- This topic has 4 voices and 38 replies.
-
Posts
-
What is a good definition for terrorism? The reason I ask is that the line between terrorism and military action, between terrorism and self-defense might be a fine line. Don't simply consider what we're up against today; history has other examples which make the answer to this question less than certain.
Terrorism's power comes from fear. MIlitary power comes from respect. I don't know if this answers the question but here's an example of what's happening now.The Afghani people are more scared of the terrorists than they trust the US Army. We (the US), using psychological tactics, are trying to change that. We say to the Afghani citizens "We are here to help, so help us find the enemy". "We will protect you. We will build schools and a public service infrastructure for you." They don't help us, because if they do, and are found out, their whole family's lives are in grave danger. (fear)That, I believe, is the difference.Also, one should look at human rights violations. Who treats humans (their own) better?
But couldn't some of what you say be said about Hamas or Hezzbolah? I think that they essentially “own” parts of lebanon and help the people out there. Yet I believe some would call them terrorist groups. I am interested in hearing what people have to say about terrorist group...where they draw the lines. I should start a public poll with this - terrorist or not? Guy Fawkes, Hamas, Hezzbolah, Al Qaeda, Weather Underground, the instigators of the Boston Tea Party, ELF/ALF, etc etc. I'm sure we can think of some others as well.
To begin with, this question's answer is all in the eye of the beholder. There are many around the world that believe the U.S. are terrorists. But that no doubt is caused by religious/political beliefs or bias. So I assume when you say 'We' you mean us as individuals or a nation as a whole (U.S.).I believe the definition we hold now is a good one. When Terror is your weapon and it is aimed not so much at military targets as civilian, then you are a terrorist. They believe that they can attain their own agenda by instilling fear in the populace. But rarely does that work. Terrorism is the act of the desperate and the weak.
Would this be considered terrorism?http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=ce4e295f-c8b4-41e2-9e66-f676f25b536a
Well the reason I thought it might fall under the terrorism definition is because it was done for obvious political purposes and in an intimidating way. True, it wasn't destructive in nature as much as it was defacing, but it was still damaging and will cost money to repair.
That'll never fly.
I agree. A hate crime is directed towards an individual or individual group. Like what the KKK does.Been pondering this all day: Terrorism uses fear and control in order to reach a political agenda.
Are you saying this because of the ethnic/racial component to the shooting? I haven't heard that he actually targeted non-Asian people in the shootings, but I may have missed it in the news. From what I have heard so far it sounds like a deadly rage sparked by jealousy. I don't think this would be “terrorism”.
No, it had nothing to do with the racial component. Incidents like this have a lot of similarities with terrorism (fear, intimidation) but I wouldn't define this as an act of terror because there doesn't appear to be any political motivation.On the other hand, if a member of Hezbollah or another terrorist organization did the exact same thing....
But then how do you account for the “love lost” component to it? Even if it were a member of Hezbollah involved I don't think it would necessarily be terrorism here because the “love rage” that went on is independent from the desire to make a socio-political statement of fear and intimidation. At least this is based on what I have learned about the shooting. If there was some socio-political motivation that I haven't heard about then I may be wrong.
