Me and Me

Hearing the lust for vengance and support for or a not care attitude toward civillians killed in afghanistan, I was wondering what is a terrorist and what isn't? Can two groups of people believe in the same principles of violence and fundamentalist attitudes and not be both terrorist?

And what is terrorism exactly? Is it simply an act of violence upon someone, with a political objective in mind? If this is the case then certainly the U.S. is the largest terrorist state in the world right now.

I have argued with people on this before and I know where most people go so I am going to beat you to it. Most laws in most govts have crimes that are punishable reguardless of whether the crime was intended or not, so even the laws don't take intentions into consideration.

It is funny to see the most murderous and terroristic state and their apologists give loose definitions and purposefully not be clear, that way they can slide back and forth when cornered by historical facts.

Marduk

If you strap a bomb to yourself and blow yourself up and a bunch of civilians as well, you may be a terrorist.
If you kill civilians accidentally with a tank or cruise missile while just trying to kill people you don't like you are not a terrorist.
Interviews with dead people have shown they don't mind being dead quite so much if it wasn't really intentional.

Amen-Moses

A "Terrorist" is someone engaged in acts that are not officially approved of by the US government.

(note that the definition does not preclude the US government from funding these acts then later on deciding it never really approved of them so they were really terrorists acts)

Amen-Moses

Loren Pechtel

A terrorist is one who targets civilians in order to influence their government. The key word is "target". Targeting a military installation that happens to be near or even in a civilian location is not terrorism. A weapon that goes astray or even is misprogrammed and falls into a civilian area isn't terrorism.

Blowing up the towers was terrorism. Blowing up the Pentagon wasn't. However, using planes full of civilians to do it was terrorism no matter what the target.

Me and Me

So Loren, would you rather be killed on purpose or on accident?

You act as if accidentally killed life makes less of an impression, when it doesn't. To someone in afghanistan, they are saddened and cry just as much as someone killed in the twin towers, and causes feelings of hatred and vengance just as much as the effects of people killed on purpose.

btw, what is the attack on the pentagon called, when that is clearly not a civillian installation? Is it terrorism? or is it a "pre-emptive strike" ?

Skeptictank

That's not the point and you know it. Whether or not you believe all killing is wrong hardly makes all killing "terrorism" otherwise the word has no useful definition.
The attack on the Pentagon was a terrorist attack because the weapon of choice was a civilian passenger jet filled with innocent people. Had the they used a car bomb it would have just been "insurgentcy" "guerilla warfare" or some other phrase.
The key aspects of "terrorism" as a definition are the deliberate targeting of CIVILIANS by a non-governmental person or group with the intent to intimidate, coerce or terrorize a goverment or peoples in futherance of political or social/religious objectives.

Yes, this means that governments under my defintion would not commit terrorism. However they can do other things just as nasty, such as: 1. SPONSOR terrorism (Iranian sponsorship of Hamas for example). 2. Engage in STATE TERROR, which is the systematic use of force against its own civilian populous to coerce action or subserviance. 3. Engage in other HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, ATROCITIES or WAR CRIMES.
The closest a goverment could come to actual terrorism would be say having a government agent bomb a civilian target (e.g. a bus station) in another country. This would fall under the rubric of war crime IMO.

AH! Just found a good one.....take it or leave it....
From here

Loren Pechtel

Accident or deliberate makes a difference between collateral damage and terrorism.

As for the Pentagon, I've repeatedly said that the only reason that was a terrorist attack was the use of a jetliner full of civilians. Had they given the passengers and crew parachutes and kicked them out the back I would call it a brilliant military operation.

Also, if you stay away from military targets you're not likely to be hit by military combatants. Staying away gives you no protection from terrorists, though.

Loren Pechtel

I disagree. Governments can commit terrorism. There's nothing inherently non-governmental about terrorism. Terrorism committed by a government is an act of war but that doesn't mean it's not terrorism.

Me and Me

Loren

The terms "collateral damage" and "terrorism" determines on who is doing the explaining of an act. If one supports an act of violence than he is going to put a different title on it than one that does not support a certain act of violence. Are we going by what people call things differently at different times? Or are we talking about which specific acts are terrorism?

As for the act itself (killing) it has the same effect no matter what people want to call it. It creates anger and makes people want to and makes the other side want to strike back.

Zar

The definition of "terroism" has lost all meaning. It means whatever people want it to mean to suit their purposes.