Isn't the term terrorist used somewhat loosely?

Question

Terrorism is organized violence to political ends; to subdue people by fear of murder or violence. So Al Quaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Red Army in Germany, Red Brigades in Italy…that seems clear. The same goes for the Sadam- and the Taliban regime.
But what about the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or later in the Iraq war?
The Dutch resistance fighters were dubbed terrorists by the Germans, but were honoured by the Dutch government after the war. Taliban were resistance fighters when the Russians invaded Afghanistan (and were helped by the USA). Didn’t the USA by invading Afghanistan make the Taliban resistance fighters again? Doesn’t Israel by occupying territory that has not be assigned to them by the UN, make Hamas resistance fighters?
Isn’t the intention to destroy the Taliban and Hezbollah very similar to Hitler’s “Endlösung”?

Answer 1

Only non-state actors who use force against civilians are terrorists by definition. So Saddam was not a terrorist, and neither was Hitler. By the same token Bush is not a terrorist, and neither was FDR or Churchill. The Dutch resistance did not attack Dutch civilians (or Geman civilians for that matter) therefore they were not terrorists. Given that Afghanistan has a legitimate government, it's fair to say the Taliban are terrorists when they burn down a school. When an outfit like the Taliban or Hamas engages what they perceive as an occupying military force, then it gets fuzzy. Yes, the term is used loosely.

Answer 2

Your question is one of the most idiotic pieces of moral equivalency I have ever read in my life.
To begin with, your entire definition is wrong. Terrorism is the application of violence to promote an agenda, ie: the Nazis, the Taliban, Al Qaeda etc...
Civilians, or military personnel killed defending against that agenda - as in Dreseden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki - is collateral damage, with the moral responsibility for those deaths resting with the party that initiated the attack.
If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, or the Germans had not attacked Europe, there would have been no reason for the deaths in Hiroshima or Dresden. Can you say 'perspective'?

The Dutch fighters were defending their country against Nazi terrorists that attacked them first. Why is such a simple premise so difficult for some people to comprehend.?

The Taliban were indeed resistance fighters against the Soviets, who attacked them first, and were indeed helped by the USA, because we shared a common enemy - the terrorist Soviet Union.
However, when the USA invaded Afghanistan 22 years later, the world had changed (there's that darned perspective again), and the Taliban were a vicious terrorist group who were complicit in the terrorist attack on Sept 11.
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and every action they have undertaken is in defense against the Arab terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah, whose stated aim is to kill every Israeli man, woman and child. This, while the worthless, largely anti-Semitic UN sits back and does nothing.

It is your kind of childish thinking, with no thought to context or perspective, that is largely responsible for America's and the world's philosophical paralysis, as the Western world is gutted by Islamic, terrorist fanatics
Do me a favor, keep as quiet as possible from now on, so as to inflict as little harm as possible

Answer 3

When I was a student in 1985 in Germany, many older Germans wanted to talk with me about Vietnam. Well having been born 1965, I was hardly an expert to discuss the Vietnam War.

But what intriqued me was why these older Germans were so curious about the American experience in Vietnam. And then it was so clear to me. These older Germans (some WWII veterans) wanted to know how we Americans felt about being attacked by civilians. The Germans of course experienced this as a result of their uninvited occupation of their European neighbors. But the paralells were there for them. Indeed German soldiers faced attack from civilian partisans and basically came to believe that in those occupied lands that no one was actually a non-combatant.

A classic example occurred during the invasion of Crete. German paras landed without their primary weapons, which were dropped in cansisters. While searching for their weapon canisters more than a few hapless German paras were killed by the local Cretans. Naturally, this ticked off the Germans who retaliated by killing 10 Cretans for every German they killed. This twisted kind of math was employed by the Germans throughout the war whenever they faced partisan attacks.

So you're right. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

However, in my own opinion, the terrorists of today really don't seem to have a political plan other than to commit murder. And even the Germans never had to face the kind of murderous terrorists plaguing our men in Iraq.

Answer 4

Depending on what perspective people are looking from.

We have had Freedom Fighters, Rebels, Underground, The Enemy, Guerillas, Terrorists etc, but Terrorists is the word of the moment.

I wonder what the countries that the Terrorists call them, heros, troublemakers?

Over it all anyway. As long as someones beliefs are different from a certain government, they will be labelled trouble makers.

Still think suicide bombers are wrong though.

Answer 5

I wonder if the English called the Colonists terrorists during the revolution? It seems out grass roots as a country are being forgotten as other countries try to establish theirs.. maybe our own "manifest destiny" is the only true and right one.. hmmm kinda does sound like Nazi Germany... good question

Answer 6

No. Purposely targeting civilian population versus the military/industrial complex is the difference. Soldiers fighting to political ends under orders from their governments should not be compared to baby killers who do it because God or their dog or giant chipmunks commanded them to.

Answer 7

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So yes, it is being used very loosely in a modern context.

Answer 8

The term is definately being used to loosely, only to create panic and terror in the hearts of many.

Answer 9

Gack! Only a TERRORIST would say such a thing! ;-)