What is terrorism?

[Roman]

I define terrorism as:

"Non-government sanctioned violence targeting civilians."

So Hiroshima- not terrorism.
Pipe bombing cop cars (preferably with the pig still in it)- not terrorism.
Bombing an Afghan wedding- not terrorism.
Suicide bombing the USS Cole- not terrorism.

[S.A.M.]

I use the generic definition:

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

[one_raven]

I define terrorism as:

"Non-government sanctioned violence targeting civilians."

So Hiroshima- not terrorism.
Pipe bombing cop cars (preferably with the pig still in it)- not terrorism.
Bombing an Afghan wedding- not terrorism.
Suicide bombing the USS Cole- not terrorism.

I question the "non-government sanctioned" disclaimer.
I think governments can be guilty of terrorism.

Violence targeting civilians/civilian facilities, in an effort to coerce through fear or destruction of civilain infrastructure.

Essentially, terrorism is bullying a government/people through targeting its citizens.

[Roman]

I question the "non-government sanctioned" disclaimer.
I think governments can be guilty of terrorism.

I wouldn't call that terrorism, though. I'd call it business as usual.

[Vkothii]

Georgie really should have called it: "The War, with some terror thrown in for a bit of shock and awe".
Or: "The Awe of Terror", perhaps?

[one_raven]

I wouldn't call that terrorism, though. I'd call it business as usual.

Regardless of whether it is business as usual, what gives any government a free pass on terrorism over other sovereign states?

Terrorism is business as usual also.

In war, warriors should target warriors - otherwise it is terrorism.

[Roman]

Georgie really should have called it: "The War, with some terror thrown in for a bit of shock and awe".
Or: "The Awe of Terror", perhaps?

But that's not terrorism. It's got the thumbs-up from the best country on earth. GO USA!!

It's the difference between execution and murder. There isn't one.

In war, warriors should target warriors - otherwise it is terrorism.

That's too normative.
And makes it to be too broad a term- one to be practically useless. Most working definitions of terror are so vague as to be meaningless.

An act to invoke terror?
So Alfred Hitchcock was a terrorist?

I guess if we want to label everything terrorism and genocide and then wank to how liberal we are, we could do that. But I was hoping for a little more... specificity in our language.

[S.A.M.]

Regardless of whether it is business as usual, what gives any government a free pass on terrorism over other sovereign states?

Terrorism is business as usual also.

In war, warriors should target warriors - otherwise it is terrorism.

Agreed

[one_raven]

That's too normative.
And makes it to be too broad a term- one to be practically useless. Most working definitions of terror are so vague as to be meaningless.

An act to invoke terror?
So Alfred Hitchcock was a terrorist?

I guess if we want to label everything terrorism and genocide and then wank to how liberal we are, we could do that. But I was hoping for a little more... specificity in our language.
You're being ridiculous.

I said, "In war, warriors should target warriors - otherwise it is terrorism."

And you associated that with Hitchcock?
YOU are being vague, not the definition.

How is simply extending your definition to Governments/States making it too broad?

It's a quite simple and clear statement, actually.

Essentially, terrorism is bullying a government/people through targeting its citizens through acts of violence.
In war, warriors should target warriors - otherwise it is terrorism.

By making it too broad, it becomes meaningless, true.
If I said any act to cause terror, that would be far too broad and include Hitchcock, but I said nothing of the sort.

What purpose does narrowing it to not include state-sanctioned actions other than offer clemency for states and free reighn to target civilians?

If Somalia had sent a plane to crash into the World Trade Center that would not be terrorism because Somalia is a soverign state?
That's absurd.

[one_raven]

When has Hitchcock films been used as an act of violence against a government/people by targeting civilians?

[madanthonywayne]

If Somalia had sent a plane to crash into the World Trade Center that would not be terrorism because Somalia is a soverign state?
That's absurd.It's not absurd. That would be an act of war. We could then strike back and bomb Somalia back to the stone age (that is, if they're not there already). I like Roman's definition. The one I just gave in a different thread was:
Acts of violence that:

Target Civilians
Are done in secret by people who try to blend in with the general population.

When one nation attacks another nation, there is almost always some level of restraint involved because of the fear of retaliation. For instance, we treat the enemies prisoners well so that ours are also treated well. We don't use chemical weapons because we don't want them used on us. The US and USSR never launched their nukes for fear of retaliation.

Terrorists, by virtue of remaining hidden, have no such qualms and feel free to commit unimaginable atrocities

[one_raven]

It's not absurd. That would be an act of war. We could then strike back and bomb Somalia back to the stone age (that is, if they're not there already). I like Roman's definition.
An act of war would be if they bombed a military target.
Of course, an act of terrorim would be clear justification for declaring war.

I ask you too.
What would be the purpose of narrowing the definition to exempt Soverign States from acts of terrorism, other than to give them/us a blank chack to commit atrocities?

The one I just gave in a different thread was:
Acts of violence that:

Target Civilians
Are done in secret by people who try to blend in with the general population.

Talk about broad and vague.
Under this definition any street mugger is a terrorist.
90% of crimes would be acts of terrorism.

When one nation attacks another nation, there is almost always some level of restraint involved because of the fear of retaliation. For instance, we treat the enemies prisoners well so that ours are also treated well. We don't use chemical weapons because we don't want them used on us. The US and USSR never launched their nukes for fear of retaliation.
Is that what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
Is that what happened by both sides in Viet Nam?

Terrorists, by virtue of remaining hidden, have no such qualms and feel free to commit unimaginable atrocities
You're wrong.
Most terrorist groups claim responsibility for their actions.
What is the point of terrorism if not to get a government to change its policies?
"We have bombed your city and the bombings will continue until you release our hostages."
Doing it in secret makes it completely pointless.

[one_raven]

Does the fact that Osama bin Laden declared war on the US and openly admitted being behind 9/11 mean they are not acts of terrorism?

[S.A.M.]

Does the fact that Osama bin Laden declared war on the US and openly admitted being behind 9/11 mean they are not acts of terrorism?

He denied that he was behind 9/11, twice, once in a Pakistani newspaper interview and once immediately after it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=E2b&q=osama+denied+9%2F11&btnG=Search

[one_raven]

He denied that he was behind 9/11, twice, once in a Pakistani newspaper interview and once immediately after it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=E2b&q=osama+denied+9%2F11&btnG=Search

He then openly admitted it over and over again.
He also openly declared war on the US and her allies.

Let's say someone walks into a crowded bus station in Chicago with bombs strapped to his chest and loudly claims that he is sacrificing himself in order to get the US out of the Middle East.

According to madanthonywayne's definition, that woud not be an act of terrorism.
Nor would it be if he were wearing a military uniform.
Nor would it be if a Labanese solider flew a military plane into a crowded bus station in Pakistan.

[one_raven]

What madanthonywayne and Roman seem to be doing is trying to discern a definition of Terrorism that would offer exemption to the US government and allies for any actions they may have taken.

[leopold99]

Essentially, terrorism is bullying a government/people through targeting its citizens.
the best i've heard in a long while. i would also add that the ones doing the bullying do not represent the majority of that nations citizens.

it should be pointed out that the UN has no less than 12 definitions for terrorism.

[one_raven]

i would also add that the ones doing the bullying do not represent the majority of that nations citizens.

Why?
What would be the purpose of that adendum?
Do you have an example to illustrate?

[one_raven]

Any definition of terrorism that includes the founding fathers is so broad as to be meaningless.

There's his criteria.

[inzomnia]

I see terrorism as a group or gang activity that attack a country by using violence and intimidation to society, causing an overwhelming fear in the society.

[madanthonywayne]

I ask you too.
What would be the purpose of narrowing the definition to exempt Soverign States from acts of terrorism, other than to give them/us a blank chack to commit atrocities?Except they don't have a blank check. We know where they live. They can be held accountable for their actions, terrorists can not.
Talk about broad and vague.
Under this definition any street mugger is a terrorist.
90% of crimes would be acts of terrorism.Yes, perhaps it needs a bit of refinement to specify a mass act of violence.
Is that what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
Is that what happened by both sides in Viet Nam?That was war. I don't even consider the Nazi's terrorists. For whatever reason, if a state is involved, to me, that's not terrorism. Well, I take that back. If a state funds terrorists to sneak in and commit acts of terrorism I'd still consider it terrorism and an act of war. But if it's done by guys wearing uniforms, guys who we can strike back against, that's war.
You're wrong.
Most terrorist groups claim responsibility for their actions.
What is the point of terrorism if not to get a government to change its policies?
"We have bombed your city and the bombings will continue until you release our hostages."
Doing it in secret makes it completely pointless.
But it's not the same. When France bombs Germany, they are open to immediate counter attack. When some scumbag terrorist bombs a city, where is he? Who do we strike back against. That's why Roman's idea of a state being involved is a crucial difference. When one state attacks another, it's war. When a rogue group attacks someone, that's terrorism.

It's the difference between sucker punching someone and then running away before he can strike back, and kicking someone's ass and then pointing to your house and saying, "if you want any more, I live right there."

The terrorist does not really take responsibility for his actions. He hides among civilians, he attacks civilians. The state, no matter how horrible the atrocity it commits, takes responsibility for it. It owns up to it. Anyone who has a problem with what the state has done knows just who to see to do something about it. That is a crucial difference.

[inzomnia]

I suppose that terrorism originates from terror and ism. Terror is a kind of overwhelming fear, and ism is a kind of movement. In general, it is basically a movement that creates overwhelming fear.

[leopold99]

Why?
What would be the purpose of that adendum?
Do you have an example to illustrate?
to prevent said government from accusing its citizens of terrorism if they try to overthrow it for oppression.

[one_raven]

Except they don't have a blank check. We know where they live. They can be held accountable for their actions, terrorists can not.
Wrong on both counts.
A state can have covert operations and a terrorist can be killed or brought to justice through a court of law.

For whatever reason, if a state is involved, to me, that's not terrorism.
Why not?
That's the question I am asking.
What valid argument is there for that?
Is it not just because you would have to admit that the US has committed acts of terrorism,and have to view the founding fathers in a new light?

Rather than trying to redefine terrorism so it fits snugly with your naive view of good and evil and your hero worship of imperfect men, try to revisit your notion that terrorist necessarily equals evil.

Terrorism is a last hope of desperate people.
They are outpowered, outnumbered, outarmed and have no hope of winning a conventional military assault.
What they have is only their belief that what they are doing is right and what the other party is doing is wrong, and they will kill or die trying to do it.
They have no chance at defeating the other party's military, so they do what they can to bring them to their knees otherwise.

In a one on one fight - I fight.
If a dozen armed men attack me, I would not hesitate to slice a few achiles tendons if I have to.

Well, I take that back. If a state funds terrorists to sneak in and commit acts of terrorism I'd still consider it terrorism and an act of war. But if it's done by guys wearing uniforms, guys who we can strike back against, that's war.
So uniforms is all it takes?
What about the Cuban rebels? Were they terrorists?

The terrorist does not really take responsibility for his actions. He hides among civilians, he attacks civilians. The state, no matter how horrible the atrocity it commits, takes responsibility for it. It owns up to it. Anyone who has a problem with what the state has done knows just who to see to do something about it. That is a crucial difference.
What world do you live in?
Nixon sent CIA agents to bomb Cambodia and not only did he not admit it to the world, he denied it to his own people.
I knew someone who was in Africa with Special Forces when the US "was not there".
Are these acts of terrorism?
No one takes responsibility, yet they were state sanctioned.

[Vkothii]

Everyone should fight wars honourably, like the USA does. American soldiers never fire their guns except at terrorists, they never engage in genocidal tactics or rape any women.
They never shoot civilians, either.

They always wear nice shiny red uniforms and march directly toward the enemy, in honourable, orderly rows.

/sarcasm

[Fraggle Rocker]

We've been through this before. Dictionary definitions of terrorism tend to be amalgamated from official government definitions, which are crafted to suit their own purposes. The press is no better, since journalists these days bend language to frighten people into buying more newspapers.

The best definition I can offer is a synthesis from all these sources, run through the logic of linguistics:Terrorism is a form of extortion. It is the use of violence of military style, scope or magnitude against civilian targets, in order to terrorize the civilian population into supporting a cause so unpopular that there is no peaceful way to garner that support.Note that the targets must be civilian; attacks on military targets may be insurrection, civil war or guerrilla warfare, but they are not terrorism. The attack on the WTC was terrorism, but the attack on the Pentagon was not. The Madrid subway bombing was terrorism, but the attack on the U.S.S. Cole was not. PLO shelling of Israeli villages is terrorism, but its attacks on Israeli military outposts are not. IRA attacks on random bystanders were terrorism, but attacks on police stations were not. Military personnel, including police viewed as occupying forces, civilian employees of military installations, government officials, etc., are legitimate military targets. Timothy McVeigh might have gotten away with being called a libertarian extremist freedom fighter if he had only killed the employees of some of our most unpopular government agencies in Oklahoma City, but by carelessly killing their children he became a terrorist.

Note that the perpetrators need not be civilians. Terrorism may be used by governments, even by military forces, so long as the targets are civilian.

Therefore, the greatest act of terrorism ever committed was by the U.S. armed forces in wartime: the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The military infrastructure in these cities was not significant enough to warrant such disproportionate use of weaponry--squandering the only two nuclear weapons the U.S. possessed! It was generally believed (rightly or wrongly, but that's a topic for another forum) that the Japanese government and military would never surrender as a matter of honor; that the country would keep fighting a losing battle until the last four-year-old girl was gunned down while charging a batallion of U.S. Marines with her dead daddy's beat-up samurai sword. In addition to our government being uncomfortable with the notoriety of committing true genocide and destroying most of Japan's cultural artifacts in the process, the cost in American lives would have run into the millions.

So our government decided to try to terrorize the Japanese civilian population into petitioning their government to surrender--a cause so unpopular in Japan that there was surely no peaceful way to gain support for it. Showing them that they were fighting an enemy with no sense of honor seemed like a good way to snap them out of their own honor-based death spiral. And the cause was deemed worthy enough for the U.S. to actually become a nation with no sense of honor.

It can be argued that the most unfortunate aspect of the nuclear terrorism against Japan is that it succeeded. No other major act of terrorism has ever achieved its goal of extorting a civilian population to support an unpopular cause. (Correct me if I'm wrong, anybody?) But today, every terrorist can point to the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the subsequent unconditional surrender of Japan, and say to his skeptical countrymen, "See, terrorism can work! It worked for America!" We had forgotten about the Law of Unintended Consequences: "You can never do just one thing."

Terrorism is extortion. It's the mobster burning down a restaurant so all the other restaurant owners will start paying his protection money... writ large.

[leopold99]

Therefore, the greatest act of terrorism ever committed was by the U.S. armed forces in wartime: the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The military infrastructure in these cities was not significant enough to warrant such disproportionate use of weaponry--squandering the only two nuclear weapons the U.S. possessed!

the target of these bombs was not the civilians but the city itself.

[Fraggle Rocker]

the target of these bombs was not the civilians but the city itself.Yes the cities contained some military targets, but Japan had dozens of cities like that. It was not worth using up the only two atomic bombs we had, just to destroy those two particular cities for their modest strategic military value. Sure, if we'd had a hundred A-bombs we could have destroyed all their cities of that level of importance, without the risk that our own forces would have to take by flying low enough to hit the targets with lower-power conventional bombs.

But we didn't. We only had two and we used them on two little podunk towns. We did it for the purpose of terrorizing their civilian populations.

[leopold99]

actually it was done for one reason only.
the city of hiroshima was not bombed at all during WW2.
this gave us the perfect setting to ascertain the bombs blast effects.
this was the primary reason hiroshima was selected as a target.

[Asguard]

I suppose that terrorism originates from terror and ism. Terror is a kind of overwhelming fear, and ism is a kind of movement. In general, it is basically a movement that creates overwhelming fear.

this is a usless definition as well, christan nuts have an overwhelming fear of gay people. This doesnt make gay's terriousts, it proves that the christans are nutcases.

I agree with one ravens defintions

Atacks against civillans for POLITICAL objectives of cohersing the people or goverment into capitualating to there demands

Each of those is essential

Ie if you remove the word "atack" then any political movement would fall into the catigory

There has to be political motive, otherwise you are looking at crimes like genocide rather than terriousm

there have to BE demands. If you dont have any demands then why do it? (in this case again your looking at either organised crime for profit or genocide)

and it HAS to be against civillans because otherwise its WAR (which is what irritates me about yanks calling pear harbor terriosium)

There is no requirement that it not be a soverign state or army of a state which did it. The atacks in east timor were backed by indonesia but they were still atacks against civillans designed to force a political ajender

[Fraggle Rocker]

What madanthonywayne and Roman seem to be doing is trying to discern a definition of Terrorism that would offer exemption to the US government and allies for any actions they may have taken.But everybody does that. Both Israel and the PLO (or whatever alphabet-soup band of Syrian- and Iranian-armed one-percenters claims to speak for the hapless Palestinians these days) insist that what they do is valid military action, but what the other side does is terrorism.

I insist that the nuclear attacks on Japan were terrorism. I can't quite decide about acts that took place during our Revolutionary War. Sometimes the prevailing attitudes of the citizenry change so much over the centuries that it's impossible to correctly label something using the rhetoric of our own age.

In past eras it was standard for invading armies to treat the civilians they met like vermin to be exterminated, like domestic animals to be confiscated and put to work, like enemy combatants to be punished cruelly, or like booty to be used abusively and discarded. I'm sure civilian populations everywhere accepted that attitude as fact and would have had trouble relating to our newfangled concept of terrorism. They would have all done the same thing without a second thought if their army were the conquerors.