Before we open our mouths, we should know what it is and where it is. consider all countries, past wars and tragedies - pearl harbor, hiroshima, etc. and media. can you define it?
2006-09-10 18:33:29 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Every answer I got basically means this:
2006-09-10 18:41:03 · update #1
Every answer I got basically means this:
2006-09-10 18:41:04 · update #2
Every nation and person has engaged in an act of terrorism.
2006-09-10 18:41:31 · update #3
Temple:
911 was claimed by Al Queda and the enemy was named USA. So is that no longer terrorism? I think your definition is only a convenient plothole.
2006-09-10 18:44:20 · update #4
A terrorist attack what else.
A person who speared terror for selfish act is called terrorist. A freedom fighter can't be called a terrorist(dumb) because he is not selfish. Go and learn the definition of freedom fighter. Why are you abusing freedom fighters by calling them terrorist. a freedom fighter is the one lay down his life not the one who takes life of innocents.
A terrorist is the one who kill (for whatever reason) innocent people.
2006-09-14 06:29:14 · answer #1 · answered by goodbye 6 · 11⤊ 0⤋
A terrorist is a coward who hides his identity until it is time to kill innocent civilians in the name of a cause.
There were no terrorists at Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was an attack by a named enemy against another named enemy.
There were no terrorists at Hiroshima. Hiroshima was an attack by a named enemy against another named enemy.
2006-09-11 01:40:19 · answer #2 · answered by Temple 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any person who, through acts of violence, specifically targets non-military non-combatants (civilians) as a means of installing fear for political/philosophical/possibly other reasons; primarily to achieve the capitulation of a political/military entity or to make known the existence and intentions of ones own political/philosophical agenda of his/her self/party/organization etc.
I pulled this definition out of my a$$ but in many western classrooms, this would be a *close* to acceptable definition. The problem with your question is that "Terrorism" is a loaded word. What i mean by that is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. What constitutes as terrorism by one person's definition is regarded as "heroism" or "the only possible method" by another.
How does one define "civilian?" indeed many terrorist organizations who target the United States and its "civilian" populace actually regard us as contributors to the same crimes the government is "guilty" of in their terms. We as adult citizens of our nation pay our taxes, and our tax dollars go towards the manufacturing of weapons and the training of military personnel that take the lives of people in other countries (sometimes civilian ones.) In a democratic society such as ours they (the terrorists) do not distinguish us from our military or our political leaders. It is interesting to try and disregard the bias we all have on varying degrees and actually beg such a question
Our we deserving of such a distinction? What exactly our we guilty of? Most of us on the other hand don't directly target and kill civilians in other countries but we watch our governments do it on a daily basis and what do we do about it? Who is right and Who is wrong?
Read Noam Chomsky. He is one of the premier intellectuals in the world and is very knowledgeable about this subject. Be sure to get second opinions from EDUCATED & INFORMED sources as well.
I write this merely as a thoughtful exercise. I do not support the murder of anyone as a means of ascertaining political capitulation. I am currently studying History/Political Science (social studies teaching) at Colorado State University seeking a PhD. (but that'll still take a few more years heh.)
2006-09-11 02:10:19 · answer #3 · answered by nutsack.jack 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"terrorists" are usually meant to be non-state actors who use violence in furthering ideological ends. every use of the word "terrorist" today fits that criteria, i think. but the term "terrorist" is morally charged. it is an automatic condemnation of the person and their activities. i think thats where confusion arises. is hezbollah a terrorist organization? were the american revolutionaries? both would meet the above criteria of "terrorist," but both are viewed very differently by americans. it is difficult to distinguish between "good" terrorism and "bad" terrorism, just as it is difficult to distinguish between "good" war and "bad" war. we have just war theory. maybe what we need is a "just terrorism theory."
Temple: by your definition then, al-qaida and osama bin laden are not terrorists. both have openly named themselves and openly declared war against the US. if you mean that the individual terrorists rely on disguise to conduct their attacks then you also have to consider covert CIA agents to be terrorists because they do not "name themselves."
2006-09-11 01:45:45 · answer #4 · answered by student_of_life 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One who engages in terrorism, a broad and controversial category of acts, usually involving the use of fear tactics against a population.
2006-09-11 01:35:48 · answer #5 · answered by karkov48 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no specific crime that can make some one a terrorist.
In my words a Terrorist is the one who is dangerous to society. to group, to nation, to race, to country, to humanity..... and even to neighborhood and/or to one individual. Terrorist thinks, acts and lives evil and an-human (no matter in what circumstances)
2006-09-11 01:44:34 · answer #6 · answered by Stranger 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the attack on pearl harbor is not a terrorist attack. basically because it was during a war, and japan's motives for the attack was not to kill innocent civilians. it was to weaken the US Navy so that Japan itself could take over the pacific
a terrorist is basically someone who kills innocent people who don't agree with what they want others to believe in
2006-09-11 01:37:36 · answer #7 · answered by David B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
People who indiscriminatly kill civilians and break non warfare related things for thier own political gains.
Simplified examples-
When a group of people get together to kill communists civilians we call them freedom fighters - Regan era
When a group of people get together to kill capitalists civilians we call them terrorists - Today
2006-09-11 01:55:15 · answer #8 · answered by markl_farkl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a terrorist is one who would disrupt, or destroy anothers life, liberty, and happiness, to push a single idea, or moral attitude against the wills of said one, and create a fear of reprisal if one does not choose the terrorists way of life.
2006-09-11 01:37:51 · answer #9 · answered by leftturnclyde152521 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A government that the people have no control of.
2006-09-11 01:35:20 · answer #10 · answered by big-brother 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋