define 'terrorism'
-
in an earlier post fazul said that the meaning of the word 'terrorism' changes from country to country. let's take a stab at it here: i would define terrorism as "a group or individual who makes war on non combatant civilians". the direct aim of terrorism is to destabilize the populace of an enemy populace, in order to force a change in the policies of the ruling body of that populace. this definition differentiates terrorism from SLIC which is "Special Low Intensity Conflict" which is a US military acronym for guerilla warfare. thoughts? -John
-
in an earlier post fazul said that the meaning of the word 'terrorism' changes from country to country. let's take a stab at it here: i would define terrorism as "a group or individual who makes war on non combatant civilians". the direct aim of terrorism is to destabilize the populace of an enemy populace, in order to force a change in the policies of the ruling body of that populace. this definition differentiates terrorism from SLIC which is "Special Low Intensity Conflict" which is a US military acronym for guerilla warfare. thoughts? -John
Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." www.dictionary.com Of course, that is a broad definition with one of the key words being "unlawful". But what is and isn't lawful can differ based on perspective. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." www.dictionary.com Of course, that is a broad definition with one of the key words being "unlawful". But what is and isn't lawful can differ based on perspective. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." www.dictionary.com Of course, that is a broad definition with one of the key words being "unlawful". But what is and isn't lawful can differ based on perspective. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
To some extent I think I agree with Fazlul on this. One man's terrorist is quite likely another man's freedom fighter. Both the definitions you give for 'terrorist' could also apply (IMHO) to the term 'total war'. The trend towards involving civilian populations in war in modern times started in the First World War, when Germans used zeppelins to bomb civilian populations in England. Be careful that your interpretation of recent events is not slanted by personal political prejudices or government spin. It is best to try to think of things in an historical perspective, and make your own judgements. Dave R
-
in an earlier post fazul said that the meaning of the word 'terrorism' changes from country to country. let's take a stab at it here: i would define terrorism as "a group or individual who makes war on non combatant civilians". the direct aim of terrorism is to destabilize the populace of an enemy populace, in order to force a change in the policies of the ruling body of that populace. this definition differentiates terrorism from SLIC which is "Special Low Intensity Conflict" which is a US military acronym for guerilla warfare. thoughts? -John
I would define terrorism as "a group or individual who makes war on non combatant civilians". Would this definition make the U.S. a terrorist nation for the deliberate slaughter of about 500 non combatant civilians at My Lai during the VietNam war (to say nothing of numerous similar incidents)? At the least, would Lt. William Calley be a terrorist?
Q: What were the children in the ditch doing? A (Paul Meadlo): I don't know. Q: Were the babies in their mother's arms? A: I guess so. Q: And the babies moved to attack? A: I expected at any moment they were about to make a counterbalance Q: Had they made any move to attack? A: No. Q: When you left the ditch, were any of the people standing? A: Not that I remember. Q: Did you see anyone who was not shot? A: I can't say. I didn't get down and check them out.
Would it make Israel a terrorist nation for the slaughter of 800 noncombatants in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in 1982? We can criticize the U.S. and Israel for their sins, but surely it would be a perversion of language to call them "terrorist!" For this reason, the U.S. has had to be very careful about treaties that have been proposed over the years to combat terrorism and war crimes because if we are not careful, we could well be ensnared in tricky legal language.
-
in an earlier post fazul said that the meaning of the word 'terrorism' changes from country to country. let's take a stab at it here: i would define terrorism as "a group or individual who makes war on non combatant civilians". the direct aim of terrorism is to destabilize the populace of an enemy populace, in order to force a change in the policies of the ruling body of that populace. this definition differentiates terrorism from SLIC which is "Special Low Intensity Conflict" which is a US military acronym for guerilla warfare. thoughts? -John
I was referring to my observation on media with respect to IRA. Having the opportunity to live both in UK and USA, I've seen the way British (English) and US media approach this term is not quite the same. I see the US media is more comfortable to see the N. Ireland conflict as a "struggle for self determination" and not quite pure terrorism. Perhaps the large Irish American population has something to do with this, but hey I may be wrong. I agree with your definition in general. Anything that "terrorizes innocent civilians" is terrorism. // Fazlul
Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++ http://www.capitolsoft.com
-
I would define terrorism as "a group or individual who makes war on non combatant civilians". Would this definition make the U.S. a terrorist nation for the deliberate slaughter of about 500 non combatant civilians at My Lai during the VietNam war (to say nothing of numerous similar incidents)? At the least, would Lt. William Calley be a terrorist?
Q: What were the children in the ditch doing? A (Paul Meadlo): I don't know. Q: Were the babies in their mother's arms? A: I guess so. Q: And the babies moved to attack? A: I expected at any moment they were about to make a counterbalance Q: Had they made any move to attack? A: No. Q: When you left the ditch, were any of the people standing? A: Not that I remember. Q: Did you see anyone who was not shot? A: I can't say. I didn't get down and check them out.
Would it make Israel a terrorist nation for the slaughter of 800 noncombatants in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in 1982? We can criticize the U.S. and Israel for their sins, but surely it would be a perversion of language to call them "terrorist!" For this reason, the U.S. has had to be very careful about treaties that have been proposed over the years to combat terrorism and war crimes because if we are not careful, we could well be ensnared in tricky legal language.
well, when a recognized or defacto government attacks an illegitimate target, that is a war crime punishable under the laws of conventions such as the geneva convention. it's these extra-legal groups that operate without direct state sponsorship that give us the problem. they fall under the cloak of the modern catch-all: "plausible deniability". when there is no paper trail, the investigators are impotent and unable to continue. -John
-
I was referring to my observation on media with respect to IRA. Having the opportunity to live both in UK and USA, I've seen the way British (English) and US media approach this term is not quite the same. I see the US media is more comfortable to see the N. Ireland conflict as a "struggle for self determination" and not quite pure terrorism. Perhaps the large Irish American population has something to do with this, but hey I may be wrong. I agree with your definition in general. Anything that "terrorizes innocent civilians" is terrorism. // Fazlul
Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++ http://www.capitolsoft.com
One of the problems is that definition falls apart in war. Take the Vietnam war where the US had moronic limitation about the bombing of cities because it might hurt civilians. On the surface that seems to be a nice noble idea, but when rules like that prevent you from destroying your foes ability to wage war, then you are actually just insuring that a war will be prolonged and more bloody. (In Vietnam, a civilian residences were usually intertwined with industrial areas. Thus, you can't hit the industry without hitting the civilians.) Minimal civilian casualties should always be priority, but it is never as simple as saying 'no civilian will die'. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
I was referring to my observation on media with respect to IRA. Having the opportunity to live both in UK and USA, I've seen the way British (English) and US media approach this term is not quite the same. I see the US media is more comfortable to see the N. Ireland conflict as a "struggle for self determination" and not quite pure terrorism. Perhaps the large Irish American population has something to do with this, but hey I may be wrong. I agree with your definition in general. Anything that "terrorizes innocent civilians" is terrorism. // Fazlul
Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++ http://www.capitolsoft.com
I think I'd tend to with the definition as provided by those whose innocents who are killed and maimed. People take it as entirely possible they could die if their country declares war. So is terrorism a war in which only one 'side' has declared it so? The Falklands conflict was never refered to as a war, does anyone know why? eternal student Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to use the 'net and he won't bother you for weeks.
-
One of the problems is that definition falls apart in war. Take the Vietnam war where the US had moronic limitation about the bombing of cities because it might hurt civilians. On the surface that seems to be a nice noble idea, but when rules like that prevent you from destroying your foes ability to wage war, then you are actually just insuring that a war will be prolonged and more bloody. (In Vietnam, a civilian residences were usually intertwined with industrial areas. Thus, you can't hit the industry without hitting the civilians.) Minimal civilian casualties should always be priority, but it is never as simple as saying 'no civilian will die'. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
>> civilian casualties ... This reminds me another thorny term used by Pentagon (in Gulf war): "Collateral Damage". Last time I heard the term was from Timothy McVeigh, when he was asked his motive behind killing some 160 innocent civilians. // Fazlul
Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++ http://www.capitolsoft.com
-
in an earlier post fazul said that the meaning of the word 'terrorism' changes from country to country. let's take a stab at it here: i would define terrorism as "a group or individual who makes war on non combatant civilians". the direct aim of terrorism is to destabilize the populace of an enemy populace, in order to force a change in the policies of the ruling body of that populace. this definition differentiates terrorism from SLIC which is "Special Low Intensity Conflict" which is a US military acronym for guerilla warfare. thoughts? -John
The FBI define terrorism, as Tim Smith did: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." The FBI also define war was: "The lawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." (Source: "Rainbow Six", by Tom Clancy.) A grey area, huh? What's lawful in the eyes of the US might not be lawful in the eye's of others... David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
>> civilian casualties ... This reminds me another thorny term used by Pentagon (in Gulf war): "Collateral Damage". Last time I heard the term was from Timothy McVeigh, when he was asked his motive behind killing some 160 innocent civilians. // Fazlul
Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++ http://www.capitolsoft.com
-
in an earlier post fazul said that the meaning of the word 'terrorism' changes from country to country. let's take a stab at it here: i would define terrorism as "a group or individual who makes war on non combatant civilians". the direct aim of terrorism is to destabilize the populace of an enemy populace, in order to force a change in the policies of the ruling body of that populace. this definition differentiates terrorism from SLIC which is "Special Low Intensity Conflict" which is a US military acronym for guerilla warfare. thoughts? -John
-
Yup, but it doesn't change the fact that civilians will die in a war. You can try to sugar coat it or make it out to be pure evil, but that will never change the facts. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
well, when a recognized or defacto government attacks an illegitimate target, that is a war crime punishable under the laws of conventions such as the geneva convention. it's these extra-legal groups that operate without direct state sponsorship that give us the problem. they fall under the cloak of the modern catch-all: "plausible deniability". when there is no paper trail, the investigators are impotent and unable to continue. -John
Thanks for the clarification. Of course, the U.S. claims that international law is not enforceable upon us (this claim was made when Nicaragua sued the U.S. in the International Court of Justice in the Hague in 1986 for mining its harbors during peacetime in violation of international law and of specific treaties the United States had signed).
-
One of the problems is that definition falls apart in war. Take the Vietnam war where the US had moronic limitation about the bombing of cities because it might hurt civilians. On the surface that seems to be a nice noble idea, but when rules like that prevent you from destroying your foes ability to wage war, then you are actually just insuring that a war will be prolonged and more bloody. (In Vietnam, a civilian residences were usually intertwined with industrial areas. Thus, you can't hit the industry without hitting the civilians.) Minimal civilian casualties should always be priority, but it is never as simple as saying 'no civilian will die'. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
Take the Vietnam war where the US had moronic limitation about the bombing of cities because it might hurt civilians. This was already an issue in World War II, where we bombed cities, such as Dresden, which had little strategic value, but where terrorising the civilian population was seen as a useful way to demoralize the German war effort. Regarding Vietnam, see my comment above about the murder of 500 civilians in My Lai. Since the civilians (including babies under a year old) were unarmed and were shot at close range after they had been taken prisoner, there was no question of having them mixed up with industrial areas (this was rural Vietnam---there were no industrial areas!). Also, it's hard to see how the documented rapes of several Vietnamese civilians (including young girls) by soldiers during this attack would somehow be connected to disabling the enemy's industrial or military assets:
Inside the subhamlet of Binh Tay, the 2d Platoon continued the pattern of burning, killings, and rapes which it had followed in My Lai (4). Besides scattered killing which took place inside the subhamlet, a group of Vietnamese women and children (approximately 10-20) were rounded up, brought to the southern end of Binh Tay, and made to squat in a circle. Several 40mm rounds from an M-79 grenade launcher were fired into their midst, killing several and wounding many. The wounded were subsequently killed by small arms fire from members of the platoon. Witnesses from the platoon have testified to observing at least one gang-rape of a young Vietnamese girl, an act of sodomy, and several other rape/killings while inside Binh Tay. [COMPANY C: ACTIONS ON 16 AND 17 MARCH 1968, from the University of Missouri Law School's Famous Trials page]