What is terrorism?

#1
RespectTradition

RespectTradition

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
1,831
Likes
7
#1
What is terrorism? How do you define it?

Is it terrorism when someone parks a car bomb next to an enemy's car and blows him up when he comes to drive away? Is it terrorism to drop a bomb/drone/cruise missle through an enemy's bedroom window and kill him in his sleep? What is the difference?

Is it terrorism to leave a IED next to where troops will set up a checkpoint and blow them up like our enemies do in Iraq? Is it terrorism to toss a bomb out of your car as you drive through a checkpoint and blow up the guards like the french resistance or SOE would do in WWII? What is the difference?

Is it terrorism to fly a plane into an office building? Is it terrorism to firebomb residential districts in cities like Dresden or Tokyo? What is the difference?

Is it terrorism to put an anthrax 'bomb' on a subway? Is it terrorism to give smallpox infested blankets to Souix women and children? What is the difference?

Is it terrorism to bomb a marine barracks? Is it terrorism to send SEALs into a man's house in the night and execute him? What is the difference?

Just wondering. Is the reality of it, we are not really that opposed to the tactics of terrorist? Is it more an us versus them mentality and we are the 'good' guys and they are the 'bad' guys and therefore their actions are vilified and ours are celebrated? Do we just condemn them because we think that who they choose to kill and why they choose to kill them are unjustified, but we are righteous because the people we kill and the ways we choose to kill them are justified?

Can someone explain it? Why is terrorism wrong and war is acceptable?
 
#2
#2
Terrorism is killing innocent people in the name of some sort of religion or whatever the cause of the day is. Killing enemies on the battlefield or those that have done what is described above is not terrorism.
 
#3
#3
hmanvolfan said:
Terrorism is killing innocent people in the name of some sort of religion or whatever the cause of the day is. Killing enemies on the battlefield or those that have done what is described above is not terrorism.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that using IED to kill soldiers is not terrorism, because that is in a war zone, ie battlefield?

So, using smallpox to kill Souix children was not terrorism?
 
#4
#4
RespectTradition said:
Does that mean that using IED to kill soldiers is not terrorism, because that is in a war zone, ie battlefield?

So, using smallpox to kill Souix children was not terrorism?
Click to expand...

I think that using IEDs to kill soldiers is only terrorism in as much as those who are committing the acts are tied to groups we are going after because of their acts of terrorism. It's really not an act of terrorism beyond that, IMO.

As far as the smallpox blankets, I think that was clearly an act of genocide and/or terrorism.
 
#5
#5
We can actually not agree on a definition.

Each agency defines it differently. A similarity between definitions is they all mention terrorism as: an act to cause fear and generate attention to a group or cause.
 
#6
#6
NewToVolCountry said:
We can actually not agree on a definition.

Each agency defines it differently. A similarity between definitions is they all mention terrorism as: an act to cause fear and generate attention to a group or cause.
Click to expand...

That's usually how I think about it - but it's a very broadly used term these days, no doubt. I am guilty of it myself.
 
#7
#7
NewToVolCountry said:
We can actually not agree on a definition.

Each agency defines it differently. A similarity between definitions is they all mention terrorism as: an act to cause fear and generate attention to a group or cause.
Click to expand...

Would a military strategy with a stated intent to cause 'shock and awe' be an act to cause fear and generate attention?

Understand, I am not trying to start an argument, as much as it may seem like it. I am trying to understand something I don't understand. I am finding it hard to understand the qualitative difference between what a group like AQ does and much of what the USAAF did during WWII. The attempt to cause fear, demoralize and get civilians to turn against their government because of fear is part of AQ's goals. It was also the reasoning behind firebombing the residential districts of Dresden and Tokyo. I want to understand, do people hate the terrorists so much because they are our enemy, or because of what they do? How many people on here who hate terrorists actually sympathized with the IRA, who considered themselves freedom fighters trying to free their country, and dislike the current crop of terrorists because we have been targeted?
 
#10
#10
RespectTradition said:
Would a military strategy with a stated intent to cause 'shock and awe' be an act to cause fear and generate attention?

Understand, I am not trying to start an argument, as much as it may seem like it. I am trying to understand something I don't understand. I am finding it hard to understand the qualitative difference between what a group like AQ does and much of what the USAAF did during WWII. The attempt to cause fear, demoralize and get civilians to turn against their government because of fear is part of AQ's goals. It was also the reasoning behind firebombing the residential districts of Dresden and Tokyo. I want to understand, do people hate the terrorists so much because they are our enemy, or because of what they do? How many people on here who hate terrorists actually sympathized with the IRA, who considered themselves freedom fighters trying to free their country, and dislike the current crop of terrorists because we have been targeted?
Click to expand...

That is what I am currently learning in my Terrorism/Counter-Terrorism class right now. I'll drop back in here after my class Monday night.

The IRA were definitely terrorists. I don't think you can call actions by a nation's armed forces terrorism if you are engaged in a conflict. Terrorism is usually by a group trying to further a cause. An attack against civilians, by anyone, definitely toes the line, regardless of it being by the military or not. At least in my uneducated opinion.
 
#15
#15
This is the problem we have...there is no clear definitive answer. The State Department has their definition while FBI has there's and so on and so forth. Its hard to determine exactly who should be targeted when we cant decide who is committing acts of Terrorism. There are common themes in most definitions though.
 
#19
#19
John Rose has it now. I think he may have been at Walters State back then. I am graduating with my B.S. in CJ next semester and getting my degree in Clinical Pysch the next spring.
 
#21
#21
Thank you very much.

I think I have finally settled on grad school to get the doctorate in clinical psych. Still sitting on the thought of joining the secret service, however. I change my mind weekly it seems.
 
#23
#23
NewToVolCountry said:
Thank you very much.

I think I have finally settled on grad school to get the doctorate in clinical psych. Still sitting on the thought of joining the secret service, however. I change my mind weekly it seems.
Click to expand...

uniform division sniper?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#24
#24
I think TT and NTVC have it. Critical components include:

1) targeting of innocents
2) intent to spread fear
3) done in the name of some ideology

All these are done by proponents that did not and cannot formally declare war with the target (formally as in representing a recognized government).

I don't see USAF bombing as qualifying since it was a declared war and they were military targets.

The IED one is borderline terrorism at most.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top