How do we define Terrorism?

[Ghaem]

Well, given to few threads I read in this forum involved with matters related to or defined as "Terrorism", I decided to make a thread about it and see how does each of us define "Terrorism"?

My Definition:

Terrorism, is blind act of spreading terror and fear among civilian populations with no clear or valid purpose.

This way, I do not recognize terrorizing invading armed forces and supporting body of an invading force, in order to make it stop its aggression or withdraw from occupied territories as Terrorism.

Also, I do not consider destroying an invading and aggressor country's military, military-supporting, industrial and financial structures as terrorism; this way its capability to continue its aggression will be decreased and will lead to a sooner end to its ambitions.

[Jinglebottom]

I'm assuming you're pro-Hezbollah and pro-Hamas?

[StoppingTom]

Agreed up until the "no clear or valid purpose" part. Most terror attacks are done with some kind of political/religious/social ideology in mind and are trying to prove their point, and the "no valid purpose" part is kind of redundant because no one would say that a terrorist attack is a valid way of expressing your ideology.

[Ghaem]

xbob18, I might be, given to conditions. Hamas not very much, I do not approve Palestinian attacks against civilians of Israel, because these attack have no effect on strengthening the defense against Israelis, they will just have negative impacts on it.
Giygas, This. Ideology is no valid purpose.

The valid purpose is that a country is under attack by another country. To show that that aggressor country will also suffer from the consequences of war, and its security will be threatened too, I believe the defending country has that right to terrorize the armed forces of the aggressor nation and the supporting body of the aggression among civilians, and damage the aggressor countries military, industrial and financial structures to decrease its military capabilities.

[Sailor Mars]

Like this
http://i.imgur.com/T61xaPy.jpg

[Leprous]

Like this
image (http://i.imgur.com/T61xaPy.jpg)

-end of debate-

Seriously though this seems pretty obvious as most people have the same opinion on this one.

[Dalcourt]

Like this
image (http://i.imgur.com/T61xaPy.jpg)

-end of debate-

Seriously though this seems pretty obvious as most people have the same opinion on this one.

I agree.

[sqishy]

My Definition:

Terrorism, is blind act of spreading terror and fear among civilian populations with no clear or valid purpose.

This way, I do not recognize terrorizing invading armed forces and supporting body of an invading force, in order to make it stop its aggression or withdraw from occupied territories as Terrorism.

Also, I do not consider destroying an invading and aggressor country's military, military-supporting, industrial and financial structures as terrorism; this way its capability to continue its aggression will be decreased and will lead to a sooner end to its ambitions.

Can the spread of fear across a population not be a valid purpose in itself?
As example, the film The Dark Night has the antagonist Joker doing his thing because he believes in demonstrating what he sees as fragility of order in present society, through making the people do most of the escalation of panic themselves. It is a valid purpose for him at the least.

I imagine that most 'terrorists' do not practice with no clear or valid purpose in mind, because if they did then it makes them appear more as lone irrational fighters who seek messy chaos in general. There is some ordered motive behind it, an intended outcome is sought after.

[PlasmaHam]

I'm going with the majority opinion here of terrorism having some sort of purpose or ideology behind it. I don't see the point of terrorism if you aren't trying to reach some sort of end. All the terror attacks in America today are based on some sort ideology, be it Islam, racism, etc.

[Living For Love]

Terrorism has definitely some sort of purpose behind it, like others have said. In fact, I'd even say the willingness in achieving an ideological aim through violence or terror is sometimes as important and relevant to describe terrorism as the terror acts themselves. For instance, computer hacking and the so-called "hacktivism" are forms of terrorism, yet with no apparent victims or casualties. It's the spreading of the terrorist's ideologies that actually matters in this particular case.

[Ghaem]

Living For Life, as I said ideology is not a valid purpose so yes it is terrorism.

But what I am more talking about is "Terrorizing" an "Aggressor" armed forces and supporting body of its civilians to force them to stop the aggression, also destroying military, industrial and financial structures of aggressor nation to decrease its military capabilities for furthering this goal to make them stop the conflict.

Is it also considered "Innate Evil Terrorism" in your eyes or "Legitimate Act of Self Defense"?

[jamie_n5]

I would say that any act of violence against a person, group or nation launched for no apparent reason except to kill, injure and frighten people.

[Living For Love]

You subtly keep bringing up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into this discussion, and I don't know why. I could argue with you about it, but I honestly don't know much about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I mean, I've searched about the conflict a lot on the Internet, sure, but everywhere I go, every article I read or every video I see, the source is just too biased, blindly favouring either one side or the other, so I remain in ignorance. What I know, however, is that they are at war, so pretty much everything is allowed, right? As long as one side wants the other dead, I suppose, they have the right to "legitimately act on self-defence". So, answering to your question, I don't think using an example of an armed conflict when trying to define terrorism is a very good idea.

[Ghaem]

Living for Life, I won't get into Palestinian-Israeli conflict here.

What I mean is the very act of "Terrorizing" itself. Is any act of "Terrorizing" considered "Terrorism"?

Even if done by a "Defender" nation against an "Aggressor" nation?

[Living For Love]

If the nation is rightfully defending herself from an aggressor nation, you can hardly call it terrorism, right?

[Ghaem]

Living For Life, Even if it threatens very basic social structures of aggressor society? If yes that is what I mean too. As I said at the beginning of thread:

Terrorism, is blind act of spreading terror and fear among civilian populations with no clear or valid purpose.

When a nation is aggressing another nation then there is a valid purpose for terrorizing the aggressor nation in order to make it stop its aggression.

[Living For Love]

When a nation is aggressing another nation then there is a valid purpose for terrorizing the aggressor nation in order to make it stop its aggression.
I can agree with this, though I wouldn't call it terrorise, it's just how war works, I suppose. If you engage in war with another nation, you must expect a counter-reaction.

[Ghaem]

I can agree with this, though I wouldn't call it terrorise, it's just how war works, I suppose. If you engage in war with another nation, you must expect a counter-reaction.

So there comes our definition. We all agree that ideology is no valid purpose for terrorizing people, which means doing so is an innate evil act of terrorizing or "Terrorism"

[Living For Love]

So there comes our definition. We all agree that ideology is no valid purpose for terrorizing people, which means doing so is an innate evil act of terrorizing or "Terrorism"
No, not really. In the terrorist's point of view, the need of spreading an ideology is a valid reason to cause death and destruction.

[Ghaem]

No, not really. In the terrorist's point of view, the need of spreading an ideology is a valid reason to cause death and destruction.


Seriously do I look like someone who cares about what the a terrorist thinks? We are talking about people with mind here.

[PlasmaHam]

So there comes our definition. We all agree that ideology is no valid purpose for terrorizing people, which means doing so is an innate evil act of terrorizing or "Terrorism"

No, we don't. It seems you are trying to push a specific agenda, because I don't see the reasoning for your claims besides defending an ideological group.

[Ghaem]

No, we don't. It seems you are trying to push a specific agenda, because I don't see the reasoning for your claims besides defending an ideological group.

What I'm trying to say is quite simple.

Nation A attack nation B with political or expansionist goals.
Nation B defends back, meanwhile targets military sites, industrial areas, banks, financial centers, political centers like ministry responsible for aggression and also educational centers involving with scientific support for constructing War Machines, tourism attractions, airports, ports, trading ships, bridges, road, railways deep inside nation A soil.

These acts terrorize the population of nation A, but they are not considered terrorism. Since nation B is just defending itself and and by decreasing military and financial capabilities of nation A, and terrorizing the population which support the aggression by showing the that they are not safe from the consequences of the conflict, it is trying to force nation A to stop its aggression.

[PlasmaHam]

What I'm trying to say is quite simple.

Nation A attack nation B with political or expansionist goals.
Nation B defends back, meanwhile targets military sites, industrial areas, banks, financial centers, political centers like ministry responsible for aggression and also educational centers involving with scientific support for constructing War Machines, tourism attractions, airports, ports, trading ships, bridges, road, railways deep inside nation A soil.

These acts terrorize the population of nation A, but they are not considered terrorism. Since nation B is just defending itself and and by decreasing military and financial capabilities of nation A, and terrorizing the population which support the aggression by showing the that they are not safe from the consequences of the conflict, it is trying to force nation A to stop its aggression.

I don't see how military actions against one nation justifies the oppressed nation to retaliate against the civilian population of the attacking country. And we are not dealing with countries battling countries, we are dealing with ideological groups that use political or religious reasons to attack other people. The instance you just described is more adequate to straight out war.

You really seem like you are trying to push some sort of agenda. Your posts have been so specific that you seem to be ignoring the big picture of what terrorism is. It seems intentional, like you don't want to admit the truth.

[sqishy]

Terrorism, is blind act of spreading terror and fear among civilian populations with no clear or valid purpose.

When a nation is aggressing another nation then there is a valid purpose for terrorizing the aggressor nation in order to make it stop its aggression.

Why is terrorism without 'validity' for you?

Does the intention to spread fear/terror/etc lose power when a plan with an argument is in the mind(s) of the perpetrator(s)?


I'm getting an impression that you are presenting this definition such that it excludes certain countries' practices and/or large non-state organisations' practices, correct me if I have misunderstood (please).

[Ghaem]

I don't see how military actions against one nation justifies the oppressed nation to retaliate against the civilian population of the attacking country. And we are not dealing with countries battling countries, we are dealing with ideological groups that use political or religious reasons to attack other people. The instance you just described is more adequate to straight out war.

Well if the population is supporting their government's aggression, then there is no reason not to show them their support has consequences.

Why is terrorism without 'validity' for you?

Does the intention to spread fear/terror/etc lose power when a plan with an argument is in the mind(s) of the perpetrator(s)?


I'm getting an impression that you are presenting this definition such that it excludes certain countries' practices and/or large non-state organisations' practices, correct me if I have misunderstood (please).

I say spreading ideology is not a valid purpose to terrorize people, the thing which we call "Terrorism" and is innately Evil is this. Trying to spread and ideology through spreading fear and terror among civilians.

What I am more emphasizing on is actually "Terrorizing" the supporting population of an aggressor nation and decrease its financial, military and industrial capabilities to prevent it from continuing its aggression by the defending nation.

What I mean actually, is how you consider an act innately evil terrorizing. For me, What US and others did to Iraq and Afghanistan are as "Terrorism" as the things which happened in France and Germany recently. Why?

Because the invading armies in Iraq and Afghanistan also besides from invasion, terrorized the populations of these countries, destroyed the very basic social, industrial and financial structures of these countries, with no valid purpose. They just wanted to Invade, Invasion was their purpose. There was no act of self-defense or something. Same as terrorists in recent attacks, whose purpose was to spread their ideology through causing fear. Both purposes are not valid.

What I am trying to say is that using "Terror" as a weapon can be legitimate too. As I said if a defending nation, terrorizes the supporting population of the aggression inside the aggressor nation's soil, and decrease its requirements for continuing the war by destroying its basic structures, in order to force it stop its aggression, that nation has a valid purpose for spreading terror and fear among its invasive enemy's population. That is not considered Terrorism.

[Flapjack]

I would define it as purposefully causing terror using violence for a political motive.

[PlasmaHam]

Well if the population is supporting their government's aggression, then there is no reason not to show them their support has consequences.


That is against almost all rules of war, the taking of civilian lives. Not every citizen supports a country when it is in war. I mean, just look at Iraq, a large percentage of the population did not support it. But they nevertheless worked to support their country, because it is their country, and also their jobs. If someone came into your home and killed all your family because your country was in a war that you could care less about, how would you justify that?

I see no justification for human deaths just to scare the population. America did not attack and kill Afghan soldiers just because they wanted to scare the population. The US had a goal, a misguided goal, but still a goal that could have potentially stopped a madman from starting WWIII.

It seems like the whole point of your posts is to shift the blame from the mass murdering, torturing, clearly dangerous Muslim terrorists to the rules of war following American soldiers who came because of intel of WMDs.

[Ghaem]

That is against almost all rules of war, the taking of civilian lives. Not every citizen supports a country when it is in war. I mean, just look at Iraq, a large percentage of the population did not support it. But they nevertheless worked to support their country, because it is their country, and also their jobs. If someone came into your home and killed all your family because your country was in a war that you could care less about, how would you justify that?

I see no justification for human deaths just to scare the population. America did not attack and kill Afghan soldiers just because they wanted to scare the population. The US had a goal, a misguided goal, but still a goal that could have potentially stopped a madman from starting WWIII.

It seems like the whole point of your posts is to shift the blame from the mass murdering, torturing, clearly dangerous Muslim terrorists to the rules of war following American soldiers who came because of intel of WMDs.

You clearly didn't get my point did you? Terrorizing a population does not simply mean killing them, it means making them feel unsafe and scared, take this chance from them to live an easy regular life.

The type of Valid Terrorizing which I am talking about is targeting structures within the aggressor country which are fueling its War Machine for continuing its aggression like roads, ports, airports, tourism attractions, factories, banks, economic centers, governmental sites, industrial areas and so on. Attacking purely civilian areas like houses, hospitals, schools and simple universities is not what I am talking about. Valid Terrorizing simply means take this chance from them to progress and live their lives regularly while they want to take the same right from you. This type of Terrorizing is Valid.

And hey, Yeah yeah I 100 % believe US and others surely just wanted to take Saddam and Osama Bin Laden out. They surely had no intention to safeguard their own economic interests in this region by destabilizing it.

And hey, guess who gave WMDs to Saddam against civilians before its turning back? No it wasn't US and its allies at all.

Besides, no one forget who helped Taliban through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to get formed. More than half of the mess today is West's. Rest fall to idiot Muslim populations who fell for treacherous murderers tricks.

[PlasmaHam]

Well, you are clearly biased in this discussion. You are not open to any rebuttals despite everyone else agreeing that terrorism needs some sort of motive.

[Flapjack]

Well, you are clearly biased in this discussion. You are not open to any rebuttals despite everyone else agreeing that terrorism needs some sort of motive.
Who is that aimed at? I personally think I am very open to ideas.

[Ghaem]

Who is that aimed at? I personally think I am very open to ideas.

It was aimed at me.

[Leprous]

Seriously do I look like someone who cares about what the a terrorist thinks? We are talking about people with mind here.

Well you do care about the definition so why not take a look at multiple standpoints here to make it interesting?

[Flapjack]

It was aimed at me.
I figured it was:)

[Ghaem]

Well you do care about the definition so why not take a look at multiple standpoints here to make it interesting?

Ideologies are not spread through violence and terror. That is what makes it invalid.

[Leprous]

Ideologies are not spread through violence and terror. That is what makes it invalid.

Well, that is what we think. They don't, just like many people. Take a look at Erdogan, Hitler, Stalin. I don't agree with this though, but it is all a matter of the standpoint.

[Ghaem]

Well, that is what we think. They don't, just like many people. Take a look at Erdogan, Hitler, Stalin. I don't agree with this though, but it is all a matter of the standpoint.

Are there any terrorists here in these forums? No, that's just us.

I am trying to find a proper definition for "Terrorism" for ourselves, as I mentioned at the very first post of the thread.

[Leprous]

Are there any terrorists here in these forums? No, that's just us.

I am trying to find a proper definition for "Terrorism" for ourselves, as I mentioned at the very first post of the thread.

Well, the proper definition has already been given to be honest. I am talking about how you don't seem to care about the way they think while I think it is actually interesting.

[Ghaem]

Well, the proper definition has already been given to be honest. I am talking about how you don't seem to care about the way they think while I think it is actually interesting.

If I want to be fair, of course if by "Terrorists" we regularly mean "Muslim Terrorists", I would find it very interesting to have a face to face debate with one of them. I want to see how they are giving themselves that right to act this way? According to which teaching?

[Leprous]

If I want to be fair, of course if by "Terrorists" we regularly mean "Muslim Terrorists", I would find it very interesting to have a face to face debate with one of them. I want to see how they are giving themselves that right to act this way? According to which teaching?

Don't forget Muslim terrorists are just like any other religious extremists. They are taking everything too far. I'm pretty sure not a single religion says people should go kill anyone with different beliefs. Problem is Muslims have been put in a very bad position but let's be honest, Bush is a terrorist aswell just to give an example.

[PlasmaHam]

If I want to be fair, of course if by "Terrorists" we regularly mean "Muslim Terrorists", I would find it very interesting to have a face to face debate with one of them. I want to see how they are giving themselves that right to act this way? According to which teaching?

Well, its hard to blame people when your holy book supports war and Muslims are killing hundreds every year. This post right here just shows that you are on an agenda here.

BTW: 100th Post!!!!!!

[Ghaem]

Don't forget Muslim terrorists are just like any other religious extremists. They are taking everything too far. I'm pretty sure not a single religion says people should go kill anyone with different beliefs. Problem is Muslims have been put in a very bad position but let's be honest, Bush is a terrorist aswell just to give an example.


Right. But in this case they are just taking it out of the way.

[PlasmaHam]

Right. But in this case they are just taking it out of the way.

The thing is, you don't see Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and other religions killing people and using religion to support it. I am not getting into an Islam debate here, but most Muslims do agree that the Koran can be interpreted to support terrorism, and that is exactly what is happening.

No one is singling out Muslims as terrorists and ignoring the others. Because there isn't a group of others. Sure, there are some people who use other ideologies besides Islam to justify terrorism, but overall most attacks are linked to Islam.

[Leprous]

The thing is, you don't see Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and other religions killing people and using religion to support it. I am not getting into an Islam debate here, but most Muslims do agree that the Koran can be interpreted to support terrorism, and that is exactly what is happening.


Like Christians are completely innocent. Check your facts. They are anything but innocent of terrorism just so you know.

[Ghaem]

The thing is, you don't see Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and other religions killing people and using religion to support it. I am not getting into an Islam debate here, but most Muslims do agree that the Koran can be interpreted to support terrorism, and that is exactly what is happening.

When you say "Most" it is really funny. Can you name these "Most"s please?

Besides, I am sure I am seeing Buddhists killing Muslims in Myanmar for religious reasons. Not to forget Christian Groups involved in acts of Terrorism against other too. And of course Israel was first established by Jews on too much blood.

You ask me, I say neither Christianity, nor Judaism, nor Islam nor Buddhism are not to be blamed. People like you are who are unaware of facts but want to act like you know everything. Groups like you exist in every ideology.



No one is singling out Muslims as terrorists and ignoring the others. Because there isn't a group of others. Sure, there are some people who use other ideologies besides Islam to justify terrorism, but overall most attacks are linked to Islam.

Just check your facts. Make sure your glasses are crystal clear before it anyway.

[PlasmaHam]

Besides, I am sure I am seeing Buddhists killing Muslims in Myanmar for religious reasons. Not to forget Christian Groups involved in acts of Terrorism against other too. And of course Israel was first established by Jews on too much blood.

You ask me, I say neither Christianity, nor Judaism, nor Islam nor Buddhism are not to be blamed. People like you are who are unaware of facts but want to act like you know everything. Groups like you exist in every ideology.

Just check your facts. Make sure your glasses are crystal clear before it anyway.

You don't see Jews killing 3000 innocent people in one day, or a Christian group attempting to conquer the Middle East. Regardless of if you want to admit it or not, the majority of Western terror attacks revolve around Islam, or at-least more than Christians and other groups.

There are people like you in every religion as well. So blindly devoted that they reject all outside views, and see themselves as the highlight of religious purity and knowledge.

[Ghaem]

You don't see Jews killing 3000 innocent people in one day, or a Christian group attempting to conquer the Middle East. Regardless of if you want to admit it or not, the majority of Western terror attacks revolve around Islam, or at-least more than Christians and other groups.

Right right I sure see most majority of the victims of this so called-Islamic motivated movement are Muslims, and realizing that people undergoing these attacks have even lesser understanding about Quran than you.

There are people like you in every religion as well. So blindly devoted that they reject all outside views, and see themselves as the highlight of religious purity and knowledge.

I have been through many doubts and thinking about my religion dear VT member. I have made sure to make the best choice. Besides, I am sure that I know about how my religion is working better than you. My religion in no way approve these acts. In no way.

[PlasmaHam]

Right right I sure see most majority of the victims of this so called-Islamic motivated movement are Muslims, and realizing that people undergoing these attacks have even lesser understanding about Quran than you.

I have been through many doubts and thinking about my religion dear VT member. I have made sure to make the best choice. Besides, I am sure that I know about how my religion is working better than you. My religion in no way approve these acts. In no way.

You know, insults are not making it any easier for me to trust your word here. You claiming that these people don't understand the Koran is foolhardy. I am just suppose to take your word here, the guy who constantly insults me for absolutely no reason.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but every Muslim I have ever meet (Quite a few) gets aggressive and rude when I challenge Islam. I'm not making this up, or making generalizations, personal experience. You don't see that in Christians or Jews.

[Ghaem]

You know, insults are not making it any easier for me to trust your word here. You claiming that these people don't understand the Koran is foolhardy. I am just suppose to take your word here, the guy who constantly insults me for absolutely no reason.

What exactly I have said that offended you? The fact that you are illiterate about my religion is not an insult, every amateur scholar can easily understand that. If I would open my mouth cussing at you that make sense about insulting you. I right now will ask members of this forums to tell me if I have offended you in anyway or not.

Paraxiom, Mimikyu, The Special One, xbob18

Have I really said anything that would be considered an open insult toward this member of VT?
Please if I have tell me. I have no problem with admitting my wrongs when I have done wrong.

First prove that I have insulted you. You are the one insulting me, claiming things without bringing evidences. Which verses of Quran incites such violence for doing such acts? Which verses promotes? I want evidences so I can answer properly. Yet you just go on without bringing enough evidences.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but every Muslim I have ever meet (Quite a few) gets aggressive and rude when I challenge Islam. I'm not making this up, or making generalizations, personal experience. You don't see that in Christians or Jews.

Surely you were not rude in you argument. I remember the first time you actually punched it in my face for following the religion of a hypocrite, liar, pedophile and ... without bringing any actual evidence or at least a petty reference to support your claims.

I was quite relaxed then, before your non-stop trail of insults which just took me at the edge to say you are illiterate about early history of Islam and the Religion itself.

[PlasmaHam]

Ghaem Please control your anger and return to the original debate thread. This is not the place for a Muslim debate.

[Ghaem]

PlasmaHam, eh Excuse me? Oh because I thought this was you who began taking the whole thread into nowhere with your very untimely post, remember?

Besides just take a look back at your own posts. More rage and sparks of anger are seen in them than mines.

[Living For Love]

Ghaem

Do you think Al-Qaeda and ISIS attacks on the western civilisation (USA, France, UK, Germany, etc...) are justifiable because the USA supports Israel and invaded Iraq first? Do you think those attacks can't be considered terrorism?

[Ghaem]

Living For Life,

According to my definition, "Terrorism" is blind act of spreading terror and fear among civilian populations with no clear or valid purpose.

What Al-Qaeda and ISIS do are not with Valid Purposes or Clear Reasons and they mostly target pure civilian places to use the psychological effects of terror for just scaring people to death on the unacceptable reason that "They are not Muslims."

These attacks with my definition are considered "Terrorism", since at the very first place their purpose and reason are not Valid. Besides, I have never heard Al-Qaeda and ISIS attacking West for supporting Israel.

Since it is not very related to the thread I will answer it through VM. But for me there is no doubt that by my definition, any types of these attacks on Europe and America's soil are considered terrorism.

For me, destroying roads, ports, airports, industrial facilities, financial centers, military sites within another country's borders also terrorize individuals. These actions are not considered Terrorism if they are done by a defending faction against an aggressor faction for decreasing its capabilities for continuing its aggression. This type of terrorizing is Valid in my eyes. Remember that attacking Purely Civilians is not a appropriate mean for this end. Just facilities like the ones I mentioned above.

[PlasmaHam]

Living For Life,

According to my definition, "Terrorism" is blind act of spreading terror and fear among civilian populations with no clear or valid purpose.

What Al-Qaeda and ISIS do are not with Valid Purposes or Clear Reasons and they mostly target pure civilian places to use the psychological effects of terror for just scaring people to death on the unacceptable reason that "They are not Muslims."

These attacks with my definition are considered "Terrorism", since at the very first place their purpose and reason are not Valid. Besides, I have never heard Al-Qaeda and ISIS attacking West for supporting Israel.

Since it is not very related to the thread I will answer it through VM. But for me there is no doubt that by my definition, any types of these attacks on Europe and America's soil are considered terrorism.

For me, destroying roads, ports, airports, industrial facilities, financial centers, military sites within another country's borders also terrorize individuals. These actions are not considered Terrorism if they are done by a defending faction against an aggressor faction for decreasing its capabilities for continuing its aggression. This type of terrorizing is Valid in my eyes. Remember that attacking Purely Civilians is not a appropriate mean for this end. Just facilities like the ones I mentioned above.

Your whole debate here seems like you are just trying to defend Islam, not actually figure out what terrorism actually is.

You said that terrorism has no motive or purpose, yet you said that ISIS is terrorist and has a purpose, killing non-Muslims. Just because you think a motive is non-valid, doesn't mean its still not a motive.

[Ghaem]

PlasmaHam, Please get back to the first of discussion. I said terrorism is without valid purpose not purposeless at all.

Besides, I have already made it clear what I consider as Valid terrorizing the post which you quoted. None of my concern that you can't get my point an always bring non-related matter to this thread to mislead it. Next time you say something unrelated to the thread, I make sure Mods will be informed about it and remove your spams.

This thread about the definition of Terrorism not anything else.

[PlasmaHam]

Ghaem Sure, you can make claims about Jews and Christians being terrorists, yet when I say that Muslims can also be terrorists you suddenly say I'm off-topic. I wasn't even talking about Muslim terrorists in my last post anyway, I was simply expanded on a point you put out there, in regards to ISIS.

I said terrorism is without valid purpose not purposeless at all.

That sentence makes no sense grammatically. Would you mind explaining that, because I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[Ghaem]

Ghaem Sure, you can make claims about Jews and Christians being terrorists, yet when I say that Muslims can also be terrorists you suddenly say I'm off-topic.



I didn't say Muslims can't be Terrorists. I am just simple countering your very Statement "Islam Promotes Terrorism".

Yes Muslims can be Terrorists too, but according to Quran and Islam they do not have to be involved in such acts and if done, they are considered "Khawrejis" and great sinners and spreaders of corruption and insecurity and must be executed. I'm sure in Christianity and Judaism there is the same statement.


That sentence makes no sense grammatically. Would you mind explaining that, because I have no idea what you are trying to say.

The reason for most of the terrorist acts are considered ideological, it is not a valid reason for any attack.

Terrorism in TWO ways is innately illegitimate:

1. It targets pure civilians
2. There is no valid reason for attacks in General.

What I am trying to say is this with no regard to anyone or anything:

For me, destroying roads, ports, airports, industrial facilities, financial centers, military sites within another country's borders also terrorize individuals. These actions are not considered Terrorism if they are done by a defending faction against an aggressor faction for decreasing its capabilities for continuing its aggression. This type of terrorizing is Valid in my eyes. Remember that attacking Purely Civilians is not a appropriate mean for this end. Just facilities like the ones I mentioned above.

[PlasmaHam]

The reason for most of the terrorist acts are considered ideological, it is not a valid reason for any attack.

Terrorism in TWO ways is innately illegitimate:

1. It targets pure civilians
2. There is no valid reason for attacks in General.

What I am trying to say is this with no regard to anyone or anything:

So, this was a debate board and now it is you attempting to spread your interpretation of what terrorism is.

I honestly have no understanding of your posts here. Attacks on a country from a group with ideological motives is not terrorism, while attacks on a country from another country in self-defense is terrorism. Is that what you are trying to get at?

[Ghaem]

So, this was a debate board and now it is you attempting to spread your interpretation of what terrorism is.

I honestly have no understanding of your posts here. Attacks on a country from a group with ideological motives is not terrorism, while attacks on a country from another country in self-defense is terrorism. Is that what you are trying to get at?

Seriously?

Did you read what you quoted?

Exactly reverse.

[sqishy]

I say spreading ideology is not a valid purpose to terrorize people, the thing which we call "Terrorism" and is innately Evil is this. Trying to spread and ideology through spreading fear and terror among civilians.

Do you mean 'unjustified' rather than 'invalid'? It would be clearer in me getting where you are at, with it that way.



What I am more emphasizing on is actually "Terrorizing" the supporting population of an aggressor nation and decrease its financial, military and industrial capabilities to prevent it from continuing its aggression by the defending nation.

By 'aggressor nation' I'll assume you mean the target nation for this terrorising. What is the 'defending nation'? (for sake of greater clarity, only literally)



What I mean actually, is how you consider an act innately evil terrorizing. For me, What US and others did to Iraq and Afghanistan are as "Terrorism" as the things which happened in France and Germany recently. Why?

Because the invading armies in Iraq and Afghanistan also besides from invasion, terrorized the populations of these countries, destroyed the very basic social, industrial and financial structures of these countries, with no valid purpose. They just wanted to Invade, Invasion was their purpose. There was no act of self-defense or something. Same as terrorists in recent attacks, whose purpose was to spread their ideology through causing fear. Both purposes are not valid.

What do you mean by the ideology of causing fear? I'm getting an impression that you see terrorism as a practice that spreads an empty virus of terror across a population with nothing more.

I also would prefer that terrorism is defined without mention of countries, for sake of explanatory 'efficiency'. Terror can be targeted at certain ethnic groups, or minority identity groups, not necessarily whole countries. Theoretically (whether it was arguably actually done or not), terrorism can be practiced on the Kurds.

Though I am with you in seeing actions of the US/UK/etc being like those of 'terrorists', I see the actions they did to have a plan behind it, rather than just for the enjoyment of the suffering. For example, the invasion of Iraq was to gain strategic ground in control of resources in the region, and to guide its government into a new direction that would be convenient.



What I am trying to say is that using "Terror" as a weapon can be legitimate too. As I said if a defending nation, terrorizes the supporting population of the aggression inside the aggressor nation's soil, and decrease its requirements for continuing the war by destroying its basic structures, in order to force it stop its aggression, that nation has a valid purpose for spreading terror and fear among its invasive enemy's population. That is not considered Terrorism.

So terrorism for you is the use of terror in a viral spreading way, just for the sake of it and nothing else. Use of terror in any other way as a tool for something else, is not terrorism. Want to see where exactly you are at with this.



Have I really said anything that would be considered an open insult toward this member of VT?
Please if I have tell me. I have no problem with admitting my wrongs when I have done wrong.
PlasmaHam

I don't think so, I feel that continuing that debate flare-up is totally unnecessary though.

Perhaps I'm not seeing the ill-intentions, but regardless I'm good if we go on as if they are not relevant, which I feel is necessary.

[Porpoise101]

The thing is, you don't see ... Buddhists and other religions killing people and using religion to support it.
No. Look at Myanmar. A Buddhist government has been terrorizing the local Muslim population for years. Recently it's been getting better because neighboring countries have accepted refugees. In India, you also see Hindus attacking Muslims for 'not following the traditions' and also because some Hindus don't believe Muslims have a place in India. In Africa, militant Christians have been attacking gay people and traditionalists.

I guess you are right though. You don't see such attacks because no one cares and there is little media attention.

[PlasmaHam]

Seriously?

Did you read what you quoted?

Exactly reverse.

So, you agree exactly with what I have been saying? I am honestly confused, you keep saying one thing but later another.

[Ghaem]

So, you agree exactly with what I have been saying? I am honestly confused, you keep saying one thing but later another.

I think we are just saying the same thing with different languages.

[Stronk Serb]

An ideology can be used as a motive, like the Reichstag fire. It was probably perpetrated by the Nazis so they could get more power. Still it depends on the ideology if it's valid. Wahabbism states it us valid, other schools of Islam don't, Nazism supports terror etc. In many cases, an ideology states it's not valid and in my personal opiniom terrorism is not valid, no matter the cause.

[Judean Zealot]

Terrorism is the calculated use of spreading fear (via violence) to achieve a particular political result. Most wars have terrorist elements in them, but they are not purely acts of terror, insofar as they combine other means as well.

A group that is dedicated primarily towards the use of terror is a terrorist group. Thus ISIS, or Hamas, or the IRA who place or have placed supreme value on fear as a tactic, would be considered terrorist groups; whereas the US, Israeli, or Iranian governments wouldn't, despite all of them occasionally using terror as a weapon, as such use is neither central nor prevalent within their policies.

This entire discussion is overshadowed by a presumption that terror, however we define it, must be immoral. That simply isn't the case. One can use terror as required in a just cause - the allied bombings of German civilian centres during WWII for example, and that terror is wholly justified. I myself am sympathetic with many prominent terrorists of history: the Robespierrists, the Irgun, the IRA, and others. Every regular army employs terror on occasion, and every terrorist group has a political motive - the moral distinction between the two is quite hazy, if it even exists at all.

Terrorism, is blind act of spreading terror and fear among civilian populations with no clear or valid purpose.

Every terror organisation has a purpose. The Irgun was to establish a Jewish state in Palestine; the IRA was to do the same for the Irish in Ireland (or Northern Ireland, depending on the phase). ISIS is working towards establishing their caliphate and expanding into the west, while the PKK are fighting for Kurdish autonomy. You've literally left no room for an actual terror organisation to exist - they all have goals.