This came from the “Terrorism in the United States” thread, and different people have varying ideas on what “Terrorism” means.

This is what the State Department has come up with:


http://www.terrorismanswers.com/terrorism/...troduction.html

But historians talk of Stalin’s regime of being a terrorist state and today people refer to Israel as causing state terrorism.

What is your definition of terrorism?

Apparently, according to the Bush administration at least, terrorism is any attack against a US interest. When the US or a US interest does the same to anyone else, it's perfectly fine.

If the Palestinians attack Israel, it's terrorism. When Israel bombs the crap out of the Palestinians, it's self-defense. If we sponsor rebels to overthrow a government, they're 'freedom fighters'.

I think terrorism is the deliberate and systemic murder, maiming, and/or menacing of the innocent for the purpose of inspiring fear for political or religious ends. I don't see why premeditiation should be a prerequisite to terrorism, although it would be helpful for tracing purposes.

I think that would cover Stalin, or even the French revolutionary 'Reign of Terror'

I can bet that the Bush administration has never said anything like that.

Thomas's reference or definition is what i think is right

I can live with the CIA's definition of terrorism. Of course that is probably to limiting for the Bush administration's purposes.

I agree with the CIA's definition of terrorism. Some attacks which get labeled as "terrorist" are not however. Attacks on American troops in Iraq are not acts of terrorism, neither was the attack on the USS Cole. The attack on the Pentagon wouldn't have been a terrorist attack, except they decided to use hijacked civilian airliners. That doesn't mean I don't think those acts should be punished. On the contrary, I think those responsible should be hunted down like the vermin that they are. I just don't think "terrorism" is an accurate label.

the way I define terrorism is first, the way america does (according to the us code of federal regulations) which is:
and second the way the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition does, which is: (both examples DO include the war on Iraq, IMO)

It's hard to define Terrorism because one man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter

I'd say the key aspect of terrorism is the "terror" it creates. I would describe that as the irrational fear of further attacks that changes behaviour of both populations and governments. If the change in behaviour happens, and depending on how it changes, then the terrorists may see no further need to attack. I don't think it particularly matters whether the targets are civilian or military - a military target struck in a particularly terrifying way can be as effective as a civilian one.

In this regard, I would say that IRA bombing campaigns in mainland Britain were intended to cause terror but were singularly ineffective at it - people didn't stay away from pubs, offices or shopping centres after bombs were planted there.

By the same token, the 9-11 attacks were the largest act of terror on record, not just because they had the highest death toll, but because a whole country (at the very least) changed their political, diplomatic and economic behaviour as an direct result, based on the desire for revenge (mostly carried out rationally, as it has turned out), and the fear of further attacks.

(Re-reading my post, I notice that using words like "effective" may indicate some kind of approval. I categorically do not mean that - I'm using the sense that something or someone does what it sets out to do; it creates the intended effects.)

Unlawful according to who? It's far too easy to say that your attacks on someone are legal when you make the laws, and declare any attacks on you to be illegal.

Terrorist and terrorism are simply propoganda tecnhinque to demonize the enemy. We supported the "terrorists" in Afghanistan when the Russians were there, but then they were "guerilla freedom fighters"- including one Osama Bin Laden.

I almost laughed out loud at the State Depts definition because it is so clearly defined to mean anybody that doesn't meet the American military in head on battle. We purposely killed women, children and civilians in WW2 with the explicit reason of terrorizing the population in order to get them to surrender.

The palestinians have no hope of matching the Isrealis military power so resort to purposely bombing school buses and hotels using suicide bombers. The isrealis don't have the population to carry out this kind of attack, so they purposely kill poeple in thier houses using our weapons and tanks when they destroy the homes of palestenians, that have no part in the conflict.

It is all propaganda, and even the word itself is just a propaganda technique. There are simply no good guys and no bad guys in this war except the leaders of the various countries, and the rest of us are just pawns to be sacrificed for thier climb to power.

Terrorist attacks are attacks on civillians and civilain property for political (in the broadest meaning of the word) reasons. Terrorist attacks must be made by a group, or inflicted upon, a nation that has not declared war, or had it declared upon them.

Hows that? I think the biggest difference is target. The Iraq fighters who are killing Allied soldiers are freedom fighters rather than terrorists and I defy any one to prove otherwise.

according to established international law, and international agreement.

The FBI divides the terrorist threat facing the United States into two broad categories--domestic and international.

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. Acts are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government. These acts transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate, or the locale in which perpetrators operate.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/wat...atson020602.htm

I fail to see the connection between the (prior) Afghan guerillas and the CIA definition of terrorism which you find laughable. The Russians were the ones invading and placing bombs in toys. We must not be very smart because we haven't employed that technique, terrorism being just a 'propaganda' word and all. Osama became a terrorist when he instigated and promoted terrorist activity. Our crystal balls were out of commission back then.


I don't know of anyone who has suggested that the "freedom fighters" in Iraq are terrorists by their actions against military members. They ARE, however, illegal combatants when they hide behind civilians and drop grenades from hospitals. As I posted on another thread:
This is a terrorist thread, so I don't understand your reference to "freedom fighter" Geneva convention disregarding guerillas here.

How do you know that some of those "Freedom Fighters" aren't Iranian-based terrorist groups with agendas that include the deaths of coalition soldiers?

An overwhelming superior force doesn't need to use the techniques like we have all seen on TV or described. That is precisely why these "terrorists" have resorted to this kind of behavior- because there is no possible way for them to win the war otherwise, or win thier cause. I think it is a horrible world we live in, and have seen the awful things man does to man, but to say the US has the moral high ground, or Isreal, is laughable, in a sad way, as well. We are complicate in every action that happens to us. And yes, we have commited terrorists acts as well, once again I refer to the bombing of Germany and Tokyo, neither of which had any military value, simply used to terrorize and demoralize the enemy.

Once again, I stick by the phrase that the word "terrorism" is simply a propoganda tool to demonize the enemy, because he "doesn't fight fair" or some other nonsense. The poeple we call "terrorists" are fighting that way because it is the only option available to them, what does the US expect them to do, jump in thier toyata with an AK and meet the military head on? Even the word "unlawful combatant" is stupid, just a word we use to punish our enemies. Of course they use hospitals and schools to hide, or else they would be quickly wiped out, we are just too strong, so they use thier unconventional methods, horrific as they are to keep hitting us.

I mean really, did we expect them to just give up or fight fair? What do they have to lose, really?

That is a violation of the Geneva convention and a war crime. When you use those tactics, you intentionally put civilians into the line of fire. It is reprehensible and inexcusable.

Although I don't want to go too much into the unlawful combatant topic (on this thread) , the REASON those things are illegal are to preserve civilian life to as great an extent as possible. Obviously, if a guerilla can pose as a civilian within a group of civilians, feign surrender, and then jump up and fire on the troops, this puts all innocent civilains at risk in a big way. Hiding in a school and using an ambulance for military operations eliminates that shield of immunity for the innocent.

I can't really explain the difference between placing exploding ordinance in toys (which target children), crashing airplanes into civilian buildings (which target civilian workers), gassing entire towns full of people (which target families), and legitimate types of military operations (which target soldiers and military equipment), if that distinction isn't apparent to you.
I will say this...Imagine a world in which the US of today decides that terrorism has no definition, and the slaughter of anyone is justifiable for political gain. That would end anti-American terrorism pretty fast. We would just detonate nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East, and anyone else who wanted to mess with us. Hey, it's all the same, right? We could even simultaneously cut military spending- and 'win' wars!

Would putting arms but not military personnel in a hospital count as an inexcusable act like you describe? I think it might because you are storing military equipment so therefore it can be considered as such against the Geneva Convention

YOu guys have all said that THEIR tactics are despicable and horrible to purposely target civilians, but why is it okay for us to do the same then? This question keeps getting sidestepped, when THEY do it is terrorism, but when we do it is okay?

Also, though war is horrific and horrible, we have the luxory of being able to pick and choose who we want to kill because of our massive military.

Put yourself in thier shoes, regardless of what you think of the cause, good or bad. Some foreign power has taken over our country, and there is no way we could win a head to head battle. Would you use any means possible to throw off your oppresor? IF I thought it would help my children or family throw off thier oppressors, and I have no hope of a better life under my oppressors, and my kids have no hope under my oppressors, and they kill my family indiscriminately while calling us "terrorists" you can bet I would strap a bomb to my body and walk into a crowded area!

WHen, exactly, in the history of strategic (surgical) bombing, have we purposely targeted civilians? Who are the oppressors killing families indiscriminately? Do you have some impression we're dropping bombs from hospitals and using infants for fodder? Even people without the luxury of a large army shouldn't resort to terrorizing families. Some interview Iraqis have indicated they will turn their children into bombs to kill Americans. You sympathize with that? Would you strap a bomb to your child as well?
We aren't talking about oppressors anyway. As I have mentioned, those types of killings would be illegal combattant killings. We are speaking of terrorist activity. Downing civilian aircraft, ect. Why do you continue to try to bring illegal combatants into this discussion? You justify terrorism by using the example of illegal combatants fighting an invading force.

Let's review the definition of terrorist which you find amusing and see how it fits your rationalizations:
1. It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
2. It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.
3. It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
4. It is carried out by subnational groups—not by the army of a country.



Your post is frightening.

The bombing of Dresden was purposely targeting civilians, as well as the fire bombing of Tokyo- as well as carpet bombing of south east asia. Non of these instances had any military value except to demoralize and terrorize the population into surrender. And in some way, the atom bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima- they were industrial centers but that was secondary to the terror the bomb would have on the population.

Dresden was a large centre of war industry, and we didn't have the capability of launching surgical strikes back then, as we do today. We had a discussion about the atom bombs on another thread. It is a matter of your opinion that their primary purpose was terrorizing the populace.
After the onset of surgical warfare technology, when we have been able to accurately hit targets with precision, we have never bombed civilians unless by accident. That is the reason our defense budget is so large. Accuracy is expensive, and indiscriminate carnage is cheap.

The bombing of Tokyo after Pearl Harbor was targetting factories that were suspected of making weapons

CruisingRam was likely referring to the fire bombing of Tokyo (which happened several years after Pearl Harbor) when the Japanese no longer had a viable Air Force: Fire Bombing of Tokyo



Here is an excerpt from one account: Fire Bombing of Dresden
"The fire-bombing consisted of dropping large amounts of high-explosive to expose the timbers within buildings, followed by incendiary devices (fire-sticks) to ignite them and then more high-explosives to hamper the efforts of the fire services. This eventually created a self-sustaining 'fire storm' with temperatures peaking at over 1500 degrees C. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire. 3,900 tonnes of bombs were dropped. Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometers was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 19 churches, 5 theaters, 50 bank and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, and 62 administration buildings."

Your point is to demonstrate that war is evil? I completely agree.
Dresden was an industrial center, as was Tokyo. We didn't have the ability to bomb anything with precision accuracy during the 1940s. The range of accuracy varied from 5 miles at the beginning of the war to 2 miles at the end. The most efficient way to eliminate communications networks and cripple the enemy was through the use of incendiary bombs. Not a nice method, but necessary when the fate of the free world was at stake.