Terrorism

[qsus]

Is terrorism always a bad thing? Should people who are put upon by opressive types rebel against them and try to gain freedom? Or should we always choose peace even if it seems like it is getting us nowhere.

 

[Mustaphile]

Is terrorism always a bad thing?

In my opinion, using the strict definition of the word terrorism, it is always destructive. Are all people who are labelled terrorists, actually terrorists? I don't think so, but if the shoe fits, wear it. I would choose peace, on an individual level, but I don't think everyone should follow suit, without first asking themselves why they stand for peace.

 

[qsus]

Well what about the palestinians or the IRA? How do you feel about them?

 

[HRE]

How do we define a terrorist?

 

[qsus]

Any paramilitary organisation that opperates outside of a soviergn state.

 

[Mustaphile]

Any paramilitary organisation that opperates outside of a soviergn state.

I wouldn't share that definition of terrorism. The group or individual must use the tactic of 'terror' to begin to fall under the label terrorism.

I'd prefer the Worldnet definition...

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

The parts I've highlighted in bold are the key sections for me. It targets civilians and use intimidation, coercion and instilling fear.

 

[Mustaphile]

Well what about the palestinians or the IRA? How do you feel about them?

Palestinians throwing rocks at tanks and soldiers doesn't seem to fit the definition of terrorism. Palestinians tying bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up on buses I think fits it quite well.

 

[qsus]

Right so giving up your own life to save your people. How about that.

Actually that sounds familiar.

 

[MoodyBlue]

Right so giving up your own life to save your people. How about that.

Actually that sounds familiar.

If you are equating the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ to save humanity, with terrorists who kill themselves along with dozens or hundreds or thousands of innocent people, that is one twisted viewpoint.

 

[savvy]

I'm not sure. I think, for the most part, terrorism is a big mistake and a terrible evil. But then I remember that the U.S. bombed the hell out of Japan and killed a whole bunch of civilians. Hmm. They say that it actually saved lives, because a land invasion of Japan would have been even more costly to both sides. I just don't know.
But maybe that was an act of war instead of terrorism? I was just going with the point that it killed large numbers of civilians.

 

[qsus]

But war is just terrorism by the state. Like Americas war on Ira. Thats far less justified than suicide bombings in Israel.

 

[HRE]

I'd prefer the Worldnet definition...

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

By this definition, I would say terrorism is most definitely 'wrong'.

By your definition, qsus, I would not say that it is wrong.

However, the extremists that you are referencing (al Quaeda, KKK, ELF, abortion-clinic bombers) fall more under the first definition than under your definition.

 

[qsus]

The Provisional IRA are not terrorists then. They never calculated violence against civilians.

 

[Mustaphile]

But war is just terrorism by the state. Like Americas war on Ira. Thats far less justified than suicide bombings in Israel.

Most people don't like war. Most people don't like terrorism. To limit the definition of war to terrorism by the state seems to put too narrow a definition on it. Its potentially that and much more. What are we trying to achieve in this discussion?

If you want the state to be tried on grounds of terrorism. I think your idea is interesting, but lacking pragmatism. The state holds all the cards. Who is going to enforce the verdict if its found guilty?

 

[Mustaphile]

The Provisional IRA are not terrorists then. They never calculated violence against civilians.

I have no idea really whether this is true or not. I'll take you word for it, and say that given the facts presented, the Provisional IRA are not terrorists. Again I have to ask though, what have we achieved by coming to this conclusion?

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Is terrorism always a bad thing? Should people who are put upon by opressive types rebel against them and try to gain freedom? Or should we always choose peace even if it seems like it is getting us nowhere.

The Arabs have been trying terror and getting bupkis.

Gandhi and MLK Jr tried non-violent passive resistance and got pretty much everything they wanted.

Go figure...

 

[Buzz Dixon]

The Provisional IRA are not terrorists then. They never calculated violence against civilians.

No, they are terrorists in that they are using the fear of bombings and ambushes to prod the English into abandoning Northern Ireland. They're just savvy enough to know that if they give civilians a warning before the bombs go off, it makes them look more rational and less evil.

 

[qsus]

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Sounds like America in Ira to me

 

[ghostdancer]

No, they are terrorists in that they are using the fear of bombings and ambushes to prod the English into abandoning Northern Ireland. They're just savvy enough to know that if they give civilians a warning before the bombs go off, it makes them look more rational and less evil.

**** it, bombing a few british never did anyone any harm, a few less of them wankers and the world will be a better place

TIOCFAIDH AR LÁ