How does one define terrorism ?

Question

which would you say is the greater act of terror.
1. unguided missiles hiting civilians, killing 19 of them .
2. Airstrikes on a civilian population killing 750 .

So amount of civilian casualties doesnt matter when defining terrorism ?

what about defiance of international standards of war, if a country uses chemical weapons, such as white phosphurus or thermite charges or cluster missiles, would this be an act of terror ?

Answer 1

They battered a nation for two military personnel... they caused damage worth 2 billion on a nation recovering from civil war. They destroyed thousands of homes and after 750 murders they are lusting for more... I think Israel just need a pretext to hit at its neighbour.

Israel has thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese in prison to compensate of the two they lost.

Answer 2

Well, first of all, you have to accept that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". What this means is that while some people will see certain actions taken by another group as hostile acts, others will see it as a defensive measure, doing only what they feel is the right thing to do to protect themselves. The real definition of terrorism is the act of terrorizing people or people in charge in order to influence policies or get things done, such as killing innocent people at random (or maybe target specific people for a specific reason).

Regarding your choices, it's hard to say. Both could be considered terrorist acts, but both sides could also claim they're only doing it to "defend" themselves.

If you're referring to the stuff going on in Lebanon, while the Israelis probably are using too much force, Hezbollah is far from being innocent either. They deliberately fire from civilian areas, and/or hide their members/equipment in heavily populated areas so that when the Israelis strike, civilians will be killed, and they can say "OMG, look! Israel killed civilians!" nevermind the fact that the missile launching trucks they use to hurl missiles into Israel is parked in the town that got hit.

I'm not trying to start arguments, blame anyone, or anything like that, just trying to be neutral and look at it objectively.

Answer 3

If we define "terrorism" as "The use of terrifying acts of violence for political ends", then both qualify.

Unfortunately the term "terrorism" has now lost all meaning - in populist politics it just means "whatever the Bad Guys do".

I remember about 40 years ago when Golda Meir vowed never to negotiate with terrorists, which caused some belly laughs in those of us who have heard of the Stern Gang, the King David Hotel bombing and a certain Menachem Begin.

Answer 4

Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima (reportedly killing more than 75,000 inhabitants) or Nagasarki (where more than 35,000 people were reportedly killed!
Whilst those bombings may well have hastened an end to World War II they should never be deemed a Victory for Peace!

If you are after an actual 'definition' of terrorism, the following is probably the best. According to Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dictionary of Military Terms… “Terrorism is the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”

Answer 5

Terrorism is the week man's answer to strong bully who uses TERROR but give it another meaning; i.e. Israel bomb civillians and houses using F16 and other American fancy produce under the claim that people making weapons (Haha look who is talking) while Plaestinian resistance launching home made missle that has little or no effect but still called terrorism! the world is selly equating the aggressor with the victim

Answer 6

Neither and both.

Any life taken is an act of terrorism.

There are no winners only loosers in this action and the sooner the human population wakes up to itself the better.

I am sure Israel thinks it's doing the right thing and I'm sure the opposing side thinks it's doing the right thing but both are creating terror for the other so who is right.

Neither of them.

Answer 7

1. Airstrikes TARGETING civilians, holding innocent people hostage, cutting heads off, and orchestrating suicide bomb attacks
2. Airstrikes targeting military installations that are purposely placed next to high concentrations of civilian people and buildings


I'd go with 1.

The Hezbos are forcing many civilians to stay and continue to use them as human shields.


__________________
UPDATE:

You're missing the entire point. One act is considered intentional - part of the plan. The other is an accident, often caused by the enemy purposely placing their military infrastructure near or in civilian concentrations.

How is it that you are not getting it? What about the executions of civilian hostages through beheadings? What about suicide bombing attacks? Why do you choose to ignore these points in your argument?

Answer 8

Are American soldiers raping and killing Iraqi families not terrorizing them?

Whatever the definition of terrorism, I don't think it matters whether a government has approved the actions or not.

This is why many in the world believe that the number one terrorist is George W. Bush.

Answer 9

Neither. Civilians die in wartime. It's a tragic consequence of war. But it is war, not Oprah. Get over it.

Terrorism = September 11, 2001.

Answer 10

Are you sure that other nations are not call us terrorists??
What are we doing in other countries???
Take the plank out off our own eyes before we look at the speck in another's.
Terrorism is when one country forces it's values on another by force. Islam is a good example of this in another context.
Islam was spread by force. I have read the Quoran and also history. I do not wish to elaborate. Take it at face value or study it.