how does one define a terrorist?

Post Reply New Topic

It maybe to you Yanks and Canadians, but over here we've been living with terrorism for decades. First the IRA, now these Muslim extremists. The definition is still roughly the same: a terrorist group is a political organisation at sub-state level that uses violence to further its ends. The IRA were looking to kick the British government out of Northern Ireland; the Muslims want to influence our foreign policy in Iraq. Of course, we have the animal rights nutters over here, too.

Also, I think terrorism connotes that the actions involved are unreasonable, and disproportionate. Sometimes killing is not unreasonable or disproportionate. That's obviously subjective; but it's the majority who get to decide whether we're taking terrorist of freedom fighter.

I'm not condoning their methods and tactics, but the IRA has a legitimate cause. Ireland and Scottland, as well as Honduras and areas of South Africa. America has it's colonies too, Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa, but they prefer to remain colonies, infact puerto rico has been trying endlessly to be accepted as America's 51st state.... both Ireland and Scottland (and parts of Africa) have spent their national histories trying to become independant from England, I find it sad that in the 21st century England still feels it needs colonial conquests.
I don't condone IRA's methods and tactics, but I do condone their cause.

Why precisely? I am not interested so much in what happened 800 years ago in Ireland but what is going on today. What if most of the people in Northern Ireland do not what to become part of the Ireland proper? Shouldn't that be more important then what some (apparently now disarming) terrorist group thinks?

What about the Falklands and Gibraltar? The people their do not want to become part of Argentina or Spain despite "colonial histories." Why not just let the people decide?





Independence received less then 5%. The status got Puerto Rico, like the rest of America's territories, is ultimately up to them first (it then can would have to be ratified by congress). A few American territories have chosen independence in recent years.

(source: wikipedia)

I am very specific in referring to what I believe to be a terrorist. I refer to it is a definitional sense. I use it as a word for someone who, disguised as a civilian, murders other civilians. I do not use it as a word for someone who, disguised as a civilian, kills a soldier. That person is a war criminal by strict definition, but I would not define him as a terrorist (a definition of such a person would be the people who destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1982).

Would it be agreed at least that some word is needed for some one that is murdering civilians out of military garb in attempting to win a war?

In regard to the word "communist," I would apply that specifically as well. I would not apply it to a social democratic, but to somehow to adheres to the doctrines of Marx and Engels or more specifically Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism/ect... If someone agrees with Marx's views of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" then I view their views, especially in a group, as no less then a threat then the views of a National Socialist. If modified by Gorbachev-ist reforms this is not as much the case.

I was referring more to how now, Terrorism seems to be a buzzword. What with that now it seems like the United States has finally realized that hey, there's some scary people out their. Before, Islamic Extremists were just used as a stereotypical joke.

But that's a different issue.

In places that have actually had to deal with it for years, it's another story.

(As far as over here in Canadia, we're mostly getting caught up from the Buzzword crowd. We seem to get swept up by American events weather or not we want to)


Almost all Terrorist groups have some legitimate cause. This is the norm. But they fight with such deplorable tactics (that is why it's Terrorism) that one can hardly say it's justified. But then, nations will use those same ones and it is quite often tolerated.

Everything starts to lose meaning then.

TERRORISM: much like AUTISM (see), if you replace "inability to read social cues" with "killing of people".

The name comes from Dr. Agostea Terrory who first recognized common symptoms in his patients, whom he nicknamed "my little terries".

It is not known exactly when someone displays all the features of terrorism. During early childhood these persons are able to say distinct words like "Daddy" or "Mommy" at a regular age; usually it is only after puberty that the terrorist identity is revealead to the world. The terrorist himself should have surely felt like an alien all this time, especially in his country of origin which is now wanting him dead or alive, a la Schroedinger's cat. Since a terrorist is recognized, every action the terrorist does clearly singles him out as a terrorist, even wearing proudly a "Terrorists do it better" T-shirt. For instance, if the terrorist ever decides to go to war (which is likely in a terrorist, because of their fascination with low-intensity warfare), it would only be terrorism, not war. If he fights in his own country, it would be terrorism, not civil war. Such osmotic nature pose semantic limits, in that it is conceivable a war on terrorism but not a terrorism on war, which would simply be "a terrorism".

Contrary to public perception, terrorists do not view all civilians as disposable pawns in the evolutionary ladder. Terrorists do mantain rapports with civilians, with whom frequently interbreed thanks to their manly character and handsome physique from military exercise. Unfortunately for them though the most intelligent terrorists are regularly selected for suicidal attacks. It is their frequent questioning of political authority whatsoever that usually makes them unliked by general population.

The criteria define terrorism as a condition in which there is:

1. Impaired access to democracy, often even to the resources of their own country;
2. Compulsive avengeance;
3. Impairments in giving speeches face-to-face, or even barefaced;
4. The use of bombs without an airforce;
5. No period of inactivity to be observed;
6. They are against us, and they are out there;
7. No clear reasons to be found for their actions, not even using press mindstorming.

The last one, which involves a serious impairment in terrorists' self-expression, is the more debilitating disorder. For instance, famous terrorist Osama Bin Laden made a speech just before USA's election. Watching closely his facial expression and minding his choice of Arab words, it couldn't be clear whether he was saying:

A. When I see how firm Bush is, I pee out of dismalness. Vote for Bush if you are against me.
B. I want a real challenge, let's vote John Forbes Rosemary Herbert Walker Khan Musharraf Kerry this time.
C. Why can't anyone see the third candidate has never been elected? And why do you think things are going bad? The Republicans and the Democrats, the people of US has always voted either one or the other, they obviously don't feel like they really need to earn their positions. I'm in for Nader.

Out of blue 57.55% of the US population choose not to vote, thus preventing him from influencing US elections.

Currently there is a controversy on who is more apt to diagnose "people with terrorism": the press, self-elected intellectual rigorists or phrenologists.