Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Was the US was in Iraq an act of terrorism?

It depends on what their primary purpose was. Were they trying to gain control of Iraq's oil? If so, then it wasn't terrorism. Were they trying to scare the rest of the Middle East into submission so that they could control the worlds oils supply? If so, then it was an act of terrorism.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It depends on what their primary purpose was. Were they trying to gain control of Iraq's oil? If so, then it wasn't terrorism. Were they trying to scare the rest of the Middle East into submission so that they could control the worlds oils supply? If so, then it was an act of terrorism.

So you're saying if they were naive enough not to realize that their invasion would terrorize thousands of people - so long as they did not intend to terrorize those people - they are not 'terrorists'?

If that's the case, then I have more respect for the terrorists. At least they are smart enough to realize the consequences of their actions.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I think terrorism is an integral component of a successful war. Even if a nation attacks only 'military targets' and treats prisoners according to the Geneva Convention, it still strikes terror into the heart of the citizens of that area.

That's why wars are won. The fear wins out over the ego and the desire to keep fighting. The horrors mount unti ...[text shortened]... rtainly [b]not in that category. He had a deity at his disposal, and his opponents had none.[/b]

"I think terrorism is an integral component of a successful war"
sure. despicable, but yes.


" Even if a nation attacks only 'military targets' and treats prisoners according to the Geneva Convention, it still strikes terror into the heart of the citizens of that area."
yet bombing the tank factory at night and bombing a children hospital are slightly different things.


" The horrors mount until one side cries 'Uncle'."
which is what pharaoh would have done when "oh crap the nile turned into blood, i don't need this kind of crap, i can get slaves from the other hundred tribes i occupy". but god hardened his heart.


"It seems to me that 'terrorism', as most people define it,"
weasel words. what is "most people"?


"is nothing more than a less-effective means of warfare done by a group of people who do not have a more effective means of warfare at their disposal."
unless it is coupled with other means of warfare, which it has been done since forever. we have already went through this. terrorism is not exclusive to lone radicals that have no tanks and jets. everybody can do terrorism. the fact that moses had god at his side doesn't change the fact that he was a terrorist.

god could have just made the magicians who also turned their canes to snakes simply drop dead. then jedi trick pharaoh to let the hebrews go. but no.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"I think terrorism is an integral component of a successful war"
sure. despicable, but yes.


" Even if a nation attacks only 'military targets' and treats prisoners according to the Geneva Convention, it still strikes terror into the heart of the citizens of that area."
yet bombing the tank factory at night and bombing a children hospital are slightl ...[text shortened]... d their canes to snakes simply drop dead. then jedi trick pharaoh to let the hebrews go. but no.

Yes - different things: when you hit the tank factory, you tout the precision of your laser-guided smart bombs. When you hit the children's hospital, you just say 'oops - collateral damage'.

"Most people" well more than half the people as I have observed use the the term. Seems straight forward enough to me.

So we've labeled Moses a terrorist, but at the cost of robbing the term 'terrorism' of any kind of rhetorical power. 😴

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
"Terrorist" is a label you slap on people that allows you to bomb them indiscriminately and treat them as mentally insane.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." [Don't know who first said that, but it's so true.]

I don't agree.

It is certainly true that there is a tendency [particularly recently] to label everything terrorism...

Although that is in part due to the fact that we have recently given our security and law enforcement
agencies an awesome set of new powers and toys they get to use in cases of terrorism... and thus
the more things they can label as terrorism the more toys [and special funding] they get to use.

However that doesn't mean that it is an empty label and that it doesn't point to a recognisable
set of tactics and intentions that are distinct from other crimes and acts of violence.


Saying that ""Terrorist" is a label you slap on people that allows you to bomb them indiscriminately
and treat them as mentally insane." strikes me as a bit like saying that man made climate change
isn't a thing because you don't like the measures [you believe] people will employ to help prevent it.

The fact that our response to terrorism is wrong [and it really is] and that we have a tendency to
try to label all kinds of stuff as terrorism that shouldn't be [like the sony hacks] doesn't mean that
it's right to just give in to cynicism entirely and say that there is no such thing as terrorism.

Like many things I am not sure you can come up with a hard and fast description/definition that
will satisfy everyone, and we are trying to put definitions onto human behaviours which will always
be on a continuum that slides gradually from one thing to another....

Think of it as a bit like trying to define when one species ends and another starts.
At either end they are definitvely different species... But you will never be able to point to
the point in the middle and say "here is definitively where one ends and another starts".



However my note for defining terrorism, at least as far as I am concerned...

Terrorism is a crime.

Which means to have terrorism you must also have at least some kind of functioning law and order.


Acts of war are not [in the conventional sense] crimes.

So bombing of civilian populations during WWII was not terrorism. [It was pointless, ineffective and immoral]

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
So you're saying if they were naive enough not to realize that their invasion would terrorize thousands of people - so long as they did not intend to terrorize those people - they are not 'terrorists'?

Yes. Although it is not necessary that they do not realise the consequences of their actions, only that that is not the primary purpose of their actions. (although on second thoughts, if the secondary purpose is significant and involves causing terror, then maybe that would count as terrorism too).

If that's the case, then I have more respect for the terrorists. At least they are smart enough to realize the consequences of their actions.
Actually most terrorists are notoriously bad at predicting the consequences of their actions. I am of the opinion that the vast majority of terrorists did not achieve their intended goals (although they often do manage to terrorize, that is not typically their final goal, unless they are just particularly angry individuals).

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't agree.

It is certainly true that there is a tendency [particularly recently] to label everything terrorism...

Although that is in part due to the fact that we have recently given our security and law enforcement
agencies an awesome set of new powers and toys they get to use in cases of terrorism... and thus
the more things they can labe ...[text shortened]... civilian populations during WWII was not terrorism. [It was pointless, ineffective and immoral]

I think it's fair to say that the term 'terrorism' has been so frequently and flagrantly misused that there is little practical chance of bringing it back to objective, practical use. You may, of course, disagree; I'll leave it at that.

Time will tell.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually most terrorists are notoriously bad at predicting the consequences of their actions. I am of the opinion that the vast majority of terrorists did not achieve their intended goals (although they often do manage to terrorize, that is not typically their final goal, unless they are just particularly angry individuals).

Example, please.

I think many so-called terrorists ARE extremely angry individuals. I imagine the Charlie Hebdo killers and the 9/11 hijackers harbored generous amounts of anger and hatred.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Terrorism is a crime.

Which means to have terrorism you must also have at least some kind of functioning law and order.

Why do you have such a ridiculous definition? Do you realize that you have just defined away 90% of modern day terrorists as they either have declared war on the US or some other nation, or because they live in another country from the accuser and are thus not subject to their laws.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes. Although it is not necessary that they do not realise the consequences of their actions, only that that is not the primary purpose of their actions. (although on second thoughts, if the secondary purpose is significant and involves causing terror, then maybe that would count as terrorism too).

[b]If that's the case, then I have more respect for th ...[text shortened]... e, that is not typically their final goal, unless they are just particularly angry individuals).

I would tend to suggest that when trying to create a definition for something as slippery
as this, you have to start with a set of things that a relevant majority agree ARE part of the set,
and a set of things that are NOT part of the set, and if a proposed definition causes you to
include something agreed NOT to be part of the set or to exclude something that is agreed
IS part of the set then that definition is not workable [or incomplete] and needs to be changed.

I am of the opinion, and I would suggest a majority would agree, that as despicable and or wrong
as it was, the US invasion of Iraq was NOT an act, or collection of acts, of terrorism.


I am thus leery of any definition of terrorism that allows it to be categorised as such.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why do you have such a ridiculous definition? Do you realize that you have just defined away 90% of modern day terrorists as they either have declared war on the US or some other nation, or because they live in another country from the accuser and are thus not subject to their laws.

If I in my bedroom declare war on the US, has in any real sense war been declared?

How about if I get a few of my mates together and we all declare war together?


Also, I don't class a lot of what gets called terrorism as terrorism because it looks to
me mighty like gorilla warfare and or civil war to me.

I may well not agree with their cause, or methods, but that's not a good reason to call
it terrorism.

I've watched years of reports claiming attacks on our ARMED FORCES in A WAR ZONE were
terrorist attacks.

I'm sorry, but no they weren't. Because calling them such IS doing exactly what BDP is
complaining about. Watering down the meaning to meaninglessness for cynical propaganda
reasons.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If I in my bedroom declare war on the US, has in any real sense war been declared?

How about if I get a few of my mates together and we all declare war together?


Also, I don't class a lot of what gets called terrorism as terrorism because it looks to
me mighty like gorilla warfare and or civil war to me.

I may well not agree with their cause ...[text shortened]... omplaining about. Watering down the meaning to meaninglessness for cynical propaganda
reasons.

i feel its a lot simpler than the definitions put forward so far. my view is this -

any action carried out with the purpose of causing terror amongst a civilian population in order to achieve an idealogical goal, is an act of terrorism.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i feel its a lot simpler than the definitions put forward so far. my view is this -

any action carried out with the purpose of causing terror amongst a civilian population in order to achieve an idealogical goal, is an act of terrorism.

So If I organise people in creepy clown outfits to randomly wander around the major
cities of the UK and jump out at people with the aim of causing widespread terror I
would be engaged in organising a terrorist campaign? 😛


I think the definition needs more complexity and less beguiling simplicity.

For starters, the action must be a crime. Possibly even a violent crime.

I am loath to call acts like the Sony hack terrorism.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
true, many do have recruitment actions, propaganda, disinformation, fund raising, etc.


i was talking about the bellicose aspect of such an organization. a terrorist organisation can hardly conduct an invasion/air strike/etc. was attempting to find a reason behind his idea that regular armies cannot conduct terrorist actions (i claim that they totally can).

ISIS is currently conducting open warfare and winning.

They are certainly a 'terrorist' organisation in that they support and encourage
and train terrorists to attack other countries.

At the same time they are conducting conventional warfare in the
middle east.

Originally posted by googlefudge
So If I organise people in creepy clown outfits to randomly wander around the major
cities of the UK and jump out at people with the aim of causing widespread terror I
would be engaged in organising a terrorist campaign? 😛


I think the definition needs more complexity and less beguiling simplicity.

For starters, the action must be a crime. Possibly even a violent crime.

I am loath to call acts like the Sony hack terrorism.

'terror' causes an intense fear. if a bunch of clowns randomly wandered around and did in fact cause an intense fear around major cities of the uk (and i doubt very much that they would cause terror)..and if the clowns were doing this on purpose to achieve a goal then it would indeed be an act of terrorism.

it doesnt matter if its a crime or not. many acts legal acts of terrorism have been carried out by governments over the years.