What is the definition of a terrorist?
The UN is not calling Hezzbollah terrorists. They say they are a group that uses terrorist tactics.
Sounds a bit like double-speak no matter what the definition is.
What would be your definition of a terrorist…
a guerilla force . . .
a milita . . . .
a “freedom fighter” . . …
I have my definitions but I am intrested in your response…
Wow Paul, you have me thinking way back in my training here… good question.
I can’t quote what we were taught verbatim, but it goes something like this:
A terrorist (group) is one that does not identify with a traditional military body and uses acts of violence targeting civilian or non-combative personnel.
The primary purpose of these acts is to create insecurity through fear of further attacts and extend this fear to distrust in the taget body’s governing political or religious system.
This distrust is used to weaken the support of the current belief/practice and further push forth the ideology of the terrorist group.
Often politically driven terror operations are motivated by potential profit.
Religious terror operations are often designed to undermine the basic life requirements of the target group, with an ultimate goal of the total destruction of that group.
Of course, I think if pressed for an answer, I would have to paraphrase Potter Stewart by saying “I can’t define what a terrorist is, but I know one when I see him.”
Yeah, saw that this morning. The #2 guy at the UN said that Hezbollah uses terrorist tactics, and is an organization, but is not a terrorist organization.
Governments tend to call “terrorists” those folks with small arms who are neither part of nor under the control of their regime. Here Indonesia, a self-proclaimed mooslum nation, through its representative at the UN Small Arms Review Conference last month makes their case:
“We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons. We also believe that regulating civilian possession of Small Arms/Light Weapons will enhance our efforts to prevent its misuse. In our view, the issue of ammunition should also be addressed in the context of the Program of Action because in the absence of ammunition, small arms and light weapons pose no danger.”
Compare with the Secretary of State’s speech at Chatham House on 31 March 2006:
Elections are the beginning of every democracy, but of course they are not the end. Effective institutions are essential to the success of all liberal democracies. And by institutions I mean pluralistic parties, transparent and accountable legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, active civil society, market economies and, of course, a monopoly for the state on the means of violence. [emphasis added] One cannot have one foot in terrorism and one foot in politics. Now, if these institutions that transform a government of imperfect citizens – it is these institutions that transform a government of imperfect citizens into a government of enduring laws.
Or in Baghdad on 3 April 2006:
Yes. In fact, we have talked with all of the leaders about the importance, once there is a government of national unity. And I want to emphasize you have to have a government of national unity so that a minister of defense, minister of the interior can be appointed for whom the responsibility is to provide security in conjunction with the multinational forces here and then to produce conditions under which people are secure and these militias, of course, can be disbanded. It is not legal going forward to have these and you can’t have in a democracy various groups that have arms. You have to have the state with a monopoly on power and that will be represented by the ministry of defense for the army and the ministry of interior for the police. [emphasis added]
ETA: The Brits would have considered the Minutemen to be terrorists, I suppose.
Hawkeye - “A sheep with a gun is still a sheep.” What happens when the sheep dog develops a taste for mutton? Unfortunately, Dave Grossman’s wolf/sheep dog analogy fits too easily into the state has a monopoly on power(ETA/means of violence) paradigm.
Five years ago, I wrote a column about the unknown Holocaust in Ukraine. I was shocked to receive a flood of mail from young Americans and Canadians of Ukrainian descent telling me that until they read my article, they knew nothing of the 1932–33 genocide in which Stalin’s regime murdered 7 million Ukrainians and sent 2 million to concentration camps.
How, I wondered, could such historical amnesia afflict so many young North-American Ukrainians? For Jews and Armenians, the genocides their people suffered are vivid, living memories that influence their daily lives. Yet today, on the 70th anniversary of the destruction of a quarter of Ukraine’s population, this titanic crime has almost vanished into history’s black hole.
So has the extermination of the Don Cossacks by the Soviets in the 1920’s, and Volga Germans, in 1941; and mass executions and deportations to concentration camps of Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Poles. At the end of World War II, Stalin’s gulag held 5.5 million prisoners, 23% Ukrainians and 6% Baltic peoples.
Almost unknown is the genocide of 2 million of the USSR’s Muslim peoples: Chechen, Ingush, Crimean Tatars, Tajiks, Bashkir, Kazaks. The Chechen independence fighters today branded “terrorists” by the US and Russia are the grandchildren of survivors of Soviet concentration camps… [emphasis added]
The Jewish people saw their Holocaust as a unique event. It was Israel’s raison d’être. Raising other genocides would, they feared, diminish their own.
While academia, media and Hollywood rightly keep attention on the Jewish Holocaust, they ignore Ukraine. We still hunt Nazi killers but not communist killers. There are few photos of the Ukraine genocide or Stalin’s gulag, and fewer living survivors. Dead men tell no tales.
Being an old, “cold warrior”, our enemy of choice was the Soviet Union. We even aided and cheered for mooslums in Afghanistan to fight off invading Sovs. Now the Russians, who elected their former Soviet KGB bosses as leaders, are our buds. Any enemy of their regime, especially any mooslum enemy of their regime, is classified by us as a “terrorist”. Not much has changed since Roosevelt and Stalin. Glad I was born here of a Christian Lithuanian/Irish parent and not in Chechnya of mooslum parents. I’d probably be a dead “terrorist”.
Many struggle against totalitarian states. Whether they are “terrorists” or “freedom fighters” depends upon the source of the propaganda.
Here’s the Wikipedia Def ( I know not the bible but… decent start)
Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change.[1][2] Acts of terrorism are not intended to merely victimize or eliminate those who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong. Modern terrorism has come to be defined in part by the influential power of the mass media, which terrorists co-opt in their efforts to amplify and broadcast feelings of intense fear and anger. As a type of unconventional warfare, terrorism is designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation or acquiescence as opposed to subversion or direct military action.
“Terrorist attacks” are usually characterized as “indiscriminate,” “targeting of civilians,” or executed “with disregard for human life.” The term “terrorism” is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. According to the definition of terrorism typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and non-governmental organizations, “terrorists” are actors who don’t belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don’t adhere to the laws of war, and who are therefore regarded as “rogue actors”." Those accused of being “terrorists” rarely identify themselves as such, and instead typically use terms that refer to their ideological or ethnic struggle, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, jihadi or mujaheddin, or fedayeen.
Terrorism has been utilized by a broad array of organizations to further their objectives, including both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic and religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ = terroist group
Radical pro-lifers = terrorists
Timothy McVeigh = terrorist
Radical Islam = religion of terrorism
I think everybodies answers are correct. Violent action+innocent, non-combatants+political/religous motivations=terrorism. Now that being said, one thing I do feel is very GREY is who is defining the parts of the equation. I say terrorist and Iran says freedom fighter, you say terrorist and Syria says Jihadist. It is truly in the eye of the beholder. Technically Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini, Milosovic(sp) were all terrorists in a pure since of the word because they used violent action against innoncent non-combatants to achieve a goal. Does anyone, historically think of them that way? What about Idi Amin or Mohammed Farrah Aidid? Here’s one that will stir the pot: What about when the US intentially firebombed Japanese cities in WWII and then nuked two cities of predominantly civilians? Now, we were at war and I don’t have a problem with it, but from some other country’s perspective, was that not pure terrorism? Non-combatants+violent action+goal of politcal change=? The CIA and Army S.F. have supported some groups is Central and South America as well as other places that, by the purist of definitions would be considered “terrorists.”
So, I think that before defining “terrorist” we have to examine who is doing the defining, then look at the group and their goals as well as if they believe themselves to be at war with whomever they are attacking. Although I fully believe Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and many, many others to be terrorists and think the should be hunted down and killed where they sleep, how do they view me and my country…
A terrorist is someone whose goal is the death and slaughter of noncombatants. IE Set off a bomb in a subway during rush hour to try and kill as many as possible.
A guerilla is someone whose goal is the distruction of an oppressive governments assets and reputation. IE Set off a bomb on a subway at 3 AM to destroy its use, and possibly kill a few people in collateral damage.
Thin line, but a line none the less.
What the US needs to do is pack up there shit and walk out of the United Nations. I’m sick of the silly antics, double-speak, and inability to really do anything meaningful in any conflict. Kofi Annan is a corrupt piece of shit who just likes to line his pockets. The UN has proven again and again there inability to enforce any of there deadlines or sanctions. If the US is serious about winning the war on terror we need to disassociate ourselves from the UN, they are nothing but a hindrance. They are blatantly anti-semetic, so much for keeping the peace ay? :rolleyes:
Great insight HeavyD
[QUOTE=Cybin
Radical pro-lifers = terrorists
[/QUOTE]
Hmm…not many right to lifer’s kill for a living, unlike abortion doctors and their ilk…looks like the ‘terrorist’ tag is on the wrong group.
TERRORists: whose who attempt to effect political, religious, ideological change through creating fear (TERROR) in the targetted population.
Thus the radical adjective.
TERRORIST
i An individual who commits and act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives.[/i]
TERRORIST GROUP
i Any number of terrorists who assemble together, have a unifying relationship, or are organized for the purpose of commiting an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of their political, religious, or ideological objectives[/i]
I think a Terrorist is anyone who doesn’t go along with the ideas of the world’s super powers. Example: IRA were considered terrorists by the United States, interestingly enough the U.S. fought the British for most of the same reasons…
Part of the UN’s problem, since it’s a multicultural organization, is they have a hard time agreeing to a universally accepted definition of terrorism. For example, one state’s “terrorist” is another state’s “freedom fighter.” While there have been numerous attempts, by the UN and its member states, to come up with an accepted definition, to date, they have not agreed upon one. As a guideline, they do have several “proposed definitions” of terrorism. :rolleyes:
The UN’s mindset: Hezbollah was formed by a group of Lebanese Shi’ite clerics with the goal of driving Israel from and establishing an Islamic state in Lebanon. As such, in the early years ~ as they are today, they are seen by many nation-states, as a resistance movement against the occupation of Lebanon and a political party. Despite the fact that the UN agrees that Hezbollah has engaged in terrorist activities, they consider Hezbollah as a religious organization (Shia Islamist) that has a milita, political, and social reform/development arm.
The UN can be screwy a great deal of the time !
When defining Hezbollah, based on past to current history/actions, I prefer to go with DoDs definition of (posted by Pat_Rogers). . . . . .
TERRORIST GROUP: Any number of terrorists who assemble together, have a unifying relationship, or are organized for the purpose of committing an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of their political, religious, or ideological objectives.
Man. . . .that fits those knuckleheads to a tee ! 
Here’s the speech of the alleged terrorist:
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace–but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Here’s the rule we apply:
TERRORIST
(DOD) An individual who commits and act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives.
Here we have an individual who advocates, i.e. threatens, armed combat against duly constituted authority, invoking God to add others to the cause of dissolving political bonds, in the ideological cause of liberty. Guilty.
Good thing Patrick Henry is dead; otherwise, someone somewhere would want to kill him for being a terrorist.