Why is the powerfuls' force called "self-defense" and the weaks' force "terrorism"?

Question

Why is it that when the powerful use force it is called "self-defense" and when the weak use force it is called "terrorism"?

This question was asked at the Dropping Knowledge event on 9th
September by Haya El Azzah, 25, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

To find out more about Dropping Knowledge check out our blog:

Dropping Knowledge in the UK:
http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=1048

Dropping Knowledge in the US:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-d8pH0dcoRKeB12yOcnUQp.9VCFos?p=12745

To discuss this subject in more detail follow this link to the official
Dropping Knowledge website: http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/posts/focus/6653.page

Answer 1

Loads of points here, however the only people that are allowed to declare war on anyone are nations, point one. Terrorists by definition are a body of people, not elected nor recognised by any government, who have decided to pursue a political course by unacceptable means to the majority of the civilised world. All civilsed countries have no wish to actively engage in warfare against any other civilised nation/government, other than to protect their own national interests. To instigate an action or offensive against a terrorist organisation is not an act of war by International Legal definition. Terrorism is an unlawfull action against the establishment, political debate is not; therefore terrorist actions are an internal threat and therefore any counter measure is self defence by the establishment of any nation.

As to the weak force for terrorism, depends on how you look at it. National armed forces, in the main, are not suited to fighting terrorist insurgences, however this is not always the case when one has enlightened and broad minded commanders. The communist insurgency in Malaysia is a good case in point.

And as we are no doubt talking about Iraq yet again, would you want Saddam Hussein in power, genocide of the Marsh Arabs, chemical warfare on the Curds, murdering his own family members! For what ever reason Reagan etc. went in, the final benefit has to be for the best for the Iraqi people; once all the interfering bastards have been got rid of and a decent government, of what ever persuasion, has been set up that the Iraqi people, no one else, can recognise. Now if the so called insurgents or terrorists have a problem with that, then they are not for the people of Iraq.

Answer 2

Self Defense is when you defend yourself while *being* attacked.
Revenge is going after your attacker *AFTER* the attack has been committed, which can be seen as Terrorism.
Revenge is *NOT* Self Defense it's a form of agression.
So the more powerful side, and even the weaker side are ALL terrorists *if* they attack *after* the committed original attack from the agressor.
Why are they both Terrosits?
Because weather they have "targets" that are civilian or not, they are still terrorizing the population of what ever that target is associated with ot belongs to.
If a military goes after another military, even if one is weak and the other is a huge strong force, both are terrorists, because people like loved ones and others know and have ties to the poeople in the military, therefore the puplic is still being terroized by WAR.
So you see, they are all terrorists *if* they use violence, they are still terrorists if they seek out revenge. But neither are terrorists if they stand their ground and defend themselves when the attack from the agressor is happening, anything after that would be revenge and is a terrorist act.

This is at least how I see it.

There is such thing as nonviolent gurrila warfare, which I do not see as terrorists because it does not use violence. LOL, but it still gets the job done and a point accross.

If you are reffering to Alkada (can't spell) and the USA military/administration, or Iraq and the USA military/administration then I would have to say, sorry THEY are ALL terrorists.
;-)
The USA is not doing all of this because of *self-defense*, it is carring out its mission through revenge. The act of terrorism has already been commited, 9/11 was 5 years ago, we are not defending our selves from *future treats* that's rediculus you can't defend your self from the future even if you were psychic!!! LOL! No, the USA is seeking revenge. Therefore anyone who condones such a thing and commits such a thing is a terrorist or harborror of terrorists. The USA should look at itself LOL. I'm glad I'm NOT a terrorist LOL, but I'm a USA citizen.

If you are talking about Isreal and Palistine, I'd have to say anyone who fights with violence in that region is a Terrorists (it just so happens that Isreal is the "biggest" terrorists, but that doesn't mean the other side is justified to commit terrorists acts like kidnapping). There is plenty of non-violent resistance, they are NOT terrorists (even though Isreal says they are LOL). When the Palistinians have to defend themselves, that is not an act of violence or terrorism, that's survival and self worth. But again to commit violent agression after the fact is revenge, and revenge is terror.

Hope ya understand what I'm sayin'

::: Peace :::

Answer 3

There is not a single verse in the bible that says the Holy Spirit is not a person. The Holy Spirit can teach, be greived and speaks. Something a force can't do, but a person can. The Jw teaching about the Holy Spirit is just anther example where the leaders of the society have it wrong.

Answer 4

Howdy Haya,
This is not always the case. In resent developments, very rich and powerful forces have been able to take young naive individuals in the Arab world and put all kinds of things into their heads so that they may do their bidding. So when you look at who is really behind the terrorist acts you find in this case rich and powerful people in the oil industry.

What I find appalling is that the United States, being the victim of the most recent terrorist attacks, has done virtually nothing to bring the perpetrators to justice. In my country, when one does not wish to conform to basic acceptable conduct among his fellow man and he acts out he would be incarcerated and will have to pay his debt to society. Why one in the Lands of the Terrorist is not held to the same standard is beyond me. These are social ills of the Middle East, I feel, need to be addressed before we allow such peoples to be intermingled with the law abiding Western or Eastern societies.

Answer 5

Because the media are controlled by the powerfuls and the powerfuls know how to use psychological violence to control the people. In my opinion terrorism is whatever terifies people even if it is done physically or psychologically.
It is also a nice way for the politicians from all over the world to use these words (because it is not only the US and the Iraq) to justify their actions. You can call it anyway you want but the result is the same. Soldiers are killed! Children are killed! People are killed and no God , from any religion would give the right to those who use the killings to justify their actions.

Answer 6

It has nothing to do with power or weakness. In thier time, the Nazis were hugely powerful and they used that power to slaughter 6 million Jews and start a war that cost the lives of over 60 million more. Were they terrorists? Definately. Compared to America, Al Quada is weak, yet they used the power they did have to butcher 3,000 people. Are they terrorists? Definately. The difference between terrorists, freedom fighters and those who act in self defence is defined by action, not statistical power.
Yes, America and Britain's actions have led to the deaths of thousands. Perhaps hundreds of thousands. But we have never slaughtered innocents deliberately to try to gain attention or prove a point. In the real world, it's a numbers game. Do we defend aggressively in a manner that costs thousands, or roll over? Submit? Wait until it's neither self defence or terrorism, but a Total War that costs millions of lives?

Answer 7

More appropriately, where does the powerful get its power?

Through education by the powerful. We live under the State enforcement of an educatonal bias toward the status quo of an oligarchical type of society so it shouldn't be much of a surprise if the system spawns individuals who think they are have an inalienable right to lord it over other people. Even the Church teaches this - much to the disapproval of Christ Himself!

The notion that we NEED leaders to rule over us is a fundamental fallacy upheld by the State which preserves a culture of king and country as if it were God ordained. It is a fully matured atavistic lie from hell that produces a society of power hungry wannabes who create a political and educational environment in which the profligate ego can create the idolatrous demi-god class of people who honestly believe they are a cut above the rest.

So, really the root cause of antagonism, either by people wanting to occupy the seat of their ruler/manager or by the ruler/manager wanting to defend his seat, springs from the basic tenets underpinning our school and university curriculae. These tenets have been put there by early church teachers and scholars who laid the foundations of our education system in the dark ages, who themselves had no understanding of even the fundamental truths of Christianity, and we have been lumbered with a foundation of teaching that at its heart is diabolical.

Answer 8

Terrorism purposely targets non-military targets to "terrorize" the populous, hence the name "Terrorism".

You should stop reading or listening to stupid rhetoric and begin studying history. Hitler was a strong force, and was not called a terrorist, and all targets in World War II were deemed legitimate as long as it did not extend the length of the war.

History can be your greatest teacher if you let it be. But stop letting those out there with an ideological axe to grind keep changing definitions on us.

Answer 9

Personally I go with Karl Popper's definition of terrorism which, to paraphrase is

A violent act, or threat of violence, that is designed to influence the political thoughts or actions of a larger group within society, other than the direct target.

Forgive me if that is not quite right, but that is the general thrust.

This definition is very powerful because it not only covers the actions of groups, but that of governments as well.

Answer 10

These are no forces, they are the motivation behind the use of force.

Terrorists use terror in an effort to achieve their mandate. In the case of Northern Ireland, in an attempt to force the British (protistants) out of Ireland (See the story of William of orange and the red hand of ulster for a background history)

Those being attacked are said to be using self defense in order to protect themselves from their aggressors. Ignore war and consider yourself confronted by an armed robber, whhat would your reaction be and how far, as a proportion of the overall violence level of the aggresor, would you feel justifiied in going?

Whether an entity or nation is deamed to be strong or weak has absolutely nothing to do with the question of terrorism v's self-defense. I don't believe that this could be considered a moral argument; who is to say that holding hundreds of people captive in a foreign prison camp is more moral than the setting of road side bombs to kill non-military personnel.

I see that you are arabic. I myself do not agree with the conflict in the middle east (as run by the US) however there are a number of issues worth considering.

1. In the case of terro v's self defense, the US did not invade or attack any nation until they themselves were attacked. The goal of any operation to date has revolved around military targets whereas terrorist goals have been specifically non-military - those which create the most outcry.

2. Previous terrorist or goralla conflicts in Vietnam or Northern Ireland were conducted with the aim of minimising or in somewhy defending the people of those nations, current attacks in the middle east are often at the expense of inocent indigenoues population.

3. Previous terror campaigns were waged in the name of the people, by the people and for the people of those countries. Any deaths of such people in the carrying out of an attack was considered very serious misconduct. In the middle east, such attacks are often at a far greater expense to the people for whom they are said to be in the name of rather than the so called self defending nations they are aimed at. This reslut in particular leads many to belive that the terrorist are not fighting for the people but for themselves (there is a great deal of money in war) - their survival and their future - without a care for those who suffer.