Does terrorism depend on your point of view, or is it objective?

Question

In my opinion, it's objective.
For example, I believe flying airplanes into buildings in the name of God is terrorism.
I also believe flying missles into buildings in the name of "shock and awe" is also terrorism.

scarlett, what if you don't tell them which buildings you are going to hit? The whole city become terrified, even though you only hit a few dozen. That's terrorism.

Lynn, what difference does it make to the victim whether the terrorist is a state or not?

No, turntable, from my point of view ALL terrrorism is wrong. It is not that complicated.

Answer 1

food for thought

Answer 2

Most have the same attitude. the term "terrorism" refers to the act of inflicting terror upon people and that is objective, and something that most people find abhorrent.

A "terrorist" is a very subjective word and depends upon who is doing the labelling, and about who. One persons terrorist is someone else's 'freedom fighter'.

Several Jewish organisations in Palestine under the British were considered terrorists by the British, but many of the individuals became members of the new Israeli government and were considered heroes to the Jews.

The French Resistance during WW-2 were terrorists in the view of the Nazi Germans, but were heroes to the French people.

Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh were terrorists when fighting against the Japanese during WW-2, and the US supported the Viet Minh with arms and training supplied by the OSS (the forerunner of the CIA). They were heroes to most Vietnamese, and became members of the Government.

Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh were terrorists to the French during the First Indochina War, and this time the Viet Minh were NOT supported by the US. In fact the US supported the French with arms, training and even troops from 1948 until 1954. The Viet Minh, as I said earlier, later became the government of Vietnam.

The "militiamen" during the American War of Independence were terrorists to the British, but they are renowned as "American Heroes" within America today.

Answer 3

It depends on if you have declared war and announced that you are coming to bomb within a specific window of time. In this case it isn't terrorism because it gives civilians a chance to flee. When you fly planes into buildings without announcing it first you are purposely aiming to kill and terrorize the civilian population.
It is irrelevant which buildings you hit, the civilians are warned and have a chance to leave teh city. If they don't hear the message it is the fault of their government and if they have no place to go it is also the fault of their government.

Answer 4

The difference is that there were 13 resolutions by the UN demanding severe consequences for Saddams failure to comply.
The president of the US went to the UN and consulted for months with Iraqi diplomats present.
Bush was on TV several times explaining exactly what was going to happen.
The people of Iraq were warned over and over again to get out of Dodge.
New deadlines were offered and rejected and yet more deadlines were offered.
The shock an awe campaign was explained and announced on national TV long before it happened and journalists were given time to get in country and set up cameras.
Journalists were embedded with troops everywhere.
I could go on for hours.......but you see the difference now don't you?
This kind of activity can hardly be compared to a sudden and surprise attack on civilians targets in Lower Manhattan.

Answer 5

Two completely different situations. Only a 60's liberal hippy would not understand the difference. Light up another dubbie and put on your John Lennon records.

Does natzism depend on your point of view or is it objective? For example, I believe putting jews into concentration camps is genocide.
I also believe flying missles into buildings in Germany to stop Hitler is noble.

Answer 6

it seems your point of view of terrorism there is not right and wrong...that means you have no side to choose from and only look out for self interests...meaning you will only make choices that benefit you because right and wrong really don't play a role in making decisions...would you have call our founding fathers terrorist too...

Answer 7

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder... every enemy could be perceived as a terrorist; Americans are perceived as terrorists in certain parts of the world. Fair or unfair, we need to accept that some people see us as terrorists.

Personally, I think that this word "terrorist" is so watered down now.

Answer 8

9/11 was terrorism. I don't care who they were flying under of, it was terrorism. I don't think anyone can truly dispute that, although some have tried.

Answer 9

You just look at the similarities between the PLO and the IRA it can be defined by where you are born and what you are taught to believe.
Honestly how many people would justify the IRA cause compared to PLO when they had the same goals to terrorize innocent people for their cause.

Answer 10

I'd define the term "terrorist" thus:
A non-state combatant who attacks civilians to create fear.

"Shock and awe" is a state tactic, and therefore not terrorism, although it's very close.

Answer 11

Blowing up Saddam is a very different thing than blowing up innocent people.
And...in case you forgot, they were in the world trade center...people from 47 different countries , including Muslims, were in that building that day and died.

Did you take any classes from Ward Churchill or what?