Although, now in todays world the word has taken on a seperate meaning I believe. When I think of the word terrorist now I think of a member of a group, or a single wanna-be member of a political philosophy, terrorizing through means of mass murder and the intended target does not matter. The reasoning behind their acts are that through any conventional negotiation, reason, law and force, their political philosophy wasn't accepted therefore their only means of recourse and retaliation is through terrorism and mass murder. This type of terrorist will hide in the shadows when they terrorize.

[ 11 September 2006: Message edited by: Tiff ]

quote:

---

What is a terrorist by YOUR definition (do you have a definition?)

---

A terrorist is someone you want to kill and need the support of your population to get away with it.

quote:

---

Chomsky: I just gave one example, Nicaragua. The U.S. is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and that rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. It continues international terrorism. That example’s the least of it.

---

quote:

---

Chomsky: The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” That’s the official doctrine. If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same. Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims. That’s what the World Trade Center bombing was, a particularly horrifying terrorist crime. And that’s official doctrine. I mentioned a couple of examples. We could go on and on. It’s simply part of state action, not just the U.S. of course. Furthermore, all of these things should be well known. It’s shameful that they’re not. Anybody who wants to find out about them can begin by reading a collection of essays published ten years ago by a major publisher called Western State Terrorism, edited by Alex George (Routledge, 1991), which runs through lots and lots of cases. These are things people need to know if they want to understand anything about themselves. They are known by the victims, of course, but the perpetrators prefer to look elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Someone who's got bombs, but can't afford an air force.

---

That's when you're talking about 'the retail version' (Chomsky). When talking about the "wholesale version" they have an air force too.

If you rather listen to Chomsky making the same point as the article Beltov linked to check out his 2006 Amnesty International Lecture:

http://www.newstalk106.ie/noam-chomskys.html

[ 11 September 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

A terrorist is anyone that instills terror in another person.

---

quote:

---

Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims.

---

Actually both of these are a little too broad. I think there has to be violence or the threat of violence aimed directly or indiscriminantly at non-combattants, especially civilians, in an effort to achieve political, religious, economic, or other aims. Of course there is not much difference between politics and mainstream economics.

But we can debate the term all we wish, in the end it's quite simple. A terrorist is what the West labels an enemy to ensure popular support in it's destruction.

I beleive Enmasse had a cartoon up that had it pefectly stated...

Bringing Christianity to the Heathens
Bringing Civilizations to the Savages
Bringing Democracy to the 3rd World

Either is the same... Call them Heathens, Barabarians, Savages, or terrorists... Whatever you need to justify these actions to the rest of the worlds populace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Let me try this again. What is a terrorist by YOUR definition (do you have a definition?) Not Rumfeld's or CNN's.

---

A "terrorist" is a member of the Committee of Public Safety, created during the French revolution to solidify the French Republic. They instituted what was then called the "reign of terror."

the most prominent "terrorists," according to Wikipedia, are:

Bertrand Barère de Vieuzac - Earlier a Girondist, later a Bonapartist, drew up the 9 Thermidor report outlawing Robespierre.
Jacques Nicolas Billaud-Varenne, an Hebertist
Jean Jacques Régis de Cambacérès was a member only after 9 Thermidor
Lazare Carnot - physicist, the "Organizer of Victory"
Jean Marie Collot d'Herbois, an Hebertist
Georges Couthon
Georges Danton, only from April - July 1793
Marie Jean Hérault de Séchelles
Robert Lindet
Jérôme Pétion de Villeneuve, also mayor of Paris
Claude Antoine, comte Prieur-Duvernois (also known as Prieur de la Côte-d'Or)
Pierre Louis Prieur (also known as Prieur de la Marne)
Maximilien Robespierre, a Montagnard
Jean Bon Saint-André
Louis Antoine Léon de Saint-Just, a Montagnard
Jean Lambert Tallien was a member only after 9 Thermidor

These are people who all preached a political philosophy founded in what they called "terror." Hence they are "terrorists," as in "Marxists," "socialists," "capitalists," etc.

They are all dead now

[ 11 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

This can be done through a variety of coercive measures such as direct physical violence, threats, intentionally misleading information or fear-mongering, slander or libel, etc.

By this definition, the worst terrorists (as in either the most prolific, as well as the most brutal) are imperialistic regimes that use any or all of the above tactics on either their own citizens or the people of other countries to force them into subordination or servitude.

The best example of this today is the US government/Corporate America.

In fact, corporate lobbies and pressure cliques also practice these above forms of terrorism, albeit on a somewhat small scale than most governments, or in conjunction with governments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
James Dobson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
James Dobson.

---

Are you referring to the James Dobson that believes homosexuality can be cured in adults and that it can be prevented in children?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
I think a broad, yet reasonable accurate definition of "terrorist" is any group or individual who seeks to make some sort of gain or goal by invoking fear or terror in others.

---

I don't understand this. This is the prinicple operating principle of all armies past, and likely future. Fear, not killing is the most important factor on any battlefield anywhere.

quote:

---

In other words, this definiton simply does not apply usefully to anything.

---

Why not?

quote:

---

I don't understand this. This is the prinicple operating principle of all armies past, and likely future. Fear, not killing is the most important factor on any battlefield anywhere.

---

Terror is a mode of bending an enemy to ones will, it is a tactic, it is not a political philosophy, except that it nominally become part of the political philosphy of some of the French revolutionaries, which is why I made my note.

Where is there anyone preaching a philosophy of "terror?" Who are the major thinkers who expound upon it? What have they said?

As far as I know, no one is preaching "terror" as a foundational political philosophy for their movement in this day and age. Am I wrong on this?

Does OBL even use the word, in describing the activities of those who are aligned with him? I have never seen or read anything by him along those lines.

In order to be a "terrorist" one would have to have "terror" as a political objective, not merely a device, or stratagem of achieving ones political goals.

As I said. "terror" is a fundamental war fighting tacic that has existed throughout history it is not a political movement. More often than not Generals seek to cow their enemy through terror, rather than to seek their actual liquidation, though liquidation is a great means of inciting terror, and cowing an enemies friends.

[ 12 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

I don't understand this. This is the prinicple operating principle of all armies past, and likely future. Fear, not killing is the most important factor on any battlefield anywhere.

In other words, this definiton simply does not apply usefully to anything.

---

Au contraire, my little rudabaga [to thorough mess with a couple of metaphors].

You, in fact, have made an important identification in this quest. You are absolutely right to say that "terror" has always been at the heart of ALL conflicts, especially war. I will go further and add that terror is found in the actions of both nations and individuals. Terror is simply an emotion, namely the intolerable fear instilled in others by aggressors.

It occurs in homes, offices, schools and public spaces far more often then any community ever wants to acknowledge. And the Bushwhacker government does not want to bring that ugly skeleton out of the cultural closet. Therefore it is crucial to only target "the enemies of democracy" as real terrorists.

Anyone ever notice how much a magicans use of 'distraction' is an important part of the performance?

[ 12 September 2006: Message edited by: otter ]

I am an American soldier.

I am a warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army values.

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.

I am an expert and I am a professional. I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat. I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.

I am an American soldier.

quote:

---

"The Warrior Creed," he wrote, "allows no end to any conflict except total destruction of the 'enemy'. It allows no defeat ... and does not allow one ever to stop fighting... It says nothing about following orders, it says nothing about obeying laws or showing restraint. It says nothing about dishonourable actions ...".

Each day now, I come across new examples of American military cruelty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, for example, is Army Specialist Tony Lagouranis, part of an American mobile interrogation team working with US marines, interviewed by Amy Goodman on the American Democracy Now! programme describing a 2004 operation in Babel, outside Baghdad:

"Every time Force Recon went on a raid, they would bring back prisoners who were bruised, with broken bones, sometimes with burns. They were pretty brutal to these guys. And I would ask the prisoners what happened, how they received these wounds. And they would tell me that it was after their capture, while they were subdued, while they were handcuffed and they were being questioned by the Force Recon Marines ... One guy was forced to sit on an exhaust pipe of a Humvee ... he had a giant blister, third-degree burns on the back of his leg."

---

[ 17 September 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]