quote:

Originally posted by Chryz707 It was a terrorist act, because the people were operating covertly and looked like they were going to assist the Cole.

Sounds like something straight out of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" to me.

Good tactic to hit your enemy...but it wasn't meant to terrorize the population like random suicide bombings in Israel.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 sort of...just ad the part about invoking fear or terror in the general population, then you have a terrorist.

Nah that just confuses things because a lot of groups that cause fear of terror in the general population wouldn't be considered as terrorists by some because of their views on those groups

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Nah that just confuses things because a lot of groups that cause fear of terror in the general population wouldn't be considered as terrorists by some because of their views on those groups

so you are saying my definition is too broad....but your is even broader. i was just limiting the scope of your definition.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 so you are saying my definition is too broad....but your is even broader. i was just limiting the scope of your definition.

Nah your definition would just leave to much scope for argument

I don't think it is possible for anyone to tell me that anyone they consider a terrorist they do not agree with their methods/aims!

The one thing I know is that if the US government sponsors it then it clearly is NOT terrorism.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

Oh we don't want to go down that road again, do we?

quote:

Originally posted by Chryz707 It was a terrorist act, because the people were operating covertly and looked like they were going to assist the Cole.

Not quite, I think the attack on Cole was a guerilla attack on a military unit. It was a vicious and cheap attack, but not terrorist in my opinion. If you think thats a terrorist attack, then you can consider a lunatic going to a mall and shooting people as a terrorist attack too. Well, if he was Arabic or Muslim, it will be considered a terrorist attack.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley A terrorist is a person or a group fighing for a cause you do not agree with

I love your genius, George. Because in that one sentence you pretty much sumed up hundreds of pages of factors that when come together really mean this. I salute you. I shall copy + paste it into my personal secret archive for the best dam quotes / posts I've read.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley A terrorist is a person or a group fighing for a cause you do not agree with

bingo

quote:

A terrorist is a person or a group fighing for a cause you do not agree with.

Not necessarily I can agree with a terrorist and still think he is a terrorist. Terrorism defines a tactic not a cause, and using terrorism as a tactic makes you a terrorist. A terrorist uses fear on the general population that is unable to sufficiently defend themselves, when other means are available to communicate their views. Since fear is a quick way to get people to give in, and people are afraid of dieing. Using mass homicide to instill fear is an effective tactic. Thus defining terrorism as a tactic and not a cause.

___________________
http://www.myspace.com/topix101

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Sounds like something straight out of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" to me. Good tactic to hit your enemy...but it wasn't meant to terrorize the population like random suicide bombings in Israel.

again i don't completely disagree with you. it was an act of war. they were at war. we were not.

why else would you attack a warship during peacetime though, if it were not to invoke at least something resembling the definition of "terror" regardless whether it was a military target?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Not necessarily I can agree with a terrorist and still think he is a terrorist. Terrorism defines a tactic not a cause, and using terrorism as a tactic makes you a terrorist. A terrorist uses fear on the general population that is unable to sufficiently defend themselves, when other means are available to communicate their views. Since fear is a quick way to get people to give in, and people are afraid of dieing. Using mass homicide to instill fear is an effective tactic. Thus defining terrorism as a tactic and not a cause.

Ah but the problem is, as Q5echo shows, that "terrorism" in some people's eyes isn't necessarily a group who targets the general population to spread "fear" (I also have a fundamental objection that the primary aim of any "terrorist" group is to spread fear anyway, I think that's what their opponents say to divert attention from their real aims). A lot of people (esp governments) say attacks against military/police are also classed as "terrorism".

Also, I don't think "terrorism" defines either a cause or a tactic.

Like I said above, don't fall into the trap that terrorists have as their aim to spread fear throughout the population. IMO, that is merely an attempt to divert attention away from their actual aim (or cause) which their opponents do not want to budge on. Again, it lends credence to my belief that "terrorism" is something someone disagrees with. The word itself has negative connotations, never positive, so everytime you describe something as terrorism you are, knowingly or not, ascribing a negative image to what you are describing

I also disagree that terrorism is a tactic. The actual term is geurilla warfare. And again, those who use geurilla tactics are described as either "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" despite the fact they use the same guerilla tactics...