What is a terrorist?

[na'am ana wahabi]

Hi there,

I see that the word terrorist is used quite often, sometimes ad nauseum on this forum and generally by pakistanis to describe those who opposed the musharaf regime and who now oppose the zidari regime.

I am sure that we can all agree that there is no agreed definition of what a terrorist is. Furthermore there is a need to establish whether some acts of terrorism, as a last measure, can be justified.

We also cannot ignore the fact that governments past and present have committed countless acts of terrorsim against its own people and others.

A case in point is the December 2008 wanton murder of more than 1400 people in Gaza. More than 300 were children and a huge amount were women and other unarmed civilians.

I would like to, at this point, throw open the discussion and ask the other forum members what their views are. Please obey the forum rules and keep the discussion civil at all times.

 

[Patriot]

I think you would qualify for the title if you support Taliban.In fact i think YOU ARE one.Look, I don't like Israel one bit but that does not mean i support rag tag militias like Taliban.

 

[gambit]

Hi there,

I see that the word terrorist is used quite often, sometimes ad nauseum on this forum and generally by pakistanis to describe those who opposed the musharaf regime and who now oppose the zidari regime.

I am sure that we can all agree that there is no agreed definition of what a terrorist is. Furthermore there is a need to establish whether some acts of terrorism, as a last measure, can be justified.

We also cannot ignore the fact that governments past and present have committed countless acts of terrorsim against its own people and others.

A case in point is the December 2008 wanton murder of more than 1400 people in Gaza. More than 300 were children and a huge amount were women and other unarmed civilians.

I would like to, at this point, throw open the discussion and ask the other forum members what their views are. Please obey the forum rules and keep the discussion civil at all times.

Yes there is...A 'terrorist' is someone, or an entity, that commit physical violence against those who cannot defend themselves, to put it simply. A government can be a 'terrorist' against its own people. In fact, one of the criteria of being a government is having the 'monopoly of force' in the country. A civil war exists when there is a competition, with violence as expression, in exercising political authority over a people. So if a government is oppressive against its citizen, that is being liberal in meting out physical violence for any slights, it is a 'terroristic' entity.

Against those who cannot defend themselves, the man with the club is the one who possess the 'monopoly of force' and if he chose to attack those who have no means of self-defense, he is a 'terrorist' in their eyes.

Prisoners-of-War are soldiers who have been denied the means to defend themselves. If a guard, who is the one possess the 'monopoly of force' in this environment, commits unjustified acts of violence against his charges, then he is a 'terrorist' in their eyes.

In WW II, bombing campaigns against civilian centers, by all sides, would qualify as 'acts of terror' by definition. Yes...I know you would use this to call US a 'terrorist' nation.

 

[SeaGull]

Yes there is...A 'terrorist' is someone, or an entity, that commit physical violence against those who cannot defend themselves, to put it simply. A government can be a 'terrorist' against its own people. In fact, one of the criteria of being a government is having the 'monopoly of force' in the country. A civil war exists when there is a competition, with violence as expression, in exercising political authority over a people. So if a government is oppressive against its citizen, that is being liberal in meting out physical violence for any slights, it is a 'terroristic' entity.

Against those who cannot defend themselves, the man with the club is the one who possess the 'monopoly of force' and if he chose to attack those who have no means of self-defense, he is a 'terrorist' in their eyes.

Prisoners-of-War are soldiers who have been denied the means to defend themselves. If a guard, who is the one possess the 'monopoly of force' in this environment, commits unjustified acts of violence against his charges, then he is a 'terrorist' in their eyes.

In WW II, bombing campaigns against civilian centers, by all sides, would qualify as 'acts of terror' by definition. Yes...I know you would use this to call US a 'terrorist' nation.

BY the same standards the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the indiscriminate use of force against the civilians of Vietnam, bombing in Cambodia - and that against the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan - too, are TERRORISM aren't they Gambit?

 

[gambit]

BY the same standards the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the indiscriminate use of force against the civilians of Vietnam, bombing in Cambodia - and that against the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan - too, are TERRORISM aren't they Gambit?

I know people are so very desperate to divert attention from acts of terrorism committed by muslims to those committed by non-muslims, read US, but to humor you -- Yes, they can be classify as 'acts of terror'.

 

[SeaGull]

I know people are so very desperate to divert attention from acts of terrorism committed by muslims to those committed by non-muslims, read US, but to humor you -- Yes, they can be classify as 'acts of terror'.

It is not a Muslim non-Muslim thing we are discussing here - the American Forces have Muslim and non-Muslims elements in them.
And outside of the humor, if these also be acts of Terrorism - then who tries those terrorists?

 

[gambit]

It is not a Muslim non-Muslim thing we are discussing here - the American Forces have Muslim and non-Muslims elements in them.
And outside of the humor, if these also be acts of Terrorism - then who tries those terrorists?

Whoever is strong enough to defeat and capture them.

 

[SeaGull]

Whoever is strong enough to defeat and capture them.

THANKK YOU!!

Now I am humored enough.

 

[na'am ana wahabi]

I think you would qualify for the title if you support Taliban.In fact i think YOU ARE one.Look, I don't like Israel one bit but that does not mean i support rag tag militias like Taliban.

The word terrorist has actually lost its currency and impact due to two reasons mainly.

1) Muslim Terrorists don't actually care much if they are labelled as terrorists. They take much pride in this label as they truly believe that Allah sanctions terrorism against His enemies.

2) The word has been extremely misused and overused. Case in point- You just labelled me a terrorist on the assumption that I am possibly a Taliban supporter, even though I have not committed an act of terror in my whole life. (Apart from shooting unsuspecting pedestrians with a pea shooter from behind a hole in a hole when I was little)

The Taliban in Afghanistan are often called terrorists yet they are fighting a legitimate war against a regular army who are both brutal and oppressive.

So quit labelling people as terrorist on a whim and a fancy. It makes you look silly and lowers your prestige.

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

BY the same standards the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the indiscriminate use of force against the civilians of Vietnam, bombing in Cambodia - and that against the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan - too, are TERRORISM aren't they Gambit?

Correct. Terrorists are those who commit terrorism to inflict pain and terror.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

A mind blowing women .....

 

[pakomar]

I think you would qualify for the title if you support Taliban.In fact i think YOU ARE one.Look, I don't like Israel one bit but that does not mean i support rag tag militias like Taliban.

talibans in Pakistan are terrorist

but what do you think about Iraqi freedom fighters and Afghanistan freedom fighters????