Definition of Terrorism

Re: UK Military News Thread

Four British soldiers - including two women - died Thursday in an ambush that Prime Minister Tony Blair called an "act of terrorism," suggesting it may have been carried out by elements linked to Iran but stopping short of blaming Tehran.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you didn't see that wrong. Attacking soldiers is also an act of TERRORISM. Hell, the word doesn't mean anything anymore. I thought the definition of a terrorist act was one that targeted civilians and as such was particularly heinous? (Obviously, this is a recent definition, given tactics used in WWII)

This seems to be simply confirming what has been true for some time now - we pretty much just call our enemies terrorists. When our allies do the exact same thing they're called militants or even freedom fighters. Does it ever get to the point where these people choke on their own hypocrisy?

Re: UK Military News Thread

The_Zergling said:

Attacking soldiers is also an act of TERRORISM.

Click to expand...

Well it is - just because the target is military doesn't make it anything else.

I thought the definition of a terrorist act was one that targeted civilians and as such was particularly heinous?

Click to expand...

If you want a definition, there's always the dictionary:

"terrorism" noun the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.

Click to expand...

This seems to be simply confirming what has been true for some time now - we pretty much just call our enemies terrorists.

Click to expand...

Zergling, these people are terrorists because they are using "systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands".

Can you really not think of an example in the past where attacks against the military were regarded as terrorism? There are so many different events to choose from. Maybe the term wasn't used as commonly as it is now, but it was still the same thing - striking fear into people's hearts by using bombs, etc. Indeed attacking the very people that are supposed to provide security can be regarded as more terrifying than going after civilians.

When our allies do the exact same thing they're called militants or even freedom fighters.

Click to expand...

Our "enemies" do exactly the same thing - if it's one of their mates then they're the freedom fighters. If it's one of their enemies or their buddies, then they're the terrorists.


Personally I think that if anyone has manipulated the meaning of terrorism it's those that would say it only applies to civilian deaths.

Re: UK Military News Thread

I'm with the Zergling on this one most of the way.

Terrorists are properly, small, isolated and unrepresentative groups that persue a (usually forlorn) agenda through indiscriminate violence against the authorities or civil populace.

Who though actually qualifies as a Terrorist? Remarkably few to be honest. Bader Meinhoff and the Red Brigades are as about as definite as it gets, probably Al-Qaeda and their affiliates. Many other groups ie Black September have turned out to be organised and controlled by larger organisations and therefore cannot qualify.

Terrorists are small.. the moment you get larger organisations, with Political Leadership, strong community and or territorial support etc, they cannot be terrorist organisations but are Militias - reguar or Irregular. So organisations such as the Taleban, The PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah, Viet Cong, PKK etc cannot be considered as Terrorists.

The question though is where do you draw the line? what is the point of crossover? where does this place organisations such as the IRA, UVF, UVA Etta, The Black Panthers, etc.

Sadly though when you are fighting a war against terror, you have to depict anyone who opposes you as a Terrorist. The real world is a nasty, brutal, cynical and grey place and no good purpose is served by leaders who present their case in the language of the Kindergarten.

Re: UK Military News Thread

SampanViking said:

Terrorists are properly, small, isolated and unrepresentative groups that persue a (usually forlorn) agenda through indiscriminate violence against the authorities or civil populace.

Click to expand...

The IRA had (unfortunately) a significant amount of support in the Catholic community in Northern Ireland - Sinn Fein was practically their public face. They also received a lot of money from places like the US. Al-Qaeda, though not a unified force, has supporters and followers around the world - as well as a lot of money.

Can you really say that either group is small and isolated?

Back to the news report, we don't actually know who did this. There are groups operating in Iraq that could be identified as "rebels", "militia", etc - but there are also those that would be called terrorists. So maybe they were terrorists as you would describe them.

Re: UK Military News Thread

The IRA had (unfortunately) a significant amount of support in the Catholic community in Northern Ireland - Sinn Fein was practically their public face. They also received a lot of money from places like the US. Al-Qaeda, though not a unified force, has supporters and followers around the world - as well as a lot of money.

Can you really say that either group is small and isolated?

Click to expand...

I think this illustrates the real problems you can have when you try to ascribe status to many of these groups. Re Northern Ireland, I think we have to accept that the gunmen on all sides did actually represent enough of their communities to warrant the militia status.

Al-Qaeda is far more problematic, but ultimately it looks more like a modern version of the Red Brigades than say the Mahdi Army. With the Internet it seems likely that it can act like a terror Franchise for various small groups who want to enhance their status by association. at the end of the day, Al-Qaeda has no discernable "home territory" or Political Leadership.

Back to the news report, we don't actually know who did this. There are groups operating in Iraq that could be identified as "rebels", "militia", etc - but there are also those that would be called terrorists. So maybe they were terrorists as you would describe them.

Click to expand...

If I built a nailbomb this morning and took it to my local Shopping Mail and left it to explode a short time later, I would be a terrorist, striking out of the blue and for no obvious reason. Iraq is still a War Zone and so to try and ascribe a particular act of violence a particular status seems somewhat forlorn. There is fighting on all sides and against everybody and it divides up on community lines. I think it only makes sense to treat it as a multifaceted civil/sectarian conflict.

Re: UK Military News Thread

SampanViking said:

I would be a terrorist, striking out of the blue and for no obvious reason.

Click to expand...

Just because a person or a group has a "reason" to attack doesn't mean they are not terrorists.

As to Northern Ireland, I would not advise you to go there and try to claim in public that the bombings, executions, etc were not acts of terrorism. I don't think the people there would appreciate you playing semantics with what happened to them.

Iraq is still a War Zone and so to try and ascribe a particular act of violence a particular status seems somewhat forlorn. There is fighting on all sides and against everybody and it divides up on community lines. I think it only makes sense to treat it as a multifaceted civil/sectarian conflict.

Click to expand...

As with above, I think the civilians caught in the middle would disagree that the attacks on them are not terrorism.

If you believe terrorism shouldn't refer to any of the groups I have mentioned, I suggest you petition Chambers and the like to refine their dictionary definitions.

Re: UK Military News Thread

Just because a person or a group has a "reason" to attack doesn't mean they are not terrorists.

Click to expand...

Maybe I was unclear, I meant no obvious reason to pick on those particular targets. In Iraq, Shia attack Sunnis and vicaversa whilst in Northern Ireland Catholics attacked Protestants and vicaversa.

I am sure nobody apprecites being attacked and will hold low opinions of the perpetrators. That however is not an excuse to ignore reality, as this will hardly hasten a conclusion to a problem or explain to a countries citizens why certain things are happening. In Northern Ireland, irrespective of what people may think or feel, that fact that it is Paisley and Adams making the running and that people feel most assured by the fact that it is Paisley and Adams making the running should speak volumes.

Terrorism is a Police Matter not a military one. The London Nail Bomber was caught by the Police not by mounting Army Patrols, nor do the Military tour in Armoured vehicles through the Mills Towns of the Midlands and Northern England.

I think the civilians caught in the middle would disagree that the attacks on them are not terrorism

Click to expand...

Well a bomb is a bomb and whether it is delivered on target by a $200 car or a $1Billion aircraft and Laser Beams is largely irrelevant.

The important thing is to never let sentiment or sentimentality cloud an objective (albeit cynical) view of reality.

Re: UK Military News Thread

SampanViking said:

In Northern Ireland, irrespective of what people may think or feel, that fact that it is Paisley and Adams making the running and that people feel most assured by the fact that it is Paisley and Adams making the running should speak volumes.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that means what the IRA/Ulster terrorists did was not terrorism.

Terrorism is a Police Matter not a military one. The London Nail Bomber was caught by the Police not by mounting Army Patrols, nor do the Military tour in Armoured vehicles through the Mills Towns of the Midlands and Northern England.

Click to expand...

First, I would disagree that terrorism is not a military matter. In Northern Ireland the Army did conduct operations against terrorists. In Iraq the Army has also conducted raids against terrorists.

Even if you were correct, I do not see how that means the events mentioned were not terrorism.

Well a bomb is a bomb and whether it is delivered on target by a $200 car or a $1Billion aircraft and Laser Beams is largely irrelevant.

Click to expand...

True, but the reason it is being deployed and the target is just as important.

Re: UK Military News Thread

Well help me out then Fu

How would you differentiate between an Act of War, an Act of Rebellion/Insurrection/Insuregency and an Act of Terrorism?

Re: UK Military News Thread

SampanViking said:

Well help me out then Fu

How would you differentiate between an Act of War, an Act of Rebellion/Insurrection/Insuregency and an Act of Terrorism?

Click to expand...

I don't know that I could come up with definitions that can separate all three things - really you have to look at things on a case-by-case basis. There is no way to automatically put something in one box or another. Any definition is not concrete.

Plus I don't believe these three categories are nearly substantial enough to deal with all possible sorts of attack by government and non-government forces.

I suppose number 1 is general conflict between two countries/states, but countries can fight each other without officially going to war. Number 2 is difficult to pin down - "rebels" can carry out acts of terrorism. When considering number 3 you need to look at the means of attack, the target(s) and reasons behind the attack. Apart from that I'm not sure what to say.

Anyway, this isn't the place to talk about it. Maybe if you want a real discussion open a new thread?