What is a Terrorist


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : What is a Terrorist

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author Message
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 604674 - Posted: 16 Jul 2007, 19:40:02 UTC

Terrorist:

One who governs by terrorism or intimidation;
A radical who employs terror as a political weapon;
Usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells;
Often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.

Well, that just about covers it... ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 23702
Credit: 493,107
RAC: 127
United States
Message 604788 - Posted: 16 Jul 2007, 23:22:19 UTC

In my opinion, the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is the targets.

If you are carefully targeting the opposing military, you are a freedom fighter even if you use methods that are similar to terrorists.

If you are targeting civilians, you are a terrorist.
____________


BOINC WIKI

Profile Saenger
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2452
Credit: 20,073
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 604793 - Posted: 16 Jul 2007, 23:34:32 UTC - in response to Message 604788.
Last modified: 16 Jul 2007, 23:37:19 UTC

In my opinion, the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is the targets.

If you are carefully targeting the opposing military, you are a freedom fighter even if you use methods that are similar to terrorists.

If you are targeting civilians, you are a terrorist.

Define "target" please.
Is the use of a cluster bomb, of napalm, of agent orange, of nuclear bombs, general of weapons that will mainly affect civilians, terrorism?
By your definition it is.

Or, of it isn't, a "terrorist" kills or wounds just a single "opposing military" (including non-uniform staff of course), he will be a freedom fighter, and the rest is just "collateral damage".
____________
Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 604795 - Posted: 16 Jul 2007, 23:36:01 UTC - in response to Message 604788.

In my opinion, the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is the targets.

If you are carefully targeting the opposing military, you are a freedom fighter even if you use methods that are similar to terrorists.

If you are targeting civilians, you are a terrorist.

Does this rule apply on everyone? I mean, just look to Iraq: it's estimated that ten times as much Iraqi civilians were killed than Iraqi soldiers...
____________
Account frozen...

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 23702
Credit: 493,107
RAC: 127
United States
Message 604796 - Posted: 16 Jul 2007, 23:39:59 UTC - in response to Message 604793.
Last modified: 16 Jul 2007, 23:46:53 UTC

In my opinion, the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is the targets.

If you are carefully targeting the opposing military, you are a freedom fighter even if you use methods that are similar to terrorists.

If you are targeting civilians, you are a terrorist.

Define "target" please.
Is the use of a cluster bomb, of napalm, of agent orange, of nuclear bombs, general of weapons that will mainly affect civilians, terrorism?
By your definition it is.

Or, of it isn't, a "terrorist" kills or wounds just a single "opposing military" (including non-uniform staff of course), he will be a freedom fighter, and the rest is just "collateral damage".

It also has to do with the care taken to avoid civilian casualties. Just because there are some civilian casualties does not make you a terrorist. Just because you actually succeed in getting military personell does not make you a freedom fighter.

[edit]

I didn't realize I was replying to both posts when originally writing.

Yes, the dropping of Nuclear weapons on Japan was an act of terror, as was the firestorming of Dresden and the London Blitz.

Agent Orange is a bit different - I am not certain that the consequences to human life was known at the time that it was used. It was used in an attempt to be able to see the enemy army.

Napalm can be used either way. If used on a civilian population, then yes.

However, if one side is using human shields (i.e. attacking from within or behind civilian populations) then the other side must be allowed to use what force it has to.
____________


BOINC WIKI

Profile Saenger
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2452
Credit: 20,073
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 604797 - Posted: 16 Jul 2007, 23:43:17 UTC - in response to Message 604796.

It also has to do with the care taken to avoid civilian casualties. Just because there are some civilian casualties does not make you a terrorist. Just because you actually succeed in getting military personell does not make you a freedom fighter.

That's what I asked:
Is the use of cluster bombs, or nuclear weapons, whose main target (besides military fairy tales) are civilians, a terrorist act?
In my not so humble opinion definitely.

Same goes for the use of agent orange in Vietnam, pure terrorism.

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 604813 - Posted: 17 Jul 2007, 0:23:29 UTC - in response to Message 604796.
Last modified: 17 Jul 2007, 0:36:00 UTC

(i.e. attacking from within or behind civilian populations)

This is good... But 'if' they were truly the 'attackers' as you say, we could have stepped back and they would have pursued us to a more remote location (i.e. we are fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here)... Common sense 101...

Being in their neck of the woods, we can not claim self defense nor can we deny being the aggressor... We are there to free the people, bring them democracy, make the world a safer place, etc... We have an agenda, we are the aggressors... Common sense 201...

The way I see it, they are hiding behind civilians and we are shooting through civilians... That makes us, the terrorists... Common sense 301... ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 4808
Credit: 71,577,572
RAC: 8,901
Australia
Message 604818 - Posted: 17 Jul 2007, 0:29:46 UTC - in response to Message 604797.
Last modified: 17 Jul 2007, 0:30:59 UTC

It also has to do with the care taken to avoid civilian casualties. Just because there are some civilian casualties does not make you a terrorist. Just because you actually succeed in getting military personell does not make you a freedom fighter.

That's what I asked:
Is the use of cluster bombs, or nuclear weapons, whose main target (besides military fairy tales) are civilians, a terrorist act?
In my not so humble opinion definitely.

Same goes for the use of agent orange in Vietnam, pure terrorism.


This is tougher than it first sounds because yes weapons, and any manner of ordinary items, and even just threats, of any kind can be used, and have been used, to create terror even on an interpersonal level.

What I personally beleive makes a difference, is whether or not a formal declaration of war exists between two or more recognised governments, then aspects like the Geneva convention come into play.

As an example, during the cold war ( not a formally declared war AFAIK ) armament buildups and threat of nuclear destruction did create an atmosphere of terror in some regards, yet probably only the Cuban missile crisis and possibly the Bay of Pigs Invasion might have been considered acts of war as such, except there was this diplomacy going on both in public and behind closed doors to put a lid on the thing where possible.

So, Hypothetically, If I were to start up an Aussie band of rebels, perhaps even a beer drinking religion, declare myself monarch and wander around demolishing up Al-Anon Centres on Principle, then those would be considered acts of terrorism.

Whereas If I actually had popular support from my peoples, formed a country, recognised by the international community, Had some gripes with say South Australia (Where I live now), and declared open warfare. No these are not acts of terrorism, they are acts of war.

The difference between my two hypothetical countries is that the first did not attempt any kind of diplomatic resolution, and indeed ursurped any existing common ground (intentionally destabilizing the situation, possible for my own personal benefit, just like gangsters and pirates of the high seas), whereas the other follows a long process of attempting to avoid the conflict (at least for appearances sake).

Now where do we send out diplomats to discuss the problem with AQ? we don't, we send choppers and tanks.

Diplomacy versus not,

My 2 cents.

____________
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
Charles Darwin

Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1770
Credit: 234,154
RAC: 273
United States
Message 605117 - Posted: 17 Jul 2007, 20:40:22 UTC - in response to Message 604795.
Last modified: 17 Jul 2007, 20:43:07 UTC

In my opinion, the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is the targets.

If you are carefully targeting the opposing military, you are a freedom fighter even if you use methods that are similar to terrorists.

If you are targeting civilians, you are a terrorist.

Does this rule apply on everyone? I mean, just look to Iraq: it's estimated that ten times as much Iraqi civilians were killed than Iraqi soldiers...


Well that depends entirely upon who's estimates you listen to.

If a gunman is firing on American troops from his second story bedroom, his wife and kids in the living room downstairs ARE NOT innocent civilians regardless of what some liberal turd or uninvolved third party tells you.

____________

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 605142 - Posted: 17 Jul 2007, 21:11:05 UTC - in response to Message 605117.

If a gunman is firing on American troops from his second story bedroom, his wife and kids in the living room downstairs ARE NOT innocent civilians

I'm guessing a police officer in the same situation would tell a slightly different story... ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile Es99 (part ii)
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Jul 07
Posts: 291
Credit: 18,010
RAC: 0
Message 605164 - Posted: 17 Jul 2007, 21:28:25 UTC - in response to Message 604788.

In my opinion, the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is the targets.

If you are carefully targeting the opposing military, you are a freedom fighter even if you use methods that are similar to terrorists.

If you are targeting civilians, you are a terrorist.

So the Israeli attack on Lebanon was a terrorist attack?
____________
Account frozen...

Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3133
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 605178 - Posted: 17 Jul 2007, 21:45:20 UTC - in response to Message 605142.

I'm guessing a police officer in the same situation would tell a slightly different story... ;)

Duh, because a police officer is in a different situation. He has an affirmative duty to protect, something soldiers generally do not.
____________
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 23702
Credit: 493,107
RAC: 127
United States
Message 605200 - Posted: 17 Jul 2007, 22:28:20 UTC - in response to Message 605164.

In my opinion, the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is the targets.

If you are carefully targeting the opposing military, you are a freedom fighter even if you use methods that are similar to terrorists.

If you are targeting civilians, you are a terrorist.

So the Israeli attack on Lebanon was a terrorist attack?

That conflict is rather complicated. People are firing into Israel from civilian areas attacking civilian areas. These are clearly terrorist acts. Israel then has the right and obligation to defend itself. Unfortunately since the terrorists are in civilian areas, the Israelies have no choice but to attack the civilian areas themselves to get to the terrorists.

____________


BOINC WIKI

Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1770
Credit: 234,154
RAC: 273
United States
Message 605231 - Posted: 17 Jul 2007, 23:34:59 UTC - in response to Message 605142.

If a gunman is firing on American troops from his second story bedroom, his wife and kids in the living room downstairs ARE NOT innocent civilians

I'm guessing a police officer in the same situation would tell a slightly different story... ;)


One would certainly hope your local police man responds differently to being fired upon than a soldier on the battlefield, and I certainly hope the cop doesn't have a bazooka to return fire with, ANYWAY.
____________

Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1770
Credit: 234,154
RAC: 273
United States
Message 605233 - Posted: 17 Jul 2007, 23:42:25 UTC
Last modified: 17 Jul 2007, 23:55:38 UTC

btw....

2472 Statutory history



In 1948, § 550, became 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). Section 2(b) was also added to make clear the legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Historical and Revision Notes). It removes all doubt that one who puts in motion or assists in the illegal enterprise or causes the commission of an indispensable element of the offense by an innocent agent or instrumentality is guilty as a principal even though he intentionally refrained from the direct act constituting the completed offense. United States v. Dodd, 43 F.3d 759, 763 (1st Cir. 1995).

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02472.htm


____________

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 605260 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 0:49:48 UTC - in response to Message 605233.
Last modified: 18 Jul 2007, 1:17:23 UTC

When Government and corporate america squash people into poverty, and those people in poverty then fight back against the very entities that put them there, quite often, committing crimes to merely survive...

According to your document, who are the criminals? ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1770
Credit: 234,154
RAC: 273
United States
Message 605277 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 2:36:40 UTC - in response to Message 605260.
Last modified: 18 Jul 2007, 2:50:28 UTC

When Government and corporate america squash people into poverty, and those people in poverty then fight back against the very entities that put them there, quite often, committing crimes to merely survive...

According to your document, who are the criminals? ;)


The welfare loser/criminal/dopehead/pervert/hippie/burn-out/fat lazy slob/insert your own social degenerate/ blaming the system for his lack of skills and/or education REQUIRED to make it in a modern society.

BTW, I don't work for the US Dept. of Justice....it's not "my" document.

____________

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 605311 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 4:44:22 UTC - in response to Message 605277.
Last modified: 18 Jul 2007, 4:47:45 UTC

The welfare loser/criminal/dopehead/pervert/hippie/burn-out/fat lazy slob/insert your own social degenerate/ blaming the system for his lack of skills and/or education REQUIRED to make it in a modern society.

Odd that you probably have a job, and I don't... ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 605317 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 5:12:03 UTC
Last modified: 18 Jul 2007, 5:12:55 UTC

Speaking of REQUIREMENTS:

How simple it would be for people who are put in power to establish unattainable requirements, let everyone attempt, but only advance those they want to advance...

Would this be considered terrorism or oppression or both? ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1399
Credit: 791,323
RAC: 670
United States
Message 605319 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 5:21:03 UTC - in response to Message 605317.
Last modified: 18 Jul 2007, 5:21:50 UTC

Speaking of REQUIREMENTS:

How simple it would be for people who are put in power to establish unattainable requirements, let everyone attempt, but only advance those they want to advance...

Would this be considered terrorism or oppression or both? ;)



Neither, in my opinion. However it is the way that much of the world seems to work. However, just because much of the world seems to work this way doesn't mean it is moral or ethical.

Lets return to the topic of 'terrorist', shall we?

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Politics : What is a Terrorist

Copyright © 2014 University of California