Currently theres no definition for terrorism and so you can't clearly define if something is terrorism or not. Those al-qaeda guys surely are terrorists but if I remember correctly some UN guy said that prostitution is terrorism.

Do you thin that this is a good definition for it:
Terrorism is violence that paramilitary organizations or individuals do against civilians or in certain cases against soldiers because of political or religious reasons. Such violence againsts soldiers is terrorism if those soldiers aren't part of an occupying army.

Nope, no good definition. Why only political or religious reasons?

For example an drugs dealer or serial killer isn't an terrorist in my opinion, otherwise that description would incule them.

I think your defenition is far better than the defenition the UN is recognizing , but take in mind that there are exceptions to everything and anything.

It's easy to point the blame to something or somewhere. " This and that happened because of terrorism" , " We have the democrats to thank for this mess " , etc.

I think this is a very good question to pose.

Is there a definition? Perhaps a terrorist is just someone you call a terrorist...
Anyone who disagrees with political authority and is motivated by that disagreement to behave in a way that threatens the status quo.
What is the difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter"? It just depends whose side you're on.

It's all political. We got Americans bombing Fed buildings yet they are not catagorized as terrorists. But if you're the president of a country w/ shit loads of petro reserve and having lots of weapons will get you that title.

Yes, its all political. Some guys say that americans are terrorists. And some of those guys say that palestinian suicide fans aren't terrorists but freedom fighters?

Remember

So I class em all as criminals even the so called "Good Guys" when they committ Criminal Or terrorist acts!!

By the way, if you voted yes in this poll, don't call americans terrorists since my definition says that only paramilitary organizations or individuals can be terrorists..

In my books, terrorism is whatever my government says it is. Yes, it can be potentially pretty arbitrary.

Really, it does not matter if what your government says or does is wrong or right. What matters is that you know your government has its own, and your, interests in mind when it formulates its policies. Because of that, you pledge allegiance to what they do and follow what they say.

Remember ethics and idealism are very fickle things. Suicide bombers die thinking they are doing the right thing. The governments being terrorised and reacting accordingly also have soldiers fighting for what they think is the right thing. It is very relative. Before we get into an argument as to which is right, it does not matter.

Pick a side which you know will watch your back and provide your desires in life (pleasure, money, power, etc.). I don't know about you but money comes from capitalism, power from democracy/pluralism (unless you happen to be a dictator's son) and pleasure from a secular/non theocratic government (e.g. you can indulge in life's sins without worrying about religious police). Pretty much tells you which side to support, no? As long as my interests are taken care of, even if it means questionable policies, I will be part of it and follow them to the ends of the Earth.

i thought the definition of terrorism was "any act meaning to incite fear / terror in another human being"


my mailman scared the sh*t outta me today, god damn terrorist :P

That is quite crap definition in my opinion. Its way too broad definition, for example school bullies, ordinary criminals or serial killers aren't terrorist although they aren't nice guys.

it has to be a broad definition - otherwise, you have to keep redefining it whenever a new kind occurs.

yes most of middle eastern/arab/muslims/asian people think the same way but they don't say americans => they say US goverment/Israel.


99.99% people in my country think that USA is terrorists . and USA think that Saudi Arabia is Terrorists since there is alot of terrorists guys are from Saudi Arabia specially sep 11. .

its all political.

i thought the us liked the saudi's. kinky.

Terroism is just warfare on a smaller budget.

ahhhhh i don't know ,,, what every body here think about Saudi Arabia ??

i think we arab/Saudi Arabia have the big terrorist . you know why ??

cause we don't have any democracy here and we can't even say any thing against the goverment . and we don't have any civil rights . i wish our goverment be smart like USA and take care there own people. our billions and money goes to the kings and princes and we can't take any thing from our oil .

i think all eruopean people know about the billions that spends on euro every summer from our princes.

we are very rich country and we have more than 70% of unemployment !!!!!! and this is the biggest terrorist.

If you comply with evil government, you partake of their guilt, rather than being absolved of it.
Surely wilfully blind compliance by the populace with a status quo or tolerance of a slow erosion of civil liberties is exactly what enables human-rights-abusing parties to come to power and remain there.
Vive la resistance!

Good book: "The True Believer - Thoughts on the History of Mass Movements" by Eric Hoffer

Remember the term "evil" is subjective and very relative. Better to just go by things which you know is good for yourself - money, power, pleasure and the like. Who cares about doing the ethically "right" thing when in the opinion of some other ethical frame of reference, you are being a evil? Better to just live a hedonistic life and tell all those holier-than-thou religious/ethical nutcases to mind their own business.

As for compliance with an 'evil' government, like I said, as long as I know they will cover my back and I am in a system which I know to be the best for me, what they do is of no concern to me.

"it has to be a broad definition - otherwise, you have to keep redefining it whenever a new kind occurs."

I don't think that is good idea.. if definition is too wide, every bad thing can be considered terrorism and then word "terrorism" really doesn't mean anything anymore.

"If you comply with evil government, you partake of their guilt, rather than being absolved of it.
Surely wilfully blind compliance by the populace with a status quo or tolerance of a slow erosion of civil liberties is exactly what enables human-rights-abusing parties to come to power and remain there.
Vive la resistance!"

In my opinion governments should act ethically in domestic policy, but in foreign policy i don't care about what they do if they just do it outside my country and preferably also outside other western countries. To be honest, i think that too ethical foreign politics may be self-destructive for a country in long term. So i think that many european countries should be more machiavellistic in their foreign politics and not sooo ethical in things related to 3rd world.

This of course doesn't mean doing stupidities like hitler did or starting unnecessary wars. And wars near own country should be always avoided, if possible. I mean that things like development aid shouldnt be multiplied by 2, like people are willing to do in my country or not demonstrate so hugely against wars they aren't going to participate in any case.

i love when someone else makes my point for me - everything is terrorism now. mccarthyism 2001-200?

Hitokiri Kenshin is the cruelest terrorist samurai, an assassin against the Bakufu that ruled Japan from around the late 16th century to 1860s. After a successful bloody revolution, he could have become one of the most powerful in the new government. He refuses to join. He wanted a new world of democracy and equality.

Saito Hajime is the current leader of a special force consisted of samurai for the Bakufu. He is also an assassin killing anyone against Bakufu in the name of his own justice. He wanted peace under the Tokugawa. To both men, killing is the only form of job, art, and life.

Ito Hirobumi was one of the military-political leaders of the new Meiji government. He is not one of main characters in Rurouni Kenshin but a real figure out of a history book. He later became the Chosun (Korea) governor.

Figher Ahn was one of the leaders fighting against the Japanese occupation force to liberate Chosun-In. He shot Ito Hirobumi at the Harebin railroad station. Harebin was once a Korean territory which means a lot for Koreans and Chinese. Terrorists like Ahn helped Japan to rethink everything about their Asian colonization and World Conquest. They tried to kill the Korean language.

Both Kim Jung-Il and Park Jung-Hee were fighters for and/or against the Japanese occupation army. They both did so in the name of National Liberation. After the liberation of August 15, 1945, Kim became the dictator of North Korea. After a successful coup against a highly pro-US but also extremely weak government, Park became the dictator of South Korea, starting the first year of military dictatorship to end in 1997 with the rise of DJ. Kim invaded South Korea resulting in the death of some millions of Koreans and .x million Chinese. Park was assassinated by one of his most trusted subordinates, the then-chief of Korean CIA, Kim Jae-Gyoo.

Part of being a terrorist is political but that's not all. Most terrorists fighting in the name of political liberation and equality have just used the liberty and lives of people other than themselves. I am often more disgusted by them than corrupt and stupid party politicians and government officials.

@cobra88

Asia includes the Middle East. Less than 10% of Asia is Middle-Eastern. Most Asians - it's FOUR BILLION - do not think like Saudi Arabians/Arabs/Muslims, is what I think. People will wake up, only is a matter of time.

I suppose by using the term "evil" I was referring to the more extreme achievements of regimes such as that of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Even if, academically speaking, you could describe these acts as "only evil from one frame of reference", I don't think there is much point in making this observation because if 99% of people think something is evil, then it might as well be objectively so.

In both these cases many individuals had a lot to gain from the genocide being committed on an unbelievable scale, so I merely wished to point out that your pragmatist-individualist moral attitude cannot be taken to extremes.

But if your point of view cannot be taken to its 'reductio ad absurdum', does this not show that it is a flawed justification for apathetic neglect of social duties? How would you define the conditions in which it would suddenly become necessary to gain a social conscience?

You do not have to use ethics to decide that their genocide is wrong. All you have to do is observe that genocide is a waste of resources - people are, after all, just another type of resource. All I am saying is that decisions should be made on quantifiable properties, not something as subjective as ethics and morals.

Sidenote: I wonder if the SS soldiers back then knew that genocide was wrong. If they thought they were acting for the greater good of the Third Reich, then I bring you back to the point of moral relativism and its unreliability as a compass to guide your actions.


A social conscience will come into play when my interests are in peril. For example, I follow the law because I fear the consequences. Not because I fear divine wrath or damnation on judgement day or some other hocus pocus rubbish.

I would view a true social conscience as one that is disinterested - therefore not motivated by any kind of direct gain to the self.
Like paying for CDs not pirating them off p2p.
Hmm my mind returns to the hypocrisy thread...
Oh well, looks like we're not going to agree anyhow - I think humans are more than a 'resource', but the whole argument - on both sides - is merely circular.