Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 131

Thread: Terrorism: An Introduction

  1. #1
    IsraelAdvocate
    Guest

    Terrorism: An Introduction

    This is a basic introduction to terrorism.
    It is the general parameters that are an accepted definiation of the word "Terrorism".

    Please notice that this was released on CNNs Website.
    The activities of the Palestinians fit into ALL of the criteria you will read below. There is no whitewashing here.

    The activities of the IDF and State of Israel fit into absolutley NONE of the criteria of terrorism (not even thier weak argument of "State Terrorism").

    Shabat Shalom.




    Terrorism:
    An Introduction

    Is terrorism just brutal, unthinking violence?
    No. Experts agree that there is almost always a strategy behind terrorist actions. Whether it takes the form of bombings, shootings, hijackings, or assassinations, terrorism is neither random, spontaneous, nor blind; it is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends.

    Is there a definition of terrorism?



    Even though most people can recognize terrorism when they see it, experts have had difficulty coming up with an ironclad definition. The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

    In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:

    It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.

    It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.

    It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.

    It is carried out by subnational groups—not by the army of a country.

    Where does the word "terrorism" come from?
    It was coined during France's Reign of Terror in 1793-94. Originally, the leaders of this systematized attempt to weed out "traitors" among the revolutionary ranks praised terror as the best way to defend liberty, but as the French Revolution soured, the word soon took on grim echoes of state violence and guillotines. Today, most terrorists dislike the label, according to Bruce Hoffman of the RAND think tank.

    Is terrorism a new phenomenon?
    No. The oldest terrorists were holy warriors who killed civilians; in seventh-century India, the Thuggee cult would ritually strangle passersby as sacrifices to the Hindu deity Kali; and in the eleventh-century Middle East, the Shiite sect known as the Assassins would eat hashish before murdering civilian foes. Historians can trace recognizably modern forms of terrorism back to such late-nineteenth-century organizations as Narodnaya Volya (“People’s Will”), an anti-tsarist group in Russia. One particularly successful early case of terrorism was the 1914 assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb extremist, an event that helped trigger World War I. Even more familiar forms of terrorism—often custom-made for TV cameras—first appeared on July 22, 1968, when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine undertook the first terrorist hijacking of a commercial airplane.

    Is terrorism aimed at an audience?
    Usually, yes. Terrorist acts are often deliberately spectacular, designed to rattle and influence a wide audience, beyond the victims of the violence itself. The point is to use the psychological impact of violence or of the threat of violence to effect political change. As the terrorism expert Brian Jenkins bluntly put it in 1974, "Terrorism is theatre."

  2. #2
    AhavatISR
    Guest

    Absolutely

    I am glad you posted those definitions. The most important step to resolving or understanding any conflict is defining the terms. And so,

    Terrorism is pointed attack against unarmed, innocent civilians.

    The facts are that none of Israel's operations have ever fallen into the criteria that defines terrorism, while multitudes of Palestinian attacks fall into not only one or two of the definitions, but all of the definitions.

    What is also important is finding out what other countries (legitmate and offical states) have done to defend and protect themselves from terrorism against their civilians. it would be intersting to see if ever there was another country who acted in such moral and ethical ways, as Israel does today, when such pointed attacks were killing her people and breaking down her country's morale?

  3. #3
    tandem
    Guest

    Re: Absolutely

    Originally posted by AhavatISR
    it would be intersting to see if ever there was another country who acted in such moral and ethical ways, as Israel does today, when such pointed attacks were killing her people and breaking down her country's morale?
    any other country in the world, where their civilians are being continuously murdered in such a brutal way by a terror-supporting regime, would have just carpet-bombed the palestinian territories and put the palestinians out of their pathetic existance. even today, the israeli supreme court blocked a deportation order against 3 family members of suicide bombers, who not only knew of the attacks ahead of time, but also helped carry them out. so stupid... unbelieveable

  4. #4
    AhavatISR
    Guest
    (just a note: i wrote a long reply and it wouldnt let me post. so im trying again, but i havent much time because im on a break from work)

    You are right. Any other country would do what is best for her. She would carpetbomb an entire population or deport her disidents or basically do whatever is needed in order to stay alive and safe. I wish we were in the same situation.

    Israel needs to keep the world happy. It is shocking that although Israel's maintains her extremely high standard of ethics, countries around the world continue to find faults, lay blame, create boycotts and foster Israel-hate in their people. (it doesnt matter that they are going by misinformations, rumours and lies)
    With all this flack, Israel must therefore try even harder to maintain support from the countries of the world.

    Why can't she just say "screw the world! we are going ahead with our plans to [insert action here] in order to protect ourselves and eradicate the terrorism brought onto our people"?

    The dilemma is that although much of the world doesnt support our country, Israel needs the worlds aid nonetheless. She can not exist on her own... let alone win a war! Israel needs all the help she can get (financially/economically and militarily) That is simply the way it goes. She must continue to put her pride on the line. She must continue to solve the problem of terrorism/Palestinian growing population by moving slowly towards a solution. She must continue to use underground intelligence and to promote aliyah. For now, she must hold off on doing the efficient/proper/useful/fast solution.

    Israel needs the worlds help. In order for Israel to further her own cause, she must prove to the world that her cause is as worthy of their help. We can not count on miracles. We mustn't stop praying, but we can not expect miracles.

  5. #5
    tandem
    Guest
    >>>'The dilemma is that although much of the world doesnt support our country, Israel needs the worlds aid nonetheless. She can not exist on her own...'<<<

    its conflicting factors. with all the global trading taking place today, no country in the world would be able to exist without co-operation with other nations, other industrial powers in particular. after all, isn't this one of the reasons why the EU was formed?

    in israel's case, its biggest trading partner is europe. the europeans, though, have their own dilemmas. they rely heavily on oil from the middle east, wealthy arab businessmen investing billions of euros in the economy and in european companies. many of these arab businessmen, some of whom are a part of the ruling family of an arab state, have already threatened many times in the past to stop doing business with europeans firms and withdraw all of their savings in european banks if the europeans will support israel in any way

    there is also pressure from the inside; europe has a huge muslim population. france has about 6.5 million alone. the jewish population is much smaller. then you have european politicians who are completely anti-semite. and also, in europe, there is a typical "anti-war" attitude going on, considering the last 100 years -- 2 world wars, communism, cold war, east and west spheres of influence, etc. so when you take all of these factors into consideration, its really not surprising why the europeans are so pro-arab and oppose israel's war against palestinian terror. remember in operation defensive shield, when belgium spearheaded a campaign to place economic sanctions on israel? or how about a supermarket chain in france and norway taking products that are made in israel off the shelves for what?? to boycott a military operation to root out terror after 30 people were massacred as they were about to celebrate passover? so pathetic, these stupid europeans make me puke

    >>>'Israel needs the worlds help. In order for Israel to further her own cause, she must prove to the world that her cause is as worthy of their help.'<<<

    yes, this is somewhat true, but i would certainly like to see israel take a more aggressive approach with the palestinians. no peace talks, nothing until the terror stops. i read in the paper today, that once again talks between senior israeli and palestinian officials are planned for the next few days. these talks, are such a waste of time. and i must say, the israelis make themselves look rather silly. israel cannot go on the world scene and say that the palestinian authority are a bunch of thugs, murderers who support terrorism while meet with senior palestinian authority ministers in hopes of reviving the peace process. make up your mind israel, either they're terrorists or not. and if they are terrorists, then why are you talking with them?

  6. #6
    sharonbn
    Guest

    Re: Terrorism: An Introduction

    Originally posted by IsraelAdvocate
    Please notice that this was released on CNNs Website.
    The activities of the Palestinians fit into ALL of the criteria you will read below. There is no whitewashing here.
    After readin the criteria, I think you're right. PLO attacks and suicide bombings fit all listred critera.

    Originally posted by IsraelAdvocate
    The activities of the IDF and State of Israel fit into absolutley NONE of the criteria of terrorism (not even thier weak argument of "State Terrorism").
    Here I disagree. imo, IDF actions fit one of the listed criteria: premeditation. e.g. the action against Sehada was a planned military operation.
    However, IDF actions do not qualify as terror actions ,since they have no political agenda, they are not aimed at civillians (civillian casualties are an undesired side effect), and of course, IDF is an "army of a country."

    This last criteria does raise an eye brow: Do all actions of soveriegn states fall outside the efinition of terrorism? What about Serbia? What about Iraq's actions vs. the Kurds?
    You mentioned a term "state terrorim", but did not elaborate on this, can you?

  7. #7
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    OK so everything is terrorism. Feel better? There is no good or evil only nuances of spin.

  8. #8
    daveed
    Guest

    Re: Re: Terrorism: An Introduction

    Originally posted by sharonbn


    Here I disagree. imo, IDF actions fit one of the listed criteria: premeditation. e.g. the action against Sehada was a planned military operation.
    However, IDF actions do not qualify as terror actions ,since they have no political agenda, they are not aimed at civillians (civillian casualties are an undesired side effect), and of course, IDF is an "army of a country."

    This last criteria does raise an eye brow: Do all actions of soveriegn states fall outside the efinition of terrorism? What about Serbia? What about Iraq's actions vs. the Kurds?
    You mentioned a term "state terrorim", but did not elaborate on this, can you?
    There IS such a thing as state terrorism. Unfortunetly that happens when IDF crosses the line of self-defence and enters the "just plain kill them all zone." In army terms, its called collateral damage.

  9. #9
    elke
    Guest

    Re: Re: Re: Terrorism: An Introduction

    Originally posted by daveed


    There IS such a thing as state terrorism. Unfortunetly that happens when IDF crosses the line of self-defence and enters the "just plain kill them all zone." In army terms, its called collateral damage.
    And when might that be? You say "collateral damage" - when has any military action avoided collateral damage?

    Again, what do you propose as an alternative to military action?

  10. #10
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616

    Re: Re: Re: Terrorism: An Introduction

    Originally posted by daveed


    There IS such a thing as state terrorism. Unfortunetly that happens when IDF crosses the line of self-defence and enters the "just plain kill them all zone." In army terms, its called collateral damage.

    That's blather, no really it is.... it is the height of cynical stupidity to claim that any force is terrorism. Exactly which world do you live in?

  11. #11
    peacelover
    Guest
    This thread is just playing with semantics.

    What Israel does might or might not be defined as 'terrorism', but how we describe it is not the real issue. The real issue is the action and the consequence - so 'terrorism' or not, we are entitled to call Israeli actions wrong.

    You say that Israel doesn't target target civilians, but not one of you has been able to show any practical difference between the scenes of a suicide bomb and of that in gaza a few weeks ago.

    Yet you would still defend one and condemn the other on a point of motivation, even though the suffering etc is absolutely no less when Israel bombs Palestinian areas than when Palestinians bomb Israel.

    That's why I object to this thread - because a definition of terrorism doesn't change anything. It doesn't change how Israel has acted, it only changes how we describe it, and when people are dying, semantics is petty

  12. #12
    sharonbn
    Guest
    Originally posted by peacelover
    Yet you would still defend one and condemn the other on a point of motivation, even though the suffering etc is absolutely no less when Israel bombs Palestinian areas than when Palestinians bomb Israel.
    you mean to tell me that you see absolutely no difference between a suicide bomber that aims to kill civiliians and a military operation against the leaders of a terrorist group - where accidentaly civillians are killed?

    let me give you another example:
    Osama Bin Laden sent his followers to commit an unprovoked terror attack in the US, killing some 3,500 civillians.
    In response The US launched an anti terror campaign in Afganistan, bombing from the air, overthrowing the Taliban regime. Hundreds of Afgan civillinas were killed as a result of the American air strikes - this was an undesired side effect of the US anti terror campaign.
    You tell me you see absolutely no difference between the two cases?

  13. #13
    peacelover
    Guest
    Sharonbn

    I specified PRACTICAL difference, as in the results and human suffering caused by the two events.

    Take politics out of the equation for just a moment.

    Take a suicide bomb in Israel in which 14 innocent people are killed
    Take the Gaza strike in which 14 innocent people are killed

    So we have 14 innocent casualties in both incidents. You tell me why the deaths of the 14 in the gaza strike are less tragic than the ones in israel. You fundamentally must do this for there to be a PRACTICAL difference.
    To say that Israel did not target them is not a PRACTICAL difference - it is a difference of intent.

  14. #14
    Vic
    Guest
    Peacelover, pray tell us the difference between someone who drives his car in a crowd of people because he didn't check his brakes well enough and between someone who does the same for the pure joy of the result.

  15. #15
    daveed
    Guest

    Cool Terrorism: An Introduction

    Originally posted by elke


    And when might that be? You say "collateral damage" - when has any military action avoided collateral damage?

    Again, what do you propose as an alternative to military action?

    See if this was a war.. collateral damage could be used. But this conflict has no end. Israel can go in whenever it wants and come out whenever it wants. There is no other army.

    What they could do is targeted attacks, if they need to, but taking in the whole lot, innocent and bomber, thats just plain wrong.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 05-08-2008, 11:32 AM
  2. The final hour of Palestinian terrorism?
    By NewsGuy in forum Israeli-Arab Conflict
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-27-2002, 05:26 AM
  3. Replies: 416
    Last Post: 08-19-2002, 05:04 AM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-17-2002, 10:40 AM
  5. Analysis: The "Roots" of Terrorism
    By Not Beilin in forum Israeli-Arab Conflict
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-15-2001, 07:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •