News Is Attacking Civilians for a Cause Considered Terrorism?

[Adam]

Is it terrorism if a group attacks civilians in the course of trying to achieve some political, idealogical, or religious objective?

 

[Clausius2]

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.

 

[studentx]

I accidentally voted yes, could the moderator substract one from yes and add it to no

 

[Smurf]

I didnt vote, the question is too open-ended like Clausis said.

 

[Artman]

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.

 

[Evo]

I accidentally voted yes, could the moderator substract one from yes and add it to no

I don't seem to have that much power.

 

[GENIERE]

to generate a "gotcha" 4th thread...