What is a terrorist?

[Slevin57]

This is an interesting question that nobody seems to have a clear definition of.

To me a terrorist is any individual who works outside of the political system to gain political change.

For instance, (looks for communist). During a revolution in a county by communists they give the ruling party (Bourgeoisie) three options. Agree, Leave, or Die.

In most cases, they choose to die. Stalin killed 73 million of his own people, Mao Tse Tung killed 23 million of his people. In one year alone Stalin killed 11 million people. And Hitler gets the bad wrap?

To me all of these men are terrorists.

But Slevin, wouldn't that make George Washington a terrorist?

No, that wouldn't make George Washington. He had a stated army against a stated army. (War is political!). He didn't kill any British Citizens (unless of course they were in that army), and he didn't try to capture Britain.

Terrorism has been around for a long, long time. There is no tried and true method to combat it.

Whatcha think?

[Evonus]

This is an interesting question that nobody seems to have a clear definition of.

To me a terrorist is any individual who works outside of the political system to gain political change.

For instance, (looks for communist). During a revolution in a county by communists they give the ruling party (Bourgeoisie) three options. Agree, Leave, or Die.

In most cases, they choose to die. Stalin killed 73 million of his own people, Mao Tse Tung killed 23 million of his people. In one year alone Stalin killed 11 million people. And Hitler gets the bad wrap?

To me all of these men are terrorists.

But Slevin, wouldn't that make George Washington a terrorist?

No, that wouldn't make George Washington. He had a stated army against a stated army. (War is political!). He didn't kill any British Citizens (unless of course they were in that army), and he didn't try to capture Britain.

Terrorism has been around for a long, long time. There is no tried and true method to combat it.

Whatcha think?


I think that a terrorist is anyone not listed in the army that kills someone else. I don't believe Stalin Mao and Hitler are terrorists, because they didn't kill anyone, they had someone else do it for them. However, I do consider the KGB and CIA to be terrorist cells.

[Slevin57]

But if I have you murder somone for me, am I not too a murderer?

[BuFFMb]

thats an interesting view on the cia and kgb, how bout mi6?

funny thing is that cia is always backing up terrorist activities around the world
anyone look behind the guatamala incident?

although i will have to disagree w/ u on washington slevin, he's a terrorist to me simply cause the fact that he was opposed to the british gov't along with all the other rebels, that is what they are called to be more politically correct, they are rebels, rebeling against the current gov't

now whether or not they are rebeling for the right or wrong reasons is what makes them a terrorist.

but idk, what does everyone else think?

[Hacky]

To define "Terrorist" you have to look at the root. It means person of terror (Through a lazy translation and nothing really authentic). In other words, somebody looking to create terror (fear) in society for a personal gain. The entire point is to instill fear, and not necessarily kill people.

Hitler is a terrorist, he instilled fear into the jews (And others) and made many of them hide day and night. He gained from it.

George Washington was trying to fight for freedom, not create fear in the British.

Osama Bin Laden intended to create fear by making videos saying they will attack more. He hoped to gain from it.

George Bush and his "terror alert" system is a decision completely up to you.

[Evonus]

But if I have you murder somone for me, am I not too a murderer?

Not in my eyes. You're the contractor, not saying you aren't just as bad if not worse, but not a murderer.


thats an interesting view on the cia and kgb, how bout mi6?

I'm not familair with that. Please fill me in.


funny thing is that cia is always backing up terrorist activities around the world

The CIA themselves are terrorists, so it only makes sense they would work with other terrorists.


anyone look behind the guatamala incident?

The book is called Bitterfruit, and yes I have read it.


although i will have to disagree w/ u on washington slevin, he's a terrorist to me simply cause the fact that he was opposed to the british gov't along with all the other rebels, that is what they are called to be more politically correct, they are rebels, rebeling against the current gov't

There really isn't much of a distinction between a rebel and a terrorist.


now whether or not they are rebeling for the right or wrong reasons is what makes them a terrorist.

There is no such thing as right and wrong in politics man, that's subjective.

[Slevin57]

To define "Terrorist" you have to look at the root. It means person of terror (Through a lazy translation and nothing really authentic). In other words, somebody looking to create terror (fear) in society for a personal gain. The entire point is to instill fear, and not necessarily kill people.

Hitler is a terrorist, he instilled fear into the jews (And others) and made many of them hide day and night. He gained from it.

George Washington was trying to fight for freedom, not create fear in the British.

Osama Bin Laden intended to create fear by making videos saying they will attack more. He hoped to gain from it.

George Bush and his "terror alert" system is a decision completely up to you.

I agree, but then Terror becomes subjective.

What terrorizes one may not terrorize another. In the most basic form, killing people will cause "terror" it is human nature in this day and age to fear death. (granted some people train themselves not to). I am sure if Terrorists felt there was a more effective way to get what they wanted, they would not kill people. But as it stands killing people is the best way for them to get what they want.

America continually says they will not give in to terrorism, in the face of US Troops being attacked. How long before terrorism pushes toward the United States? It's only a matter of time before our stay the course strategy of rejecting terrorist attacks will prompt them to increase the severity.

I don't know about you but it wouldn't take very many car bombings in my state for me to change my tune about the war.

For instance you will see pictures of Iranians dancing in the streets after a car bombing in Iraq. But if you are standing in Iraq across from that car bomb, you feel a whole lot differnt despite how you feel.

[BuFFMb]

mi6 is like cia, only its the british version, or i could be mistaken, i think it might also be known as mi5, not too sure, i do know it exists and works secretly around the world like kgb and cia do


and the bush "terror alert" system, i find that to be somewhat stupid, and when u look at it, its a form of terrorism, scares people, but for sure its stupid

and guatamala, yes, ive taken a course in genocide studies, started off primarily w/ the holocoust and worked its way up through the present, guatamala, cambodia, veitnam, uganda, etc etc, what they all have in common, the US originally backed up all those terrorist organizations

now i personally can see the radical islamist groups and their "holy war" against the US, i agree how they see the US as "a big bully" and we all know the real reason why bush wanted to go into iraq, OIL

anyone see farienhiet (sp) 9/11?

[Inactive Cargo]

A stats professor plans to travel to a conference by plane. When he passes the security check, they discover a bomb in his carry-on-baggage. Of course, he is hauled off immediately for interrogation.
"I don't understand it!" the interrogating officer exclaims. "You're an accomplished professional, a caring family man, a pillar of your parish - and now you want to destroy that all by blowing up an airplane!"
"Sorry", the professor interrupts him. "I had never intended to blow up the plane."
"So, for what reason else did you try to bring a bomb on board?!"
"Let me explain. Statistics shows that the probability of a bomb being on an airplane is 1/1000. That's quite high if you think about it - so high that I wouldn't have any peace of mind on a flight."
"And what does this have to do with you bringing a bomb on board of a plane?"
"You see, since the probability of one bomb being on my plane is 1/1000, the chance that there are two bombs is 1/1000000. If I already bring one, the chance of another bomb being around is actually 1/1000000, and I am much safer..."

[BuFFMb]

lOl!!!

[SyrupyDeathtrap]

The CIA themselves are terrorists, so it only makes sense they would work with other terrorists.

lol, thats pathetic.



There really isn't much of a distinction between a rebel and a terrorist..


So, seeings as how you rebel against the CIA (and through that, the entire government, as the CIA is an arm of the government), and by your definition... your a terrorist?
:think:

Lol, someone get Bush's army over here, we got another one.

[Napalm]

No, actually he's right. CIA are terrorists. If you refuse to believe that, you are a sheep.

[BuFFMb]

wasnt it the cia that trained bin laden? and isnt that like common knowledge?

[Hacky]

There really isn't much of a distinction between a rebel and a terrorist.

I disagree greatly.

A rebel's point is to fight their oppressors for their basic freedoms.

A terrorist makes effort to instill fear into people they're attacking.

Realistically, the people being rebelled against are likely terrorists.

[BuFFMb]

Realistically, the people being rebelled against are likely terrorists.

ok, with that said, all the radical islamist groups that are rebelling against the USA are rebels, and then we are the terrorist, i can buy into that

and btw, i never voted for bush

[System_Zero]

Characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); 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

Internet FTW

[Shins]

I disagree greatly.

A rebel's point is to fight their oppressors for their basic freedoms.

A terrorist makes effort to instill fear into people they're attacking.

Realistically, the people being rebelled against are likely terrorists.

I agree with you, and I definitely see the distinction here.

A problem though is that it's outside sources that define and split the above. A terrorist doesn't think of him or herself as a terrorist, or at least, the majority do not. Most truly believe in their cause, and believe they're rebelling and fighting outside oppression for some conception of a greater good.

There are always exceptions, but by and large, evil people don't recognize or believe that what they do is evil. They believe it to be justified, and in the face of such mentalities, the distinction between a terrorist and a rebel fades and becomes little more than a word.

Luckily, so far as standard terminology and mass-agreed upon labels go, I think that distinction fares better. It's just good to always keep the above in mind, lest things fall into utter blacks and whites.

[BuFFMb]

but in reality, there is no definite black or white, just millions upon millons of diffrent shades of grey, some darker than others, some lighter than others

[Shins]

Er... that's what I was implying. :-\

[TDD]

I'm not sure if this has been said but,
Terrorism is defined by Official U.S documents as:
Violence, or threat of violence to obtain goals that are religious, political or ideological at state.

So to me, A terrorist is someone who does the above.

[BuFFMb]

Terrorism is defined by Official U.S documents as:
Violence, or threat of violence to obtain goals that are religious, political or ideological at state.


so to me and taking that into consideration, the usa is a terroist nation, using violence and the threat of violence to obtain its own goals

[System_Zero]

Pretty much, seeing as how we're doing said threat of violence to get North Korea and Iran to lay off the nukes.

[Slevin57]

The CIA are a bunch of Accountants and Psychologists.. I know this because I have seen them, and talked to them. They are most defiantly not terrorists.

[Evonus]

So, seeings as how you rebel against the CIA (and through that, the entire government, as the CIA is an arm of the government), and by your definition... your a terrorist?
:think:

Lol, someone get Bush's army over here, we got another one.

I'm not rebeling against the CIA. I haven't busted into CIA headquarters and starting shooting them all. You can disagree with something and not rebel against it.


mi6 is like cia, only its the british version, or i could be mistaken, i think it might also be known as mi5, not too sure, i do know it exists and works secretly around the world like kgb and cia do

I really don't have enough info on them to make a judgement call like that.


now i personally can see the radical islamist groups and their "holy war" against the US, i agree how they see the US as "a big bully" and we all know the real reason why bush wanted to go into iraq, OIL

I have a real problem when people use this argument. We didn't go to Iraq for oil, that is a bold lie put in place by extremist liberals like Michael Moore. If you haven't noticed (or don't live here) oil prices have basically trippled here since the war in Iraq began. We aren't getting oil from Iraq. Not to mention, that Bush is an oil dealer, if he started stealing mass sums of oil from Iraq it would drop his companies prices, which is the last thing he wants. Iraq was taken out to make Kuwait and the Saudi's happy because they're both large bussiness associates of the U.S. But we didn't go there for oil, that's propaganda.


anyone see farienhiet (sp) 9/11?

That movie is the biggest piece of propaganda crap going. If you watch that movie and belive a word of it you are no better than those who blindly follow Bush.


I disagree greatly.

A rebel's point is to fight their oppressors for their basic freedoms.

A terrorist makes effort to instill fear into people they're attacking.

Realistically, the people being rebelled against are likely terrorists.

A terrorist isntills fear into people by attacking so that they or their organization can attain greater degrees of freedom as well. Both simply fight for "freedom". Both use guerilla tactics, and both resort to kidnappings. I really don't see much of a difference, besides the common image that rebels have guns and terrorists use bombs.


The CIA are a bunch of Accountants and Psychologists.. I know this because I have seen them, and talked to them. They are most defiantly not terrorists.

Okay? Bin Ladin is a lawyer I believe. Someone doesn't gave to wear army camo and brandish a gun to be a terrorist. The fact of the matter is that they follow the same types of action as anyone who leads a terrorist cell.

[BuFFMb]

ok, if u look at our whole operation iraqi freedom, and compare that to the amount of terroism against our troops, i would say that it has nearly tripled

they dont want us there, for reasons we probably dont know and never will, no one is a mind reader

and if u look at oil prices here, the reason it has gone up so high is that we control all the oil now. there is no competition, anymore, over here, this company called valero is buying out all the gas stations, citgo and diamond shamrocks are gone

if one company has all the oil, they can charge whatever they want, no one else supplies, so u cant go anywhere to get it



there are many more places that the US can go into to stop terrorism, but they dont cause there is no real economical gain from them.

the bottom line...wars cost money $_$
including our war against terrorism

[Evonus]

ok, if u look at our whole operation iraqi freedom, and compare that to the amount of terroism against our troops, i would say that it has nearly tripled

they dont want us there, for reasons we probably dont know and never will, no one is a mind reader

I never argued against that. I know they don't want us there. The Sunni's never wanted us there, the Shi'ites originally wanted us to get rid of Sadam, but after that wanted us to leave, and I can't blame them. I don't want us there either.


and if u look at oil prices here, the reason it has gone up so high is that we control all the oil now. there is no competition, anymore, over here, this company called valero is buying out all the gas stations, citgo and diamond shamrocks are gone

Foriegn oil always charged more than domestic oil. OPEC always charged more than U.S. oil companies.


if one company has all the oil, they can charge whatever they want, no one else supplies, so u cant go anywhere to get it

That's true, but I don't think that's what's happening. OPEC is going up in drums of oil prices and as such our oil prices rise with it. We haven't ever even seen an impact from Iraqi oil.


there are many more places that the US can go into to stop terrorism, but they dont cause there is no real economical gain from them.

Exactly, but our economic gain wasn't in the form of oil, it was in the form of investment from Sadam's neighbor's who hated him bitterly.


the bottom line...wars cost money $_$
including our war against terrorism

Wars cost money, but they also generate jobs, jobs that may have been lost during a recession followed by a large scale terrorist attack......

[Hacky]

A terrorist isntills fear into people by attacking so that they or their organization can attain greater degrees of freedom as well. Both simply fight for "freedom". Both use guerilla tactics, and both resort to kidnappings. I really don't see much of a difference, besides the common image that rebels have guns and terrorists use bombs.

So, when a man kills another man for self defense, he is the same as a man who kills another man for joy?

You ignore the intent of the people. Tatics being the same or not, Terrorists USE fear to fight, Rebels merely fight for themselves.

Terrorists want to earn something from the ones they're attacking, not necessarily freedom. Why did they attack the WTC on 9/11?

Rebels want to earn their own rights.

Whether you define the "terrorists" in Iraq bombing cars as terrorists or not, is up to you. I'm not looking at who we have labeled as terrorists and defining terrorist by them, I'm looking at the definitnion and defining the people around it.

[Napalm]

The CIA are a bunch of Accountants and Psychologists.. I know this because I have seen them, and talked to them. They are most defiantly not terrorists.
Right, and do you think that's all that the CIA does?
The guys who trained Osama's group to fight the commies don't sound like accountants and psychologists to me.

[Evonus]

So, when a man kills another man for self defense, he is the same as a man who kills another man for joy?

You ignore the intent of the people. Tatics being the same or not, Terrorists USE fear to fight, Rebels merely fight for themselves.

Terrorists want to earn something from the ones they're attacking, not necessarily freedom. Why did they attack the WTC on 9/11?

Rebels want to earn their own rights.

Whether you define the "terrorists" in Iraq bombing cars as terrorists or not, is up to you. I'm not looking at who we have labeled as terrorists and defining terrorist by them, I'm looking at the definitnion and defining the people around it.

I'm not ignoring the intent. Both rebels and terrorists do what they do for political power/political change. I mean it may sound nice in saying that rebels only want their freedom, but most end up becoming the leaders of a country if they succeed, and not always by democratic election.

The terrorists attacked the U.S. on 9/11 because they want Americans out of the middle east, because they feel their freedoms are being infringed.

I also am looking at the definition, guerillas and rebels often use scare tactics which can be considered terrorism, and many of the terrorists in Iraq and afghanistan fight using guerilla tactics and hiding in caves. I really don't see much of a distinction.

[Hacky]

The terrorists attacked the U.S. on 9/11 because they want Americans out of the middle east, because they feel their freedoms are being infringed. .

The Americans were in the middle east before 9/11? I was unaware of this... I thought... the war started BECAUSE of 9/11. Odd. We were maybe there for trade and keeping an eye on Saddam, but we really had nothing to do with Osama until 9/11 (Excluding the fact that we trained him and etc, but that's beside the point).

Terrorists merely want a change that they refuse to attain diplomatically.

Rebels want freedoms from their oppressors. If you aren't rebeling against somebody who is oppressing you, then you aren't a rebel. Scare tatics or not. Democracy is unimportant. Rebels can be communist (Ever heard of Che Guevara?) or anything, but in the end they're fighting for THEIR freedom, and wish to set up a more fair (From their perspective) political system. Terrorists want others to do what THEY say, "or else".

[Evonus]

The Americans were in the middle east before 9/11? I was unaware of this... I thought... the war started BECAUSE of 9/11. Odd. We were maybe there for trade and keeping an eye on Saddam, but we really had nothing to do with Osama until 9/11 (Excluding the fact that we trained him and etc, but that's beside the point).

The U.S. has been parked in the middle east militarily ever since the first war in Iraq. Following the end of the USSR we no longer had to worry about MAD from the former Soviets, and so we were allowed to camping wherever we pleased. Not to mention the U.S. has rather large plots of land in Saudi Arabia, Bin Ladin's home.


Terrorists merely want a change that they refuse to attain diplomatically.

Terrorists and Rebels resort to violence instead of diplomacy.


Rebels want freedoms from their oppressors. If you aren't rebeling against somebody who is oppressing you, then you aren't a rebel.

Yes, but many islamic terrorists would claim the U.S. is also opressing them. That also makes them, and every other terrorists rebels. Not to mention, where did the need for an oppressor come in the defition of a rebel.


Scare tatics or not. Democracy is unimportant. Rebels can be communist (Ever heard of Che Guevara?) or anything, but in the end they're fighting for THEIR freedom, and wish to set up a more fair (From their perspective) political system. Terrorists want others to do what THEY say, "or else".

Motivations are debatable. Castro and Che were both rich bastards from rich families, which meant that they weren't the ones being abused by Batista's dictatorship as well as U.S. corporate domination. So the two of them rebeled, they hid in the hills while the real rebelion against Batista was taking place. They let the working class rebels get slaughtered in the streets by Batista's army while they hid like cowards, and then once those two armies had weakened each other to the point of nothingness he rode in on a white horse, replaced Batista, and seated himself as a cruel dictator, just like his predecessor. Castro and Che were both power hungry assholes who wanted and still want nothing more than their own enrichment. Che supposably got his hatred for the U.S. after the coup in Guatemala, yet when the ousted president Arbenz went to Cuba (he was invited by Castro) and criticized the administration Castro exiled him, showing that the ideals were not followed, but merely used to gain power.

That's the long of it, the short is that most rebels simply sieze power through acts of cowardice and terror and then install their own dictatorships, which is exactly the same thing terrorists do, and that's the short of it.

[Shins]

The Americans were in the middle east before 9/11?

America is everywhere, in some capacity. Activity may have ramped up post 9/11, but the terrorists were still angry from our involvement in the region during the Cold War.


Terrorists merely want a change that they refuse to attain diplomatically.

And rebels sit down at the negotiation table to get what they want? Certainly, they may try that first, but rebels certain participate in military initiatives to attain their freedom. I'll go back the the American Revolution well for an example of this one.


Rebels want freedoms from their oppressors. If you aren't rebeling against somebody who is oppressing you, then you aren't a rebel. Scare tatics or not. Democracy is unimportant. Rebels can be communist (Ever heard of Che Guevara?) or anything, but in the end they're fighting for THEIR freedom, and wish to set up a more fair (From their perspective) political system. Terrorists want others to do what THEY say, "or else".

It's all perception. To an outside observer, terrorists are ruthless, evil people employing whatever means necessary to get to a goal. But when you're on the side of a rebel, you won't view the actions as those of a terrorist, because the cause is justified from your point of view. What's fair and what isn't all depends on who and where you are in a given situation.

[Hacky]

Yes, but many islamic terrorists would claim the U.S. is also opressing them. That also makes them, and every other terrorists rebels. Not to mention, where did the need for an oppressor come in the defition of a rebel.

I never claimed Islamic "terrorists" as terrorists, did I?

Where did the need for an opression NOT come into the definition of a rebel? TO REBEL. Its a verb, you can't rebel against something that isn't controlling you. That's not a rebelion, that's disagreeing. Rebels have no choice but to fight back because they're being oppressed. Terrorists on the other hand CAN solve their problems diplomatically.

All terrorists might be rebels, but not all rebels are terrorists. The words are not synonymous.

[Shins]

So what's a real-world example that would fit your view of a terrorist, Hacky?

[Evonus]

I never claimed Islamic "terrorists" as terrorists, did I?

Where did the need for an opression NOT come into the definition of a rebel? TO REBEL. Its a verb, you can't rebel against something that isn't controlling you. That's not a rebelion, that's disagreeing. Rebels have no choice but to fight back because they're being oppressed. Terrorists on the other hand CAN solve their problems diplomatically.

All terrorists might be rebels, but not all rebels are terrorists. The words are not synonymous.

reb‧el  /n., adj. ˈrɛbəl; v. rɪˈbɛl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n., adj. reb-uhl; v. ri-bel] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, adjective, verb, -belled, -bel‧ling.
–noun
1. a person who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against the government or ruler of his or her country.
2. a person who resists any authority, control, or tradition.

A rebel is just someone who takes violent action against a comonly established belief or practice. They don't have to be considered opressors. PETA could be considered both terrorists and rebels, but they aren't being opressed.

[Hacky]

The WTC attack.

They were their own country. We were not waging war on them. And yet they attacked us in our own land.

If you consider PETA terrorist or rebels, that's just foolish.

[Shins]

The WTC attack.

Wait...


I never claimed Islamic "terrorists" as terrorists, did I?

Guh?


They were their own country. We were not waging war on them. And yet they attacked us in our own land.

Certainly, from the position of a clearheaded person on the other side of this conflict, it can be viewed as an illogical, desperate act whose sole motivation is to inspire fear. But the people flying those planes into the towers had lofty ideals implanted in their head about what they were doing: it was more than causing explosions and screams. They thought they were fighting a great Enemy, and that they were doing the will of God.


If you consider PETA terrorist or rebels, that's just foolish.

I won't go so far as to label PETA alongside Al Queda just yet, but from the standpoint of knowing someone who was slowly seduced and brainwashed by them, I can say they're far from an innocent bunch. I'd rank them with Scientology for now.

[Evonus]

The WTC attack.

You just said you don't consider muslim extremeists terrorists. Stop hoping the fence.


They were their own country. We were not waging war on them. And yet they attacked us in our own land.

We were a foriegn opressor. It happens all the time. They felt that we were economically controling them from afar.


If you consider PETA terrorist or rebels, that's just foolish.

I don't see why. I believe you were the one who said one didn't need to kill to be a rebel. They participate in terrorist style and rebel style activities, ie organized raiding of labs letting animals escape.

[Napalm]

You just said you don't consider muslim extremeists terrorists. Stop hoping the fence.
So, wait. You have to be a terrorist to attack a country? Hm. That's right! I guess the USA can also be labeled as terrorists on the other side, that is, in the middle east.


We were a foriegn opressor. It happens all the time. They felt that we were economically controling them from afar.

Um, no. If you've read anything on the history of Afghanistan, you'd know a few things about Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Hell, this even extends to other countries such as Lebanon, and such attacks that forced a few US Embassies to close, including a marine barracks that was destroyed, killing 300. As far as I see, the Palestinians and the Jews are at the root of this entire "islamic terrorist" deal, which is exactly what we've been arguing. Well, what you all have been arguing. :P


I don't see why. I believe you were the one who said one didn't need to kill to be a rebel. They participate in terrorist style and rebel style activities, ie organized raiding of labs letting animals escape.
Terrorists terrorize and rebels rebel.

[BuFFMb]

oh, now ur blaming the jews for all this? thats a brilliant scapegoat if i might say so myself, i think, oh yes, thats right, hitler used the jews as an excuse for his actions


although realisticly, u are correct to a degree, many many religions belive that the middle east is where life began, an that is probably where it is going to end, the jews being one of them who belive this, palestine, and yet, there are more terrorist attacks that occur daily in israel than they do elsewhere in the world because of that reason

[Shins]

I guess the USA can also be labeled as terrorists on the other side, that is, in the middle east.

Exactly. Who and where you are in any given conflict determines how labels such as "terrorist" can and will be applied. No one is saying that the application in such an instance is correct, but only existent.

[Evonus]

So, wait. You have to be a terrorist to attack a country? Hm. That's right! I guess the USA can also be labeled as terrorists on the other side, that is, in the middle east.

You don't have to be a terrorist to attack a country, but Al-Queda isn't and was never the governing authority of any country, ergo they aren't a government. Now I've already conceded that the CIA are terrorists, but the entire U.S. isn't. A foriegn agressor to some perhaps, but not terrorists.


Um, no. If you've read anything on the history of Afghanistan, you'd know a few things about Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

I know about them. We put them into power to kill the commies. They say they're doing it for religious reasons. Some of the lower down cronies may be, but Bin Ladin is watching out for his wallet, and he can't make 5 billion a year from oil with the U.S. there, so he's stuck only making 4 billion, so he feels the need to fight back.


Hell, this even extends to other countries such as Lebanon, and such attacks that forced a few US Embassies to close, including a marine barracks that was destroyed, killing 300.

Lebanon is a prime example that terrorists equal = rebels. The "terrorists" in Lebanon were rebelling against the christian minority that ruled the country. Lebanon is about as screwed up as earthly possible.


As far as I see, the Palestinians and the Jews are at the root of this entire "islamic terrorist" deal, which is exactly what we've been arguing. Well, what you all have been arguing. :P

That's what the Islamic terrorist leaders want you to think, but really it's about money. The rich muslim oil lords don't like to share with the christians or with the jews. So instead they declare a Jihad, and make their own little cronies die for them so that they can get richer.

It's the same thing when Bush says he's defending christianity. He's defending his pocketbook, the muslim extremeists are the same.


Terrorists terrorize and rebels rebel.

But in order to terrorize one must rebel and rebel creates insecurity and terror.

[Hacky]

If you two can't tell the difference between the people that attacked the WTC and the suicide bombers in Iraq, then that is not my fault.

Hint: They are not the same group of people.

[Destagow]

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

[Shins]

Break it down for me. I still don't see where you can get past this being more about perception than anything else.

[Hacky]

Two questions can answer it basically.

1) Can it be solved diplomatically? If it can, then military action is unneeded, and not rebellion.

2) Are they attacking their occupants(Oppressors), or innocents? In the case of WTC, they attacked innocents IN the United States.

If Saudi Arabia was being occupied by American SOliders, then a non-terrorist way to deal with it would have been to attempt diplomacy with America to get them to leave, and then attack the soldiers in their countries if diplomacy did not work (Rebellion). Instead they went out of their way to attack innocents and terrorize the US as a whole.

Currently we label the Iraqi Insurgents as "terrorists". They are not the same people that attacked the WTC. Hence, I am not "jumping the fence" back and forth.

[Shins]

But who decides when something cannot be solved diplomatically?

Everything can be, hypothetically, but of course, not realistically. So who does it fall to to make this judgment call that would act to distinguish terrorism and rebellion?

[Hacky]

Something cannot be solved diplomatically when the opposing side refuses to accept.

United States Revolution was a rebellion, they refused to let us become our own country diplomatically.

[Evonus]

Two questions can answer it basically.

1) Can it be solved diplomatically? If it can, then military action is unneeded, and not rebellion.

2) Are they attacking their occupants(Oppressors), or innocents? In the case of WTC, they attacked innocents IN the United States.

If Saudi Arabia was being occupied by American Soliders, then a non-terrorist way to deal with it would have been to attempt diplomacy with America to get them to leave, and then attack the soldiers in their countries if diplomacy did not work (Rebellion). Instead they went out of their way to attack innocents and terrorize the US as a whole.

Saudi Arabia to my knowledge wasn't occupied by soldiers after the gulf war. The company ARAM Co. (arab amerircan oil company) is seated there, which is bitterly hated by many of the occupants, but loved by the king of Saudi Arabia. So he would've been attacking citizens either way; however the Saudi government protects that particularly community as well as it protects it's own palaces. Seriously, electric fences and a small army are a lot harder to get past than air port security. Many of them see us as stealing their resources, and since they can't get to those Americans they hoped to scare all Americans and get their economic oppressors out of their country, because they blame companies like ARAM Co. for their economic problems and starvation.

I'll also say this. If Al-queda did attempt diplomacy with the U.S. would we know about it. I'd imagine the U.S. would try to keep it quiet, so that they make their opponents look worse than they actually are.


Currently we label the Iraqi Insurgents as "terrorists". They are not the same people that attacked the WTC. Hence, I am not "jumping the fence" back and forth.

Okay? They aren't the same people that attacked the world trade center, but they employ the same and possibly crueler methods. I don't consider cutting off civilian's heads as kind acts. Those acts are meant to terrorize all civilians there, and thus the Iraqi insurgents are terrorists as well. There are other terrorists groups besides Al-queda.

[Shins]

Something cannot be solved diplomatically when the opposing side refuses to accept.

United States Revolution was a rebellion, they refused to let us become our own country diplomatically.

Right, but even in that case, you can argue that there were diplomatic methods which may have yielded different results given enough time. Of course, that's not the most viable or sought-after option, so it was abandoned for a more direct, military action. And I think it was the right choice.

But there is always the opportunity for a diplomatic solution in the hypothetical. And there's just no universal authority than can definitively decide when two sides have exausted all diplomatic avenues, which is a major distinguishing factor in your supplied difference between rebellion and terrorism.

There's always one other thing to try, no matter how small or seemingly trivial/ineffective.

There's the agreed-upon ideas of the majority on what is reasonable, but majorities aren't always right, yeah? They're just that: a majority opinion.

[Hacky]

I'll also say this. If Al-queda did attempt diplomacy with the U.S. would we know about it. I'd imagine the U.S. would try to keep it quiet, so that they make their opponents look worse than they actually are..

Try is irrelevent. The fact it didn't work is obvious. So they had to move to something else.


Seriously, electric fences and a small army are a lot harder to get past than air port security.

Ah, I forget that whatever's easier is right. So what if they could do it easier, it was wrong of them to take that option, and that's what makes them terroists. You never heard of American Revolutionists shipping back boats full of gunpowder and a single man with a torch, to hit the British harbors. Would that have been an easy way for them to get Britian to leave? Possibly.

[Evonus]

Try is irrelevent. The fact it didn't work is obvious. So they had to move to something else.

Okay, so yeah that's what I said. But what's your point? How does that make them nonrebels if they tried to negotiate at first.


Ah, I forget that whatever's easier is right. So what if they could do it easier, it was wrong of them to take that option, and that's what makes them terroists. You never heard of American Revolutionists shipping back boats full of gunpowder and a single man with a torch, to hit the British harbors. Would that have been an easy way for them to get Britian to leave? Possibly.

Okay, when did this become about right and wrong? This is about how a rebel differs from a terrorist if at all, and what defines each. You're starting to stray here, but not only that, you can't decide what's right and wrong, no one can. You can't include a value judgement in a definition and expect it to hold.

To go along with that I'll give you scenario. What if the children in your town/village were starving, and the only way you could think of to feed them would be to take back your countries resources from an opressor. If it was your kids, and your neighbors kids, is it wrong to kill 2000 people if you think it could save the 20,000 starving people in your region. I really don't consider them in the wrong for trying whatever they could to try and feed their starving children on the street. That doesn't seem like an evil terrible act to me.

[Hacky]

I don't either. But your example has no metaphorical evidence.... so basically you just came in here and said
"Hey, killing 2000 to save 20,000 is good"

..... yeah. I can't imagine anybody trying to argue.

This is comparable to Terrorism how?

I believe it is easy to see that there is one moral that stretches across the globe: Killing Innocents is wrong. That's how it becomes about right and wrong.

Now, if your example were, say, killing 2000 people who had absolutely nothing to do with the starvation of your village, then it'd be wrong.

If you're going to kill people to protect yourself, kill those who are to blame for your harm. Don't kill people who are indifferent.

[Evonus]

I don't either. But your example has no metaphorical evidence.... so basically you just came in here and said
"Hey, killing 2000 to save 20,000 is good"

..... yeah. I can't imagine anybody trying to argue.

This is comparable to Terrorism how?

I believe it is easy to see that there is one moral that stretches across the globe: Killing Innocents is wrong. That's how it becomes about right and wrong.

Now, if your example were, say, killing 2000 people who had absolutely nothing to do with the starvation of your village, then it'd be wrong.

If you're going to kill people to protect yourself, kill those who are to blame for your harm. Don't kill people who are indifferent.

I'm not defending terrorism. I don't condone it, I'd kill every terrorist with my bare hands if I could. I also don't condone rebel actions in most cases either, I'm playing devil's advocate to prove my point.

However, my point here is to prove that what your saying to try and prove your point runs into the realm of the subjective. It isn't up to you or anyone else to say who's innocent and who isn't. Not to mention, collateral damage isn't considered terrible around the world. I saw cheering in Palestine on 9/11. You abd I consider it terrible because they're our country men, but not everyone sees it that way. Right and wrong has no basis in politics, morality in politics is nothing but propaganda, and to go along with that I say that your distinction between terrorist and rebel is different by a degree of propaganda and nothing else.

[Shins]

Now, if your example were, say, killing 2000 people who had absolutely nothing to do with the starvation of your village, then it'd be wrong.

If you're going to kill people to protect yourself, kill those who are to blame for your harm. Don't kill people who are indifferent.

But this is supposing that those responsible for piloting the planes into the towers on 9/11 did it with the understanding that what they were doing would have no meaningful effect on their goals.

They were wrong in that, but they didn't do what they did thinking or knowing that it was nothing but meaningless killing of innocents. What they did was wrong, but the fact is, they didn't know that. They should have, but they didn't.

[Aesthetic]

Evonus, I'd have to disagree with you on Che. If he was a rich coward then he would have lived out his days comfortably in Cuba. He would have not risked and ultimately given his life fighting for the Bolivian people, whom he had never known.

After reading the last 3 pages... I am just confused and irritated. Who the hell cares what exactly the definition of these words are. I agree with everyone who said that they mean different things, depending on where you stand.

More interesting to me is... where/when did terrorism start?

Was it during the French Revolution with the Jacobins?

Or maybe... the Huns?

[Evonus]

Evonus, I'd have to disagree with you on Che. If he was a rich coward then he would have lived out his days comfortably in Cuba. He would have not risked and ultimately given his life fighting for the Bolivian people, whom he had never known.

Che hated the United States, and he believed in Trosky's theory of permenant revolution. He was trying to increase his dominance over the region and give the U.S. a slap in the face by turning Bolivia to communism. He was killed in a trap set by the CIA, he didn't storm the trenches and die in a blaze of glory.


After reading the last 3 pages... I am just confused and irritated. Who the hell cares what exactly the definition of these words are. I agree with everyone who said that they mean different things, depending on where you stand.

The meaning of the word terrorist is rather important, because those that fall under the definition don't fall under the jurisdiction of the geneva convention.....


More interesting to me is... where/when did terrorism start?

Was it during the French Revolution with the Jacobins?

Or maybe... the Huns?

I'm pretty sure it's been around as long as prostitution and just called different things.

[Hacky]

Terrorism dates back to Rome, and probably even before hand. At this point, I don't even care who says what. I think what the majority labels as terrorists is wrong, and that Evonus trying to claim that Rebel and Terrorist are synonymous is foolish, but I'm too tired, so I don't care.

[Evonus]

Terrorism dates back to Rome, and probably even before hand. At this point, I don't even care who says what. I think what the majority labels as terrorists is wrong, and that Evonus trying to claim that Rebel and Terrorist are synonymous is foolish, but I'm too tired, so I don't care.

Okay, you can always sleep and come back with new ideas tomorrow, but I think calling my conjecture foolish is wrong because you seem to be having a hell of a time disproving it.

[Shins]

and probably even before hand

This made me ponder paleolithic terrorism, and then I lol'd because in either case, the terrorists still live in caves.

[BuFFMb]

live in caves, ha! i bet bin laden isnt even living in a cave right now, hell saddam isnt living in a cave, he is living comfortably in a jail cell

[dEUS]

A terrorist is an extremist operating against a State with no sense of difference between Soldiers and Civilians.

As purpose achieving a political/religional goal.

[System_Zero]

In short, most rebels do not target civilians. We've seen this in our own revolutionary war, as well as other rebellions. Like the various African nations that are in turmoil and with rebels and guerillas (no pun intended) fighting against the current head of their government. Even those who support the incumbent government aren’t usually targeted.

But with groups like al-Quda they target the government and civilians alike. Any who is not with them is against them. The only compassionate thing they can ever do is to convert you to their views of Islam. However what’s going on in Iraq is a bit of both.

[dEUS]

There is no difference between Rebels and Terrorists?

[s33r]

Success.

[Slevin57]

Right, and do you think that's all that the CIA does?
The guys who trained Osama's group to fight the commies don't sound like accountants and psychologists to me.

They sound just like accounts and psychologists who watched over the Army while they did it..

And We did not go into Iraq for oil. We did not go into Iraq for oil.

We have spent about 10x the money we would have gotten if we had taken every drop of Iraqi oil from them. Oil is Iraq's only real source of income. It's the only thing they ever have a chance to rebuild their country with.

[We_Be_1337]

And We did not go into Iraq for oil. We did not go into Iraq for oil. Double negative, they did go for the oil!

It's been said before but I agree; A terrorist is a radical extremist (but not always!) working outside or against the government (or similar organization).
IMO anyway.

[Napoleon]

Terrorist : An individual who uses any means necessary to obtain or achieve their goal.

This is why the US label suicide bombers, hijackers, etc... as terrorist. They don't have the miltary means to be heard so they use whatever they can to obtain their goal. In turn, poor countries label bigger contries as terrorist because again, they don't have the military means to push other people around to achieve their goal. So what is a terrorits? Some poor bastard who got caught up in politics and religion. Instead of going to work everyday like the rest of us, he decides to end it all to gain the attention he wants to support his party's belief.

[riffz]

A terrorist is someone who uses fear or violence to gain control or recognition.

[Napalm3PO]

They sound just like accounts and psychologists who watched over the Army while they did it..

And We did not go into Iraq for oil. We did not go into Iraq for oil.

We have spent about 10x the money we would have gotten if we had taken every drop of Iraqi oil from them. Oil is Iraq's only real source of income. It's the only thing they ever have a chance to rebuild their country with.

I hadn't said that you went to Iraq for oil. I don't know where that random arguement came out of. I hardly believe that CIA is all about accounts and psychologists. :]

[Slevin57]

Well then keep watching movies... The days of the 007 CIA Agents are getting fewer and fewer... All the highly trained CIA Agents are moving closer to retirement....and the CIA is just now moving over to Arabic as a requirement for there field agents.

We talked about this in class today and came to the following points..

1/ Terrorists do not unintentionally harm civilians -- They deliberately murder, maim and menace civilians -- as many as possible

2/ Terrorism is the deliberate and systematic assault on civilians to inspire fear for political ends

3/ The effect of fear is offset by an equal and often powerful effect of revulsion from the citizenry...In fact, the methods reveal the totalitarian strain that runs through all terrorist groups.. It is only the ends of the terrorists do not succeed in justifying the means they choose; their choice of means indicates what their real ends are. Far from being fighters from freedom, terrorists are the forerunners of tyranny.

++ I Approve ++

[Napalm3PO]

Sorry, I don't base my opinions on fiction.
When it comes to the government, they're more than capable of hiding secrets, including the CIA

The days of the 007 CIA Agents are getting fewer and fewer... Right so basically you're (kind of) proving my point here. The point being that there is more to the CIA than accounts and psychologists.