does the concept of "Terrorism" have any meaning?

one man's terror is another man's...

Terrorism can more broadly be defined as violence for ideological ends. That way it can include religious terrorism.

Sorry, I think i would also add non-state violence in there too.

yeah, but is it? I mean, is there a difference between blowing up soldiers and blowing up civilians?

anyone who uses violence against civilians for the purpose of demoralizing/scaring them, state or not. that's why the Zapatistas do not = terrorists, while the US, when it nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did. of course all the time it gets used to mean "those disempowered people who irritatingly refuse to stop fighting"

is there a difference between blowing up soldiers and blowing up civilians?

It depends on what the soldiers are up to. If you define civilians as people minding their own business, and soldiers as tools of oppression...well then yeah i would say there is a difference.

whatabout "terrorists" who just take hostages and demand money?

What about people who are not part of the solution? Is apathy/ignorance equal to innocence?

Terrorists are just morons. If you're into violence, join the army, or the police. That way you won't get arrested.

Seriously tho, isn't it more realistic to think of them as 'anti- state actors'? 'Non-state actors' just makes all these groups sound like mobile insurance companies or something else neutral. Also it adds a nice polarity to my essentially legalistic argument that if you commit violence on behalf of the state then you're upholding social stability and whatever laws happen to be in place, and if they change from day to day or are solely for the benefit of El Presidente then it's still better than anarchy, right? So that's good. However, if you're an 'anti-state actor', all you're doing is bringing loads of misery to people in aid of a nebulous and probably undecided goal and your own reasons are probably selfish anyway - like, just because YOUR particular bunch are being shit on, you think the wole world should stop and pay attention? So that's NOT good! Oh by the way all u idealistic ppl who are going to tell me that total anarchy is preferable to dictatorship (which it might be but I doubt 99% of the population agree) then why not ask somebody in Zimbabwe? They seem to have the choice of both at the same time currently

So what are these people supposed to do, if any anti-state activity is by definition wrong? Well, that's what religion is for. As long as it's not Islam, that just drives people batshit. Something mellow, like the Quakers, or Ritalin.

Another cool thing about religion is that it presupposes faith in an afterlife, which is presumably better than this one, which means that if the population is insufficiently pacified then you don't have to feel guilty about killing them. Like, if you're going to spend an eternity in paradise then surely it isn't asking too much to just grin and bear another 50 years on this earth without blowing up a Pizza Express?

Another cool thing about religion is that it presupposes faith in an afterlife,

I don't think that's true... both Judaism and Buddhism are not really that bothered about afterlives. Similarly Paganism.

here is a thing: as the United States, the Netherlands, and Ireland were formed by non-state actors resorting to arms, is that enough to make them terrorist states? similarly, the freedoms British people enjoy were partially obtained by the willingness of non-state actors to resort to arms.

My feeling with terrorism is that it has become an empty concept, one used to demonise enemies rather than a term used to describe some kinds of non-state violence.

stop the presses, powerful interests are using loaded words to demogogue their opponents. DV there IS such a thing as state terrorism. We in the US even have our very own state terrorism training camp. Noriega and Galtieri are some of its more illustrious graduates

yeah, but is it? I mean, is there a difference between blowing up soldiers and blowing up civilians?

Yes. Civilians pose less of a threat to the opposition then armed military intent on killing them. So there is a moral difference in which they target.

'both Judaism and Buddhism are not really that bothered about afterlives'

Hmmm, very interesting area! Might explain why Jews haven't exactly been feared throughout history as a martial race (which is why I personally find it cool to see Israel blowing the shit out of everything, I'm sending Ariel Sharon a neutron bomb for Christmas. Oh hold on they don't have 'Christmas'. Now I'm picturing A.S. singing "I'm an angry Jew at Christmas with a neutron bomb" 'South Park' style), and predominantly Buddhist nations aren't well-known for sending in tanks and columns of infantry (unless it's an internal matter of course), they're more into guerilla warfare and dreaming up diabolical sadistic tortures. Perhaps if people aren't so sure there's another life they'll be more cautious about this one? Which is why, IMHO, the more religious somebody is the more they need to watched closely. (What about the militaristic Japanese? That's different, they're an island people and those types are prone to siege mentalities and pointless hostility, I believe islands are nature's way of quarantining rabid peoples, like some others I could name)

and I can talk some more.

is michael jackson a terrorist? http://theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/10/1026185059975.html

Arrrgh! The answer is 'yes, the concept of terrorism has a very precise and useful meaning - one that is rarely heeded by politicians out to score points.'

Terrorism is the concious use of violence to undermine public support for the policies of your opponents' government. This distinguishes it from violence used to destroy your opponents' military capability.

While terror itself has long been a part of military conquest (see Tamerlane for a classic example), terrorism arose mainly as a strategy used by the militarily weak against militarily strong governments that rely on popular support. (Face it, it's just too damn hard to sway dictators by killing off their civilians. They don't give a rip.) It is a classic strategy for attacking colonial powers. The idea is maybe you can't beat 'em, but you can persuade them the game isn't worth the candle.

Terrorism as a military strategy has a very mixed track record. It has a lot of drawbacks and pitfalls. But that is beside the point when you are faced by an army of occupation or colonization and you have no hope of defeating them in battle. At that point you grab for whatever has a hope of working.

Al Qaida seems to be very muddled about its goals. One the one hand, it wants the USA to remove all its troops from Saudi Arabia and to withdraw support for Israel - which are clear enough on the face of them and reasonably limited objectives for a campaign of terrorism. But Al Quaida devotes far too much of its rhetoric to the idea that Islamic purity will prevail over western immorality. This is a rhetoric of conquest and ascendency, not of self-determination.

As such, it is pure, deep-dyed, iron-bound self-delusion. Terrorism doesn't conquer. As we saw recently in Afghanistan, terrorism wins by inflicting a thousand paper-cuts, whereas military might wins by swift decapitation.

Yesterday an Israeli pilot flying an American manufactured airplane dropped a one ton bomb on an apartment building in Gaza. The intention was to kill a Hamas commander, but the mission's planners must have known that numerous civilians also lived in that building and would be killed or injured by the bomb. As it happened, the intended target was killed, but so were 14 other people, including nine children, one just four years old.

Was this a terrorist act? If not, why not?

No, this was a contravention of (admittedly laughable) international law and quite possibly a war crime since Israel have declared themselves to be at war.

Still now they've killed that bloke from Hammas I'm sure that will put an end to the suicide bombings.

Yikes, Pete. I think you've used up your sarcasm allotment for the year with that last sentence.

I don't just have a sarcasm allotment, I've got fields of the stuff.

No. As the other poster indicated it is a war crime, and a fairly heinous one. A good example of Israeli terrorism is their policy of reprisals, such as destroying the homes of Palestinians whose only "crime" is being in the same family as another Palstinian the Israelis convict of using violence against Israel.

This better qualifies as terrorism, because it is specifically designed for its psychological effect on the general Palestinian population, in the hope that Palestinian civilians will withdraw their support for groups like Hammas. Of course, it does very little but convince the Palestinians that Israelis are brutal, crude, and intolerable bullies who must be driven away at almost any cost.

Back to this thread...

I think a problem with some responses is they are too locked into assuming that the point of "terrorist" acts is to cause terror, and they are thus basing a definition of terrorism on the intention of the perpetrator. I don't think that's a good way to proceed, because you can then end up with identical heinous acts being identified differently because of the goals behind them.

That's precisely why the word was coined, though, DV. If it weren't for people wanting to make that differentiation -- specifically, the British discussing the acts and motives of the powers behind the French Revolution -- we wouldn't have the word.

"War" is a state of existence. "Bombing" is an act. "Terrorism" defines motivation. Always has. This isn't a new slant brought in by the media -- it's the purpose of the word. The idea of conducting a revolution in ways meant to frighten people, to deliberately instill an emotional response instead of just acquiring or re-acquiring territory or political power -- that was new to the upper-class folks who coined the word because none of the ones they had were suitable.