- #1
Adam
- 65
- 1
Is it terrorism if a group attacks civilians in the course of trying to achieve some political, idealogical, or religious objective?
Is Attacking Civilians for a Cause Considered Terrorism?
- Context: News
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers around the definition of terrorism, particularly in the context of attacks on civilians aimed at achieving political, ideological, or religious objectives. Participants explore various scenarios and perspectives on what constitutes terrorism, including the implications of intentional versus collateral civilian casualties.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants argue that attacks on civilians are considered terrorism if the deaths are intentional, citing examples like the 9/11 attacks and other incidents where civilians were deliberately targeted.
- Others suggest that civilian deaths resulting from formal warfare or invasions may not qualify as terrorism if they are collateral damage, indicating a distinction based on intent.
- One participant expresses frustration with the voting options, stating that neither "yes" nor "no" adequately captures the complexity of the definition of terrorism.
- Another participant characterizes terrorists as cowards who do not confront their opponents directly, contrasting this with historical events where civilian casualties were known and understood within the context of war.
- Several participants mention issues with the voting process, indicating confusion or mistakes in their selections.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants do not reach a consensus on the definition of terrorism, with multiple competing views presented regarding the intentionality behind civilian casualties and the broader implications of such actions.
Contextual Notes
The discussion reflects varying interpretations of terrorism, highlighting the dependence on definitions and the subjective nature of intent in assessing actions against civilians.
- #2
Clausius2
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 1,433
- 7
I cannot vote here. If the civilian deaths are collateral to a formal war or invasion, sure it is done (I hope so) accidentally.
If civilian deaths are intentionally resulted as a part of an unexpected attack (i.e. WT Center 911, Beslan, Madrid 311, Moscow subway, E.T.A.'s innocent victims, I.R.A.'s innocent victims), then it is terrorism.
The terrorism is the art of killing without preventing the civil people of an attack. If I see here in Madrid the Morocco army, I will run away because you are able to identify them. A terrorist is an un-identifiable man. This is the difference.
If civilian deaths are intentionally resulted as a part of an unexpected attack (i.e. WT Center 911, Beslan, Madrid 311, Moscow subway, E.T.A.'s innocent victims, I.R.A.'s innocent victims), then it is terrorism.
The terrorism is the art of killing without preventing the civil people of an attack. If I see here in Madrid the Morocco army, I will run away because you are able to identify them. A terrorist is an un-identifiable man. This is the difference.
- #3
studentx
- 7
- 0
I accidentally voted yes, could the moderator substract one from yes and add it to no 
- #4
Smurf
- 497
- 3
I didnt vote, the question is too open-ended like Clausis said.
- #5
Artman
- 1,507
- 40
I voted no here, but only because the choice was limited to only yes and no. Yes does not necessarily fit the definition. No does not either.
Terrorists are cowards. They don't stand toe-to-toe with an opponent. They stand behind them with their heads covered by a hood, holding a knife to their victim's throat and telling the world that they better do what they ask or else.
Victims of the bombs that hit Japan knew who dropped them and they knew exactly why (they were told to surrender unconditionally or else the bombs would be dropped). If they chose not to surrender, they could have continued to wage war.
Terrorists are cowards. They don't stand toe-to-toe with an opponent. They stand behind them with their heads covered by a hood, holding a knife to their victim's throat and telling the world that they better do what they ask or else.
Victims of the bombs that hit Japan knew who dropped them and they knew exactly why (they were told to surrender unconditionally or else the bombs would be dropped). If they chose not to surrender, they could have continued to wage war.
- #6
Evo
Staff Emeritus
- 24,114
- 3,277
I don't seem to have that much power.studentx said:I accidentally voted yes, could the moderator substract one from yes and add it to no
- #7
GENIERE
to generate a "gotcha" 4th thread...