I would like to hear some personal definitions of who is and is not a terrorist, I would like to hear people logic in separating terrorist from freedom fighters from underdogs, etc I post a particularly ambiguous example in the poll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
Hey, my post didn't post. Anyway, I said no because I felt it was more a personal than political thing: zoning dispute, and a lot of personal fighting with the town council. The guy who crashed his plane just recently would be a terrorist though.
A terrorist depends upon who's side he is on. One countries freedom fighters are another countries terrorists! This guy was just a citizen fed up with all the bullshit he ran into through the years. He just snapped as they say.
a terrorist is someone who uses fear to coerce for political, religious, or cultural reasons. Yes I realize under my definition a lot of politicians would be terrorists but in all honesty is it right to blame how others use an attack on the attackers? an attack can become a terroristic attack and have the attackers not be terrorists in my view.
If you wage war against a nation/government, and you are not either A: a citizen of that country fighting a war of revolution or B: acting under the direction of a foreign government, then I would describe you as a terrorist. You're also a terrorist if you attempt to instill widespread fear by deliberately attacking the civilian population in order to accomplish a political objective, unless option B applies. (Then you're a war criminal, not a terrorist.) Heemeyer didn't manage to kill anybody, so it's kind of hard to say with him. Do you think he intended to, and were the targets random passers by, or specific individuals who had offended him? If he was aiming for specific people who had offended him, then that falls under normal rules of homicide, not really terror.
he snapped, but he managed to write a coherent manifesto before he acted. He was also a member of groups that advocate violence. His snapping included a lot of reasoned steps.
Terrorists tend to be defined as people who do not have the backing of a government - officially - and engage in acts of violence, generally against civilian targets with at least the possibility of casualties. Their goal being generally in part symbolic and in part to make all members of the group targeted feel threatened. But this ends up being a kind of silly definition. I mean we all know that governments can be evil, so people carrying out acts of violence against civilian targets for an evil government, iow officially, should not somehow be on a higher moral plane than people acting on their own or within non-governmental groups.
The difference is that, when a government agrees to peace, all members of that government agree to peace. If a terrorist organization agrees to peace, its angry members just go join another group, and the war is still on. It's the possibility of conducting successful diplomacy that makes the difference. Without that, there can be no lasting peace after the fighting is over, and it has to go on forever.
Is Obama a terrorist? U.S. Admits 100 Civilians Died in Afghan Raids Published: May 7, 2009 WASHINGTON — United States officials acknowledged Thursday for the first time that at least some of what might be 100 civilian deaths in western Afghanistan had been caused by American bombs. In Afghanistan, residents angrily protested the deaths and demanded that American forces leave the country. www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/world/asia/08afghan.html?_r=1
Well - and keep in mind this is a stretch here - he was opposed to taxation. Could you not make him out to be (possibly ironically) a libertarian or something? Possibly I'm not being critical enough. I think I was too free with my classifications above.
So it is a practical issue related to future negotiations, should they happen, and not a moral issue? A terrorist is no less moral, he (usually) or his organization is trickier to come to a full peace with. I think there is some truth to this, but I don't think the vast majority of the world is ready to accept terrorists are ethically equivalent to soldiers but somewhat more difficult to come to a conclusion with. Also I would say that in, for example, the Palestinian vs. Israeli conflict both sides are functionally terrorist organizations by your definition. Regardless of the methods they use as individuals, the members would all be terrorists because some portion will not align with peace accords and will struggle on.
Libertarian and terrorist are not mutually exclusive terms. You could be a libertarian terrorist. I think it would be rather hard to be a pacifist terrorist, but most political stances could have terrorist members. almost however you define terrorism.
If you use terror to send a political message, then you are a terrorist. It is really that simple. Now, sometimes the political message can be good and your sacrifice can be considered "heroic", but you're still a terrorist by definition.
then why did the US call an Iranian intelligence operation and the iranian intelligence operatives who carried it out "terriousts"? They were employed by a goverment to do the exact same work the CIA does
Do you mean why aren't people consistent in their use of the label terrorist? Because they have agendas. I mean why isn't Kissenger considered a terrorist for the policies related to bombing civilians in Laos and Cambodia. He broke US law, international law and moral laws. It certainly caused terror. It was very likely a message to China. And it makes 9/11 look like a barfight.
That's because the US government has gotten to the point where they throw the word around like candy. It's becoming increasingly synonymous with "bad guy". I blame our failing education system. People really should be mad whenever an operative is mis-labeled. Yes. I think the difference is very specific like that. However, I consider being more difficult to come to a conclusion with to be a serious moral failing. It's the difference between fighting just because you like to fight, and fighting for the sake of accomplishing something. No person of conscience would ever start a war without the expectation of bringing it to some kind of peaceful resolution afterward. Terrorism is just an expression of emotion, and a desire to evoke an emotion in others. It has no specific political agenda. None of the political demands made by their leaders, such as the dissolution of Israel, or the removal of US military bases in Saudi Arabia, would ever trigger a lasting peace.
