Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News What is terrorism?

  1. Oct 13, 2004 #1
    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?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 13, 2004 #2
    Terrorism is causing terror , when people say 'stop terrorising the dog' they are calling you a terrorist.
    Well thats 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.
  4. Oct 13, 2004 #3
    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)
  5. Oct 13, 2004 #4
    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.
  6. Oct 13, 2004 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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 thats 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.
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2004
  7. Oct 13, 2004 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2004
  8. Oct 13, 2004 #7
    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.
  9. Oct 13, 2004 #8
    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.
  10. Oct 13, 2004 #9
    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?
  11. Oct 13, 2004 #10
    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
  12. Oct 13, 2004 #11
    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.
  13. Oct 13, 2004 #12
    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 thats 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.
  14. Oct 13, 2004 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    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?
    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.
  15. Oct 13, 2004 #14
    You guys dont 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 doesnt matter whether your American, anyone is ok just as long as im muslim right? Im just standing up for my brothers... :zzz:
    Ok enough, theres 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.
  16. Oct 13, 2004 #15
    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.
  17. Oct 13, 2004 #16
    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.
  18. Oct 13, 2004 #17
    omin, can you clarify/rephrase that?
  19. Oct 14, 2004 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, it appears to me that omin is saying that the definition of terrorism is precisely the opposite of the definition of terrorism. :rofl:
    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.
    You oversimplified both, but thats 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.
  20. Oct 14, 2004 #19
    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 recieve 21 virgins. My butt! Please excuse the rather abrupt feeling I have.
    Anyone else have any thoughts on Jihad?
  21. Oct 14, 2004 #20
    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?

    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook