what is terrorism on your opinion?

Question

in a recent debate i attended the issue of an IRA bombing in a bar in England was discussed.One person made a point that the IRA are an army and fact stated that this bar was a military bar and hence a military target for the IRA civilians however were killed and not all were soldiers.Then the person asked what was the difference between what an IRA soldier had done in planting a bomb in the bar as opposed to American military planes bombing towns and villiages in Irag and Afganistan.Civilians were killed in both attacks so why was it a terrorist attack for one and not for the other when they are both wars.If the IRA bomber had dropped his bomb from a plane like the US military would this have changed how the attack was precieved.At the end of the day the results are the same innocent people have died so what allows that to be made acceptable for anyone.So what makes an attack a military attack and what makes it a terrorist attack.This really has made me think whats your view

ps sorry about the error in the question its in your opinion not on your opinion

Answer 1

I see some of the answers above about the US liberating Vietnam and Kuwait and liberating Iraq. Well the IRA are an army and they were fighting to liberate our country. Its sad but it was a war and innocent people die in war . Just like the 13 innocent people murdered by the British army on Bloody Sunday. Just like the 74 people that a panel of 4 international judges have proven that the British state had helped murder. Just like the countless others they had a hand in murdering by helping the agent Brian Nelson of the UDA target and set up for murder The Dublin and Monaghan Bombings that it has been proven that the British state had a hand in. Just like Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson set up for murder by the British. I could type all night about the British collusion with loyalist terrorists and the many innocent catholics they have murdered.

You cant compare the IRA to these Muslim terrorists. The IRA were fighting for a united Ireland and to drive the British out of the occupied 6 countys and were not trying to force there religious ideas onto people.

You cant compare them to the Americans either. They have no interest in liberating anyone. There interest is OIL not liberity for the Iraqi people and if there was no Oil in Iraq then the Americans and Britiish wouldnt be there.

TIOCFAIDH AR LA

Answer 2

The invocation of fear, by an act, as a means to an end is what i would describe terrorism as. In bombing Iraq I don't belive the US was trying to envoke fear to bring about their way. The Iraqie people knew it was comming, any one who watched the news knew it was comming. The US declared war on Iraq and then they set about having it, it was an open act, not conceled from the public eye, yes innocent people were killed, but it was not intended to instill terorr. I know that good intentions accomplish nothing, but I think the US handled itself well, the war was not aimed at civilians, and it is trajic they lost their lives, and some might say "but to what cause?" And that would not be an undeserving question, we may never know, but the goal was the end off terror, and if this is some way accomplished their deaths will not be overlooked. I think to avoid terrorism in governmet war must be declaired on the target, and then, that targets millitary should be the only target, if civilians are harmed it is unfortunate. It should not matter weather or not bomb is conceiled if it is a millitary target, and war has been declaired.

Answer 3

Generally, terrorists have no qualms about killing civilians, indeed they often target them, so as to get their views heard. The military, at least these days, attempts to engage military personnel (or terrorists), and does all that it can to keep from targeting civilians. That's not saying that mistakes don't happen, but the difference is that the military isn't trying to kill people for attention.

For those that would argue against the case, I would point out that the US military spends billions of dollars to produce precision guided munitions that will destroy a military target, but not affect any potential civilian facilities nearby. Terrorist, on the other hand, usually produce weapons for maximum kill potential, not caring who is injured.

Answer 4

You're asking good questions.

Terrorism is often violence aimed at definitely non-military targets.

If your country has terrorist forces running around in it, then your country's government is relatively weak, and that's not good, so terrorism is not good. If your country's government is committed to war, then it is standing up and taking responsibility for its actions. On the contrary, terrorists hide.

Rarely do the victim-citizens of dictatorships rise up and topple their own dictators. America wants to topple dictatorships, and there is no way for America to do that without hurting civilians. We are attacking the evil government, but how do we do that without hurting civilians? Regardless, toppling dictatorships is a good thing to do, it's how you end international terrorism. So it's a high price to pay, but it's still worthwhile.

Terrorists come from an oppressive source. Radical Isalmists want to oppress people. America wants to liberate people. That's a big difference. We wanted to save South Vietnam, we did save South Korea, we liberated half of Europe in World War Two, we liberated Kuwait, etc.

Answer 5

IMO this debate is as complicated as you want it to be.

For me the Definiton given by the US code terrorism
"means activities that— (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;

seems pretty clear.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html

If U want to debate. Then your question has at least three distinct answers.

The moral, the legal, the semantic

The legal is the easiest

There is no UN definition of terrorism.

"The reason: on the one side stands the position of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It seeks to insert into the Convention: "The activities of the parties during an armed conflict, including in situations of foreign occupation....are not governed by this Convention." Or, as the Syrian delegate describes the standoff, we must "emphasize the need for a clear definition distinguishing terrorism from the legitimate struggle of peoples against foreign occupation and alien domination." On the other side – and in opposition to the OIC - stands the formal position of the Coordinator representing everyone else".

http://www.eyeontheun.org/facts.asp?1=1&p=61

Not much respect for Gandi then.



If the objective is a military target then it is considered a military attack.
If the objective is civilians......
A bar is not a military target even if there are military personnel there.
Unless it is on a military base of course.
A nation has the right to take action when in self defense, or when authorized by the United Nations.
Afghanistan must be covered by self defense criterion.
Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions ending the first Gulf War, to fully cooperate with UN Weapons Inspectors, or to respect the no-fly zones.
A leaders of nation can be guilty of war crimes (not "terrorism") if it deliberately targets civilians.

Answer 6

A regime or government that kills innocent civilians of another country. And since WW2, no other country surpasses the USA.
2 million + Vietnamese
Proxy wars and dictators in S.America & the Middle East...
pimp n hoe foreign policy...
are amricans so stupid that they don't understand the more you get involved in foreign conflicts, the more the rest of the world will hate you?
You are the last imperialist nation on this earth, and your greed and lake of empathy will be the undoing of this planet....
5% of the world's pop'ln, but use 50% of it's resources...500 Billion spent every year on maintaining your global police state..while 1/6 Americans live below the poverty line...give me abreak. America is the last bastion of capitalism in the world today...and you're going to undergo a huge watershed - both politically and culturally in the next 20 years...thank God China will take over....they're a helluva lot more responsible globally than the Neo-Cons/NWOs/Pax Americanas.
George Bush is easily the biggest terrosirst on the planet. And every body except for about 30% of brainwashed/conditioned Americans think otherwise.

Answer 7

it seems that where ever you are what ever you are doing human beings cannot learn to get along with each other. as long as countries like Afghanistan are still causing trouble there is never going to be such a thing as world peace. war is helping pollute the world so what is that helping?
it is known by the world by now that you cannot fight terrorism. if terrorists fought humainly (not blowing themselves up in a car) and wore uniforms (noticeably like our boys and the Americans) the terrorism could be stopped but as long as there are people that will hijack a plane full of innocent people and crash it into world trade centres then the world will never be a safe place.

Answer 8

Terrorism is armed resistance to establishment/government in order to achieve a political objective.

Terrorism may be semantically distinguished from revolution, insurrection, uprising, resistance, or freedom fighting according to the wordsmithing of the world's dominant nations (i.e. who is paying the terrorists' bills) and political correctness.

For example, when the CIA was funding Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic militants opposing the Soviet Union in the 1980's, it was "freedom fighting" as defined by Ronald Reagan. Now the same tactics and methods, carried out by the same organization, are called terrorism.

And even though the Israeli/Zionist organization Irgun was bombing civilians in the 1930's and 1940's, you'll never see it referred to as terrorism today, while similar tactics by Hamas today are of course always referred to as terrorism.

One major difference between terrorism and other forms of armed uprising is that terrorism tends to be conducted by small groups in asymmetrical warfare (going up against a much larger adversary), operating against civilian as well as military targets, with the aim of achieving policy objectives by ultimately wearing down the opponent through fear and attrition.

Answer 9

to be a legitimate military you have to be rocognized by the country you are defending. you have to be in military uniform. terrorist are nothing more than cry-babies who want things their way without concessions. terrorist bomb randomly whereas military targets are generally well thought out targets. military does as much as they can to protect civilian targets and terrorist-murderers could give a rodents rear.and if this is a question you cant rectify militarily how about morally? how would you percieve a group if your family were at their mercy?at the very least the military has a code of conduct and terrorist groups kill because..............my wittle feewings got hurt.

Answer 10

Strange as it may sound, there are rules for war. Members in uniform fighting other members in uniform are given latitude when civilians die in the conflict - unless civilains were deliberatley targeted.
Non uniform people that use intimidation, fear, torture, and killing
are terrorists. The deliberate bombing of a pub is a terrorist act. The IRA doesn't wear uniforms and their use of indiscriminate bombs to kill is nothing more than a terrorist attack! Its also a cowardly way to fight your enemy.