Europe and "Those People"

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The US seemed to think that the UCK (in Kosovo) were guerrilas, and we do the same about the Chechens.

And the US was wrong.

[Ned]

I agree that we really need a clear definition of terrorism that's consistent and is not seletive based upon interest, i.e., is not hypocritical. Many, if not most Americans think that Chairman Arafat fits the description of a terrorist because he authorizes terror, buys the explosives and pays the bombers. If we cannot tolerate mullah Omar of the Taliban because he sheltered terrorists in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, how can we tolerate Chairman Arafat who has done considerably more than simply shelter terrorists?

Ned

[notyoueither]

Good question Ned.

[Saint Marcus]

A basic definition of a terrorist would be a non-govermental person or organization that takes action against a civilian for political motives.

The Taliban therefor aren't terrorists.
Sadam Husein isn't a terrorist.
The UCK therefor are.
What are the Hezbollah (sp?) and FARC?

Also, it seem a rather unfair and biased definition. If the Indonesian governement wipes out Ambonese or Moluk civilians it isn't terrorism, but when those people retaliate by doing the exact same thing (killing civilians) they are terrorists. Makes no sense.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Also, it seem a rather unfair and biased definition.

Most definitions of terrorism get accussed of such things. Why do you think that there are so many definitions?

What is your definition anyway?

[Saint Marcus]

Well, any definition must include both governements and NGOs, or discount acts against civilians as terrorism in theathers of war.

I know, way too broad definition still. But in the Indonesian example I described, a definition either has to count both parties as terrorists, or discount both parties as terrorists.

[KrazyHorse]

The use of fear of physical harm to civilians or their property for political purposes.

[Akka]

"terrorism" is to spread fear among population to force it to accept your view.
There is which will can be called the "standard" terrorism (IRA, Palestinians bombing, Ben Laden, ETA...) and the "state terrorism" (stalinism, fascism, Pinochet, Israël repression, China...).

[Saint Marcus]

Akka le Vil: good definition. However, this does mean the allies in WW2 are (state)terrorists. (terror bombings in Germany, the a-bomb in Japan).

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

The Taliban therefor aren't terrorists.
Sadam Husein isn't a terrorist.
The UCK therefor are.
What are the Hezbollah (sp?) and FARC?

By my definition the Taliban and Sadam Husein are not terrorists. They support terrorists that attack other countries though. I consider that an act of war, and we finally have a president who see's it that way too.

The KLA maybe somewhere in between. I've read that they wear identifying insignia and attack police and military that would make them guerrillas or freedom fighters. If they've specifically targetted civilians in order to incite terror (as opposed to civilian casualties during an attack on a legitimate target) then they're terrorists.

Hezbollah have committed acts of terrorism. Guess what, they're terrorists!

I dont know anything about FARC but the same rules apply.

Also, it seem a rather unfair and biased definition. If the Indonesian governement wipes out Ambonese or Moluk civilians it isn't terrorism, but when those people retaliate by doing the exact same thing (killing civilians) they are terrorists. Makes no sense.

My definition does become unclear when applied to a government that uses terror against its own people but such actions can be labelled as atrocities for example. Retaliation for such actions against civilians instead of against the government that carries such actions out is still terrorism.

If you want to be a freedom fighter, put on a uniform (of some kind) and fight your "oppressors". Targeting civilians who cant fight back is simply cowardice.

[axi]

See? You're totally confused...

So stop messing with things you can't understand and stop suporting your president when he throws accusations of terrorism all around the world, as an excuse for his actions.

Okay?

[Saint Marcus]

If you want to be a freedom fighter, put on a uniform (of some kind) and fight your "oppressors". Targeting civilians who cant fight back is simply cowardice.

Thus, if Al Qaida starts issuing standard uniforms for their troops, they cease to be terrorists?

Also, in the indonesian example. In the war against terrorism the terrorists are fought, even if they are doing the exact same things as the governements.

Plus, the US also supports/supported terrorists (like the UCK).

[Kropotkin]

Uniforms wouldn't change the fact that Al Qaida attacks mostly civilians. And it's quite hard to get on a passenger-plane in a uniform.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Plus, the US [& EU] also supports/supported terrorists (like the UCK).

Yes, I would agree with that statement especially after I edited it.

[Kropotkin]

Also, as I've mentioned once or twice before, the other allies in the war against terrorism are not exacly run by regimes with a perfect record.

Turkey is leadning the alliance in Afghanistan now. What are they gonna do? It's not like they need to learn to repress etnic, political and religious minorites...