Loren Pechtel

It has not lost all meaning. Most of us basically agree on what terrorism is. It's just those of you who don't like supporting terrorists who keep trying to muddy the waters.

Ultron

Haven taken part in 100 page debate threads on this issue, I'll be interested to see how this one turns out.

Good luck.

Amen-Moses

But you otoh DO like supporting terrorists?

Amen-Moses

Loren Pechtel

OOPS!

I meant those who don't like the fact that they support groups that are terrorists.

Amen-Moses

Oh, Bostonians! Why didn't you say so.

Amen-Moses

John Hancock

I kinda feel terrorized by some guy pointing a 44 Mag Auto-loader at me while telling me to remove the case of oil from the bed of my pickup and put it in the trunk of his Lexus.

Martin Buber

Skeptictank

Well then we are destined to run around in circles I suppose. The point is that there should be a very specific definition of terrorism, otherwise the world loses all meaning, as pointed out. This doesn't mean that governments can't do really and truly horrible things, it just means they don't fall under the definition of "terrorism" per se.
Words have specific definitions for a reason. You cannot arbitrarily redefine things as you wish. In contrast some street thugs or the mafia may term their extortions of people "taxes" but does that make it true? No. Taxes can only be levied by governments this is part of their definition. See my point?

peacenik

Your explanation of what constitutes terrorism is inconsistent with itself. First you say that targeting a military installation that happens to be near or even in a civilian location is not terrorism, but then you say that blowing up the Pentagon with planes full of civilians did constitute terrorism. The inconsistency is that you distinguish the two examples despite the fact that both the former and later examples involve the "knowing" killing of innocent of civilians, and both are carried out for the purpose of taking out military facilities. After all, if you bomb numerous military installations that are near or "even in" a civilian location, you do so KNOWING that civilians will be killed in the process, just as the hijackers targeted the pentagon KNOWING that they were going to kill everyone aboard the civilian airline.

Now before you get to angry at me, let me explain my opinion of what constitutes terrorism. I believe that terrorism should be defined as follows: unjustified acts of violence committed for the purposes of advancing one's own policy objectives. The term "unjustified" would be defined simply as any act of violence likely to result in civilian casualties other than that which is necessary for self-defense. Self Defense would encompass any action by a nation necessary to defend against an imminent threat of attack.

In the context of 9/11, I would argue that al-Qaida's actions would clearly constitute terrorism because we had not attacked al-Qaida or any of the nations from where al-Qaida terrorists came, and the attacks were carried out for their own policy objectives, i.e. weakening our nation which they see as evil and a threat to their world view. We did have troops sanctioned in Saudi Arabia, but this in and of itself would not constitute an imminent threat and the actions could not be characterized an any manner as self-defense. However, our response in Afghanistan would probably not constitute terrorism because we were responding in order to dismantle al-Qaida, who did and still does represent an imminent threat to our nation. At a minimum I think it could be defended on the self-defense grounds as set out above.

In contrast, I believe that an attack on Iraq WOULD constitute terrorism by our military because Iraq does not represent an imminent threat to our nation; we would be carrying out the attack KNOWING that many civilians will die as a result of our attack; and the purpose behind our attack would be to acheive our policy goals of "making the world safer by ridding the world of Saddam and 'democratizing' Iraq.(And to obtain some oil as an added bonus)" They have neither attacked nor threatened to attack us; thus, we have no more right to attack Iraq than al-Qaida had a right to attack us on 9/11, and by carrying out such an act of aggression our nation will seriously weaken its moral authority around the world!

Any thoughts on my definition of terrorism?

Me and Me

The reason people like alot of americans and followers of alquaida will NEVER be specific in their definitions of terrorism, is because they want to be able to excuse murder committed by the side they are on and reprimand acts of murder that are done by other people.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by peacenik
First you say that targeting a military installation that happens to be near or even in a civilian location is not terrorism, but then you say that blowing up the Pentagon with planes full of civilians did constitute terrorism.

They did *NOT* need to use a plane full of civilians. They could have landed and put the civilians off. Until the first plane hit we wouldn't have thought it any different than a normal hijacking and we would have let them reduce the number of hostages.

Now before you get to angry at me, let me explain my opinion of what constitutes terrorism. I believe that terrorism should be defined as follows: unjustified acts of violence committed for the purposes of advancing one's own policy objectives. The term "unjustified" would be defined simply as any act of violence likely to result in civilian casualties other than that which is necessary for self-defense.

This is not workable. This means that in effect we can't take military action unless we are directly threatened. The police don't even operate with ROE's that restrictive! (Hostage assault situations.)

However, our response in Afghanistan would probably not constitute terrorism because we were responding in order to dismantle al-Qaida, who did and still does represent an imminent threat to our nation. At a minimum I think it could be defended on the self-defense grounds as set out above.

Attacking Afghanistan doesn't meet the usual civilian rules of self-defense. While the threat was very real it was not imminent.