News Terrorism: Weak vs Strong, Causes & Nuclear Weapons

[Microburst]

Is terrorism only terrible when weak practices it? (Irish against British / Palestinians against Israelis)

Would nuking Nagasaki’s civilian population be considered terrorism? considering Japanese military action was directed towards US military.?

What makes people become terrorist?

can you ask someone to give up nuclear weapons while creating new ones yourself? specially while having the stigma of only one ever using it?

 

[KaneOris]

Terrorism is causing terror , when people say 'stop terrorising the dog' they are calling you a terrorist.
Well that's the true definition.
Now unless your under the name of your country and you are using any military force you are known as a terrorist.

 

[fourier jr]

Terrorism is defined in the U.S. by the Code of Federal Regulations as: "..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)


so by that definition, that makes the United States a terrorist state; and what the US does to other countries is terrorism, while what other countries do to the US isn't. (except 9/11/01 of course)

 

[tumor]

Terror in the USA means evil Arabs.What we do to them is called liberation.
Simillar situation exist between Palestinians and Israelis.
Palestinians are always terrorists, Israelis are always fighting for peace.

 

[russ_watters]

Terrorism is defined in the U.S. by the Code of Federal Regulations as: "..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)


so by that definition, that makes the United States a terrorist state; and what the US does to other countries is terrorism, while what other countries do to the US isn't. (except 9/11/01 of course)

You'll need to be a little more specific about what terrorism the US has "done."

I will say, however, that the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in WWII can be considered terrorism by that definition - with the caveat that the rules of war were different then so it wasn't considered terrorism at the time, just like chemical weapons weren't illegal in WWI. Calling it "legal terrorism" is kinda an oxymoron, but that's basically what it was.

Regarding the morality of nuclear bombs themselves, again, a little objectivity and some history are in order. At the time, nuclear bombs were viewed simply as really big bombs. And that's a pretty accurate characterization. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan actually killed less people than similar bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, and London. The difference is simply that it only took one bomb for each city.

But like I said above, the rules of war have changed. Intentionally targeting civilians with anything is no longer acceptable. Also, with smart weapons, its possible to hit precisely the target you want - you don't have to bomb a whole city block to hit one building anymore. At the same time, nukes are more powerful - up to a thousand times more powerful. Handling that kind of power takes a lot of responsibility. It is precisely because the US is responsible that we haven't used a nuke since WWII.

Enter terrorists and rogue states. Iraq (Hussein) has demonstrated on the field of battle and in their own towns that they are more than willing to use these now unacceptable weapons. In addition, rogue states having WMD increases the chances that terrorists can get ahold of them.

 

[russ_watters]

Terror in the USA means evil Arabs.What we do to them is called liberation.
Simillar situation exist between Palestinians and Israelis.
Palestinians are always terrorists, Israelis are always fighting for peace.

Terrorism has an objective definition and that definition only fits the actions of one side of that conflict.

If you disagree with the first part (that "terrorism" has an objective definition), please explain why you don't want to apply the word consistently. I you disagree with the second part, please tell me your objective definition of "terrorism" and explain how Israel's actions fit it and/or the Arabs' actons don't.

 

[pocebokli]

hehe tumor don't forget about the evil evil arxis of evil.

the terrorist "countries" or groups are simply people who do not have a billion dollar budget for stealth technology, precision bombing and tactical nukes.

they are trying to defend their lifestyles and their culture as best as they can, since 1000 people with light armament can't stand up to even a small contingent of well equipped modern army they help themselves as they know.

one of the weapons that requires low budget is fear. i don't think that they would go around killing children in schools if they would have been just...left alone?

oh yeah but then economical and political interests come into play, and areas of influence, and oil. I'm sorry i wasn't paying attention. yeah that's completely righteouss. we have superior morals, superior culture and superior idiotism, thus that should have been our oil in the first place, dammit! american president has earned his right for iraq just with the dramatical acting he was and still is performing.

but when a modern army such as US invades a country such as iraq, trust me, that population is as scared as you were back on 11/9.

true terror is unscrupolous abuse of third world countries, and pictures of skinny children slowly dying, covered in flies, their parents watching helplessly, not being able to help... that is terror, my friends, but i doubt you have sufficient imagination and empathy to truly understand suffering and fear, so don't you go stick "terror" on every bad thing that happens to you. it wouldn't hurt us all if we experience some true terror, i think it would help us become more considerate and humane.

the west is the best they say. it is like a spoiled child running around with a handgun, stealing toys from unarmed children. it has certainly earned it's right to carry a handgun, but it is still spoiled and unconsiderate and that will pay back in time as such things always do.

the so called terror is simply the price we pay to expand our culture and influence, what, you want to pass free on such things? haha. i, too, would die for my country, if we were on opposite sides.

 

[pocebokli]

my point is stop with crying and hypocrisis like the spoiled kid mentioned. accept responsibilities for our actions and be aware that what is happening to us is well earned.

 

[pocebokli]

now, russ, is my explanation enough for you or are you going to pop out another part of your legal system that is, oh what a coincidence, adapted to defend OUR culture?

 

[tumor]

Whole damn war on terror thing is simply an excuse for elite and industralist to get rich and controll the world!
I never believed in Arab terror and whole 9/11 propaganda,except maybe for really tiny group of them now after USA attacked Iraq and israel occupies Palestine blow them selfs up but those are just incredibly desperate people.
REICHSTAG fire back in pre war Germany is in my view PARAMOUNT example on how to invent enemy/terrorist, 9/11 is just that.
There is only one definition for terrorist in my dictionary -USA/W.WORLD

 

[pocebokli]

exactley, and a crow won't eat out another crow's eyes. so they're hiding behind their bible thumping minions and perverted morals that are extremely adaptable for current capitalistic system hahahahaha keep your money and your rising GDP, i'll keep my courage and honesty instead, even if i go to hell, i'll be able to look straight into the devil's eyes with no regret, knowing that i haven't been lying to myself.

 

[tumor]

I'm telling you man, living here in N.America is like living in bizzaro world,
People are actually so naive and misinformed it boggles my mind,whatever TV says that's the truth,NY stock market is their God,and they work their asses off with almost no vacations to buy some stinking Hummer or new big screen TV ,on credit of course so they become prisoners to the Banks forever!Sheeps that's what I mean.

 

[russ_watters]

now, russ, is my explanation enough for you

Well, you didn't really answer the questions I posed, so I'll have to infer from your post that you choose to define "terrorism" differently according to what country you'd like to be able to apply it to. I don't accept that definitions are arbitrary things meant to be changed on a whim to suit your argument.

...or are you going to pop out another part of your legal system that is, oh what a coincidence, adapted to defend OUR culture?

Our culture? Is that what WWII was about? Chemical weapons treaties? The UN? Or are you trying to say that the West is somehow always wrong even though it is the West that is making these positive changes in legislated morality?

Whole damn war on terror thing is simply an excuse for elite and industralist to get rich and controll the world!
I never believed in Arab terror and whole 9/11 propaganda,except maybe for really tiny group of them now after USA attacked Iraq and israel occupies Palestine blow them selfs up but those are just incredibly desperate people.
REICHSTAG fire back in pre war Germany is in my view PARAMOUNT example on how to invent enemy/terrorist, 9/11 is just that.
There is only one definition for terrorist in my dictionary -USA/W.WORLD

That's over-the-top paranoid conspiracy theory and factually inaccurate ranting. If you want to have a rational discussion, by all means, start making rational arguments. Otherwise, this whole thing is whatever everyone feels like saying and not based in reality - and I'm out. My interest is in rational discussion(and judging from the wording of the first post, Microburst's as well).

The question in the first post boils down to: do people have a rational, objective definition of terrorism that they apply evenly? Answer: apparently not.

 

[studentx]

You guys don't mind if i convert to Islam and slaughter you like pigs do you? I mean, you just said you deserved it. Youre both American arent you? Actually doesn't matter whether your American, anyone is ok just as long as I am muslim right? I am just standing up for my brothers... :zzz:
Ok enough, there's obviously no getting thru to you guys. All i can say is the ppl who blow up our civilians do not represent the culture you think your standing up for. That culture hates the likes of you both.

 

[False Prophet]

Regarding definitions, I looked up "terrorism" in two dictionaries, and basically it means to scare people through force/violence for coersion, ideology, etc. So it's not the action that should be judged to see if it fits the definition, rather the intentions. Truman authorized the two bombs (and likely would have authorized the remaining ones had Japan not surrendered) for the purpose of ending WWII. The Iraqi rebels are using roadside bombs to fight back against coalition occupiers (no different than firing AK47's at them.) None of these are done to scare people, so none of them are "terrorism" by definition.

The 9/11 hijackers attacked with the specific intentions of sending a messege to the Western World and scaring the pants off of us, so it was terrorism. The kidnapper/decapitators are doing it for the same purpose, thus it's terrorism.

Bottom line: To know if the definition applies to an action you must know the MOTIVE.

 

[omin]

Terrorism is when an assault is made upon a group of people who are do not support a government who is within specific place and time area doing anything in a specific place and time area that is entropic to the human race.

Doctrine Bush is Terrorism. It pure Retard/Criminal Theory.

 

[False Prophet]

omin, can you clarify/rephrase that?

 

[russ_watters]

omin, can you clarify/rephrase that?

Well, it appears to me that omin is saying that the definition of terrorism is precisely the opposite of the definition of terrorism.

Regarding definitions, I looked up "terrorism" in two dictionaries, and basically it means to scare people through force/violence for coersion, ideology, etc. So it's not the action that should be judged to see if it fits the definition, rather the intentions.

You're right (mostly - I'd say its a little of both and I'll explain...), but that level of subtlety and reason is far beyond this thread. Good luck getting anyone (besides me) to respond to it.

Truman authorized the two bombs (and likely would have authorized the remaining ones had Japan not surrendered) for the purpose of ending WWII. The Iraqi rebels are using roadside bombs to fight back against coalition occupiers (no different than firing AK47's at them.) None of these are done to scare people, so none of them are "terrorism" by definition.

You oversimplified both, but that's ok because that's your perception of them. I see the two actions slighly differently. The reality is that while the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dropped for military reasons, the target was part military, part civilian, and part economic. So the characterization of the bombings is a mixture of terrorism and legitimate military operation.

With the bombings in Iraq, you can look at them individually, and the ones against US troops are legitimate military actions, but the vast majority of them (or, at least, the vast majority killed by them) are targeted at Iraqi civilians. Those are terrorism.

 

[Learning Curve]

Terrorism and the U.S. have a clear line between them. I'll explain...
Terrorism is like a blind target. They attack without notice and they don't take responsibility for their actions. They aren't very concrete in existence; they seem to hide from the fight (cowards...).

Now the U.S. is different. They do take responsibility for their actions. They don't attack something because it's stronger than them or it "doesn't believe in our morals" (Islams). They are very concrete. If you want to deal with us, here we are. We don't go hide in some cave because we can't take responsibility.


And I really think Terrorism is tied to the muslim religion because of their belief in Jihad. If they die in holy war (that can be complete BS) then they go directly to heaven and receive 21 virgins. My butt! Please excuse the rather abrupt feeling I have.
Anyone else have any thoughts on Jihad?

 

[Prometheus]

Terrorism and the U.S. have a clear line between them. I'll explain...
Terrorism is like a blind target. They attack without notice and they don't take responsibility for their actions. They aren't very concrete in existence; they seem to hide from the fight (cowards...).

Now the U.S. is different. They do take responsibility for their actions.

Please explain the responsibility that the U.S. takes that "terrorists" don't take. The U.S. refuses to yield to international pressure, so what exactly is the responsibility that they take?

They don't attack something because it's stronger than them or it "doesn't believe in our morals" (Islams).

Sure.

If you want to deal with us, here we are. We don't go hide in some cave because we can't take responsibility.

Are you joking with us? You can't be serious, can you? "If you want to deal with us, here we are. Don't be afraid to face us just because we have an incredible and overwhelming superiority in firepower and weaponry." "We marched across the world to invade your country with overwhelming weaponry, and you have the choice of standing up and fighting, so that we can kill you easily, or hiding in a cave, in which case we can claim that you are terrorists, whereas we, the initiators of the violence, are not." Sure.

 

[Prometheus]

I see the two actions slighly differently.

With the bombings in Iraq, you can look at them individually, and the ones against US troops are legitimate military actions, but the vast majority of them (or, at least, the vast majority killed by them) are targeted at Iraqi civilians. Those are terrorism.

I see the actions slightly differently. We invaded Iraq. Some Iraqis do not want us there. They have little hope of confronting us directly. The little hope that they do have is in a different kind of war. You then label it as terrorism. You think that they should take a stand and let us kill them, or else they are terrorists. Perhaps they consider that killing Iraqi civilians is an unfortunate necessity in order to achieve a military objective. Such thinking would be identical to your assessment of the atomic bombs in Japan, would it not?

In Japan, extremely large numbers of civilians were killed for a greater military objective. We had the option of only targeting military objectives, but we did not, because we thought that killing large numbers of civilians would lower the death toll, particularly ours, in the long run. Iraqis are targeting individual and small numbers of civilians. They do not have a choice, as we had in Japan. Why do you characterize it as terrorism, as though that is the whole story?

Can you envision a way for Iraqis who do not want American occupation forces to fight against us in a manner that has a prayer of winning and which you would not characterize as terrorism, but rather as freedom fighter or some other less negative terms?

 

[studentx]

I see the actions slightly differently. We invaded Iraq. Some Iraqis do not want us there. They have little hope of confronting us directly.

The US also has little hope of confronting carbombers, suicidebombers or any terrorists directly doesn't it? How should they fight it? If they fight it by decapitating civilians and blowing up schoolbuses, wouldn't you characterize them somewhat negative?

 

[Prometheus]

If they fight it by decapitating civilians and blowing up schoolbuses, wouldn't you characterize them somewhat negative?

They do, and I would. However, I think that using meaningless words such as terrorist only for purposes of their negative connotationa is intellectually dishonest. We invaded Iraq, and some people are fighting against us. They are not all terrorists. They are killing some civilians on purpose. We are killing far more civilians, and the fact that we pretend that it is not on purpose does not make it any more civilized. The characterization of them as terrorists and us and liberators is intellectually completely dishonest, in my opinion.

 

[False Prophet]

So the characterization of the bombings is a mixture of terrorism and legitimate military operation.

Nagasaki was selected as a target last minute, the crew flying a long time before they knew who they were going to kill, so the target would be most favorable based on weather conditions. Economic damage and military damage were the other primary considerations. I don't think Truman sat around thinking we need to destroy as many factories, tanks, and children as we can. It's not oversimplified, it's just simple. It's not terrorism based on Truman's intentions. I know he's a president before my time, but I don't want to think of him as a terrorist (honestly I'm not so sure!*) so it reconciles with my literal definition (based on his motive). You are right though, others may not see it in that light, and would view it as terrorism due to the civilian casualty element.

*I know Hiroshima was a little more "planned out" than Nagasaki, and I don't know if this is true or not, I only began to really like history about a year ago, please advise:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hiro/target.htm
The Target Committee also recommended on May 31, 1945, "that we should seek to make a profound psychological impression on as many of the inhabitants as possible."
In Iraq, insurgent suicide bombers blowing up Iraqi police stations and security forces at checkpoints, etc. are simply fighting against occupation (these forces are coaltion trained to install new democracy). These are regular military actions, just like Japanese Kamikaze pilots in WWII Pacific. I'll bet Bush would call these actions "terrorism" and he would be wrong. What about car-bombing a recruiting center? Targeting potential enlistees before they sign on the line I would consider terrorism, they would like to scare people out of enlisting. But I can see the rebel's point of view; it's a way to fight back as a function of Jihad. Sabatouging oil pipelines is simply economic warfare, which is a part of other wars in history as well.

 

[Microburst]

Terrorism is causing terror , when people say 'stop terrorising the dog' they are calling you a terrorist.
Well that's the true definition.
Now unless your under the name of your country and you are using any military force you are known as a terrorist.

War causes terror? & kills civilians, women and children (non combatants)?

 

[Microburst]

I find spin doctors in US media absolutely amazing, how they take one thing and “morph” it into something completely different. For example the original issue with Osama (as I understand it best) was, he wants US military out of Muslim Holy lands (AKA: the gas stations) and Israelis out of Palestinian areas. But somehow, now it’s matter of “they” hating our freedom, and liberty and what not… I find act of 9-11-01 absolutely repulsive, inhumane and by any definition terroristic...

On the other hand, I find USA doing the same in a different format, instead of resolving the real issues.
Even in presidential debits, Mr. Bush & Kerry both discussed going after terrorist, but no one wants to discuss why do these Arabs / Muslims do this stuff? Thus my 2nd question ? Why do people become terrorist, in my humble opinion, this transformation happens due to lack of option and extreme injustice.

I think real solutions will require real compromise, and why should one compromise while one has the upper hand militarily / financially and geopolitical. I think the real changes will come when the world runs out of fossil fuels.

 

[russ_watters]

I see the actions slightly differently. We invaded Iraq. Some Iraqis do not want us there. They have little hope of confronting us directly. The little hope that they do have is in a different kind of war. You then label it as terrorism.

Where that logic falls apart is that the majority of the terrorists in Iraq aren't Iraqis fighting an invasion, they are foreign terrorists fighting the US and trying to undermine the development of a stable government in Iraq. But hey, if there actually was a legitimate "resistance" in Iraq, I'd agree with you.

You think that they should take a stand and let us kill them, or else they are terrorists.

Well actually, I think they should just stop standing in the way of civilization happening in Iraq.

Perhaps they consider that killing Iraqi civilians is an unfortunate necessity in order to achieve a military objective.

No, killing Iraqi civilians is one of the main objectives.

Such thinking would be identical to your assessment of the atomic bombs in Japan, would it not?

Its close, but unfortunately, it isn't factually accurate.

In Japan, extremely large numbers of civilians were killed for a greater military objective.

Yes, and how is Japan doing today? Did we have anything to do with that? Oh, and btw, who started that war?

We had the option of only targeting military objectives, but we did not, because we thought that killing large numbers of civilians would lower the death toll, particularly ours, in the long run.

Only half true, but I'll let it go...

Iraqis are targeting individual and small numbers of civilians.

Ok, I guess 50-100 is your idea of "small." To me that doesn't make it ok.

They do not have a choice, as we had in Japan.

There are always other choices. They could choose not to stand in the way of civilization happening. They could choose to not stand in the way of peace.

Why do you characterize it as terrorism, as though that is the whole story?

Because that is the whole story. Don't pretend there is some righteous goal here because there isn't. The goal is death, destruction, and disruption.

Can you envision a way for Iraqis who do not want American occupation forces to fight against us in a manner that has a prayer of winning and which you would not characterize as terrorism, but rather as freedom fighter or some other less negative terms?

Yeah - it would start with not attacking other civilians. Or better yet, it would start with a vote.

But here's a question for you: if you are fighting for a cause that has no prayer of succeeding regardless of what you do, how will you choose to fight for it? Would the fact that most people don't want what you want affect your actions at all? In the US, we've had one civil war based on people refusing to accept the opinions of others. Beyond that, every transfer of power has occurred peacefully. And in the US, people don't kill each other over political beliefs. Isn't that a better way?

And by the way, since you want to do the Japan parallels, would you consider it a good thing if in 40 years, Iraq was the world's 3rd leading economic power and a peaceful, prosperous democracy? Or do you think a dictatorship where order is kept via dropping people into plastic shredders (which, on the plus side, saves them the pain of starving to death) is a reasonable form of government?

 

[tumor]

Sorry if I veer little bit off topic but remember guys that history is written by the victors,and I hope in the near future we will know who are the real terrorists are.
From what I see, USA and the west ALWAYS stood directly or indirectly behind every terrorist attack around the world.

PS how come there are no pygmies terrorists or new guinea/papua aborigines terrorists?.because their world and their close knit society is relativly intact and untouched by greedy western hands and not tainted by materialistic religions( unfortunatelly not for long).simple like that.

 

[Amir]

Russ what you don’t see are the proxy controls.
tumor: good point

 

[fourier jr]

Someone asked what the US has done that is terrorism. I say most of what the US does is terrorism. Many other countries are guilty also of course (including Canada), but none terrorize to the extent that the US does.