Well, Mr. Big brother IRS man...Follow

Yeah, but it's Texas. You know they think they're a separate country.

What is this I don't even...

I think you would be wrong on your definition.

Um, we have enough crazies here already. No more, please!

Only the winners and history get to decide who are terrorists, patriots, insurgents, and freedom fights.

The 9/11 hijackers and the poverty stricken Muslim community were angry at not only the military proliferation of the United States and our interference in their governments but also the economic aggression and exploitation by corporations. Their attack on the WTC complex was an attack on American corporatism and the facilities/personnel that enable them. So by this definition, none of the 9/11 attacks would be considered terrorism, since they were attacking directly the entities that they set themselves against.

This right here, still silliness.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that it's wrong to make a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants, and terrorists?

Members of the French Resistance in WW2 were unlawful combatants. They were not protected by the Geneva Conventions when captured and often suffered pretty horrific treatment (right up until they were lined up on a wall and shot). However, as long as their attacks were on militarily related targets, they were not terrorists. If they were attacking random German tourists passing through and attaching "get out of France" signs to their dead bodies, then they were.

Surely you see the distinction?

I'm just going to leave this here.

Crossposted.

I didn't say that the Geneva Conventions do not "cover" those situations. I said that the Geneva Conventions do not "protect" unlawful combatants (in the same way they do for say lawful combatants).



That depends. If they are given an "unfair trial" you would be correct. If they are not given a trial at all, you would be incorrect. POWs are not entitled to a trial, fair or not. Are you arguing that this is in violation of the Geneva Conventions?



Yes. They do. Unfortunately, most people's understanding of them is based at best on hearsay and at worse from re-runs of Hogan's Heroes...

Which is completely backwards (even assuming that is the correct interpretation of the FBI definition).

Destroying a lab where animal testing is done may or may not be terrorism depending on the reasons for doing it. If it's done to prevent that lab from hurting animals, it's not terrorism. If it's done to serve as a warning to other labs, then it is.

Destroying an unrelated building in order to garner attention to your cause is always terrorism. Your entire purpose is to make people afraid enough that you might destroy their property (even if they aren't involved in any way in animal testing) that you'll work to aid their cause. That's the *only* reason for doing that, so it has to be terrorism (I'm assuming we're ignoring cases of purely random destruction unrelated to any objective at all).



That is normally true, yes. Soldiers are generally considered a legitimate target by enemies of the state they serve. I'm still trying to get across the idea that what makes something terrorism isn't what or who you attack, or even how you attack, but why you attack. Specifically what you hope to gain by performing the act. If the act is complete of itself (I'm killing that soldier because he's my enemy), then it's not terrorism. If the act is designed to evoke fear in the target group in order to get them to apply some pressure to a third party which you wish to influence, then it's terrorism (I'm killing that soldier and leaving his headless body in front of the local news agency, so that pictures will be broadcast back home and influence the public to call off the war).

Obviously, there are degrees and some cases where it's hard to make that distinction. But there are other cases, where it's very very clear. A Taliban fighter planting an IED (for example) is *not* a terrorist. Period. End of story. Not because he's targeting military personnel, but because he planted that IED as part of a larger military objective (kill enemies roaming around his country). Planting the exact same bomb in a bus station in another country in order to influence public support for the exact same military conflict *is* terrorism.



Absolutely. I was mainly going after the idea that just because the "target" isn't a person does not prevent the act from being terrorism. People fear for their property too. I could argue that a group running around vandalizing people's cars with a political message can also be labeled as terrorists. They don't care who's car it is, they want that person (and others) to avoid having their cars vandalized and hope that the easiest route for them to do that is to do whatever the vandals are demanding.



Sure. I'm presenting a definition which I believe to be the most accurate and non-biased way to tell if something is terrorism or not. You're free to disagree of course! I began presenting this definition many years ago in response to the somewhat ridiculous overuse of the term in the media (and by the government). To me, it makes sense, and I also think there's some value in having an objective means of determining whether an act is terrorism or not. Too often, we apply that label more out of a desire to maximize the negative perception of whatever we're labeling than being accurate. When you look at all the ways the term has been used over the last decade, you could easily conclude that terrorism is basically any act performed by a group or for a reason which the labeler dislikes a whole lot.


Personally, I find that to be a less than useful definition... ;)




/shrug

And if their definition "fits" what most people think terrorism is, while the "official" and "accepted" definitions seem to be all over the map? That would seem to be an attempt to inject some sanity into the issue, wouldn't it?

I'll point out again that the word "terror" is included in the word "terrorism". One should conclude that the proper use of that term should be in some way related to the act being designed to evoke fear. I'd argue that's what distinguishes a terrorist attack from some other form. Again. You're free to disagree, but I'd appreciate it if you would avoid simply falling back on someone else's definition. IMO, that's kinda pointless...

??? When did I say they couldn't detain a POW. That's sorta the point.