Does the word terrorism have any meaning?
84703
Definition by US Gov't.:  "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."\n\nThis word is used a lot lately in very imprecise ways.  For example, Iraqis who blow up US troops are not terrorists, because the troops are not noncombatants.  To call any government or any person working for any government "terrorist" is a contradiction in terms.  This doesn't mean that they may not be behaving in inappropriate ways, just that people should find something else to call them.\n\nFor example, if it is discovered that the men who carried out the Trade Center attacks were actually working for the government of, say, Iran, (and I am not implying that they were) then they would no longer be called "terrorists."  They would be "enemy combatants."  This is a distinction which is particulary relevant in the current political climate.
393235
Wrong usage of Fundamentalist, which is a Christian term\nThe terrorist groups make up a tiny minority of the Muslim population. Wrong usage of Hoard\nGood, that's subjective, and a bad choice of words\n\nAnd vanquish, terrorism can only be suppressed, so never really.
942870
You are more likely to be a victim of crime than terrorism. This just shows you where their priorities lie. Scaremongering rather than solving.
535000
By discrediting its methods and success. Terror is not a noun either. It is a abstract concept. That said, militarily, you can't win a war on terror unless you kill everyone, which would mean no agents for terror to use. \n\nRationally, to win, one must win the hearts and minds and show that terror doesn't work in achieving goals. \n\nSuffice to say, we aren't doing a very good job.
547954
Depends what your argument is. and what exactly the debate is about. Good to know your oppositions points ahead of time though. Does one side want to say terrorism is good.\n\nSome say that a terrorist is just a freedom fighter, the difference is that terrorist kill innocent civillians in order to scare or terrorize the general population. Freedom fighters fight guirilla warz against the military and police.\n\nTerrorists (usually) have no unified flag and are just disgruntled individuals working on their own. It is said that there are larger groups that are working together. Your Al Qaida, kkk, skin heads, \n\nWhy do terrorists terrorize, even if not valid reasons what is their excuse. Are they oppressed, what?\n\nWhat is the govt. doing about it, at home and abroad?\n\nIs it as big a threat as some people make it seem?
224740
none that I know of. They probably are blinded by the fact that it is suppossed to fight terrorism. the opperative word being 'suppossed'. It's like their privacy is not important. My mother-in-law would follow G.W. into a tornado if he said it would fight terrorism. Oh well, I say. We all die anyway.
350609
What is the Identity or Meaning of Terror in todays News and Media?
942744
Terrorist(ism) is really a non-specific term. Enemy (an entity) is of high utility to identifying, targeting & protecting. You could point to countless categories of violence, ignoring more important attributes that unite the perpetrators, and make no progress defeating them.
423852
Firstly,I heared alot about terrorism and its connection to Islam. so i think by false that Islam=terrorism. when i chat muslims i found them normal people but i think they know what they want and they trust their God completely.so I think that Terrorism have not any connection with Islam and muslims who kill, burn and explode are only bad people which fill all countries and all religions.
205378
Terrorism = acts of violence commited against non-combatants (that includes civilians and auxiliary military personnel and any military that's not actively involved in an open armed conflict) with the purpose of harming the psychological balance of the enemy (basically seeding terror within an opponent's ranks).\n\nThe men fighting US and UK in Iraq (and elsewhere where US and UK have troops on soil other than their own) are basically freedom fighters. But when they employ tactics that are ment to seed fear rather than obtain tactical advantages over a declared enemy, that makes them terrorists also.\n\nHowever even here there's a fine line as some freedom fighters commit terrorists acts others don't. The difference is even more obscured by the fact that US declared a war on terror and if such a notion is to be taken seriously (though normally it isn't enough to just say you're at war and actually considered to be at war lawfully) then the attacks against US personnel in Iraq can't be considered terrorist acts, since it's war.\n\nIf another country occupied mine I would fight by any means I see fit. There is only one justified reason for occupation and that is if the occupied country has requested foreign military intervention through recognized representatives that speak for an accepted majority of the country. Sometimes the UN can authorize military intervention on a country's soil if that country has commited repeated acts of aggresion against UN members or the violent conflict within a country threatens the territorial integrity of a UN member. If my country would be at fault for any of these, I would join the occupation force (which wouldn't be called an occupation force anyway).\n\nAs such, the US presence in Iraq isn't justified and is also illegal. The US campaign there was accomplished with the use of lies, deception and acts of terrorism performed by US military (attacks against civilian population, economic embargo even of humanitarian products, the 'oil-for-food' extorsion attempt - some which were conveniently called mistakes, a very unbelievable excuse from the most modern army in the world which also claims high moral principles).\n\nAgain, as such we can identify two types of terrorism: classic terrorism (performed by international organisations such as Al-Qaeda or national such as ETA or IRA that usually employs physical violence: guns, bombs, etc) and neo-terrorism (or state-terrorism - performed by a nation against another, state-endorsed which employs methods of economic coercion, indirect violence against civilian population such a economic embargo, high prices for food and water, etc commonly performed by US, Israel and sometimes China outside of international lawmaking agencies such as UNESCO and UN).\n\n--- to bungiebabe (edit): it will be a challenge to find the source which I copy/pasted simply because it doesn't exist. All answers I give come from my personal experience and research (I am correspondent on Middle East issues for some newspapers in my area, which is why I tend to answer this type of questions) and sometimes I credit Noam Chomsky and Annabel McGoldrick for quotations, but I don't copy paste. My main source is, as always if you've followed my posts, www.un.org and the UN list of General Assembly resolutions and Security Council resolutions.
173035
When it comes to a terrorist there is no such thing
1182964
Terrorism exists as a cheap and pretty reliable political instrument. It is very easy to get started: in every society there are desperate people who, if worked well with and encouraged enough, may constitute a striking force which can be used by security service of a country as a pressure tool towrds the object country. There is a sophisticated switch on/off mechanism. This is classic, if You want a state-sponsored terrorism.\nThere is another one which is totally unmanageable. It is a new wave we have today. How it works? Issue a fatwa in Internet and proclaim, for instance that killing Americans may bring a direct way to paradise - Paradise NOW! People in remoted areas get inspired and prepare an attack without relying on anyone - what they need is some technical, religious and maybe financial aid. That's it - a hotel is blown up into pieces by a European looking guy without any beard or turban.\nWhy this exists? It is a way of self-expression for those who are committed and ambidextrous tool for power-interested groups/governments.
324842
Terrorism is buisness. With out the governments and big buisness there would be no terrorism. It works the the favor the governments and big buisness. How does it benifit the supposed guilty parties and little people.... NO WAY WHAT SO EVER! ;) so who is responsible? I think we have heard the work FRAMED used before.
807037
Terrorism is not spacific to religion.  All people are capable of terrorism.
1111252
The destruction of the world trade centre and the attack on the pentagon has been described as the greatest act of terrorism. \nHowever history demonstrates that the most horrific acts of Terrorism has been carried out by the freedom loving democratic nation, the United States of America . According to their own Official FBI definition of terrorism: “Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” \n\n IRAQ : \n From 1991 to the present day the United States Air Force and Navy have slaughtered over 200,000 civilian people in Iraq with Depleted Uranium missiles, cluster bombs, cruise missiles and other so-called “smart bombs.”\n During the “Desert Storm” terror campaign the arsenal also included fuel-air bombs and napalm. 177 million pounds of bombs were dropped on the people of Iraq in the most concentrated aerial bombardment in the history of the world. In the 110,000 sorties of the six-week onslaught the cowardly American and British pilots (and to a lesser extent French and Saudi pilots) mass-murdered at least 200,000 people, using depleted uranium missiles, napalm, cluster-bombs, fuel-air bombs, cruise missiles and other so-called “smart bombs.” The slaughter of civilian people in the Amariyah bomb shelter was a Prime example of this American/British state terrorism. Most of them were women, children, elderly, and invalids from a new housing development. Cowardly U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force jet pilots caught one sixty-mile-long column of fleeing Iraqi soldiers and Palestinian civilian families in vehicles on the Kuwait to Basra highway - and pounded them ruthlessly with bombs and machine-gun fire. The road, clogged by four lanes of one-way, bumper-to-bumper traffic, was carpet bombed by B-52s dropping 1,000-pound bombs, and repeatedly hit with laser-guided missiles and “smart” bombs. All the Iraqi soldiers, as well as Palestinian workers and their families, were slaughtered without mercy. The bloodthirsty American pilots gleefully described the massacre as “shooting in a sheep pen.” \n During the Desert Storm terror campaign at least 944,000 rounds of Depleted Uranium ammo were fired from American A-10 Warthogs all over Iraq and Kuwait . When a depleted uranium tipped shell strikes a tank or armoured personnel carrier it easily penetrates the armour and burns the crew alive. The impact also vaporizes the depleted uranium, creating an aerosol of radioactive heavy-metal particles which can spread as far as 190 miles on the wind. When inhaled or ingested, the depleted uranium particles cause chemical and radioactive damage to the bronchial tree, kidneys, liver and bones. Cancer often results, and the effects can even include genetic damage. \n The Dutch Laka Foundation estimates that the United States terror campaign left behind 300-800 tons of radioactive waste from this ammunition all over Kuwait and Iraq - poisoning the air, the land, the water and the people everywhere. Afterwards, wherever the depleted uranium firing had been concentrated, there were cancer epidemics among Iraqi civilians living nearby. In the ten years since then, sanctions, polluted water and depleted uranium together have killed somewhere between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 Iraqi civilian people. At least 600,000 of the dead are children. Cancer rates have quadrupled in areas of southern Iraq bombed by the American and British state terrorists. Since it began, thousands of Iraqi babies have been born with horrible birth defects. This is something that has never before been seen in Iraq . \n Over the course of only 43 days and nights, approximately 62,000-80,000 air-delivered cluster bombs were dropped on the Iraqi people by the American-led state terrorists. In addition, 10,000 MLRS rockets and 100,000 “Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munition” artillery she
434814
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. \nWhether guerilla tactics are evil depends on whether we use them against others or whether they are used against us. \nAt one point in time American settlers were considered terrorists against the English crown, and Israel was helped into existance by Mossad, then considered terrorists by the English (again), for killing civilians and bombing buildings in order to create the Jewish homeland.\nI believe that the press coverage of Iraq and terrorism tends to use the word "terrorism" a bit too liberally. A lot of attacks against American troups are doubtlessly perfomed by "real" terrorists a.k.a. al Quaida, people that are not fighting FOR anything but rather AGAINST everything, against America and the West to be exact. Many of them aren't Iraqis but muslim secretly brought into the country and trained in geuerilla warfare, as terrorist, to be used, if possible, somewhere else later. \nOn the other hand there are insurgents, probably more everyones idea of freedom fighters. They fight FOR a free Iraq (whatever they mean with this). They are Iraquis and they feel their cuntry has been invaded, and they bloody well want to do something about it. Calling them terrorists seems a stretch.
77968
Terrorists are a very hard to define group of people. It depends on the nation or person lobbying the accusation to define who is or is not a terrorists. Take for example, Israelis and the US have often blamed the Hamaz of Palestine as terrorists for targetting civilians but their own country men calls them freedom fighters for their effort in liberating their country. The same can be applied that the rebels in America during the war of independece were terrorists in that they target British loyal subjects. But to answer your questions not all terrorists are Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists. Terrorists can be applied to any national as the US found out during the Oklahoma bombing or when the IRA in Ireland decided to take arms against the British. We could say that the Germans in WW2 were terrorists for conducting civilian bombing in London and even the US Air force for their bombing and destruction during the Vietnam war not for getting the Mai Lai massacre of unarmed civilians. Generally we label terrorists are those inclined to use violence to solve problems or to make demands for their cause and lead to the use of terror and the threat of violence to further their aims. It is hard to define whether their cause is a just one or another fanatical response to get what the wish for. The label of Muslims as terrorists is an inaccurate picture and generalizes and racial profiling due to fear of the unknown after the Sept 11 bombing as well as escalation of war in the Middle East.