What exactly is terrorism?

Don't give terrorists the same legitimacy as nation states.

Published on May 27, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

Terrorism, by definition, is the act of performing random acts of violence towards a civilian population for the express purpose of creating fear and uncertainty and is performed by persons with no definitive origin.

Al Qaeda wasn't targeting some person in the world trade center. They were simply murdering as many people as they could in the most arbitrary way to instill fear and panic amongst their enemies.

Moreover, if a military aircraft from country X wrongly bombs a building full of civilians in country Z then country Z has many options available to them.

Consider how much simpler things would be if the WTC had been attacked by say the government of Iran or some other nation state.

What's nice about nation states is that they are much easier to be held accountable.

The minute you give terrorists the same legitimacy as the governments of nation states you might as well throw up your hands and argue that criminals have their own legitimacy as well. Terrorists are just another form of violent criminal who have simply passed a threshold beyond what can be dealt with by civilian police forces effectively.

Comments (Page 2)

kingbee

on May 28, 2004

Let's not get into a debate over semantics

that wasnt my intention. the title proposes to explain terrorism exactly. i was suggesting a more precise focus might be useful in that regard.

messybuu

on May 28, 2004

I wouldn't call those groups fighting the U.S. troops in Iraq terrorists, but I would call the group responsible for the beheading of Berg terrorists.

vincible

on May 28, 2004

anyway, things like the Lockerbie bombing (among others) are usually thought of as terrorism but doesn't meet the definition here.

kingbee

on May 28, 2004

the Lockerbie bombing (among others) are usually thought of as terrorism

actually lockerbie is different in ways that initially conform to draginol's definition. without the trail of evidence that linked the bombing to libya, it could have as easily been explained as insurance fraud, a crank who lost his shirt by investing in pan-am stock or just an act of mass murder for its own sake.

once the libyan connection was established, there was a rationale (revenge) however skewed it may seem. since libya, in effect, entered a nolo plea and paid reparations, it was the act of a specific nation-state.

Genghis Hank

on May 28, 2004

Reply #6 By: Marten Langbraten - 5/28/2004 4:00:47 AM
...Then an occupying force would also be terrorists ?

Reply #7 By: greywar - 5/28/2004 4:33:33 AM
If they perform random acts of violence towards civilians? Then yes, those would be considered terror acts in my book. My Lai? Terror... Dresden? Terror. Hiroshima? Terror...

Reply #8 By: Marten Langbraten - 5/28/2004 4:43:01 AM
What about Israel, or rather Ariel Sharon and his people ?

The key here has to be the link to the nation/state. Terrorists operate without "bona fides" of being a nation. They have no accountability on the world stage. When a nation commits an act of "terror", the world can choose to hold them accountable in terms of diplomatic, military, and economic means.

So what about "Freedom Fighters"? When does a group stop being a "Terrorist" and start being a "Revolutionist"? Well, pragmatically, when they win. This is more than simply a point of view designation. When they successfully take control of the government, they assume the responsibility and accountability of a sovereign government. To be sure, the world may remember and choose to hold them to account for the means used to achieve that power. But to move forward, they now have to "play by the rules" of international diplomacy, or suffer the consequences on the world stage.

So, when a nation commits an act that is deplorable and "terroristic", it is not terrorism. It may be many bad things, but it is still something different than a group of private individuals that commit crimes to achieve a political effect.

Genghis Hank

on May 28, 2004

Sorry if I over quoted in the last post. I saw that discussion at work earlier today, and I didn't have a chance to comment until now.

Marten Langbraten

on May 29, 2004

So lets agree that act of terrorism can be performed by both a terrorist group and a nation.

Marten Langbraten

on May 29, 2004

"! terrorism is use of violence (threats or acts of violence) by individuals or organized groups as coercion or intimidation (against a government or population) to achieve political goals. terrorism is therefore not random in intent (although the acts may victimize randomly) nor limited to civilians"

The church says "youre going to hell if you do not........" thats a threat !And it aplys to all those who do not...also goverments..So.....the church is a terrorist
organisation. ;>

kingbee

on May 29, 2004

.....the church is a terrorist organisation

most qualify

messybuu

on May 29, 2004

Indeed. Anything or anybody with rules and punishments for those rules, even supernatural ones, practices terrorism... Peace Corps is evil!

kingbee

on May 30, 2004

.....the church is a terrorist organisation

only those churches using intimidation to impose a temporal political agenda on non-members would qualify

if nations can be considered rogue states, id think they can also be considered rogue terrorist states. in that case, official state churches using extortion to further or achieve political goals would definitely qualify as well.

the peace corps is a govt agency but isnt forcing anyone to do anything. hopefully

Marten Langbraten

on May 30, 2004

Thank someone that we have churches or rather religion.Where would all those people be if it werent for the religion,out on
streets running free, nah better they have a place to go.

And may youre god be with you.

joetheblow

on May 30, 2004

Well, I am glad someone else agrees with me. Terrorists or no better than criminals or the Mob. You could call them super criminals but then that would be giving them too much.

I have more of a chance being killed by a car in the street... we just have to get used to this new threat. Once that happens their power is mostly taken away.

Nevertheless, if they manage to use a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb, I can see pretty easily that many countries that support terrorism might have some major issues... of which at this point it could really get ugly.

joetheblow

on May 30, 2004

Then an occupying force would also be terrorists ?

Occupying force is not a random act. Nor is it terrorizing, although it can be threating. Threatening is a few pegs below terrorizing and collective criminal activity with no compassion whatsoever for those in its wake.

Did I straighten that out for you?

joetheblow

on May 30, 2004

Occupying forces have a definite orgin.Governments are public entities that can be held accountable for their actions. Terrorist groups are anonymous entities that generally avoid accountability for their actions.

That also...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!