Fighting Terrorism...

Generic_Dave

Okay, I'm not sure if this is the place to be posting this, but I'm gonna go ahead and see what happens. I've been thining in the last little while, that it seems people believe that there's this big huge entity out there in the darkness, it's tendrils hide in caves, suburbs, in city centres and even under our beds. Global Terrorism, it's a phrase that seems to suggest that out there, somewhere there's a terrorist equivilent of the Pentagon. Whether it's Chechen rebels fighting the Russians, Al-Queda, Tamil Tigers, The Iraqi resistence or Hamas. In the words of George W Bush "You're either with us or you're against us."

But what I want to know, is why, after diplomacy and dialouge with terrorist organisations in Europe, ETA the IRA and the rest up North and in South America, has shown it's effectiveness that the world seems to have come to the conclusion that you can't negotiate with terrorists. I mean, I know that some of these groups espouse a creed that seems to mirror the US "with us or against us stance" but in the North and in the Basque region ideals were also espoused which seemed just as incompatable with the order that was and yet through dilligence and hard work and a willingness to trust each other has yielded more results than carpet bombing Lebanon and invading Iraq. So basicly what I want to know is when did diplomacy die?

Sleepy

Short answer: when they put a redneck in the White House.

Jackie laughlin

There's a difficulty in defining terrorism but certainly Lebanon and Iraq have nothing at all to do with terrorism.

It is true that talking to terrorists in Ireland "corrupted" them to the point that after decades of killing and maiming for a united Ireland, they are now gasping to be Stormont ministers. However, the price was a perhaps fatal undermining of the constitutional SDLP and the creation of a nascent fascist party capable of winning Dail, Stormont and Westminster seats. Moreover, the "Real IRA" are at it again with firebombs.

The reason that talks with the IRA "worked" was that they knew they were defeated and had to try something else. Their convicts in particular wanted to pack it in and get out of jail.

Generic_Dave

Sleepy wrote:

Short answer: when they put a redneck in the White House.

It's not just America, Russia's been beating the living s**t outta Chechnya for quite some time now. It's just become more visual since GW got into the White House because America has a, moderately, free press and they're so damn heavy handed. But I can't sincerely believe that it's all Bushes fault.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There's a difficulty in defining terrorism but certainly Lebanon and Iraq have nothing at all to do with terrorism./QUOTE/

Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

What's happening in Iraq and Lebanon IS Terrorism, regardless of how you or I feel about the motives behind the actions.

The IRA also started attempting to talk to the British governments long before the feeling was reciprocated. And how can America, Britain, Israel, Russia KNOW that these negoiation won't work? They even use the Terrorist label to undermine Palestine's democratic selection of Hamas as their government. Cutting off aid and assistance, just when it looked as though Hamas might just be able to get the country together. But if we take away the rights we say we're trying to defend just because we don't like the elected, we're just undermining the position of the democratic process not just in Palestine but everywhere.

Maybe I'm just a bit idealistic or thick, but I just don't understand how these actions are seens as "fighting terrorism".

esskay

Generic_Dave wrote:

But what I want to know, is why, after diplomacy and dialouge with terrorist organisations in Europe, ETA the IRA and the rest up North and in South America, has shown it's effectiveness that the world seems to have come to the conclusion that you can't negotiate with terrorists.

Negotation is not the aim of the war on terror, and neither is eliminating terrorists. The aim is to allow the U.S. to use force when and where is sees fit to further its own global economic agenda. Iraq was a battered and destitute state long before the U.S. decided to invade. Iraq was a "test case" for the U.S. to see if, by using mass progaganda and coercion of other governments, they could ingnore U.N. charters and international law and invade a country because they thought it was necessary. I am not saying Saddam was not guilty of horrendous attroceties, but there are far worse cases (North Korea, who they won´t touch cause they could because they could put up a fight)) around that get ignored. Iraq was an easy target they could start with, put a "democratic", U.S. friendly government in place and effectively take over the country´s economy. They are also now demonising the people of iraq who are fighting back against the invasion of their country. The U.S. corporations will be allowed to run riot with Iraq´s resources just as they are doing in South America and Asia. For example, I was in India recently and read an article about the exploits of Coke. They are using so much of india´s water to produce bottled drinks that in loads of places the local populace´s wells are running dry. ffs it´s happening in Ireland too. Shell has the rights to the gas fields off the west coast of Ireland and our government sold these right without getting and stake in the profits it will generate. Even Nigeria, when they sold right to oil feilds, got 50% of the profit. What do that say about our government? Sucking the U.S. corporate c%&k big time!

hobochris

one thing that keeps on poping up in my head is who are the real terrorists here?

The apparently unknown people that for all we know have all been caught by now or the media and government???

becuase while they have people scared of this terrorist threat, they have them in an easily controlable state where they can justify doing almost anything in the publics safety..
i mean lets face it, terrorism is a licence for governments to do alot of ****... all they have to do is get the media to throw some bull**** properganda in and then they can go ahead and do what they want... i mean take iraq for example... were thoose apparent weapons of mass destruction ever found? or was it just and easy way to get people to agree to allowing there sons and daughters go and die so that america would have more control over the oil industry...

I mean if we keep going on without questioning things, thinking its for our own safety we'll end up in a society like that in V for vendetta... where the government has full control over us...

i feel that the governments of world ( eu and u.s. ect..) need to be reminded that they work for the people and not vise versa...

Sand

But what I want to know, is why, after diplomacy and dialouge with terrorist organisations in Europe, ETA the IRA and the rest up North and in South America, has shown it's effectiveness that the world seems to have come to the conclusion that you can't negotiate with terrorists.

Generally because Jihadist terrorism is not of the same breed as that of the IRA or ETA or any nationally inspired terrorist organisation.

The IRA wanted to adjust/"improve" the system in NI. They wanted a small but constant stream of murder, misery and instability in NI, but they were cautious of backlash to "spectaculars". They recognised mass casualties [look at Omagh] as being bad publicity. They viewed themselves as a vanguard and wanted to win the Irish opinion over to them. Irish opinion could tolerate small scale misery inflicted by the bold boys of the old brigade, but exceptionally cruel or murderous attacks were harder to explain in the IRA mythology.

Jihadist terrorism is not about Arab nationalism, its heartland is in Asia, not the Middle East. Jihadists do not seek to regulate or minimise casualties, they seek to kill as many people as they possibly can.

Jihadists view everyone who does not support them as being appostate [muslims, including all brands of Non Sunni Islam and any Sunni muslim who disagrees with them] or infidels [anyone and everyone else]. Jihadists feel that infidels should be murdered without hesitation, and that the indefinite existence of infidels is not acceptable.

Jihadists do not with to alter or improve the social system. They wish to overthrow it, burn it to ashes and build a new humanity cast in their own image, in a new society. Tabliban Afghanistan is what they aim for. First for the Islamic world, then for everyone else. Anyone who objects is either apostate or infidel and thus *must* be killed by their warped cults idealogy.

That doesnt leave a lot of room for negotation - theyre on a mission from God, and probably as open to reason and rational debate as the Spanish Inquistion were on the concept of witchcraft and non Church approved religious views. Their idealogy is completely nuts, but theyve a proven desire to kill thousands for it and a stated desire to kill millions of people which cant be dismissed when biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons are on their wishlists and very possible for them to gain. People cant make the mistake that terrorists are all the same and can be all dealt with in the same fashion. Some can be picked off by negotiation, but I cant imagine anyone who views human rights as being universal as negotiating a compromise with Jihadists who dismiss the concept of human rights outright.

18AD

"Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change."

Then would fighting terrorists to make them change their ways be terrorism?

Moriarty

18AD wrote:

"Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change."

Then would fighting terrorists to make them change their ways be terrorism?

It's hard to think of any conflict in the past 100 years that wouldn't qualify as terrorism under that definition.

Not saying that it's wrong, just wondering whether "dilution" of the word terrorism is a road worth going down. After all, if terrorism is successfully diluted, new words will be created or old words and terms distorted to replace it. The use of language like this always seems to be a subtle game of high stakes poker where everyone is drawing money on a maxed credit card.

Jackie laughlin

How about: Terrorism is political violence where the victim is not the primary target but is used to effect a wider target audience usually through careful orchestration of the mass media.

freddyfreeload

Congratulations on your grasp and faithful repetition of the trite Murdochian line currently being pumped out by our no-brow infotainment media.

And I bow to your knowledge on that other "brand" of terrorism. Perhaps you are an ex-Jihadist yourself.

However, I must beg to differ and agree with hobochris. If the west (more specifically Washington) truly wanted to remedy this problem, they would do two things: 1). examine history for any lessons it could learn, and 2). examine various diplomatic routes, before trying one or more.

They are doing neither of these things.

Rumsfeld and BUsh have already told us, "prepare for total war - this could take a generation to sort out."

Which translates as: "We don't want peace with terrorist in Muslim lands, because terrorism would then cease to be a pretext by which we can annex oil in Muslim lands, and further our stated geo-political goals of global pre-eminence.

And history teaches us two things about terrorists. Contrary to widly held opinions, though they may be populated by mindless thugs, ALL active terrorists groups have LEGITIMATE claims behind them. And the reason they are militarily active is that those claims are not being addressed.

If the grown ups in this situation, i.e. the democratically elected governments of economically and socially advanced countries, behaved like grown ups and said, "Okay, lets sit down and talk about it." A solution is possible.

History has shown us time and time again: address the issues, and you can solve the problem.

History has also shown us: you can kill terrorists, but you can't kill terrorism.

In fact all the past and current evidence shows that trying to wipe it out is the best way to make it grow.

Therefore, the current Washington policy can only be down to two reasons. Either...

1). they are all incompetent fools incapable of learning the lessons of history.

2). they are an oil and arms industry supported oligarchy pursuing a policy that will further the economic and political agendas of the world's richest organisations and individuals to the detrimant of huge swathes of their own and foreign populations.

I'm pretty convinced it's number 2.

ff

Zombrex

Moriarty wrote:

It's hard to think of any conflict in the past 100 years that wouldn't qualify as terrorism under that definition.

How about this

Terrorism is ..

the use of random and unannounced acts of large scale violence perpetrated against an unsuspecting victim or victims, in an attempt to force, through the threat of further acts, a social or political change in the population group of the victim that could not be achieved by force alone.


The last bit is important, as it what seperates terrorist organisations from modern day armies. A lot of of people like to claim that the British and American armies carry out terrorist acts, as to them terrorist seems to simply mean very bad acts. But it is important to remember that terrorist groups choose the tactic of terrorism for a specific reason, that being that they do not possess the ability to effect political change through force alone, where as a modern army most likely does.

Terrorism is a specific military tactic, one that most modern large national armies don't use, not because they are particularly more moral in their tactics but because most of the time terrorism doesn't actually work very well and a modern army has the force and ability that they don't need to use terrorist tactics anyway. They can effect change through force, they don't need to use the threat of random acts of violence

Terrorist organisations have to use the tactic of terrorism as they do not possess a large enough force to effect change otherwise

Jackie laughlin

Freddy,
All political problems cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. I'm not for a moment suggesting that Bush and company would want to try to find a solution by dialogue. However, talk requires a willingness to compromise. Compromise is a scare commodity. Moreover, a group or nation or minority may have a legitimate grievance AND it may be being quite disgracefully ignored but that cannot in all cases justify violence.

freddyfreeload

I agree, no cause justifies violence.

But what our experience in our own back yard shows us is that if you deny a cause a viable political arena in which to air its grievances, then it will use violence, justifiable or not.

And yes, compromise is vital. The thing is, that if you go back to the root of what Al Qaeda actual want, it's all pretty reasonable, and most reasonable people (including their past and potential victims) would not have a problem negotiating on/conceding virtually all of what they have stated they want, namely (if memory serves):

1. US troops out of Saudi Arabia (because of the birth and resting places of Mohammed).
2. US troops out of Iraq & Afghanistan.
3. A solution to the Palestinian problem that recognises Palestinian statehood and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
4. An end to Washington's foreign policy of intervention in the domestic affairs of Muslim nations.

Not world domination, nor the end of our western consumerist culture. Just for the most powerful nation in the world to stop kicking the fastest growing religion around like a dog it keeps tied up in a corner.

Personally, I think everything they want would only serve to further world peace.

Whereas, what the US wants: geo-political control of other nation's energy resources, is the biggest threat to world peace today.

freddyfreeload

Your definition makes no sense... is it a joke?

random: so planned and coordinated is okay?

unannounced: so give a warning and anything goes?

large scale violence: so a single bullet in someone's head is okay?

unsuspecting victim or victims: so the entire US population, who are basically expecting another atrocity at anytime, would be fair game then?

in an attempt to force, through the threat of further acts, a social or political change in the population group of the victim that could not be achieved by force alone:

what? an attempt to force something that couldn't be achieved by force!?!?

Sand

Grand Freddy, I accept you have a different opinion, and given this is the internet I dont expect you to change it with the presentation of facts.

Generally, Id argue that Jihadists are as much a threat to Muslims as they are to anyone else. Jihadists arent muslims as such. Theyre simply people who isolated some particular violent passages from the Koran/Haddith to forge a new cult. Their world view is similar to what you could do if you went through the Old Testement, the Book of Revelations and the rest of the Bible and underlined all the bits of about "smiting" the enemies of God and ignored all the other parts about loving thy neighbour.

Jihadists view Shias as herectics and happily murder them in their thousands. Also, youre post assumes that the Jihadists are simply a reflection of some mistaken policy by "washington/the west" and that if this policy is corrected then Jihadism will cease to exist.

Your post is a fairly arrogant dismissal of any non western philosophy or world view as merely a reaction to western philosophy or views. The views underlying Jihadist terrorism are simply shadows of western views by what I see in your post.

Do you accept its possible for someone to form a view of how the world should be that isnt merely a reaction to White House policy? If not, then theres little point continuing the discussion. Though I would be interested in what particular issues youd be willing to compromise on in your negotiations with Jihadists - The right to free religion? Freedom of speech? Equality between genders? Would you be willing to compromise on the universitality of human rights? Would you be willing to agree that muslim women deserve less rights than christian women? Whose rights exactly would you be willing to forsake for your own safety?

Not saying that it's wrong, just wondering whether "dilution" of the word terrorism is a road worth going down.

Its not, but apologists for terrorism have been working hard to build up their "freedom fighters" as legitimate soldiers, whilst denigrating legitimate soldiers as "terrorists".

Hence, clear defintions of terrorism like deliberate, premeditated attacks on civillians are avoided in favour of vague genralisations that can brand a backfiring car that startles a young child as an act of terrorism.

freddyfreeload

Hey, my mind is open, just present some facts.

Like what is a Jihadist? All Muslims practice Jihad, or personal struggle. I have a Muslim freind whose name is Jihad, he's the most peace-loving bloke you could ever hope to meet.

I agree that muslim fundamentalist terrorists are actually more of a threat to proper Muslims than they are to Western Christians. They loathe the enemy within more than the enemy without.

I don't agree they're a cult or cults of any kind. There is no singular or homogenous view of Islam, as there is no single or homogenous view of Judaism, or Christianity.

Jihadists view Shias as herectics

I think you'll find violent fundamentalist groupings amongst both Shia and Sunni Muslims, and Wahhabis, each of which views the other as heretical.

I guess my point is that the problem is too diffuse and complicated to imagine any way forward can be achieved by trying to bracket every Muslim who harbours a greivance with the West under categories like Jihadist, then writing them all off as mindless and beyond talking to.

Also, youre post assumes that the Jihadists are simply a reflection of some mistaken policy by "washington/the west" and that if this policy is corrected then Jihadism will cease to exist.

The problem the west has with Islam currently, is a product of Western/Washington policy, yes. Surely this is clear to all.

Your post is a fairly arrogant dismissal of any non western philosophy or world view as merely a reaction to western philosophy or views. The views underlying Jihadist terrorism are simply shadows of western views by what I see in your post.

No it's not. Well, it might have been arrogant. But it certainly isn't those other things. The full spectrum if Islamic opinion has existed almost since its very existence. What I'm saying, is that the very pressing crisis the West is now having with Islam is a relatively recent product of the West's own making. As I'm sure you know, the seeds of Al Qaeda were sown, watered, and nurtured by Washington.

Do you accept its possible for someone to form a view of how the world should be that isnt merely a reaction to White House policy?

Of course I do.

I would be interested in what particular issues youd be willing to compromise on in your negotiations with Jihadists - The right to free religion? Freedom of speech? Equality between genders? Would you be willing to compromise on the universitality of human rights? Would you be willing to agree that muslim women deserve less rights than christian women? Whose rights exactly would you be willing to forsake for your own safety?

I am a human rights activist, a member of Amnesty. I write letters to the Islamic and Western governments that deny people the rights you've listed.

But unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise, I'm not aware of an Islamic grouping of any kind that has demanded that any western nation rescinds any of its human rights.

Therefore negotiating with them wouldn't entail us compromising on those issues.

If we're talking about human rights within their countries, then that too is something for negotiation. We may not like the fact that some Muslim countries have poor human rights records, but we don't have the right to force them to change at the point of a gun. Just like we can't force America to abandon Camp X-Ray. So we try through peaceful means instead.

Quote:
Not saying that it's wrong, just wondering whether "dilution" of the word terrorism is a road worth going down.

Whose diluting the word terrorism?

Ultimately it boils down to the original posters question. How do you beat terrorism?

You can't kill it.

You can't lock it up.

You can't make it stop or go away.

But you can address its root causes. History has shown that to be the only way to deal with it.

ff

Jackie laughlin

Freddy,
I don't agree that NO cause justifies violence.

I also have problems with the notion of an Islamic State. It sounds like a Catholic State, only worse!

Theocratic states should be opposed. I don't want to put it any stronger than that because clearly a war to destroy it might do more harm than the theocratic state itself.

esskay

In 1938, President Roosevelt's close confidant Sumner welles praised the Munich argeement with the Nazi's and felt that it might lead to a "new world order based upon justice and upon law."
Shortly afterward While occupying parts of czechoslovakia Hitler explained that they were "filled with an earnest desire to serve the true interests of the peoples dwelling in this area, to safeguard the national indivuality of the German and Czech peoples, and to further the peace and social welfare of all." :eek:

It reminds me of Englands approval of the U.S.'s quest for global domination. The nazi's lead the way in using propaganda to influence large proportions of the population in order to proceed with what would normally be considered morally unjustifable. It's not the only comparison I found either

As the invasion of Iraq began the prominent historian and Kennedy advisor Arthur Schlesinger wrote that "The president has adopted a policy of 'anticipatory self-defence' that is alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbour, on a date which, as an earlier American President said it would, lives in infamy. Franklin D. Roosevelt was right, but today it is we Americans who live in infamy." He added that "the global wave of symapthy that engulfed the United States after 9-11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arogance and militarism" and even in friendly countries the public regards Bush "as a greter threat to peace than Saddam Hussein."

freddyfreeload

It's a shame you feel that there are some causes that justify violence. Just out of interest, which are they?

The problem with reserving the right to violence for a cause that may be dear to your heart, is that by doing so you give others de facto legitimacy to feel the same way about the causes dear to theirs. That's the root of our problem.

Over history people of all creeds and colours have resorted to violence in the name of religion, civilisation, trade, power, expansionism, nationalism and naked greed; all have led down the same painful path; all are wrong.

But if you're talking about self-defence, that's hardly a different matter. Self-defence is not a "cause", but a legitimate response to being attacked. As is forming part of a deffensive coalition to protect other people being attacked, e.g. UN Peacekeeping invervention.

I also have problems with the notion of an Islamic State. It sounds like a Catholic State, only worse!

It would sound worse to you, you're not a Muslim. I'm sure a Muslim would feel the same way about a Catholic state. Personally I find theocracy distasteful as well, but that doesn't empower me to go changing the way other nations run their business.

But when you say Islamic State, what do you mean? If you mean a country where Sharia is the law then I guess we're talking about the likes of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Quatar.

Well Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are highly cherished allies of the west. Which is indeed most revealing about the root causes of our current problem. It shows that Washington's issue with Islam is less ideological than it is geo-political.

Pakistan was and remains the traditional base for the Mujahedin, which in turn spawned Al Qaeda. Pakistan is also almost certainly home to more Al Qaeda members than any other country. All but one of the 911 bombers came from Saudi Arabia.

Why does the US make war on some Islamic theocracies and not others? It's nothing to do with women's rights, or human rights, it's to do with energy resources and geopolitical advantage.

In fact the US didn't really have a problem with the Taliban until they refused to sign the Unocal pipeline deal. Only after they re-neged on the deal did the sabre rattling (on both sides) begin.

Since the war of course, the pipeline is going ahead.

Theocratic states should be opposed.I don't want to put it any stronger than that because clearly a war to destroy it might do more harm than the theocratic state itself.

No, please do? You say they should be opposed, but how? At the point of a gun? Via trade sanctions? Through peaceful persuasion? Take Saudi Arabia as an example and demonstrate how you would oppose the theocratic system there.

And though I agree with you about theocracy, what gives us the right to tell them they've got it wrong and seek to change them.

This is what amazes me about this issue. We in the West run around in a panic in the belief Muslim's in Iran and other far flung locations want to bend us to their will, when clearly the reverse is actually the case. The west is in a constant process of cajoling, pressurising and bombing Muslims into doing things the Western/Christian way. This has provoked some of the more extrme among them to react violently. This is wrong, but not surprising.

If we lived in a world where an Islamic State was the most powerful nation, and was constantly fighting wars of domination andf regime change, then a violent Christian fundamentalist backlash would be occuring too.

Jackie laughlin

Freddy,
I hope you don't think that I support US foreign policy or that I would support a Christian theocracy.

I'd have to think long and hard about instances where violence was necessary. I'm thinking now about the Cuban revolution, the Sandanista defence of Nicaraguan democracy, anti-apartheid activists like Nelson Mandela, the Vietnamese invasion of Pol Pot's Cambodia.

You can't seriously adopt a position of absolute cultural relativism and abandon millions of people to Mullahs, Priests and despots. Female genital mutilation is an extreme example of an evil perpetrated in the name of culture.

You have to take sides or you will standby evil. All things considered, the western, welfare state and open society should be exported whenever possible.

Sure, we can't invade the likes of Saudi Arabia but we could send only women envoys who would refuse to sit separately. I'll think about other non-violent subversion. You've raised an interesting project.

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

Your definition makes no sense... is it a joke?

No, you just didn't read it properly, apparently....

freddyfreeload wrote:

random: so planned and coordinated is okay?

Planned and coordinated have nothing to do with random.

Terrorist attacks are random in that they cannot be predicted by those who are about to be attacked. In a normal war like situation an army will attack identified strategic possitions, which in turn are normally fortified by the enemy who also move civilians out of the area (or in the case of some dictators move civilians into the area).

Terrorist do not work like this because the point is that they could strike anywhere. If they limited their attacks to a specific target or region then the population would simply avoid that area, and the effect of terrorising them would be lost.

Terrorism for it to work must be kept random, because as soon as the enemy is able to predict your targets you have lost a key element in your terror campaign.

freddyfreeload wrote:

unannounced: so give a warning and anything goes?

No, give a warning and you have lost significant element of effictiveness. If you were told 3 days ago that a bomb is going to go off in St. Stephens Green would you be terrorised? Or would you just not go there today and let the bomb squad look after it?

Some terrorist organisations such as the IRA gave very limited warnings in an effort to minimise loss of life as that was deemed to be bad PR for them. But as Omagh shows that didn't always work, and the warnings were so brief as to still instill a sense of on edge terror and apprehension in the general population, as the warnings were too short to rule out the threat of death or serious injury.

freddyfreeload wrote:

large scale violence: so a single bullet in someone's head is okay?

Again it is not as effective. The point of terrorism is to instill the idea in the general population that it could happen to them too. Single assinations are considered a waste of valuable resources by most terrorist groups as assinations do not achieve anything like the effect of a large scale attack, and as such are not generally used in terrorist campaigns. That is not to say that a string of single assinations are not used, they were used to quite an effect by the IRA, but this would fall under both random and large scale violence.

freddyfreeload wrote:

unsuspecting victim or victims: so the entire US population, who are basically expecting another atrocity at anytime, would be fair game then?

They are the people a terrorist would attack if they wanted to effect political opinion in the US. Blowing up a train in Japan would have much less effect on the general US political feeling than an attack on US soil against US citizens. Even attacking a US army station or US naval carrier would also be not as effective in the aim of terrorising the largest population group, as attacking the general population, even in small numbers, in say a US city or town.

freddyfreeload wrote:

what? an attempt to force something that couldn't be achieved by force!?!?

Freddy are you just being argumentative for the sake of it? It is quite clear that the second "force" referrs to physical force.

The US army physically removed the Sadam government from power. This is a classic example of military force being used to alter the political and social systems of a country.

Most terrorist organisations do not have the option of using physical force to change a political system. So instead they use terrorism, believing that through the threat of future random attacks on unspecting victiums they can non-physically force a political change.

It seems rather baffling that you feel you can comment on terrorism when you clearly have very little understanding of the subject ....

freddyfreeload

I'd consider most of the examples you stated as acting either in self-defence or defence of others who are threatened, which I think I had said I felt was acceptable (and self-defence isn't a cause per se). Revolution is always a sticky one, but the mass of a population freeing itself from oppression and state terror counts as self-defence in my book too.

It should be pointed out however, that Nelson Mandela never advocated violence.

You can't seriously adopt a position of absolute cultural relativism and abandon millions of people to Mullahs, Priests and despots.

Not absolute perhaps, but equally, you can't discount cultural relativism. Your stance effectively says, we are right, they are wrong, we must change them. Do you see that if you give yourself the right to hold this view, you give a similar right to millions of others around the globe with opposing views to yours. A peaceful, reasonable Muslim woman in Indonesia could even now be writing on a chat board that: "You can't seriously adopt a position of absolute cultural relativism and abandon millions of people to western godlessness, profanity and degradation."

Female genital mutilation is an extreme example of an evil perpetrated in the name of culture.

I agree wholeheartedly. To the extent that in my opinion every time the Irish goverment deports a woman who will face circumcision on return to Africa, they are colluding in her torture. (It's not an Islamic practice by the way).

The point is that there are more African's who consider this barbaric than there are who practice it. We should be doing all we can to empower women (and men who oppose it) who live in the regions where it is practiced, to get their point across and change things. This can, is, and will work.

But if you march in with an army in the hopes of forcing them to change, you'll only entrench the practice and swamp the powers of change from within.

You have to take sides or you will standby evil.

Do you mean on female circumcision or on Islam?

All things considered, the western, welfare state and open society should be exported whenever possible.

How? And what justifies your position. In many Muslim countries, people (men and women) are quite happy living as they do. Don't you think they might consider us misguided? Do they have the right to try exporting their system to us?

What makes you right and them wrong? The very same thing that (in their eyes) makes them right and you wrong. It's all very Swiftian.

Sure, we can't invade the likes of Saudi Arabia but we could send only women envoys who would refuse to sit separately.

Single, unaccompanied women would not be granted any kind of diplomatic access in Saudi Arabia, in fact they'd be deported with the Arabic word for prostitute stamped in their passports. Barbaric, huh? And this is the West's top ally in the Arab world.

In fact SA has traditionally had one of the poorest human rights records in the world. Amnesty have campaigned against it for years. The trouble is that its a virtually banned subject in the media, because of the close relationship between it and the west.

But going back to your plan of western women trying to break down Eastern customs. I don't think this would be a good idea, for reasons previously stated. What would we make of an envoy of women from Pakistan coming here and trying to persuade Irish women to cover their bodies? I think we'd see it as foreigners meddling in our culture. Which is exactly what it would be.

The important thing here is that there are many, many women within Arab countries trying to change their own societies from within. If you really want to help and to effect real change, I suggest you join an organisation (there are plenty of them) who are working to support these women make the change happen themselves.

freddyfreeload

It seems rather baffling that you feel you can comment on terrorism when you clearly have very little understanding of the subject ....

ROTFLMAO!:D

What, are you a professor of terrorism studies or something?

ff

freddyfreeload

Terrorism is the unlawful use of, or threatened use of, force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

US Department of Defense.

That works for me.

...the unlawful use, and threatened use, of force against individuals and property to coerce or intimidate government and society to achieve political and ideological objectives.

Now that sound like the Iraq War!


ff

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

ROTFLMAO!:D

What, are you a professor of terrorism studies or something?

ff

No, but I seem to understand what terrorism actually is a lot better than you.

Your comments such as...

"so planned and coordinated is okay?"
"so give a warning and anything goes?"
"so a single bullet in someone's head is okay?"

..betray the fact that you hold to the very common but quite incorrect (and rather tiresome I must say) view that the description "terrorism" is simply a reflection of the morality of a given action.

Where did the "is okay" bit come from? Do you believe that if something is not terrorist in nature it is automatically an acceptable and justifable military action? If something is not classified as terrorist in nature does this some how makes this event, no matter what it is, better than an event classified as terrorist.

In reality the description "terrorist" is not a reflection of the level of morality of a certain action or group, at least not directly.

Terrorism is a specific military tactic. The use of terrorism is generally considered immoral by most states and governments as terrorism targets combataints and non-combataints alike for no particular immediate strategic purpose or goal. For example terrorist aren't blowing up a bridge to stop tanks moving to the front line, or bombing a power station to stop anti-aircraft guns firing.

But it is perfectly possible for an immoral and hidious miltary action to not be terrorist in nature.

Despite the rather silly sound bite calls against George Bush and Tony Blair, the last 2 Iraq conflicts were not terrorist wars, at least on the part of the British and US Army. Put simply the American Army did(does) not need to use the tactic of terrorism because they had overwhelming force on their side. That is absolutely no reflection on the morality of these wars, either way.

Any definition of "terrorism" that cannot seperate the emotive aspects of the event from its specific nature and characteristics, is largely pointless. You end up with a definition where terrorism simply means bad and non-terrorist simply means acceptable.

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

...the unlawful use, and threatened use, of force against individuals and property to coerce or intimidate government and society to achieve political and ideological objectives.

Now that sound like the Iraq War!

Groan .. no it doesn't. Not in the slightest.

The US Army did not intimidate the Iraq government out of power. They physically removed them from power.

Its the difference between a stalker leaving threatening phone calls until a person leaves their home, and the police (or criminals or whatever) breaking down your door and dragging you physically out of the house.

These are two completely different methods of achieving a similar goal. It would be incorrect (and ridiculous) to claim that in the second example you were intimiated to leave your home. You weren't intimiated you were physically kicked out.

Also it is not terrorism because it is unlawful. It is unlawful because it is terrorism. The tactic of terrorism has been deemed unlawful by most states and governments. But something can be unlawful yet not be terrorist in nature. Just because the Iraq war was unlawful that is no indicator to if it was or was not an act of terrorism.

freddyfreeload

No, but I seem to understand what terrorism actually is a lot better than you.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand a given subject. That sounds like someone who once told me I couldn't discuss religion because I'm an atheist.

But what's worse is that now you're telling me what I think!

The funny thing is you're quite wrong I don't use a moral yardstick to measure terrorism, I use a behavioural one. To me, anyone who uses any kind of violence or the threat of violence to force others to their will is employing terrorism, ergo, they are terrorists. The IRA, Al Qaeda, ETA, and yes, the Bush & Blair Governments. Clinton too, of course. I would go on but...

Where did the "is okay" bit come from?

Sorry, that's just me being sarcastic. I forget sometimes that it doesn't travel too well through cyberspace. Let me try it again straight this time.

You said...

Terrorism is the use of random and unannounced acts of large scale violence perpetrated against an unsuspecting victim or victims, in an attempt to force, through the threat of further acts, a social or political change in the population group of the victim that could not be achieved by force alone.

I would say that this def simply doesn't cover a wide variety of tactics used by terrorists, and is therefore unworkable. For the following reasons.

random... this is a value judgment from the victim's perspective. All attacks, even during legal war, seem random to the victim. From the attacker's viewpoint their own attacks are never random.

unannounced... as you've said yourself, the IRA used to issue warnings. The reason I object to your definition is that it effectively lets them of the hook for announcing their intentions.

large scale violence... what is and what isn't large scale? 10 deaths, 50, 3,000, or 1? What about property, infrastructure? As far as I'm concerned, violence is violence, large or small scale. Any violent act on any scale designed to effect political, social or religious change is terrorism. Again, I feel your def lets too many acts and too many groups off the hook.

In a later post you infered that you by large scale you meant sustained. However, this still doesn't fly for me. One act of terrorism, is still an act of terrorism.

perpetrated against an unsuspecting victim or victims... c'mon! all victims of all crimes, and indeed casualties of war, are unsuspecting. True, no one in the two towers on 911 would have suspected anything. But Israeli's wandering around their markets in Jerusalem are not unsuspecting. They are permanently suspicious of attack by terrorists. However, according to this part of your definition a suicide bomber in an Israeli marketplace is not a terrorist. I disagree.

in an attempt to force... a social or political change in the population group of the victim that could not be achieved by force alone... I'm sorry, I still don't get this one. I understand what you're saying, but it still makes no sense... IF you're talking about military force.

If what you mean is, "resorting to military force to effect social or political change that cannot be achieved through political, diplomatic or economic force." Then fine, I understand and (with some reservation) agree with that.

But you seem to be saying: "Its okay to use military force to effect social or political change as long as you can do it in an all out attack and not in dribs and drabs using the only means available to you." If that's what you're saying, then I have to disagree. That kind of thinking is insane.


Now, to get back to some of your (rather strange) questions.

Do you believe that if something is not terrorist in nature it is automatically an acceptable and justifable military action?

No, as I've stated before. The only time I personally consider military action justifiable is in self-defence, or to come to the aid of others unable to defend themselves. Plus, in certain circumstances, when the bulk of nation's population is suffering oppression, revolution is effectively self-defence.

If something is not classified as terrorist in nature does this some how makes this event, no matter what it is, better than an event classified as terrorist.

Not at all. My greatest concern with your definition, as I'm sure you've worked out, is that it lets certain Western countries off the hook for their bopmbastic, illegal bullying of other nations. (Bear in mind before you reply that I, and people like me, campaigned against Saddam's regime while the US and the UK were arming him to the teeth, even as he was gassing the Kurds).

Despite the rather silly sound bite calls against George Bush and Tony Blair, the last 2 Iraq conflicts were not terrorist wars, at least on the part of the British and US Army.

It was neither "silly", nor a soundbyte. Bush and Blair effected political and social change (not to mention ringfencing Iraq's oil reserves) through the ongoing threat of, and eventually, use of force. That fulfils the US state department's definition of terrorism. Plus, it was deemed illegal.

It was terrorism. Scale does not exempt it.

Put simply the American Army did(does) not need to use the tactic of terrorism because they had overwhelming force on their side.

So might is right?

If Al Qaeda recruited enough people to invade and conquer a country, would they have transcended terrorism?

Interestingly you seem to think of terrorism as purely tactical. It's strategic as well you know. Almost by definition. All causes are strategic in nature.

Any definition of "terrorism" that cannot seperate the emotive aspects of the event from its specific nature and characteristics, is largely pointless. You end up with a definition where terrorism simply means bad and non-terrorist simply means acceptable.

I think that's the exact problem with your definition. It implies that any action that falls outside it is somehow okay.

I have no problem with the US Defence Department's definition. And my own does not moralise, it simply covers all violence perpetrated with the intent of imposing political, social or economic change on a given population.

The US Army did not intimidate the Iraq government out of power. They physically removed them from power.

The US government did intimidate Iraq. From Bush senior to Bush junior. They intimidated, bullied, threatened, humiliated, used ongoing, sporadic and illegal air attacks against civilians between the wars, illegally administered a brutal sanctions policy, and reduced one of the most economically and socially advanced countries in the region to third world status. When all that failed, they started threatening and bullying again. Gives us those weapons you haven't got or we'll attack you! How much more intimidating does it get than that?

It would be incorrect (and ridiculous) to claim that in the second example you were intimiated to leave your home. You weren't intimiated you were physically kicked out.

The US army didn't just turn up one night and kick the door down. They left plenty of threatening messages first. (See my last comment).

Just because the Iraq war was unlawful that is no indicator to if it was or was not an act of terrorism.

It is one indicator. The other is the threat, followed up by the use, of force to effect political change and social change to their own advantage.

ff

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

Well, that's a matter of opinion.

Yes it is. The correct one :cool:

freddyfreeload wrote:

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand a given subject.

Agreed. But I claimed you didn't understand the subject because you seem to be defining terrorism as pretty much any immoral military act that induces terror.

By that definition the atomic bomb was terrorism, so was the holocaust.

There is a different (a big one) between a military action of force that also produces terror and an act of terrorism, as I've tried to explain.

freddyfreeload wrote:

But what's worse is that now you're telling me what I think!

I am basing this on your posts. If you posts are not actually what you think you need to make that clearer.

freddyfreeload wrote:

I don't use a moral yardstick to measure terrorism

Then what was the point of your rather tiresome "oh so if they do X, that is okay then" comments. Okay in what context, if not a moral one?

freddyfreeload wrote:

To me, anyone who uses any kind of violence or the threat of violence to force others to their will is employing terrorism, ergo, they are terrorists.

Well that would be a rather silly definition of terrorism. As I explained before terrorism is a specific military tactic. It is not simply the act of producing terror.

A bank robber will attempt to instill terror in the bank staff by shouting, waving his gun around, he might even shoot someone to show he means business. The bank staff will no doubt be terrorised into doing as they are told, which is exactly what the bank robber wants.

The bank robber is not a terrorist in any meaningful context of that word.

A person when faced with a burgler in there home will most likely attempt to scare away the burgler, possibly with the threat of violence or injury, hoping that such a threat will cause the burgler to think twice about staying in the house and fleeing.

A home owner faced with a burgler is not a terrorist in any meaningful context of that word.

A cat when faced with a threatening animal will arch its back, push out its claws and reveal its teeth and begin to make load high pitched noises. This action is meant to instill fear and terror in the other animal to intimedate the animal to back down and go away.

The cat is not a terrorist in any meaningful context of that word.

If you define terrorism as simply the act of instilling fear and terror in another for a specific purpose then the word loses all relievent meaning, and the list of what is and is not terrorism is extended to such an degree as to be pointless.

freddyfreeload wrote:

random... this is a value judgment from the victim's perspective. All attacks, even during legal war, seem random to the victim.

No, that isn't true at all.

For example Sadam knew exactly where the US Airforce were going to strike in Bagdad. Which is why these areas were heavily fortified and protected with anti-air craft guns (not that it made much different).

Randomness defies purpose. There is a military purpose in destroying an air base or a check point. Purpose can be predicted and anticipated. Random attacks cannot. Which is why terrorists use random attacks on random targets, and why conventional military oppreations consider these types of attacks immoral.

freddyfreeload wrote:

unannounced... as you've said yourself, the IRA used to issue warnings. The reason I object to your definition is that it effectively lets them of the hook for announcing their intentions.

As I explained the IRA did not issue warnings in time to prevent the attack, or death and injury from these attacks.

They were in all relievent meaning unannounced.

freddyfreeload wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, violence is violence, large or small scale.

Violence is violence, but me having a fight in a pub will not effect the wider population in any shape or form. But you can bet your life me blowing up the pub will.

I would define "large scale" as a violent act or series of acts big enough to be noticed and seriously concern the wider population.

For example the spate of gang land killings has grown to such a scale that people in Dublin are now seriously concerned that they or their family or friends may be at risk.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Any violent act on any scale designed to effect political, social or religious change is terrorism.

Thats my point.

A small scale attack is not designed to effect political social or religious change, since a small scale attack will not cause enough concern in the wider population to achieve this. So it isn't terrorism.

freddyfreeload wrote:

In a later post you infered that you by large scale you meant sustained.

It can mean sustained, in referrence in small scale individual attacks.

A small scale attack, such as an assination, will have very little effect on the wider population unless they attacks are sustained for a period of time.

But it doesn't have to be sustained, a single event can trigger as much concern in the population as a series of sustained events.

freddyfreeload wrote:

One act of terrorism, is still an act of terrorism.

True, but an isolated act of violence that has very little or no effect on the general population is not going to be an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of that act is to instill terror in another party.

For example a girl getting raped in a park by a gang land thug to send a message to her drug dealling boyfriend is not really an act of terrorism in any meaningful sense of the word. It would make a mockery of the terrorist laws if this person when caught by the police was charged with acts of terrorism. He would be charge with rape, and possibly intimidation.

freddyfreeload wrote:

perpetrated against an unsuspecting victim or victims... c'mon! all victims of all crimes, and indeed casualties of war, are unsuspecting.

Again that is not true.

The Iraqi people were not unsuspecting of the day the US Army was going to attack Iraq. The US announced the day to the public.

But for a terrorist to do so would defeat the purpose of terrorism. If an attack is announced so the population are expecting it it is much harder to instill a sense of concern or terror in the general population.

freddyfreeload wrote:

But Israeli's wandering around their markets in Jerusalem are not unsuspecting. They are permanently suspicious of attack by terrorists.

Would an Israeli man wander aound a market in Jerusalem if he knew the market was going to be blown up that day? I seriously doubt it.

freddyfreeload wrote:

However, according to this part of your definition a suicide bomber in an Israeli marketplace is not a terrorist. I disagree.

If you think that you are reading my definition wrong.

A suicide bomber is a perfect example of what is a terrorist -

His target by random.
The target holds no military or political significance and as such the Isreali people and army have no reason to fortify or evacuate it over any other market in Israel, or even suspect that an attack will take place there over any other place in Israel.

He is completely unannounced.
The bomber will not give away any indication of what he is planning at all to the public. Hamas (or who ever) will not give warning to the Isreali government or army that such an attack will take place in this market or when it will take place.

The act of violence will be large scale.
A bomb killing a large number of people at random will make all the headlines in all the papers and will shock and seriously concern all Isreali people.

The people in the market, along with the police and army, are unsuspecting.
If the bombing mission goes to plan no one will be aware of the bomber or his plan until it is too late. No one will have any reason to suspect the target and as such will have no way to predict or prevent that attack

The bomber is attempting to force political change...
The poltical goals of Hamas are long and complicated, some are achievable others nonsense (the complete destruction of Israel is more for the cameras than the military), but it is clear the bomber is blowing himself up for a specific purpose or goal.

..through the threat of further violence..
The actually market itself, or the people in it, have no military or political value. Blowing up the market and killing the people will not actually achieve any purpose by itself. The purpose is to instill the fear in the wider population that such attacks can come at any time in any place and against anyone, so the wider population are thinking "I could be next"

..that cannot be achieved through conventional force alone.
Hamas cannot force, through military strength, the Isreali people or army to do anything. They cannot invade the country, they cannot destory the infrastructure or remove the government.

(I added the conventional bit to avoid confuse between conventional military force and the force of terrorism, which is a social force, not a physical one)

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

I understand what you're saying, but it still makes no sense... IF you're talking about military force.

Hamas, or the IRA cannot physically force their enemies to do anything. They cannot roll into London with tanks and M16s and remove the Queen and the British PM from power while instilling their own system of government. They cannot physically force the people in Northern Ireland to be ruled from Dublin or physically force Dublin to rule Northern Ireland.

This is in contrast to say the US Army that can force through political change through physical force. The US Army physically removed the Taliban from power in Afganastan. They physically removed Sadam's government from power in Iraq. They don't need to use terrorism because they can just do it the old fashioned way, with lots of tanks and grunts and bulliets. Besides terrorism would not have worked in Iraq anyway since the population had no control over Sadam to start with.

All a terrorist group can do, by definition, is attempt terrorise the general population to such an extent that the general population decide to force their government to impliment the terrorist demands to get out of the state of terror. It is a social force, not a physical one.

This is one of the main reasons why terrorism is largely pointless against a dictatorship with strong control, since a dictator does not generally tend to listen to his population anyway, so them being terroristed or not is irrelvent (there are exceptions to this)

freddyfreeload wrote:

No, as I've stated before.

Then why do you insist on implying that I support any action that I do not deem as terrorist?

You have constantly said "oh, so its okay then" in your post, which getting very tiresome and rather silly.

From now on I'm just going to put a :mad: face beside any future comments that I support or approve of a military action so long as it is not terrorist, because really you are just making that cr@p up.

Unless you want to point out where I said anything, terrorist or not terrorist is "okay"

freddyfreeload wrote:

Not at all. My greatest concern with your definition, as I'm sure you've worked out, is that it lets certain Western countries off the hook for their bopmbastic, illegal bullying of other nations.

How does it let them "off the hook" if we have established that something can still be illegal and immoral even it is not terrorist in nature?

If I shot my wife and kids and then raped my next door neightbour that wouldn't be a a terrorist act by any definition, even your wide open one.

Does that mean I would be off the hook?

freddyfreeload wrote:

It was neither "silly", nor a soundbyte. Bush and Blair effected political and social change (not to mention ringfencing Iraq's oil reserves) through the ongoing threat of, and eventually, use of force.

Yes, and the "eventual use of force" bit rules them out of the definition of terrorist.

Bush and Blair did not force political change in Iraq by terrorising the general population of the country to such a point where they made their government comply with the demands of Bush and Blair. Under Sadams regin that probably would not have even been possible to do, since Saddam cared very little for the mood or feeling of the population at large.

Bush and Blair forced political change in Iraq through an overwhelming act of physical force. The literally physically removed each part of the Saddam government piece by piece.

It was not an act of terrorism, because the US Army don't need to use terrorist tactics to achieve anything, they can do it the old fashioned way.

freddyfreeload wrote:

That fulfils the US state department's definition of terrorism.

No it doesn't. It doesn't fit the US departments definition nor my definition (which I personally think is a better one)

The Iraq government was not intimidated through threat of violence to change. The Iraq people might have been intimidated (scared sh1tless) of the threat of violence but they had no power to change the government.

In the end the Iraq government was physically forced to change.

freddyfreeload wrote:

So might is right?

Ignoring this ... :mad:

freddyfreeload wrote:

If Al Qaeda recruited enough people to invade and conquer a country, would they have transcended terrorism?

No idea what you mean by "transcend," but they would not longer be using terrorist tactics. They wouldn't have to they could achieve their goals through military force.

Bin Laden would love to be in this situation. Terrorism is very costly for the return on investment in a mission, and is quite ineffective compared to other military tactics. Al Qaeda use terrorism because they have no other option, not because they choose to.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Interestingly you seem to think of terrorism as purely tactical. It's strategic as well you know.

Tactical and strategic have almost the exact same meaning.

A strategy is normally a combination of a number of tactical plans for an over all goal, where as tactics are the "right now" plan for a given situation.

You could consider each terrorist action a tactic, with the over all terrorist campaign the strategy.

freddyfreeload wrote:

It implies that any action that falls outside it is somehow okay.

Ignoring this one as well ... :mad:

freddyfreeload wrote:

The US government did intimidate Iraq.

They didn't intimidate the Iraq government out of power

freddyfreeload wrote:

They intimidated, bullied, threatened, humiliated, used ongoing, sporadic and illegal air attacks against civilians between the wars, illegally administered a brutal sanctions policy, and reduced one of the most economically and socially advanced countries in the region to third world status.

The sanctions policy was not designed to terrorise the general population into removing Saddam, and neither did it do this.

freddyfreeload wrote:

Gives us those weapons you haven't got or we'll attack you! How much more intimidating does it get than that?

Intimidation by itself is not terrorism.

My bus driver intimidates me, can I charge him with terrorism?

freddyfreeload wrote:

It is one indicator. The other is the threat, followed up by the use, of force to effect political change and social change to their own advantage.

If you follow up a threat with a use of physical force to effect political change you are not a terrorist organisation.

Terrorists would love (kill) to be able to actually be able to do this. They can't which is why they use terrorism in the first place.

freddyfreeload

Okay... perhaps we should dial this down a little. I've apologised for being sarcastic. I've not, to my recollection, insulted you. This is not, and should not, get personal.

Back to biz.

The IRA did physically force their enemies to the negotiating table. It's a matter of historical record. Ask any Unionist if the IRA forced the British Government into altering the political scenery in N.I. and they'll answer yes.

Al Qaeda/Mujaheddin & the Taliban did forcefully take control of Afghanistan by removing the Soviet regime with physical military force, yet they were, and still are, terrorists.

All a terrorist group can do, by definition, is attempt terrorise the general population to such an extent that the general population decide to force their government to impliment the terrorist demands to get out of the state of terror. It is a social force, not a physical one.

Yes, most of the time. There are exceptions, see above. The PLO in Gaza too.

Then why do you insist on implying that I support any action that I do not deem as terrorist?

I don't. My criticisms are of your definition, not you. It's too narrow, and frankly, unneccesary.

You have constantly said "oh, so its okay then" in your post, which getting very tiresome and rather silly.

Oh, so it's okay then... Woops, that tiresomely, silly, sarcastic streak again!

How does it let them "off the hook" if we have established that something can still be illegal and immoral even it is not terrorist in nature?

Governments don't like to look like terrorists, especially when they are declaring war on terrorism. Because by their own definitions, they are starting to look like terrorists, they are now seeking to widen those definitions. I see your definition as just this kind of widening. Therefore I rail against it. Apologies if this seems personal. Again, it's not you, it's the def I have a problem with.

Bush and Blair did not force political change in Iraq by terrorising the general population of the country to such a point where they made their government comply with the demands of Bush and Blair.

The US and Britain repeatedly tried to provoke/encourage the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. What do yuou think 10 years of illegally administered sanctions and illegal bombing raids were all about?

Moreover, they were also threatening the regime itself. Which is what terrorists do. Hezbollah threatening to wipe Israel off the map, for example.

Bush and Blair forced political change in Iraq through an overwhelming act of physical force. The literally physically removed each part of the Saddam government piece by piece.

As did the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, just before they changed their name to The Taliban.

It was not an act of terrorism, because the US Army don't need to use terrorist tactics to achieve anything, they can do it the old fashioned way.

I didn't actually accuse the US Army of using terrorist tactics. I accused the Bush Government of using terrorist tactics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddyfreeload
That fulfils the US state department's definition of terrorism.

You said: No it doesn't. It doesn't fit the US departments definition...

Yes it does...

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

It's right there in their own black and white ink.

It doesn't fit yours. But then yours is bloated, too broad, and unnecessary in the presence of more succinct and effective ones.

You could consider each terrorist action a tactic, with the over all terrorist campaign the strategy.

Quite. And in the case of Iraq, the US's overall strategic objective was to effect political change. They did so through the tactic of unlawful use of force. It was therefore terrorism.

The sanctions policy was not designed to terrorise the general population into removing Saddam...

I think you'll find it was. Madeline Albright certainly thought so.

Intimidation by itself is not terrorism.

No, but it is part of it, as you yourself have said.

My bus driver intimidates me, can I charge him with terrorism?

Only if he's unlawfully trying to effect political, social or economic change in you by shoving a bomb up your arse!

If you follow up a threat with a use of physical force to effect political change you are not a terrorist organisation.

...the "eventual use of force" bit rules them out of the definition of terrorist.

Okay, lets look at an actual example here...

In 2004 Bin Laden threatened the Spanish Government, demanding that unless they pull their troops out of Iraq, he'd attack Spanish people on their own soil. They did not pull out. Bin Laden then followed up his threat with physical force killing 170 people. The people of Spain then promptly kicked their government out and elected one that pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq. Spain ceased to have a problem with Bin Laden.

Now, are you saying that because he followed through on his threats with actual physical force, that this was not an act of terrorism?

Your definition says:
"The use of random and unannounced acts of large scale violence perpetrated against an unsuspecting victim or victims, in an attempt to force, through the threat of further acts, a social or political change in the population group of the victim that could not be achieved by force alone."

The problem with your quote is that it's possible to argue that it does not cover...

• The INLA campaign in Northern Ireland (it was not large scale)
• The activities of Michael Stone (he was a freelancer and not large scale)
• The Shankhill Butchers (not large scale, not members of any single identifyable group)
• The UVF, UFF and UDA campaign's in N.I. (Their core objective: maintainance of the Union, was entirely achievable through British military force alone)
• The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan (achieved by force alone)
• The Khmer Rouge (Year Zero achieved by force alone)
• Hammas Suicide Bombers (Their victims are not unsuspecting)
• All bomb attacks where sufficient telephone warnings are given (not unannounced)
• All attacks by paramilitaries on specific military targets (not random)

Putting all our emotions on the subject, my sarcasm and silliness and any rancour aside for a minute... do you not agree that the above list poses a problem?