1. What is terrorism? There are hundreds of definitions floating around. The backbone of the meaning of the word is any act meaning to inspire fear in order to achieve political objectives. From here, it gets more debatable. Since it is a pejorative term, naturally groups would not want their actions to be considered "terrorist."
here is a definition I like.




2. Is terrorism justified? Since Ive just given a rather broad definition of the term, lets look at a few specific cases. Im sure most Americans feel as though we were the "good guys" in the cold war. In the end, we defeated the evil empire. Along the way, however, we employed methods that were undeniably terrorist in nature. Are these acts justified? (Id like to point out that I am not attempting to bash the US, but it seems to be a more interesting question when we look at what we ourselves have done.) In an effort to stop the spread of communism, we supported police states in South America, knowing full well that they commited state terrorism against their citizens. The CIA provided assistance in the overthrow of democratically elected president Salvidor Allende, and provided a list of suspected communists for the new regime to round up and kill. We trained the Contras to kill peasants because we didnt like the Sandanista's way of doing things. Although we didnt get our hands dirty, these are clear acts of terrorism. Hell, if you go back far enough, our entire country is founded on terrorism against Native Americans during our westward expansion. The point of this isnt to **** on the US of A. I want to know what people think about our own use of terrorism and its morality.

3. What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Ive often noticed that the word is used much more often for killings with low-tech weapons. to me, Terrorism is partially about killing civilians. Why then, are Palastinians considered the terrorists, when the Israeli's have killed so many more civilians? I think parially its because of the non-offical nature of Palastinian groups, but also becuase Palastinians fight using homemade bombs while the Israelis fight using jets.

Anyways, your thoughts?

Well, people beleive that any nation not their own, that if they are not on your side, then they are presumably, the bad guy.

Any nation can be considered a terrorist, but Americans will most likely not consider themselves terroists because they live here.

Is it not every nation's way of thinking that they are the "good guy"? Then aren't we all terrorist's to other nations?

This could go on and on forever, no one nation/person/nationality is right in the way they think. The only thing you can hope for is that every is on everyone's side. We may not be right, but I guarantee that's the only way...or we all kill ourselves.

1. Terrorism is a word thrown around far too much today. Many entities use fear to obtain political objectives. Why does the Terror Alert Level in the U.S always stay at yellow or orange? Terrorism today is mostly used to describe organizations or people using violence to get what they want, whether prisoners, sovereignty (in the case of Chechnya), money, whatever.

2. I believe that terrorism is effective, but justified? I'm not so sure. If a government or organization has wronged you or your people, and terrorism is the only way to regain what rights or things that are rightfully yours, then I could see it as being justified.

3. In many regards, terrorist vs. freedom fighter depends on which side you are. Do the terrorists and their supporters believe themselves to be terrorists, when they believe what they are doing is just and righteous? Probably not. Freedom fighters would probably target the occupying forces, or target government/military targets. If you blow up a crowded market in the middle of Baghdad, the penultimate of "soft" targets, that would be something I'd consider a terrorist act.

To me, terrorism is anyone who uses anything to hurt, send a message, or act in the wrong way. Terrorism is something that is used, ususally, whenever one side is angry with another and both are very conflictious. For example: Nowadays, we're fighting a war against terrorism. The terrorist group(s) are of middle easter descent. Basically, we're fighting a war against Muslims, Arabs, (brown people). The perception that a lot of people get is that all muslims and brown people are terrorists. Why? It's because all they see in the news is brown people suicide bombing, blowing **** up, and committing acts of terror. Terrorism can be as small an act as destroying an item, something that doesn't belong to you, and just abuse ****, or as big as what you saw on 9/11. Terrorism is just anything, for that matter, one or a group does that is against the general good. However, some people may think that suicide bombings, blowing things up, etc. is not terrorism. Those people who believe that, are the ones doing so. Terrorism is viewed differently by everyone. It's in the eyes of the beholder to decide what is and isn't terrorism.


No, terrorism is not justified, in my opinion. However, others think that acts of terror is justified because they've gone through the same pain and suffering and just decided to use it themselves to give it a try, maybe it'll work for them. Where do terrorists get the idea of using terrorism for their benefit? They get it from the past. They use it as a last, desperate move. They don't know any better. They've been brought up and taught this way. The only thing they know is what their elders have told them. The only thing they know is what they see everyone doing. If they see that, they'll be more likely to do the same thing. So for them, yes, it is justified.


No, once again, these acts are not justified. I'm almost positive to other countries, we appear to be the terrorists and the big, bad guys of this world. That's probably why we have such a big target, why this country is always getting attacked, and so forth. However, they're afraid of us because we're too powerful and they know we can destroy them, but that doesn't matter to them. All that matters is just weakening us, until we start to deteriorate, and then finally fall apart. We were founded on terrorism? I think there may be some truth to this. If there is, then you can say anything is terrorism. Ugh, I forgot what I was going to say (got distracted 2 hours, booo). But, in a nutshell, its not justified, and the US has done wrong to use it and have other countries use it sneakily so that they won't be on the radar. Though, had we, other countries, etc. not use terrorism in the ways that we've done, then the world would be a different place. Would the united states be as powerful as it is today? I don't know. (sorry this paragraph thing that i just wrote doesn't make sense at allllll).


In all honesty, I think there is no difference. On the other side of things, (from their prespectives), we're the terrorists and they're the freedom-fighters. It's just a never ending loop that can't be solved. Are we freedom fighters? Sure, we're helping ourselves, and getting oil while we're at it!! But seriously, why are we doing this? Why are we going through all these wars and ****? Why can't the united states focus on its own country for once instead of going out and trying to save the world? To be honest, I don't know. Will someone enlighten me? We're not freedom fighters to a lot of people. To a lot of people across the world, we're just a country who can't seem to handle things for themselves and just acts on everything and plays both sides of the battle, etc. To them we are the terrorists because we've killed soo many civilians, so many buildings, so many times we have acted wrong and done the wrong thing. To them, they are fighting a war for freedom. They want to be freed from all this **** that's happening, and all they know how to respond is to attack back, to suicide bomb themselves, to use warfare, using homemade bombs, etc. We usually think that is terrorism, when other countries fight each other and catastrophes happen on both ends, etc. But is it really? Do we really know what terrorism is? We all think it's brown people. Whenever we see them, we just assume they're terrorists beacause all of "their people" blow **** up, terrorize things. To me, terrorists are the people who do their own thing, purposefully, knowingly, do things that they know will hurt innocent people and cause major destruction. It's something that will always happen and we won't be able to stop ever. There are just people in the world that are like that. Can we stop them? No, I don't think so. Can we try? Yes, we can try and try hard as hell, but the best we can do is weaken them, have them go under the radar for several years, then pop back up again and you'll see 9/11 all over again. The war on terrorism is something that will never be won. It's something that has been sooo controversial and so expensive, it's just a waste. Innocent people have died, many, many people have died on both sides. The "terrorists" are people who have been brainwashed and are doing things unknowingly because this is all they know...this is the way they've been brought up. They know no other way. Can we really blame them for doing these things? Well, of course, they bombed us, so we should bomb them back. But in reality, they've been getting bombed and attacked for years and years and we don't do anything. Then something happens where we get attacked, so we wage war on everything, basically, because everything is terrorism, in a way. I'm not going to go any further because I'm getting off topic and distracted greatly by things. But basically, terrorism isn't justified. Everyone practices terrorism. It's in the eyes of the beholder to decide who/what is and isn't terrorism. It's just a common part of life. We can't stop it and we won't. No one can. It can only be weakened.

I apologize for the repetitions, the incoherency, and the going off-topic. I became extremely caught up in something important and my mind just trailed off....)

I think terrorism is as the definition says, an act with the intention of creating fear and tension to accomplish a political agenda... it is not what appears to be the common use of the word, which is just anything harmful. Oddly enough, not every time someone maliciously harms people is terrorism. I think that's absolutely ridiculous, I even heard of a school shooting a while back being possibly qualified as a terrorist act, when it had nothing to do with it.

All is fair in love and war... and I suppose war is the only political option there. Still, fear is a powerful weapon, and like all powerful weapons, it should not be resorted to unless the need for it is great.

Assuming we're talking about two groups of people doing the same things but with different names... a freedom fighter is a terrorist on your side.

Seems clear in my mind...terror is simply terminating innocent lives to further a radical cause, in most cases pursued by fundamentalists who misunderstand their belief (either religious or political). The larger terror entities, AL Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are fairly easy to recognize but the smaller entities (widespread through Africa and parts of Europe) are more sinister.

I agree that terror and terrorism needs to be engaged directly where ever found and defeated, due to its affect upon the innocent. Terrorists are generally and almost universally cowards, who fight with non-military doctrine and generally less than honorable actions in every instance.

If terror could be addressed via democracy it would be fairly easy to address but through proven circumstance it cannot. That is why in the final analysis, based on the best anti-terror experts testimony, terrorists need to be dispatched, killed, and terminated, for the benefit of mankind.

IntheNet

terrorism? seems to me that if folks in country "x" have an issue w/ the "oppressive regime" of country "x", the target should be the government of country "x". do disgruntled citizens start off as revolutinaries and become terrorists because not enough of their fellow countrymen are willing to pick up arms and overthrow their governemnt and thus resort to blowing up buildings, institutions, or groups of citizens in a game of "catch me if you can"?

in my eyes, the situation becomes extremely different when a "freedom fighter/terrorist" from country "x" decides to kill folks from country "y" in country "y". that is nothing more than an invasion and an act of war. for instance, this business today can hardly be considered an a terrorist act. people boarding a plane in england w/ the intention of blowing up the plane bound for the u.s. is an invasion and an act of war. the distinction b/n a commercial plane and a troop transport plane and the distinction b/n a uniform and a pair of jeans is patently superficial.

it seems to me that terror is a means of a revolution intranationally. in other words, and not to single out anyone, if a citizen of egypt has a problem w/ the mubarek government, the target should be the mubarek government. if the egyptian citizen gets on a plane and goes to iraq to blow people up in iraq, he is an invader making an act of war.

two things seem significant to the collapse of these concepts. it is a convenient shorthand to avoid the use of the "w" word (war). second, it gives the host government "plausible deniability". given the possible "unintended consquences" of war, we can all avoid the uncomfortable word war and live in a polly anna state of bliss that no one except for a "few crazy radicals" wish to do us harm in country "y".

p.s. not too happy w/ my explication here. i shouldnt write when i am tired.

I think a good definition of terrorism is, politically induced crime.

I agree. It is the only definition that is logically tenable. After that point, anything you try to add turns the definition political or partisan.

Good question.

All I will say is that our western nations have a long history of actually using the tactic, so to condemn terrorism as a tactic is to condemn virtually every nation in the world today and every nation in history. Terrorism has always been used by States, groups and individuals throughout history.

Who's side are you on? That is the answer.

The term has now apparently become meaningless in any sense except the political now - it is a term of propaganda - "us or them".

terrorism: an act perpetrated by a disaffected individual or individuals who do not have enough popular support to organize an revolt or overthrow of their government or occupying government and who lack the brain capacity to find a means of accomplishing his/her/their political goal w/o resorting to the slaughter of innocent people.

when a socalled terrorist/freedom fighter/murderer attacks the citizens/people of another country w/in that country's borders, it is nothing less than an act of war.

to wit, tim mcveigh's was a terrorist; a us citizen who attacked a us target inside the us. bin laden and his band of merry men committed an act of war on the us on 9/11 (putting aside conspiracy issues).