Definition Of A Terrorist

criticaI · January 2004

<div class="IPBDescription">What is it to you</div> Hey guys, reading the thread about Iraq, I was pondering:

How do you guys define the word "terrorist."
Give me some scenarios too if you can be as descriptive as possible.

Geminosity · January 2004

a group of individuals who take to terror tactics for whatever reason and without public political (the president or government or whatever) backing... terror tactics being bombings, taking hostages, sabotage or even assaulting places with melee or firearms.

Trojan · January 2004

A terrorist is someone who engages in terrorism

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Quite simple, really <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

AsterOids · January 2004

Ter"ror*ism (?), n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. Jefferson. <-- 2. The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals. -->

When you think about it, this is true of classical, mainstream news terrorism (the evil bearded turban kind cliché), but also of state terrorism, which is rarely talked about in mainstream news that is what George Bush and his dirty gang of neo-cons are all about.

Phoenix_Six · January 2004

Terrorist: What the opposing side would call a "freedom fighter"... except they target civilians.

tbZBeAst · January 2004

Exactly, a non-state sanctioned individual exerting political pressure by commiting acts of indiscriminate vioence.

AsterOids · January 2004

And to add scenarios, terrorism of the mainstream news kind, would be those islamic extremists who blow themselves up at random israeli civilians. Since this is talked about often, i will leave it at that, mostly anyone understands that kind of terrorism.

The lessed talked about scenarios of terrorism, which one is state terrorism, would be, for example, NATO bombing the Serbian TV station RTS, 20 april 1999, in downtown Belgrade, right next to a childrens hospital and a theatre, with assurances a few days before that the station would not be targeted.

A TV station. With janitors, cameramen, make-up people, etc...

There was a purpose to all those attack on civilians, on the bridges, on the car factories, the cigarette factories, the Nis market cluster bomb attack and that purpose was to terrorize the population into overthrowing their president, Slobodan Milosevic. The "The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets;" part.

That was encouraged by journalists like thomas friedman who was gleefully literally asking for Serbia to be bombed back to the stone age.

That sort of terrorism is rarely spoken about in mainstream news, but yet, it exists.

Necro · January 2004

a terrorist....an american!!

/me runs

actually as gem said it

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
a group of individuals who take to terror tactics for whatever reason and without public political (the president or government or whatever) backing... terror tactics being bombings, taking hostages, sabotage or even assaulting places with melee or firearms.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Marik_Steele · January 2004

Any activist group or individual whose primary weapon or instrument towards their goals is inciting fear into other people.

[edit]A scaled down example, modified from a joke I once read:
Two men meet at a golfing resort. The first is obviously a professional, the second an amateur who wants to challenge him. They agree to play against each other; the winner gets several hundred dollars from the other. There's one catch:
Amateur: "I'm obviously going to need a handicap, but I don't like plain point handicaps. How about I have just two gotchas?"
Professional: (thinking he means "gimmes") "Sure, no problem."

The professional lines up for the first drive. As he brings the golf club back, he notices the amateur is behind him, acting strangely, almost as if sneaking around.
Pro: "What are you doing?"
Amateur: "Me? Oh, nothing, don't mind me.
The professinal goes ahead, then the amateur and nothing special happens until the second hole. Once again, the pro brings up the club to swing, knowing that the amateur is somewhere behind him but not paying much attention. As the professional is just bringing down the club to swing, the amateur brings his hand upwards between the pro's legs and grabs. Hard. The drive goes only a few meters.

Pro: (doubled over, more from surprize than actual pain) "What the heck was that for?"
Amateur: "Oh, that? Well, you did much better than me on that first hole already, so I figured I'd use up one "gotcha." Don't worry, I've only got one more.

For the rest of 18 holes, the pro is constantly thinking about the amateur, now kneeling in the pro's shadow behind him during every shot. The amateur wins despite never needing to actually use the second "gotcha."

Scale that up to having a terrorist or terrorist group up against whatever they're attacking. One hit is all that you need if your actions from then on are successful enough to incite fear. Everything from small car bombings to 9-11 can definitely be described as proverbial kicks to the nether regions.

AsterOids · January 2004

"Any activist group or individual whose primary weapon or instrument towards their goals is inciting fear into other people. "

Fear is not always warranted, for example, many germans were afraid of jews after the incessant brainwashing of the nazis for years on end.

AsterOids · January 2004

"a group of individuals who take to terror tactics for whatever reason and without public political (the president or government or whatever) backing... "

According to your definition, Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist, because, after all, the president gave his soldiers his backing.

A terrorist is a terrorist, with presidential (or governemental) backing or not.

EDIT: my mother tongue is french so sometimes i will not be clear enough in what i mean... bear with me...
Lets re-phrase this:

According to your definition Saddams soldiers terrorizing the population are not terrorists because they have the presidents backing.

Nemesis_Zero · January 2004

I recently stumbled over the official definition in the US Code while reading through Chomskys '9-11'. The definition appears to be widely acceptable:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United Statesor of any State; and (B) appears 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 assassination or kidnapping.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session; 1984, Oct.19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707)

A terrorist would then, of course, be an individual or a member of a group committing acts of terrorism.
Note that this definition makes no difference between civil, military, or state terrorism.

AsterOids · January 2004

"QUOTE
[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United Statesor of any State; and (B) appears 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 assassination or kidnapping. "

that would be a better description of terrorism, mine is from websters, an old definition from 1913 but still thought it described terrorism well.

This ones better though

Maian · January 2004

You can't rely trust definitions that governments make up. Any government whose nation is being taken over by an opposing nation or rebels will label the enemy as terrorists. That sure was the case in Iraq.

Nemesis_Zero · January 2004

Take a look at the date - 1984. Current policies play little role in it. Also, you'll notice that it is not the definition the Bush administration bases its war against terror on.

AsterOids · January 2004

"Also, you'll notice that it is not the definition the Bush administration bases its war against terror on. "

Yeah because if they took it to heart, and used the same tactics to "fight terror" then theyd be bombing Washington D.C.

Immacolata · January 2004

The terrorist definition is troublesome at best. As some wise man said at one point, when is it a terrorist, and when is it a freedom fighter? If a palestine women blows herself up on an israeli bus and kills herself and several innocent israelis she is a terrorist. But if a 17 year old school boy shoots dead his tormentors in school, plus several innocent children, is he then a terrorist or a mad man?

<span style='color:white'>Cute, but not really Discussion, is it?</span>

AsterOids · January 2004

On other percuting example of how the label terrorist can be manipulated and call any enemy you have, a terrorist, is how **** Cheney voted against a congress resolution in 1986 to release Nelson Mandela from prison (he had been in jail for about 20 years at that point) and recognition of the African National Congress (the party that was fighting against apartheid).

So even though Mandela was a pacifist, Cheney viewed him as a terrorist.

My view of a terrorist is anyone that fits the description that Nem has posted, i dont care if the terrorists are "mine", or "theirs". If you attack a civilian population, on purpose, to acheive your political goals, you are a terrorist.

Phoenix_Six · January 2004

Technically, it seems as though Nem's def'n would be correct for the way the United States is using the term, since the wording is "a violent act or an act dangerous to human life <i>that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State</i>", the only ambigous part being "or any State."

That is, a terrorist is a person who utilizes fear and intimidation to achieve ends that are in conflict with US law and/or national interests. So the government's context when using the word "terrorism" is slightly different than the moral or ethical definition of a terrorist, which relies on the violation of human rights without making reference to the laws of any government.
This seems to me to be the difference between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter".

Geminosity · January 2004

Aster, Saddam wasn't a terrorist; he was a tyrant and dictator and his soldiers were just enforcers of his dictatorship/tyrannical rule =P
Not that it really covers this i think but I also said 'public political' so if it's not <u>openly</u> sanctioned by a world leader that would be involved you can still throw it under my definition of terrorism ^^

<b>edited for great justice</b>

Nikon · January 2004

simplified, i would say something along the lines of........

"a/an instigator(s) and/or propagator(s) of terror in order to obtain a goal(s) of personal interest(s) to the offender(s)"

as of late, when people think of a terrorist, the automatically think of car bombs and 9/11 ( at least in the US)

there are also terrorist that due things such as use mental and visual stimulus to produce the same effect. When a ELF member blows up a empty facility blamed for polution (yes, sometimes there are mistakes and people die, im speaking on thier intentions, not the unfortunate outcome) it is also considered terrorism. It can also involve threats, which may not be as severe or significant terrorism, but still effective and persuades people using fear.

AsterOids · January 2004

"Aster, Saddam wasn't a terrorist; he was a tyrant and dictator and his soldiers were just enforcers of his dictatorship/tyrannical rule =P"

Terror, violence and propaganda is the tools of dictators all around the world. Saddam was a terrorist in the sense that if you speak out openly against him or the baath party, chances are you will end up being tortured in a jail or end up six feet under. Theres a reason for that, its to terrorize the locals so that they dont get any funny ideas. Violence against civilians to attain political goals.

Saddam in power was a terrorist, a state terrorist.

UZi · January 2004

<span style='color:white'>Nuked. Read other peoples posts, nobody spoke about Hussein <i>supporting</i> terrorists, they spoke of Hussein <i>being</i> one. This isn't your first offense against this rule - one week timeout from Discussion.</span>

criticaI · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 16 2004, 12:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I recently stumbled over the official definition in the US Code while reading through Chomskys '9-11'. The definition appears to be widely acceptable:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United Statesor of any State; and (B) appears 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 assassination or kidnapping.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session; 1984, Oct.19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707)

A terrorist would then, of course, be an individual or a member of a group committing acts of terrorism.
Note that this definition makes no difference between civil, military, or state terrorism.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Ok, this doesn't exactly match up with what Nem said but its pretty close. Unless we have a law expert on the boards, this'll have to do.

From the Patriot Act H. R. 3162:
Title 8: Section 802, part a
(Go search for it and read Section 802)

So I guess it would look a bit like this nowadays:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United Statesor of any State; and (B) appears 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 by <span style='color:red'>mass destruction</span>, assassination, or kidnapping.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

So esentially the PATRIOT Act updated what Nem0 said to include "mass destruction."

Bogglesteinsky · January 2004

A terrorist is the definition given by the other side to the person who is fighting for what he/she thinks is right. Note that the "terrorist" could just as easily label the other side terrorists too, because unless you have a single absolute moral code, everyone is right and everyone else is wrong.

Yes, Americans are just as much terrorists as Iraqis or Afghans, only the americans have more money. What knid of a reason for "being right" is that?

(Just to show that I am not specifically targeting America, everybody (even us Brits) is just as wrong as everybody else.)

Geminosity · January 2004

yup aster.. and the name for a 'state terrorist' is a 'tyrant' ^~

Nemesis_Zero · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A terrorist is the definition given by the other side to the person who is fighting for what he/she thinks is right. Note that the "terrorist" could just as easily label the other side terrorists too, because unless you have a single absolute moral code, everyone is right and everyone else is wrong.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I'd have to disagree here - 'terrorism' describes a very specific range of actions. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, or Ghandi, to cite some of the most obvious examples, were described as terrorists by their political opponents, but seeing that neither of them used any means of intimidation, and quite definetely no violent ones, to take influence, they just were none.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>yup aster.. and the name for a 'state terrorist' is a 'tyrant' ^~</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Is that really true in any case? Robespierre, the very first state terrorist of the newer history, for example, was definetely not a tyrant in the sense of the authoritarian dictator we usually associate with the term. He was, depending on ones interpretation, an atheistic fundamentalist, or an oligarch.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So esentially the PATRIOT Act updated what Nem0 said to include "mass destruction."</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
True. The Patriot Acts flaw isn't the definition of terror, it's the wide range it allows for applying that term, and the modus after which it is being prosecuted.

Geminosity · January 2004

fair enough, I'm just trying to annoy aster <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

FilthyLarry · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 17 2004, 07:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A terrorist is the definition given by the other side to the person who is fighting for what he/she thinks is right. Note that the "terrorist" could just as easily label the other side terrorists too, because unless you have a single absolute moral code, everyone is right and everyone else is wrong.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I'd have to disagree here - 'terrorism' describes a very specific range of actions. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, or Ghandi, to cite some of the most obvious examples, were described as terrorists by their political opponents, but seeing that neither of them used any means of intimidation, and quite definetely no violent ones, to take influence, they just were none.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I would have to respectfully disagree with having Nelson Mandela on this "no violence" list.

<a href='http://www.anc.org.za/people/mandela.html' target='_blank'>Nelson</a>

Here's a quote:

"At the beginning of June 1961, after long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe...the Government had left us no other choice."

-----------------------------------

As for me, growing up in South africa in the 80's, I can tell you that the police regularly showed up to schools to instruct us children as to what suspicious objects to look out for. Bombs... mines etc.

The fear was there.

Nemesis_Zero · January 2004

I stand corrected. One example down, two still standing.

FilthyLarry · January 2004

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Jan 16 2004, 04:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> On other percuting example of how the label terrorist can be manipulated and call any enemy you have, a terrorist, is how **** Cheney voted against a congress resolution in 1986 to release Nelson Mandela from prison (he had been in jail for about 20 years at that point) and recognition of the African National Congress (the party that was fighting against apartheid).

So even though Mandela was a pacifist, Cheney viewed him as a terrorist.

My view of a terrorist is anyone that fits the description that Nem has posted, i dont care if the terrorists are "mine", or "theirs". If you attack a civilian population, on purpose, to acheive your political goals, you are a terrorist. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Again, see my previous post. Nelson Mandela is simply not a _true pacifist_. He endorsed violence when peaceful means did not bring out the desired result in the desired timeline.

So viewing him as a terrorist at the time was probably fair, and many people did exactly that.

The ANC (African National Congress) was amongst other things, responsible for bombing civilian targets.

Definition Of A Terrorist

Comments