official American rhetoric since 9/11?

Not only there, but it was there the new hegemony really took off. Since then, Russians have called Chechen rebels terrorists when they attack Russian military, the Columbian authorities have begun calling FARC terrorists, even though FARC's targets were never random and third party in the way that signifies terrorism. I heard Chinese statements in which the rioting Tibetans were called terrorists.

The word has been cheapened by the "war on terror" until it became the buzzword for "any non-nation agression against Me cause I'm the Good Guy".

But mea culpa for bringing it up.

 

[rgraham666]

"When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less." Humpty Dumpty.

 

[SeaCat]

And now that you discovered the word, you classify everything as it.

Oh, not you, but the fear mongering reactionists in your government. And everyone who happily or unknowingly drink their haterade.

In one way I do believe you are correct in this assesment. As I mentioned there are currently over 100 accepted definitions for the word Terrorist. So what is a Terrorist?

For me a terrorist is anyone willing to use limited or small scale violence against both civilians/noncombat personel as well as against police and occasionaly military personel to further their own goals be they military, political, religious or financial.

That being said there has to be a lower limit as well. One can't classify a common footpad or even the not so common Serial Murderor as a Terrorist.

That being said a terrorsit must in effect be a member of a group, be it a tightly organised cell or a loosely organised one they must be part of a group or movement.

Okay so lets add to this definition shall we? Most of us here are fairly inteligent so we should be able to knock together a working definition most of us can agree on.

Cat

P.S. Parish, I am in no way going to attack you for your comment although it does intrigue me. You commented that you are tired of the word. What would you use instead of it? As for the 9-11, well I am tired of it being brought up by some to attempt to instill fear.

 

[Frank Noir]

For me a terrorist is anyone willing to use limited or small scale violence against both civilians/noncombat personel as well as against police and occasionaly military personel to further their own goals be they military, political, religious or financial.

Um, sounds to me like that definition would define any soldier as a terrorist?

Bringing us back to the distinction that you're a terrorist mainly if you're not backed by a legitimate government (ie. Palestinian attacks on Israel are "acts of terrorism", Israel's retaliations are "military operations").

 

[rgraham666]

And you're just as dead if you're on the receiving end of either.

 

[Liar]

IFor me a terrorist is anyone willing to use limited or small scale violence against both civilians/noncombat personel as well as against police and occasionaly military personel to further their own goals be they military, political, religious or financial.

That being said there has to be a lower limit as well. One can't classify a common footpad or even the not so common Serial Murderor as a Terrorist.

That being said a terrorsit must in effect be a member of a group, be it a tightly organised cell or a loosely organised one they must be part of a group or movement.

Armies?
Sudanese warlords?
Law enforcement?
The Mafia?
The Crips?

One could argue that all those are terrorists under that definition.

So I think you need to narrow it down a bit.

 

[SlickTony]

-Sigh- Why do I see this thread going the way of most political threads? Decent question to start, good answers to begin...then declining rapidly into a cesspool of bickering, name-calling, and otherwise random statements.

Well, in other forums, mostdiscussions inevitably lead to sex and cats. This is a sex forum already.

 

[SeaCat]

Armies?
Sudanese warlords?
Law enforcement?
The Mafia?
The Crips?

One could argue that all those are terrorists under that definition.

So I think you need to narrow it down a bit.

Okay good point.

So how about a member of an organised group not affiliated with an acknowledged government entity that uses small scale violence to further their political or religious aims.

With the caveat that an organised group can include rogues like Mr. McVeigh.

Cat

 

[SlickTony]

I think people in this country have forgotten to view things in perspecitive.

Years ago, Robert Heinlein wrote a novel called Fifth Column, which posited this country being taken over, invaded and defeated militarily, by some kind of Pan-Asian alliance. (We will leave aside the fact that none of the Asian countries get along well enough to form that tight an alliance). Of course, a resistance movment soon formed. I'm sure that had the word "terrrorist" been as au courant as it is now, it would have been applied to it.

 

[Liar]

I think people in this country have forgotten to view things in perspecitive.

Years ago, Robert Heinlein wrote a novel called Fifth Column, which posited this country being taken over, invaded and defeated militarily, by some kind of Pan-Asian alliance. (We will leave aside the fact that none of the Asian countries get along well enough to form that tight an alliance). Of course, a resistance movment soon formed. I'm sure that had the word "terrrorist" been as au courant as it is now, it would have been applied to it.

)I don't think you have to look as far as fiction for that. How about the underground resistance movements in France, Norway and other places during the Nazi occupation?

 

[SeaCat]

Yes the Resistance Movements would have been, and were classified as Terrorist Groups. So what is the difference between them and what we today consider Terrorists? (Yes there are differences. Point them out for extra points.)

Come on guys and gals. Give some input.

Cat

 

[Liar]

Yes the Resistance Movements would have been, and were classified as Terrorist Groups. So what is the difference between them and what we today consider Terrorists? (Yes there are differences. Point them out for extra points.)

Come on guys and gals. Give some input.

Cat

The difference between them and what I consider terrorists: Innocent civilian targets.

Which means that many of today's so-called "terrorists", like those that attack US military in Iraq or clash with Israeli soldiers, are in fact not.

 

[SlickTony]

)I don't think you have to look as far as fiction for that. How about the underground resistance movements in France, Norway and other places during the Nazi occupation?

Well, yes, of course.

And I'm sure these people were defined as terrorists, too, or whatever word was fashionable then. What I'm saying is that who's a terrorist often depends on who's defining the word or the terrorist.

 

[rgraham666]

Yes the Resistance Movements would have been, and were classified as Terrorist Groups. So what is the difference between them and what we today consider Terrorists? (Yes there are differences. Point them out for extra points.)

Come on guys and gals. Give some input.

Cat

It's determined by the people who write the history books.

 

[oggbashan]

It's determined by the people who write the history books.

It is determined by the winners.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

)I don't think you have to look as far as fiction for that. How about the underground resistance movements in France, Norway and other places during the Nazi occupation?

The Germans classed them as terrorists. They also classed Royal Marine Commandos as terrorists after several raids on occupied Europe even though the Royal Marines were in uniform and acting as part of the UK's armed forces.

Any resistance person caught was likely to be tortured and executed.

The Germans also executed civilians from towns where terrorist/resistance activity had taken place or was presumed to have been based - to encourage the others. Look up Lidice and Oradour-sur-Glane. Oradour might have been a mistake - the wrong Oradour.

Og