If it's political/governmental then it's a freedom fighter
Terrorists never call themselves "terrorists" but freedom fighters, among other better sounding names.
Definition of Terrorism
- Thread starter The_Zergling
- Start date
Terrorists never call themselves "terrorists" but freedom fighters, among other better sounding names.
Can you really have a "Terrorist Army" though, one that holds territory and which has strong personal/family links to the local population?
To my mind, Terrorist and Army are mutually exclusive words. It seems that Spin Docters are trying to write the word "Guerilla" out of the popular lexicon.
Acts of Terrorism however is a different thing. If a serving member of a national army; under orders, moves out of uniform into an area, held by an enemy that they may or may not be at war with and secretly secretes an explosicr device in a public area and allows it to detonate without warning, is this an act of War or Terrorism?
To my mind, Terrorist and Army are mutually exclusive words. It seems that Spin Docters are trying to write the word "Guerilla" out of the popular lexicon.
Acts of Terrorism however is a different thing. If a serving member of a national army; under orders, moves out of uniform into an area, held by an enemy that they may or may not be at war with and secretly secretes an explosicr device in a public area and allows it to detonate without warning, is this an act of War or Terrorism?
The_Zergling
Junior Member
I would say that it arguably counts as terrorism.
My definition is that regardless of identity, a terrorist is an individual(s) who targets non-combatants for acts of violence in an attempt to influence government policy.
Calling terrorists, "bombers without an air force" simply sidesteps the issue and has dangerous implications, especially when justifying indiscriminate killing.
My definition is that regardless of identity, a terrorist is an individual(s) who targets non-combatants for acts of violence in an attempt to influence government policy.
Calling terrorists, "bombers without an air force" simply sidesteps the issue and has dangerous implications, especially when justifying indiscriminate killing.
Well if you are a bit pragmatic about it, the difference isn`t so big.
If somebody targets a convoy in Iraq killing 2 GI and 10 Civvis its terrorism.
If the US bombs a house killing 2 insurgents and a family of 10, then its collateral.
Seems a bit strange. The difference is intention
But when you hit targets in urban areas you know there will be collateral casualties, but you still go through with it.
The intention and what is considers right intention is decided by the victors. I would like to see the one calling WW2 resistance fighter terrorist!
If somebody targets a convoy in Iraq killing 2 GI and 10 Civvis its terrorism.
If the US bombs a house killing 2 insurgents and a family of 10, then its collateral.
Seems a bit strange. The difference is intention
But when you hit targets in urban areas you know there will be collateral casualties, but you still go through with it.
The intention and what is considers right intention is decided by the victors. I would like to see the one calling WW2 resistance fighter terrorist!
The_Zergling
Junior Member
That's a very good point - people like to believe that intentions are what truly matters, and what actually happened is irrelevant, but this is a biased view. Indeed, victors write the history books.
I've seen the case for 'targeting' justifying or excusing the deaths of innocent people many times. This argument has always been flawed for me. Regardless of how one approaches an issue though, there are always guidelines for what an act should be called, and what your perspective is regarding it is another issue.
Well how do you expect a Militia / Rebellion Group / Freedom Fighters or whatsoever you call it with limited resources with regards to the numbers and capability of their Men and weapons to defend themselves or attack an enemy force with the most advanced military force in the world.
To attack civilians is definitely a terrorist attack. But when you know that attacking a force as advance as USA or Britian would do you no good than you have to think of other strategies and options (hit and run, mining, car bombing etc) and to me that is not a terrorist act.
As they say 'EVERYTHING IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR'.
When the oposition is not complaining about the methods u r using against them you do not have the right to do so either.
To attack civilians is definitely a terrorist attack. But when you know that attacking a force as advance as USA or Britian would do you no good than you have to think of other strategies and options (hit and run, mining, car bombing etc) and to me that is not a terrorist act.
As they say 'EVERYTHING IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR'.
When the oposition is not complaining about the methods u r using against them you do not have the right to do so either.
AmiGanguli
Junior Member
Most countries that have ever been involved in actual fighting have used terrorism. In this sense almost all armies are terrorist armies, if we define a terrorist army as one that commits acts of terror (attacks against civilian populations intended to influence policy through terror rather than destroying direct military targets).
That doesn't justify terrorism. On the contrary, after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. (which were indeed terrorism under the above definition) there was, for a brief time, the public will to do some good in the world and take concrete steps to reduce terrorism both by countries (including U.S. allies) and stateless groups like Al Quaeda. But that opportunity has been lost now.
The U.S. and others have attempted to redefine the word terrorist as a propaganda tool to the point where the word has no real meaning when used by them or in the media. If you accept their usage then there simply is no definition that isn't full of contradictions. You might as well just go with "a terrorist is anybody who fights against us", and "a terrorist sympathizer is anybody who votes against us".
As you might guess, I avoid the word entirely nowadays. Obviously I'd rather stick with the first definition, but it's futile to hang on to words whose meaning has been lost. You can keep using them in the old way out of principle, but nobody else will understand what you're trying to say.
... Ami.
That doesn't justify terrorism. On the contrary, after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. (which were indeed terrorism under the above definition) there was, for a brief time, the public will to do some good in the world and take concrete steps to reduce terrorism both by countries (including U.S. allies) and stateless groups like Al Quaeda. But that opportunity has been lost now.
The U.S. and others have attempted to redefine the word terrorist as a propaganda tool to the point where the word has no real meaning when used by them or in the media. If you accept their usage then there simply is no definition that isn't full of contradictions. You might as well just go with "a terrorist is anybody who fights against us", and "a terrorist sympathizer is anybody who votes against us".
As you might guess, I avoid the word entirely nowadays. Obviously I'd rather stick with the first definition, but it's futile to hang on to words whose meaning has been lost. You can keep using them in the old way out of principle, but nobody else will understand what you're trying to say.
... Ami.