Terrorist? What defines a person as a terrorist?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Terrorists (or Freedom Fighters, if they're on your side) are not nations,
>nor do they represent nations. They also do not engage in a straight up
>fight, usually by their nature as underdogs. Those two elements are as
>close to a definition as you'll get.

You've just defined George Washington to a T, while he was fighting the British.

how can you compare a known slave owner (and a US historical figure) to a people that are fighting for their own rights?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,991]

>nope, the Iraqi people are obviously not interested in democracy at all.

From a year ago:

Democracy's support sinks

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
Four years after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, the once-strong support among Iraqis for building a unified and democratic nation has eroded in the face of increasing violence and sectarian strife.

A poll sponsored by USA TODAY, ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. and the German TV network ARD of 2,212 Iraqis found disillusionment about the country's political future and opposition among Shiites and Sunni Arabs to U.S. forces deployed there.

. . .

When it comes to the best form of government for Iraq now, a majority of Kurds support a democracy and a majority of Sunni Arabs support a strongman who would rule for life. Shiites split between a democracy and an Islamic state ruled by religious principles.

. . .

While 58% support a unified Iraq, an equal majority predict that within five years Iraq will divide into regional governments or even separate states.

A 43% plurality say democracy would be the best political system for Iraq, a marked decline in 16 months. In an ABC News survey before elections in 2005, 57% chose democracy.

. . .

•A 51% majority, including one-third of Shiites and 94% of Sunni Arabs, say attacks on U.S. forces are acceptable political acts. Only 7% of Kurds agree.

•In all, 83% of Shiites and 97% of Sunni Arabs oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq; 75% of Kurds support them. By more than 3 to 1, Iraqis say the presence of U.S. forces is making the security situation worse.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

A 43% plurality say democracy would be the best political system for Iraq

So the largest group polled DOES still believe that democracy is the best system for Iraq.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Terrorists (or Freedom Fighters, if they're on your side) are not nations,
>nor do they represent nations. They also do not engage in a straight up
>fight, usually by their nature as underdogs. Those two elements are as
>close to a definition as you'll get.

You've just defined George Washington to a T, while he was fighting the British.

Yes. Did I suggest otherwise?

For those who get offended at being labelled terrorist, they can argue that Washington's army represented the colonies and so was a step above the niche rebel groups we see now, like the Contras, but quite a few Tories lived in the colonies too.

[billvon 2,991]

>So the largest group polled DOES still believe that democracy is the best
>system for Iraq.

Correct. But most are not interested in democracy.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So the largest group polled DOES still believe that democracy is the best
>system for Iraq.

Correct. But most are not interested in democracy.

Sounds like "the will of the people" to me.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,991]

>Sounds like "the will of the people" to me.

Indeed it does. How odd that we ignore it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Sounds like "the will of the people" to me.

Indeed it does. How odd that we ignore it.

40% democracy

30% autocracy

30% theocracy

(percentages for illustration only)

Seems like it's not being ignored to me.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,991]

>Seems like it's not being ignored to me.

So if 40% of the US wanted to cut CO2 emissions, and 60% didn't want to, you would claim that laws cutting CO2 emissions would represent "the will of the people?"

I shall remember that!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Seems like it's not being ignored to me.

So if 40% of the US wanted to cut CO2 emissions, and 60% didn't want to, you would claim that laws cutting CO2 emissions would represent "the will of the people?"

I shall remember that!

A - 40%
B - 30%
C - 20%

Voting AGAINST a position only works when you have TWO choices - for or against. Obviously, there was more choices than two, or the 40% number would NOT have been a plurality.

Nice try at a misdirect.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Here is my concern we tend to say so and so is a terrorist or this person supports terrorism mainly because we hear them described that way. So for the purpose of not being another sheep (we have enough off those) what does it mean when we say terrorist?

I agree you’re right that the moniker “terrorist” gets used imprecisely.

Quote

What defines someone as a terrorist to you?

While there is still discussion on the specific definition, the ones I use are based on the DoD’s (JP 1-02):

“terrorism -- The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

“terrorist -- An individual who commits an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives.

“terrorist group -- Any number of terrorists who assemble together, have a unifying relationship, or are organized for the purpose of committing an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of their political, religious, or ideological objectives.”

Preferable, imo, because
(1) includes “threatened use” – terrorism is psychological – to force/cause change through non-traditional/asymmetric/unconventional means therefore threats, hoaxes, etc can be terrorizing to a populace.
(2) includes reference to political, religious, or ideological objectives as motivation.
(3) “unlawful” violence, whether one agrees or not, armed conflict between/among uniformed military can be lawful (lawful does not mean that it’s pleasant, easy, or anything less than a horrible, grave undertaking). While the majority of terrorist acts are committed by non-uniformed individuals (non-state actors), this definition does not, however, completely exclude the possibility that states & uniformed military can act as terrorists if they commit “unlawful violence.”
(4) excludes criminal acts.

One piece that the DoD definition is missing is acts of unlawful violence for political, religious or ideological motivations that are against property. The FBI definition includes acts against property, which is more a factor w/r/t environmental terrorists (e.g., ELF) than al Qa’eda.

Both definitions are problematic w/r/t cyberterrorism.


The definition employed by the State Dept. for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983 is: “Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 CFR Ch. I, § 0.85a).

The term “international terrorism” is definid as “activities that - (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;” (18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)).

The USA PATRIOT Act has its own definition. (I have that & more definitions on my hard drive ….)

An excellent, imo, discussion of the definition of terrorism from the first chapter of Bruce Hoffman’s (Georgetown) book, Inside Terrorism.

Quote

What I find confusing is when you try to define it for exp. as

People who kill civilians? People who target civilians? People who brake international law?

Depends on whether they are a member of the uniformed military acting as part of a lawful armed conflict. There are some international laws w/r/t use of indiscriminate force or weapons against civilians.

If an individual violates international (or national) law, whether it is terrorism or not can depend on whether or not laws have been passed. (Can’t break a law if it doesn’t exist.)

E.g., before Larry Wayne Harris (a member of the Aryan nations, btw) ordered through the mail B. anthracis & Y. pestis (causative agents of anthrax & plague, respectively) and threatened to use the agents, there were not federal laws against bioterrorism. (Killing is still homicide … and there’s mail fraud, because he pretended to be a legitimate representative of an approved biological facility.) As a result of Mr. Harris, Congress passed the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act, which made it a federal crime to use or threaten to use biological or chemical agents.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 2,991]

>A - 40%
>B - 30%
>C - 20%

So, to match your example:

If 40% of the people in the US wanted to cut CO2 emissions, 30% did NOT want to cut CO2 emissions but did want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and 20% wanted to do nothing - that would mean that cutting CO2 represents "the will of the people?"

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>A - 40%
>B - 30%
>C - 20%

So, to match your example:

If 40% of the people in the US wanted to cut CO2 emissions, 30% did NOT want to cut CO2 emissions but did want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and 20% wanted to do nothing - that would mean that cutting CO2 represents "the will of the people?"

If it comes down to a public referendum, yes.

In point of fact...it's EXACTLY like the 'consensus' on global warming.

It's that whole pesky, democratic voting process - you know, the same one that the Iraqi people used to approve their constitution and elect their officials.

Too bad AQ and their adherents didn't have the Revvvvvvvvvvvvvvrend Jackson to stump for them, huh?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

it doesn't seem like the DoD definition suitably describes our freedom fighters, just those we oppose. Words like 'unlawful' really don't belong - whose laws?

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

it doesn't seem like the DoD definition suitably describes our freedom fighters

Our freedom fighters wore uniforms, and clearly identified themselves. That's a big difference in military justice terms.

We are all engines of karma

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

it doesn't seem like the DoD definition suitably describes our freedom fighters

Our freedom fighters wore uniforms, and clearly identified themselves. That's a big difference in military justice terms.

We've sponsored a lot of freedom fighers over the past few decades. I'm not talking about our army. I'm talking about the Contras (clearly terrorists), the Taliban/Afghanis, and lots of other friends in Latin America and beyond.

[algboy 0]

Someone with a bomb and no air force.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Someone who is opposed to the US government.

[base_nz 0]

A terrorist is someone who will use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political gains....

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[base_nz 0]

Quote

The US will never fall under the category of terrorists, .

....(holding side and trying to get back breath)

God damn I love Americans

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Our freedom fighters wore uniforms, and clearly identified themselves. That's a big difference in military justice terms.

I think it is important to see the difference between a guerrilla and a terrorist. All terrorists are guerrilla fighters (no uniform), but not all guerrillas are terrorists (the French Resistance).

[AndyBoyd 0]

There have been some pretty good attempts in this thread to define a slippery term. When I think of the term "terrorism," what comes to mind is (1) the intentional targeting of civilians, (2) the lack of clear affiliation with a recognized national military force, and (3) the breaking of domestic or international law. On this defininition, the individuals responsible for 9/11 are clearly terrorists. The individuals who attacked the USS Cole in Yemen would not be. The individuals who dropped the a-bombs in Japan would also not be terrorists.

BTW, I have my own views on whether the a-bombing of Japan was justfied,but that is not the subject of this thread.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

There have been some pretty good attempts in this thread to define a slippery term. When I think of the term "terrorism," what comes to mind is (1) the intentional targeting of civilians, (2) the lack of clear affiliation with a recognized national military force, and (3) the breaking of domestic or international law.

Anyone want to take any bets on how many right wing terrorists will be in the news after the election????

[AWL71 0]

I have known a terrorist. She was my step-mother. Evil woman.

In all seriousness a terrorist is someone who commits violence for political gain or influence.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

In all seriousness a terrorist is someone who commits violence for political gain or influence.

WOW.. just WOW..


You are such a flip flopper.....



Who woulda thunk it that you were such a Bush Hater.