“To me, terrorism should be defined as a politically motivated hate crime — singling out the civilian sector for some level of destruction, or to drive them away, in order to forward a political goal; not because of anything they may have done, but merely because they repesent “the despised other” in the mind of the perpetrator. Of course, those who disagree with me may ask, “what about criminal activities that target soldiers, like hiding a bomb in a baby carriage?” It is a good question, and shows how hard these issues can be to define. However, they are not impossible.”

What was burning down that Oregon slaughter house but a politically motivated hate crime that singled out the civilian sector (a meat packing plant) to drive them out of business? Your comments on their entirely legal actions are not entirely dissimilar to those by people who describe a despised “Other”. What is hiding a bomb in a baby carriage but terrorism? You think that because someone puts on a uniform they can be killed by anyone in any way but they are not allowed to retaliate? Fighting is for soldiers in uniform. Anything else, in my opinion, is terrorism.

HeiGou – “Islamic” soldiers wear uniforms. They’re what, legitimate security teams? Most terrorists are soldiers in uniform.

I agree with this definition:

“terrorism should be defined as a politically motivated hate crime”

… despite the fact that it’s broad, which makes the “war on terrorism” pretty much a war on everybody.

So my question is, how do we come up with a clear definition, considering everything that is going on around us? Iraq, the USA, political “Islam,” Palestine/Israel, etc. How do we come up with a definition that would be fair to all of the above? And then how do we successfully distinguish who is a terrorist and who is not, based on our definition? Hard stuff! But not impossible.

Esra’a Says:”“Islamic” soldiers wear uniforms. They’re what, legitimate security teams? Most terrorists are soldiers in uniform.”

I have yet to see a terrorist in a uniform although Hamas was coming close to it in its fighting with Fatah in Gaza. However they also sent over two pregnant women who were definitely not in uniform. I have never heard of the GIA wearing uniforms. When Luxor was shot up no one was wearing one. The Taliban did not wear them and if anyone was wearing one on 9-11 it is news to me. So why do you think that?

The other half of my condition was “soldier”. Soldiers fight for governments. Terrorists do not. They are politically motivated criminals. A vast difference. Only governments can fight legitimate and Just wars.

Esra’a Says:”despite the fact that it’s broad, which makes the “war on terrorism” pretty much a war on everybody.”

Some of us make political change peacefully. We don’t kill anyone. I don’t see a War on Terror bothering anyone in the West except the terrorists.

Fighting is for soldiers in uniform. Anything else, in my opinion, is terrorism.

To me terrorist is anyone who uses the pronunciation long ‘a’ sound when he/she/it speaks and carries a 1 dollar bill of any nation is a terrorist.

We don’t kill anyone. I don’t see a War on Terror bothering anyone in the West except the terrorists.

Tell that to the 100,000+ dead Iraqis.

I have yet to see a terrorist in a uniform

Then what the hell do you call this, a wedding dress?

These are Hamas “soldiers.” I use the word “soldiers” here because Hamas represents the Palestinian government.

Let me guess what you will say now … “omg Hamas is not even a real govt…”

Which would make your definition flawed, because we all have our own definitions of what makes a real, legitimate government and what doesn’t. We need to find a definition of “terrorist” that goes waaaaay beyond such claims.

Jina (Web Surgeon) Says:”To me terrorist is anyone who uses the pronunciation long ‘a’ sound when he/she/it speaks and carries a 1 dollar bill of any nation is a terrorist.”

Ahh if only it was that simple. The rules in International law are there for a reason. There is a trade off with soldiers – if they always wear a uniform the other side knows who to kill. Which also means they know who not to kill. The precondition for not slaughtering civilians is that soldiers wear uniform. If they refuse to wear uniforms, then other soldiers will slaughter civilians. Soldiers will not long tolerate terrorists who try to hide among civilians. Now we could all behave like Third World governments do – few terrorists aim at those governments – or we could try to maintain humanitarian law. Which?

Jina (Web Surgeon) Says:”Tell that to the 100,000+ dead Iraqis.”

Only 100,000? How modest of you. Why not claim 1 million? This is a civil war. Very few of those people died in the War on Terror.

Esra’a Says:”Then what the hell do you call this, a wedding dress?”

Duck hunters? They make a video with Army surplus camouflage. Good for them. But the real issue is whether they wear it to and from killing people.

Esra’a Says:”These are Hamas “soldiers.” I use the word “soldiers” here because Hamas represents the Palestinian government. Let me guess what you will say now … “omg Hamas is not even a real govt…””

First of all, no Hamas does not although there is a Constitutional argument here. Secondly even if Hamas did, the Army of the PA is not the Hamas militia. Just because a Party is elected, their thugs do not become the legitimate Army. The PA has an Army (well sort of) and a Minister for it and everything. It is not the Hamas militia.

Esra’a Says:”Which would make your definition flawed, because we all have our own definitions of what makes a real, legitimate government and what doesn’t. We need to find a definition of “terrorist” that goes waaaaay beyond such claims.”

We all might have definitions. I might define you are a purple duck for instance. I don’t see why I’d bother or what it would get me. There are conditions for such in international law. Hamas is not a legal government. The IaD brigades are not an Army. For one thing, Hamas does not behave like a government nor does its militia behave like an Army. Perhaps it is about to make a transition.

Remember, if you play with definitions, everyone else will too. That game will not always go your way. Look at the fun America has playing with the definition of “illegitimate combatant”. That path leads to the law of the jungle. We all benefit from clear, well defined international norms. Even Hamas.

I wrote once about ‘terrorism.’ I don’t think a definition exists that is both consistent and useful.

We definitely could all benefit from one standard definition of terrorism, and I’d rather see leadership on the issue come from the civilian sector, like us here at MEY.

considering the old argument of “one’s terrorist is other’s freedom fighter”, we may claim that as long as we dont experience a thourough democracy all around the world, both in international and national levels, it is impossible to reach an agreement about the proper definition of ‘Terrorism’.

HeiGou:
just pay attention to the case of opressed groups who cant enter a classic war with military occupation. in ur definition, resistance groups in france during WWII (when they were used to killing german soldiers, definitely without uniforms) are notable examples of terrorists; while I can understand them, and morally justify their acts.

Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”considering the old argument of “one’s terrorist is other’s freedom fighter”, we may claim that as long as we dont experience a thourough democracy all around the world, both in international and national levels, it is impossible to reach an agreement about the proper definition of ‘Terrorism’.”

But I don’t think that “one man’s terrorist ..” argument is valid. Terrorism is a tactic. Not all freedom fighters murder civilians. Not all try to anyway. It may be that some freedom fighters do turn to terrorism, but there is still a clear difference and there ought to be more of one. I am not sure that it is democracy that counts. Europe has had over 2000 years of history but has only had terrorism in the last 200 or so. Ironically terrorism and democracy seem to go together. Repressive states have few problems with terror and when Europe was not democratic it had none at all.

Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”just pay attention to the case of opressed groups who cant enter a classic war with military occupation. in ur definition, resistance groups in france during WWII (when they were used to killing german soldiers, definitely without uniforms) are notable examples of terrorists; while I can understand them, and morally justify their acts.”

OK I will, and I have thought about it. And I agree that by my definition the French resistance groups were terrorists. As in fact several people in the UK pointed out at the time. I can understand them and perhaps even this of a reason why they did the right thing. But the problem is the slippery slope argument – once you start down that path where does it end? Present day Iraq I expect. Suppose that we accept that Muslims were so outraged by Iraq that the 7-7 bombers were justified. The inevitable response to that is that some non-Muslims will be so outraged by 7-7 that they will slaughter some Muslims. After all, if some political violence is justified why isn’t all political violence justified? No one wants this to happen. The West has benefited enormously by restricting violence to the State. Unfortunately many parts of the world do not benefit from that culture and the West is losing it. We ought to strengthen it. The alternative is the war of All against All we see in Iraq.

HeiGou:
when I speak of the relation between ‘democracy’ and ‘terrorism’ I dont mean that democracy will eliminate terrorism.
the only thing that democracy does (which is not a small point, for sure) is that it provides equal opportunities for all parties to state whatever idea they have.
such a national democracy, along with an international democracy (including the required active elements and agents like: UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Red Cross, etc., which should support the freedom of speech in every country), ensures everybody that his/her own basic rights will never be abused.
in this case, I will agree with you that ‘military activities are for soldiers’.
then, I mean that a democracy will distinguish between those who want to take advantage of criminal activities, and those who have no other choice, cuz everybody in this system is granted with ‘the other choise’.

probably the international community had chosen to pave the way to reach a democratic world in future, but unfortunately Bush did (and still is donig) his best to make a reverse progress. what a bad god-father we had in past 8 years!

I think aterrrist is someone who uses resistance not simply to defend themselves, but to also destroy the peace process. Hamas is a terrorist organization because when Palestinians and Israelis were negotiating a peace between 1993 and 1995, Hamas used suicide bombings to destroy the peace process and kill it. They did a good job, too, and in my book that makes them a terrorist organization at the top of the list.

Ariel Sharon was also a state terrorist, who would have been just like Hamas had the tables been turned and would have sent Jews and Israelis to commit suicide bombings (if the tables were turned).

Menahcem Begin was a terrorist because he murdered captured prisoners (several British soldiers) and bombed not only military sites but targeted civilians, not just at Deir Yassin. Begin was Palestine’s first and WORST terrorist.

But then, I apply one principle to both sides and don’t protect my own terrorists and only complain about the others

Ray Hanania
http://www.hanania.com

From Webster’s dictionary:

terrorism >> the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

Oddly, thats last year’s definition – this year’s is:

violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

If Webster’s can’t use the same definiton year after year – I doubt ‘regular’ people can/will agree on a definition.

what you said about Webster, remembered me the story of Animal’s Farm. its still changing, and in the next few years we must wait for such a thing:

Webster’s newest definition of Terror: whatever activities labeled as Terrorist by US government.

Matthew/PeacefulVanguard ,

It needs to be pointed out that the United States once collaborated with the Muslims who are now referred to as terrorists.

Why does there need to be a definition for terrorists, are they more deserving of punishment than a government that kills hundreds of thousands of people with bombs?

Saddam Hussein (who was helped into power by the United States and supported strategically and financially when he was committing his worst atrocities) was put on trial by the Iraqis, when will Western countries put their government officials, who collaborated with Saddam Hussein, on trial?

How you define terrorism will not mean anything, because as the saying goes “might makes right.”

HeiGou wrote, “Only 100,000? How modest of you. Why not claim 1 million? This is a civil war. Very few of those people died in the War on Terror.”

How can what is going on in Iraq be called a civil war, when it is foreign governments (mainly USA and Britain) that
#1) bombed the country and destroyed its infrastructure
#2) rounds up thousands of Iraqis and jails them without justification
#3) makes decisions when elections are to take place and whether the results are valid
#4) benefit more from reconstruction projects than the Iraqis
#5)can break into jails to release prisoners against the Iraqi’s governments wishes. (Remember when two British men where caught disguised as Arabs carrying explosives and weapons in their car? Their fellow British soldiers broke into the jail they were in and helped them to escape) see http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051015&articleId=1089

The U.S., Britain, Israel and Iran are contributing to the chaos with their agent provocateurs

Ray Hanania, wrote,
“But then, I apply one principle to both sides and don’t protect my own terrorists and only complain about the others.”

You say “my own terrorist.” Since you are an American citizen, “your own terrorists” would be the Muslim extremists that were recruited and trained by the United States to fight its proxy war against the Russians, in Afghanistan. “Your own terrorists” would be the American government officials who preach human rights and democracy, yet go around engaging in regime change and supporting brutal dictators and kings that do their bidding.

And once again Randal has nothing to say except a copy/paste of his standard anti-US rant.

Zero contribution to the topic, but a perfect example of the exact opposite of Ray’s “I apply one principle to both sides and don’t protect my own terrorists and only complain about the others”

Grumpy,

Why is it anti-American to discuss the crimes of America? American citicizens should discuss the crimes of America so we can put a stop to them.

And once again Randal has nothing to say except a copy/paste of his standard anti-US rant.

How is that anti-US? He didn’t say a thing about the citizens living within the nation, he seem to have a problem with the government and their operations.

Giving someone the “anti-US” tag when you don’t agree with him/her is a wonderful way of debating. It’s called name calling, works very well when you are in elementary school, not when you are an adult discussing it with other adults.

Grow up.

Jina,

Actually, I didn’t give HIM any tag or call him any names. I described his rant as anti-US, but I’ll make that anti-US government if you prefer.

The point was that Randall’s remarks were off-topic, isn’t that obvious?

I am fully grown, thank you.

Randall,

I didn’t say it was anti-American to discuss the crimes of America, I said your post was repetitive and irrelevant, contributing nothing to the topic under discussion.

Grumpy,

I have not only discussed the crimes of Ameica in my previous comments. In adddition, I made replies to specific points made by Matthew/PeacefulVanguard, Ray Hanania, and HeiGou. So if my comments are irrelevent than their comments are irrelevent, as well; but you haven’t made the same kind of critisms to them. My points are relevant because regardless how you define a terrorist, it is the militarily strong that will decide who will be put on trial or punished with sanctions.