What is a "terrorist"?

[Soul Saver]

Well, I think everyone has heard the term on a frequent basis with the "war on terror". But what does it really mean? Not just people who use fear and violence to try and get their way, but genuine freedom fighters and rebels, or indeed anything anti-establishment is branded terrorist, as an attempt to dehumanise them. Would you say this is true? The meaning of the word is distorted.

Islamic fanatic extremists most often use "terrorist" tactics, but not all islamic militants are terrorists. Some are "freedom" fighters, who are strongly opposed to the NATO presence in Iraq. Some FARC rebels use terrorist tactics, but not all. But it helps the state to brand all enemy militants as terrorists. Fear is a strategy within itself, also.
And yet did we brand the Nazi Germans "terrorists" when they bombed the heck out of residential areas? Or when we did just the same to German houses? No, of course not, that would harm the war effort. Psychological warfare is still used by major powers and militants alike today.
I think "terrorist" is an obscure word, a blanket term used to dirty and dehumanise opponents. I'd rather not use it.

 

[Erythritol]

Well. Finally. This is a good topic, imo. Good job *claps*

It's really hard to define the word terrorist. What some label a "terrorist" is called a "freedom fighter" by others. It all depends on what side you're on.

For the most part, though, I've seen the terms "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" used to refer to those who employ guerilla tactics. Conventional warfare (what was used in WWII) generally isn't viewed as terrorism or freedom fighting. So, I would argue that no one in WWII was necessarily a terrorist or a freedom fighter, or whatever term you'd like to use.

To me, a terrorist is someone who uses guerilla tactics and harms innocent civilians, regardless of the goal that is trying to be achieved. I don't care what you are trying to accomplish: you don't intentionally harm innocent civilians. The problem with that is that many of these Islamic militant groups-- or Israeli militant groups, take your pick-- don't view civilians as innocent. If you read the fatwah bin Laden issued on the US, it's pretty clear he doesn't consider our civilians "innocent" in any sense of the word.

The September 11th attacks were acts of terrorism. I'm sorry, that's just how it is. It was a completely unwarranted and unprovoked attack on innocent American civilians. Attacks on troops in Iraq by the different insurgencies...that's where I think it becomes a more murky. We really don't belong there, and I can understand why many would resent our presence there. And without a doubt, the guerilla tactics that are being used are very reminiscent of Vietnam. So yeah, to many, they are freedom fighters, fighting the Western imperialist. To us, they're dirty terrorists. Your perception depends on what side you stand on. So yes, in a way, I think labeling someone a terrorist can be a way to wage political warfare. However, I also think true terrorism does exist. For instance, some Sunni groups were attacking holy Shiite buildings, just to cause trouble for American troops. That's terrorizing innocents.

Thus...to end my long rambling monologue...I have no problem with the American government labeling random attacks on civilians as terrorist attacks, because I truly think they are. But it does get a little less "black and white" when you get into insurgencies attacking U.S. troops.

 

[Jimmy]

I believe terrorism is causing fear to the general public to promote a certain type of ideology, terrorists are just the organization that spreads the fear not caring about the lifes they have to take to reach their goal.

And when you think about the attacks on 11th of September, or the bomb explosions in Spain on 11th of March 2004 by the Al-Qaida, this definition fits in perfectly.

Personally i think that this is only one example of terrorism, for example i believe that using weapons to stop a population from expressing itself is also a form of terrorism, because the goal is also to control people through fear, so i think that dictatorship and terrorism are not that far from each other.

I believe that the word "terrorist" is a way that the american government found to alert the public, and quite frankly it's the excuse that they give to take actions against certain countries.

I might get burned by american posters on this forum but after witnessing certain actions from the american army caught on video against regular iraq civilians i believe that it's a thin line that separates their "freedom" of iraq from an act of opression and terrorism against it's people. I'm not saying that it's the general american army, but i'm pretty sure there are a lot of actions that are not revealed in public and which are happening in Iraq, which in our present time are pretty close to the definition of terrorism.

So i think it that nowadays the vast majority of the american public, associates terrorism with everything that comes from the east. Influenced by the government itself.

 

[Erythritol]

I might get burned by american posters on this forum but after witnessing certain actions from the american army caught on video against regular iraq civilians i believe that it's a thin line that separates their "freedom" of iraq from an act of opression and terrorism against it's people. I'm not saying that it's the general american army, but i'm pretty sure there are a lot of actions that are not revealed in public and which are happening in Iraq, which in our present time are pretty close to the definition of terrorism.

Oh no, our army definitely has done some pretty awful things there However, I like to think that these soldiers are in the minority, and for the most part, the U.S. soldiers over there are trying their best to do the right thing. I mean...just as their are soldiers who do terrible things to the civilians, there are also soldiers who hand out toys and candy. I'd like to think there are more people of the latter, rather than the former.

Now, this is going to sound exceedingly arrogant, but I don't think the U.S. is guilty of terrorism. I think we might be guilty of sticking our nose where it doesn't belong; individual soldiers are guilty of terrible atrocities/war crimes (and are being/were already tried, thank god); the US army in general is guilty of unethical behavior, in my opinion (civilian bombings in WWII). I don't think we're guilty of terrorism because we don't really use guerilla tactics. We're pretty conventional fighters.

 

[Donald Trump]

Now, this is going to sound exceedingly arrogant, but I don't think the U.S. is guilty of terrorism. I think we might be guilty of sticking our nose where it doesn't belong; individual soldiers are guilty of terrible atrocities/war crimes (and are being/were already tried, thank god); the US army in general is guilty of unethical behavior, in my opinion (civilian bombings in WWII). I don't think we're guilty of terrorism because we don't really use guerilla tactics. We're pretty conventional fighters.

I'd agree with most of that. But the US definetly supports terrorism, take the IDF for instance, imo they are a lot worse than Al-Qaeda, for example when Israel invaded (illegaly i think aswell) Lebanon, they killed 960 civilains, with cluster bombs, to me they dont care how many arabs they kill, because they have been doing it since 1947. The US continues to supply Israel and has vetoed any thing made by the UN to even criticise Israel. You could excuse this as being part of the cold war, except that the cold war is over and the US continues to allow the Israel to murder arab civilians at will.

not just WW2 either, 2 million North Koreans killed in 3 years by american bombing during the Korean war.

And Vietnam was definetly an example of Terrorism, Mai Lai massacre, and other examples where the US army murdered villagers because there was a possibilty they were VC.

Overall i dont think the US is guilty of terrorism.

As for the term terrorist, i dont think its over used by accident, what scares the public? terrorists, so throw in terrorist a couple of times and you should have support from people, same kinda principle with the truman doctrine.

But what we call a terrorist depends on our point of view, pretty much anyone anti-american/western get branded a terrorist.
Al-Qaeda are terrorists, but imo the PLO isnt

 

[Erythritol]

I'd agree with most of that. But the US definetly supports terrorism, take the IDF for instance, imo they are a lot worse than Al-Qaeda, for example when Israel invaded (illegaly i think aswell) Lebanon, they killed 960 civilains, with cluster bombs, to me they dont care how many arabs they kill, because they have been doing it since 1947. The US continues to supply Israel and has vetoed any thing made by the UN to even criticise Israel. You could excuse this as being part of the cold war, except that the cold war is over and the US continues to allow the Israel to murder arab civilians at will.

Oh no, I believe what Israel does is terrorism as well. I honestly think that America uses Israel. We're obviously not very popular in the middle east, so I think we use Israel as both an ally in the middle east and to distract religious extremeists. Israel kind of serves as a buffer between the United States and the Islamist extremeists.

not just WW2 either, 2 million North Koreans killed in 3 years by american bombing during the Korean war.

I don't know too much about the Korean War, to be honest. However, I do know that the United States didn't do very well in that war because of guerilla tactics. I wouldn't really call bombing the enemy terrorism. That's war. You bomb people. *Shrugs* It's terrible, but it happens.

And Vietnam was definetly an example of Terrorism, Mai Lai massacre, and other examples where the US army murdered villagers because there was a possibilty they were VC.

That's what I had in mind when I said soldiers were guilty of war crimes. I personally don't view it as terrorism because it wasn't really government sanctioned. In fact, the government tried those soldiers (as they bloody well should have). That was just a few soldiers going crazy and taking it out on poor civilians. While inexcusable and definitely a war crime, I wouldn't call it terrorism. Like I said, it wasn't government sanctioned and it was for the sole purpose of killing people. There was no real goal in the Mai Lai massacre. Those soldiers simply had lost their minds or something.

 

[Donald Trump]

I don't know too much about the Korean War, to be honest. However, I do know that the United States didn't do very well in that war because of guerilla tactics. I wouldn't really call bombing the enemy terrorism. That's war. You bomb people. *Shrugs* It's terrible, but it happens.



That's what I had in mind when I said soldiers were guilty of war crimes. I personally don't view it as terrorism because it wasn't really government sanctioned. In fact, the government tried those soldiers (as they bloody well should have). That was just a few soldiers going crazy and taking it out on poor civilians. While inexcusable and definitely a war crime, I wouldn't call it terrorism. Like I said, it wasn't government sanctioned and it was for the sole purpose of killing people. There was no real goal in the Mai Lai massacre. Those soldiers simply had lost their minds or something.

I think that's why it's hard to differentiate between terrorist and non terrorist, because Mai Lai wasn't an isolated incident, the US wasnt guilty of the other atrocities, but, it was to an extent planned. A way to make the villagers fear the South Vietnamese forces, so they were using terror as a means to achieve what they want. Which is arguably the definition of terrorism.
Then there is napalm, which as well as being used to burn the forests, was also a psychological weapon.
Perhaps some aspects of war and terrorism are inextricably linked