How to stop terrorism(views of ex US marine)

[desioptimist]

I don't know whether you agree with his definition of terrorism :

according to the official definition offered by the United States government a terrorist is someone who kills innocents for a political end. But is it really that simple? If is it, than by our own admission, waging wars against civilian populations is indeed a terrorist act as well. So basically we're guilty of our own accusations and acts. there is no such thing as a smart bomb. There is no such thing as laser guided accuracy. When bombs are dropped on cities, innocents die, plain and simple. Because we have no clearly defined noble political efficacy in our actions are we not being terrorists ourselves?

We know War is not always fought between uniformed soldiers with boots. If they can't beat the soldiers in war, they beat up the civilians to break down the morale of the enemy. Example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is there. It's to hit at the enemy's weakest point which is ALWAYS the civilians so i dont understand why act of terrorism is only limited to some individuals

No, unintended harm to civilian is not terrorism. A soldier killing his own mate by friendly fire is not terrorism.
A tiger killing a man is not terrorism.
A word is coined to explain a phenomena, so that it can be used in a particular context. Diluting it just to obfuscate and confuse oneself does not help anybody.

Use of violence by govt forces against civilian is not norm for any military. It is immoral and illegal, but as with everything else in the world it happens too.
They are war crime and should be dealt as such.
Comparing that with terrorism, whose main tactic is killing of civilians is a stretch of logic.

If two sides are fighting, one side is govt forces, other side is resistance forces, the govt forces will be morally inferior and should pay the price for killing innocent civilians. At least in case of serbia, it is happening.

Govt cannot be terrorist by definition, not even libyan govt.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

No, unintended harm to civilian is not terrorism. A soldier killing his own mate by friendly fire is not terrorism.
A tiger killing a man is not terrorism.
A word is coined to explain a phenomena, so that it can be used in a particular context. Diluting it just to obfuscate and confuse oneself does not help anybody.

Use of violence by govt forces against civilian is not norm for any military. It is immoral and illegal, but as with everything else in the world it happens too.
They are war crime and should be dealt as such.
Comparing that with terrorism, whose main tactic is killing of civilians is a stretch of logic.

If two sides are fighting, one side is govt forces, other side is resistance forces, the govt forces will be morally inferior and should pay the price for killing innocent civilians. At least in case of serbia, it is happening.

Govt cannot be terrorist by definition, not even libyan govt .

So you are saying that US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki without knowing the consequences of it. They actually targeted the civilian to break down the morale of Japanese who were not accepting the defeat and in war countries target the civilian of opposite side. A suicide bombers kill less innocent peoples, children and women than a modern bomb or missile if its been dropped on civilian populated areas so i don't agree with you because i think terrorism can be committed by an individuals or Organization, it can be committed by Army and terrorism can be done by a country if it wage illegal war against other countries.

If you are among the strong then terrorism against you cannot be justified. If you are the weak being trampled by the strong, terrorism may be your only means of resisting and surviving in the long haul. The term itself is as relative as love and hate so we must take care in judging its value.

 

[desioptimist]

So you are saying that US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki without knowing the consequences of it. They actually targeted the civilian to break down the morale of Japanese who were not accepting the defeat and in war countries target the civilian of opposite side. A suicide bombers kill less innocent peoples, children and women than a modern bomb or missile if its been dropped on civilian populated areas so i don't agree with you because i think terrorism can be committed by an individuals or Organization, it can be committed by Army and terrorism can be done by a country if it wage illegal war against other countries.

If you are among the strong then terrorism against you cannot be justified. If you are the weak being trampled by the strong, terrorism may be your only means of resisting and surviving in the long haul. The term itself is as relative as love and hate so we must take care in judging its value.

At the cost of repeating myself, the word "terrorism" has specific meaning, which is used in specific context. Widening its use to explain other crimes takes away the information it gives.


1. Please provide arguments in favour of including war crimes, civilian deaths during war etc into the umbrella term "terrorism"
2. Please provide arguments against further widening the the term to include rape, gang violence, drug war etc.
3. Will you include serbian and pakistani atrocities into the umbrella term "terrorism"?