What is terrorism? and.....

[RedlineTA]

Originally Posted by SXSMITH

Anyone who has stated they want to kill us. And some of the people I have on a list.

Many of them kinda look like this...

See I share no problem in keep an eye on those who are vocal about the use of violence against us. However, I have a major problem with the generalities, such as the last part of your post.

"Many of them look like this....." I'm sorry but that is offensive believe it or not because many middle easterners may look something like that but harbor no ill will towards us.

Because if this was a post on people who are oppressive and I go......

Anyone who has stated they don't like black people, and then show a picture of a typical middle aged white male...oh lets say Bush. You would get mad.

P.S-I know its a picture of the Iranian leader.

[RedlineTA]

Originally Posted by Dakota Kid

Oh, SX he is not a terrorist!!! He is a FREEDOM FIGHTER!!!

Go away Adults are talking. Go drink out of your sippy cup.

[joe1971]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

One of the differences between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is choice of targets. It is a messy distinction, because you could consider the allies firebombing in Dresden in WWII a terrorist act under some definitions.

But, here goes anyway. A terrorist chooses soft targets. The whole intent is to spread mayhem and fear. The IRA bombed Harrod's department store in London. They were not likely to kill anybody in the military, just women shopping and their children. The PLO attacked cruise ships, as another example. The target wasn't military, it was relatively defenseless people.

The more defenseless the target, the more terrorist the act. Attacking a military installation falls more on the freedom fighter side of the ledger although in peacetime it is either to start a war or an act of terrorism, while attacking an office building in peacetime falls squarely on the terrorist side.

How can the bombing opf a market place be considered freedom fighting? What exactly is it that they are fighting? Mom geting that nights meal, Dad trying to provide income for necessities for his family? No that's terrorism

[RedlineTA]

Originally Posted by joe1971

How can the bombing opf a market place be considered freedom fighting? What exactly is it that they are fighting? Mom geting that nights meal, Dad trying to provide income for necessities for his family? No that's terrorism

He was explaining the difference. And degrees of terrorism. He said it is all dependent upon targets.

[county]

Originally Posted by county

Terrorism is something the other guy did.

And preemptive strike is what we did.

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by county

And preemptive strike is what we did.

Are we terrorists?

[Baldrick]

In the minds of quite a few Iraqi and Afghan civilians we very likely are.

[jerome_oneil]

Originally Posted by joe1971

How can the bombing opf a market place be considered freedom fighting? What exactly is it that they are fighting? Mom geting that nights meal, Dad trying to provide income for necessities for his family? No that's terrorism

Destroying supply chain for his enemies? Because you are trying to break a communities will to fight, and support fighters? Because it's how you suppress an insurrection?

One of the reasons Sherman burned the entire south to the ground on his way to Savannah was to disrupt supply chains supporting Lee holed up in Petersburgh. That it amounted to burning every farm, field, and barn from Atlanta to the ocean means it's' a terrorist act?

[Baldrick]

I think his point was regarding the Iraqi insurgents blowing up Iraqi civilian markets. In such a case, who are they going after? US soldiers, or people from a different sect (Sunni v. Shiite, or one Arab/Iraqi tribe v another)? It could be termed a religion-based civil war, fought via terrorist activity, could it not?

[jim schmidt]

Terrorism is simply the use of agressive tactics for the purpose of engendering widespread fear. It's no more complicated than that.

"Terrorist," as a prejorative, has historically been used to demonize an opponent. That's why it is often the case that both sides claim the other is a terrorist. After years of bastardization, it really has no specific meaning anymore.

[MrR2009]

Terrorist by my definition, would be a small group of people who are fighting against a better army and who could not possibly win a war through conventional tactics, so they turn to fighting "dirty" which could be guerrilla tactics, booby traps, or striking a country's economy. My personal favorite terrorist would have to be the Americans in the American revolution, or the Texans in the Texas revolution.

[gtramontelli]

Originally Posted by MrR2009

Terrorist by my definition, would be a small group of people who are fighting against a better army and who could not possibly win a war through conventional tactics, so they turn to fighting "dirty" which could be guerrilla tactics, booby traps, or striking a country's economy. My personal favorite terrorist would have to be the Americans in the American revolution, or the Texans in the Texas revolution.

I disagree. Guerilla warfare does not = terrorism. Someone launching an rpg from building cover to destroy an enemy tank is an example of guerilla warfare.

Detonating a car bomb in a marketplace full of civilians is terrorism. The distinction is in the choice of target, as Gaolee suggested, IMO.

Originally Posted by jerome_oneil

...
However, that does not change the fact that the vast majority of acts of terrorism in today's world are perpetrated by young Muslim men. I believe that is a result of abject poverty, of the continued occupation of the West Bank, and exploitation by Muslims in positions of power that gain from that mix.

Actually most muslim terrorists come from wealthy families and are considerably more educated than is the norm for middle eastern countries. I am currently reading a book (suggested to me by Gaolee) called "The Future of Freedom" that talks about some of the factors that lead to the islamofascist ideology. Some of these factors include the lack of a stable authority figure for interpretation of the muslim holy texts, a trust-fund state that is created by abundant natural resources, and a number of failed attempts at democratizing nations that did not have the foundations to support democracy. It's really a good read.

[Trash]

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

Terrorism is simply the use of agressive tactics for the purpose of engendering widespread fear. It's no more complicated than that.

"Terrorist," as a prejorative, has historically been used to demonize an opponent. That's why it is often the case that both sides claim the other is a terrorist. After years of bastardization, it really has no specific meaning anymore.

True. How many times have we heard Bush or someone from his Administration refer to Iraqi insurgents as terrorists and even Al Qaida as thought they were all Al Qaida

[SXSMITH]

Originally Posted by RedlineTA

However, I have a major problem with the generalities, such as the last part of your post.

Stating fact.

Sorry you take issue with it.

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by gtramontelli