The Definition of Terrorism

[Sage of Earth]

No one seems to be able to agree on what "terrorism" actually means. Everyone seems to be careful when coming up with a definition because they want to avoid classifying certain other, often justifiable events as terrorist behaviour, or they want to avoid making certain events appear evil to public eyes even when they may very well be. Certain laws may be drafted in such a way as to class one type of crime as a simple crime, but another type as a terrorist act, and even these have much debate surrounding them.

In this thread, I would like to discuss what you understand from the words "terrorism" and "terrorist".

When I look at a word, I look to the word itself rather than a dictionary to find out its meaning if I haven't got a dictionary on-hand, and if the word itself gives no indication as to what it might mean, then that's when I look to a dictionary to find out.

If we think of terrorism as a tactic, then clearly terrorism must surely mean the incitement of fear in order to achieve a goal, usually with political or religious motives. Achieving a goal is, after all, the primary use of a tactic.

If I use this definition, then 9/11 was still a terrorist attack, as was the 7/7 bombing. They were committed by Islamic fundamentalists who wanted to cause fear. This would almost certainly be a religious motive.

But, under this definition, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also terrorist attacks. I'd say "winning a war" is a political motive, and using a nuclear bomb on these cities was solely for the purpose of inciting such fear in the Japanese government that they would see that there was no point in continuing to fight. It wasn't a case of stopping the people in those cities from attacking, as those cities most likely weren't an immediate danger, but it was just an example of what would be done to Japan if they didn't surrender. I don't intend to discuss whether or not the nukes should've been used, I'm simply saying that, under my above definition, these bombings would also be classed as terrorist attacks.

Discuss, and put forward your own ideas if you disagree.

[The Great Panda]

Originally Posted by The Definition of Terrorism

ter·ror·ism Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Seriously though, I never thought of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks as being ones of terrorism, but as you said, if you look a it as a tactic, they were. Still, if you look at it and consider technicalities, they weren't.

Either way, interesting observation, Mr. Sage. I never thought about it like that. I'll look into it and draw my own conclusions.

[Nietzsche]

A Terrorist is someone fighting for what you don't believe in.

Fin.

[Project 2501]

Or even more generally, someone who is opposed to your economic and political interests regardless of what they believe in. The "God Damn America" sermon, irrespective of its inspirational merits (or lack thereof), highlighted a myriad of odious crimes committed by the U.S. government, many of which can and should be considered terrorism; why that sermon is not yet an internet meme I have no idea. The propaganda campaign leading up to the Iraq war is also state terrorism, as it too was using fear to accomplish a political goal (in direct contravention of US law, no less).

[Sage of Earth]

I know that terrorism does have a dictionary definition, but often people just skip around it when drafting laws or otherwise, or just interpret certain words differently to avoid catching certain instances (such as my Hiroshima and Nagasaki examples) under the net.

Also, another observation I thought of - some people say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. However, I believe this isn't true. Terrorist behaviour is lashing out at an opposing country because you want to achieve a political goal that is above and beyond your duty to your own country. A freedom fighter may use terrorist tactics if they're trying to achieve the goal of liberating a country from a tyrannical government, usually in their homeland but not necessarily, but this doesn't change the fact that they're using terrorist tactics to do so.

Naturally, Islamic fundamentalists may believe that it was their duty to try and liberate western countries such as America and Britain from their current government as they don't follow Sharia law, perhaps, and so they could be perceived as freedom fighters in that sense. To me, however, they are nothing of the sort, since a country that follows Sharia is in my opinion anything BUT liberated. They may have committed those attacks just to give an example to the west of what lengths they're willing to go in the name of their religion as well, which would mean that they simply weren't freedom fighters.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not done to try and liberate the country from that particular government. They were done to get that government to surrender, and so couldn't possibly be perceived as an attack fighting for freedom.

Attacks by the IRA could be perceived as freedom fighting as well, since Northern Ireland was, and still is, under the control of the UK, something the Irish might perceive as tyranny (though you'd have to have a particularly nationalistic view to call it such). Attacks by the Free Wales Army could also be terrorism, but most of their attacks weren't so much to inspire fear in the English as to prevent certain villages and towns from being dammed and flooded to create reservoirs (a few of their attacks were on such dams). They also blew up a pipe carrying water to Liverpool in England from one such reservoir, which was more to show that the Welsh could no longer accept being exploited by the English in such a way. They did move to bombing tax offices and tried to blow up a railway track leading to Caernarfon which they knew members of the royal family would be using (though the goal was not to actually assassinate them, just to prevent them from getting there), and so even though it's still freedom fighting of a sort, this moves more into terrorist territory as well if you ask me.

[skate_mate]

The definition of terrorism seems to be an elusive one at the present. Interestingly, I heard the term terrorism used in three very different ways today:

1. On the ABC Law Report Podcast it was used to described various bikie gangs currently causing havoc in South Australia.

2. On the Apologetics.com Podcast from a few months ago that I was relistening to, the term was used to describe (albeit politically incorrectly) America's use of the nuclear bomb at the end of WWII.

3. Covenant Theological Seminary used the term to describe the Jewish Zealots who lived in Palestine some two thousand years ago.

[Kilmiz]

terrorism - the act of using terror and fear to get what you want.

it can be "good", most of the times it is "evil" to all but the one doing it.

[Daphnes]

Terrorist and terrorism are as relative as good and evil. This reminds me of a saying that stated "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist".

When I think terrorist, I think of a group of people controlling others mainly through fear. Does this mean all attacks of war are synonymous with terrorism? Surely when USA attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were trying to instill enough fear that Japan wouldn't attack anymore.

I don't think the answer is clear cut, since the terms are relative.

[sugarpoultry]

To me terrorists think they are the good guys and everyone else are the bad guys, when its the other way around. The only way they know to get their way is to kill and threaten. Horrible PR if you ask me....

[Puck]

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

To me terrorists think they are the good guys and everyone else are the bad guys, when its the other way around. The only way they know to get their way is to kill and threaten. Horrible PR if you ask me....

Sounds like the USA to me.


Terrorists to me are simple, anyone who uses terror to acheive a politcal gain is a Terrorist.

[Project 2501]

By that definition, the Christian church is a terrorist organization since the religion encourages a "chosen people" mentality and threatens dissidents with eternal torture. In addition, everyone who promotes American exceptionalism (in other words, most of the GOP) is aiding terrorism.

[sugarpoultry]

Originally Posted by Puck

Sounds like the USA to me.

Hey... no country bashing.

Terrorists to me are simple, anyone who uses terror to acheive a politcal gain is a Terrorist.

Yeah that is true as well.

Originally Posted by Project 2501

By that definition, the Christian church is a terrorist organization since the religion encourages a "chosen people" mentality and threatens dissidents with eternal torture.

How on earth did you get THAT as your definition of Christianity? Thats not even how it is at all.

[Notsil]

Originally Posted by Daphnes

Terrorist and terrorism are as relative as good and evil. This reminds me of a saying that stated "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist".


I don't think the answer is clear cut, since the terms are relative.

We have a winner.

[Puck]

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

Hey... no country bashing.

Well looking at the facts we see the Country running a campain on fear to promte a war in Iraq that had no real reason. Usuing this fear people beleived they had to, and agreed to this war. Using terror, or rather the threat of terrorism to acheive a politcal goal (A war in Iraq) is indeed an act of Terrorism.

[sugarpoultry]

Originally Posted by Puck

Well looking at the facts we see the Country running a campain on fear to promte a war in Iraq that had no real reason. Usuing this fear people beleived they had to, and agreed to this war. Using terror, or rather the threat of terrorism to acheive a politcal goal (A war in Iraq) is indeed an act of Terrorism.

Sure, using it for political gain yes. But...erg.... you are playing on a thin line. If they take the troops out of Iraq and those countries, and they declare war on the US, is it the presidents fault?

Personally, they are responsible for being irresponsible about it, but they aren't a terrorist.

[Sage of Earth]

Originally Posted by Daphnes

Terrorist and terrorism are as relative as good and evil. This reminds me of a saying that stated "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist".

When I think terrorist, I think of a group of people controlling others mainly through fear. Does this mean all attacks of war are synonymous with terrorism? Surely when USA attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were trying to instill enough fear that Japan wouldn't attack anymore.

I don't think the answer is clear cut, since the terms are relative.

I addressed that in my second post, since the difference between terrorism and freedom fighting isn't as relative as we may like to think.

[Puck]

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

Sure, using it for political gain yes. But...erg.... you are playing on a thin line. If they take the troops out of Iraq and those countries, and they declare war on the US, is it the presidents fault?

Personally, they are responsible for being irresponsible about it, but they aren't a terrorist.

This lines are my favourite, because when you walk across them everyone cheers.

Those countries would never declare war on the USA, if they did then the United States would have all the right in the world to bomb them, and everyone else to. BUt they are far to busy fighting each other to actually think of declaring war on a world super power.

They where being terrorists. They withheld information and only let fear escape to trick america to go into a war without any sort of real reason. The terrorised their own country, and even if they thought they where doing what was right they where still using scare tactics and in mind mind terrorist tactics to get what they wanted from the masses.

FTR I agree with going into Afganistan, I do not agree with going into Iraq.

[Project 2501]

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

How on earth did you get THAT as your definition of Christianity? Thats not even how it is at all.

Yes, it is. The Bible states, with no small degree of specificity or repetition, that non-Christians will burn in hell forever. This is simultaneously a threat and a mechanism of exclusion.

[sugarpoultry]

Originally Posted by Project 2501

Yes, it is. The Bible states, with no small degree of specificity or repetition, that non-Christians will burn in hell forever. This is simultaneously a threat and a mechanism of exclusion.

My religion doesn't believe that, and I'm Christian. But this isn't a religious topic, so I have no clue why this is even being discussed?

[Sage of Earth]

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

My religion doesn't believe that, and I'm Christian. But this isn't a religious topic, so I have no clue why this is even being discussed?

Christianity is terrorism, Project proposed. And clearly, if you don't believe that, then you're either not a Christian, or you're doing it wrong.

EDIT: Just remembered which thread I'm in, so I'm not going to just sit back and watch as this turns into a religious discussion. Whether or not that's what YOU believe Sugarpoultry the majority of Christians believe that if you don't behave in a certain way, you'll burn in hell. Therefore, in some peoples' views, rule by terror. Terrorism.