Terrorism

[Stasi]

When I was in college, I'd had several professors who'd stated that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I used to view some terrorist organizations in various parts of the world as 'freedom fighters', myself. However, over the last ~5 years I've changed that stance and tried to distinguish between a 'terrorist' and a legitimate 'freedom fighter'. Yes, so-called freedom fighters can use terrorism as a means to achieve their end.

A few questions for discussion:

Without looking up someone else's definition, how do YOU define terrorism?

Have you ever or do you currently view any particular 'terrorist' organization in a sympathetic light?

Are terrorist acts ever justifiable?


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2519, old post ID:43412

[Bookworm]

Terrorism would be an attempt to influence some group by using such deadly or fear-inducing techniques that the group is scared to go against the terrorist's objectives.

In regards to Chechnia (I'm sure it's misspelled), I'm not exactly sure if the Russian government or the rebels are the terrorists, or if they both are.

Just using my initial definition, then the bombing of Hiroshima would be a terrorist act, and I do think that bombing was justifiable.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2519, old post ID:43414

[Cicero]

I class terrorism as people who try to achieve something with pointless violence often against innocents. They dont care who gets hurt or how they get hurt, once the job gets done.

These people are scum, and living in a country where less than 20 years ago our people were treated as potential terrorists across the world I can imagine that some of the previous generation can in some way relate to the way the Muslims feel in the modern world.

Anyway, the IRA are, for what its worth, "officially" gone. Whether they are really gone or not is a differant matter and only time will tell.

Bit of a ramble there but there's probably a point in there somewhere.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2519, old post ID:43420

[Red Squirrel]

I'll echo what has been said.

Also a different type of terrorist would be people like the RIAA. They're not bombing buildings and killing people, but they do have a sole purpose, to bother people and piss people off. It's their job, it's part of what they do, and it's their goal. Sort of like the goal of al queda to cause harm to others. In the case of the RIAA their goal is to sue as manny innocents as possible, and they get extra points for children under 12 and elderly people. Another of their goals is to screw over artists. So in general, all they do is terrorize people, mostly monetary.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2519, old post ID:43424

[Cicero]

I'll echo what has been said.

Also a different type of terrorist would be people like the RIAA.  They're not bombing buildings and killing people, but they do have a sole purpose, to bother people and piss people off.  It's their job, it's part of what they do, and it's their goal.  Sort of like the goal of al queda to cause harm to others.  In the case of the RIAA their goal is to sue as manny innocents as possible, and they get extra points for children under 12 and elderly people.  Another of their goals is to screw over artists.  So in general, all they do is terrorize people, mostly monetary.

I'm no fan of the RIAA or any similar organisation but they are far from terrorists. Everybody who downloads music/films illegally knows that it is breach of copyright and they should know that they could be caught and sued.

While its not right to sue 12 year olds and while I dont believe and bullshit story about how much P2P is harming the record industry to compare it to terrorism is just plainly not right. What they are doing is not illegal. They do it through the courts and the correct legal avenues.

But this is drifting onto another issue......

Edited to fix many, many spelling mistakes.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2519, old post ID:43427

[Stasi]

I define terrorism as the deliberate use of and the threat of violence against civilian populations (or other populations with no strategic, military value) along with underhanded propaganda to induce fear such that the terrorists may achieve their cause. Terrorism can be committed by state as well as non-state actors.

Years ago when I studied the history of the IRA, I sympathized with them and their cause very early on, but as with most, if not all such groups, they begin going after soft targets and, at that point, they become illigitimate as they cross-over from being freedom fighters to murderers.

Currently, I don't believe terrorist acts are justifiable, or at least, I can't think of any at the moment that I believe have been justifiable. For example, I consider the allied firebombing of Dresden and other German cities during WW2 as well as the atomic bombs being dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to have been terrorist acts, as they were devastating, deliberate attacks on civilian populations. And, while it is one thing to look back in retrospect and say such things, perhaps their effects were ultimately a 'net good'. However, I think it's dangerous to attempt to take a moral highground against terrorism while justifying one side's terrorist acts. I can dream up situations in which terrorist acts could possibly be justifiable, but in both cases I've mentioned, those acts were carried out as the enemies were already being defeated.

***EDIT: Oh and yes, Red, your post really wasn't very appropriate for the topic at hand. No matter how unjust you believe the RIAA's actions to be, they are not a terrorist organization and there really is no business comparing them to such organizations.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2519, old post ID:43439

[Cicero]

Years ago when I studied the history of the IRA, I sympathized with them and their cause very early on, but as with most, if not all such groups, they begin going after soft targets and, at that point, they become illigitimate as they cross-over from being freedom fighters to murderers.

Really? you studied the RA? Was that part of college or what?

I would have sympathised with them only in the early days when the were fighting for -something- (I.E. pre-independance but I have no time for the scum that were involved in the troubles in the 70's/80's or even more recent times.)

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2519, old post ID:43441

[Stasi]

We studied the IRA in depth in a college-level course I took while in high-school. I've also studied numerous other terrorist and intelligence organizations in college as a part of the International Relations degree I never completed.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2519, old post ID:43443

[fragged one]

i give a very broad defenition to terrorism. to me, terrorism is quite simply any act, violent or otherwise, meant to strike terror into the hearts of others.

on that same token, i also feel that there is justifiable terrorism, and unjustifiable terrorism. this isn't a black and white defention, but i don't think there is one. the view of an act of terrorism is very subjective to begin with.

for example:
nagasaki and hiroshima. i feel that that terrorist act was quite justifiable. it ended the war in the pacific for good, and most likely saved millions of lives that would have been lost in an invasion of the japanese mainland.

wounded knee. i can't find any justification for this terrorist act whatsoever. it was simply a case of the us army trying to 'show who's boss' to the indians. in fact, the whole thing began with the us government limiting the lakota's first amendment rights.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2519, old post ID:43456

[Shinizo]

I dunno. I didn't really read beyond the first post, but what I think (hopefully noone's said this) is in the eyes of the Iraqis, we are the terrorists, although we claim to be preservers of peace, yet we still have killed the innocent? I'm not saying we're doing it ON PURPOSE though, but they are still terrorist acts, regardless of reason.

You can't stop a person who's willing to kill himself for a greater cause, either. Those people over there, the suicide bombers. They know the consequences, but they fight for their country, just as we are. We are no more terrorists to them as they are to us.

There's really no point in avoiding a war, though. Although, peace might have calmed down their senses on a war.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2519, old post ID:43871