what is meant by terrorism? Why is US attack in Iraq which kills many people not classified as terror?
536590
It is a double-standard.
558901
Terrorists are different from revolutionaries and freedom fighters. The latter two might accidentally kill innocents by negligence, bad luck or lack of thought. Terrorists by deffinition target innocents in the hope of creating enough fear to win their objective. Terrorism by nature is an admission of the inability to win militarily as such they attempt to scare/intimidate an enemy. This almost always fails so terrorists are also people with a complete lack of knowledge in history. Terrorism in the past has almost always hardened resolve and hurt a people's cause. \n\nSo no, most people could not actually intionally harm children in particuler. How many of you could sit on a bus with a bomb strapped to you and look at the child accross from you knowing you were about to kill them? I don't think many of us could do that. \n\nTo be a terrorist you have to leave your humanity behind. You have to decide that the qualifications for being a human are your narrow specifications. That those not like you are not human. Again most educated people cannot draw this line. Killing soldiers and enemy leaders yes. Killing those of your own group who betray your cause yes. Intentionally killing children and innocents no. \n\nThis is also why I feel that the accusations of the West being terrorists are groundless. When a missle hits a hospital by accident, often because the enemy placed military targets right next to a hospital, it was not something they wanted to do and we feel bad about doing this. The Arab nations know this and intentionally place targets near schools, hospitals and other areas willingly sacraficing women, elderly and children to generate negitive PR against their enemy. There is something inately psychotic about doing that in my opinion. \n\nMe I could easily blow up enemy bases, help sink enemy ships, assasionate an enemy leader and such if I felt I had really good cause to do so. I could not knowingly execute children. It's just not in me.
312575
Nahh,in fact anything now is considered as terrorist attack.Then, why you dont consider the Bird Flu as terrorist attack?
737244
Not really. In fact, the current occupation of Iraq doesn't have anything to do with the reason we went over in the first place.\n\nWe're doing nothing more than baby-sitting the country, and acting as its local police force, while it's in the middle of a civil war. There is no evidence, none, that says anything we're doing there has any effect on global terrorism. It's purely politics and empire-building.
977643
Iraq, not to be confused with the War on Terror
991548
Terrorism that we are experiencing here and in Iraq are about religion.  Oil is an issue but that is not what causes these people to blow themselves up. Islam is a very good religion but some people interpret to there own liking.  Just as some Christians do. There will always be people that think and feel what they believe is what everyone should believe.  This is the main reason we have a democracy today in America.  Read your history.  It has been going on for hundreds of years.
701310
Terrorism is killing or threatening to cause physical harm to a civilised society in the name of some cause. Terrorism breeds out of perceived injustice whose advantage is taken by unscrupulous elements. There are different types of terrorism- religion-based, territory-based or state-sponsored.\nIrrespective of the type of terrorism the propagators try to justify it in the name of certain cause or ideology.\n\nReligious Terrorism: Example Al-Qaida who led Muslims to believe that they have been historically mistreated and must fight to avenge that.. Truth is that such people follow no religion because no religion propagates violence.\nTerritory-based Terrorism: Example LTTE in Sri Lanka, ULFA in Assam. They believe that their territory has been 'occupied' to external forces and they must fight to overthrow their oppressors. Truth is, in most cases, these people are greedy to control and exert their power with vested interests and little interest in public welfare.\nState Sponsored: BY FAR THE MOST DANGEROUS. Example Hitler in Germany, George Bush in USA, Narendra Modi in Gujarat, Musharaf in Pakistan, who use government machinery and armed forces to spread terror. The reason it is so dangerous is because people like Hitler and George Bush have access to tremendous resources, arms and ammunition to attack soft targets to further their propoganda.\n\nRemedies:-\nEvery country must actively co-operate and ensure to root out terrorism from their soil. \nResolving issues through negotiations and via multi-lateral forums like UN.\nAllaying fears in the minds of people, by avoiding 'us against them' and 'clash of civilization'  kind of rhetorics.\nEducating people and providing employment opportunities to disillusioned youth to ensure that they utilize their energy positively.
983804
Terrorism is a wide concept that has been used throughout the ages, by the powerful to oppress the weak. It has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. In fact, I believe most of the writings in the Qu'ran are similar in one way or another to Christianity and Judaism, and I'm a Catholic myself. Here's the definition of terrorism from Encyclopedia Britannica:\n\n" The systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police."\n\nA good example of an authority or state using terror to achieve "victory" (just like that fake Muhammad quote you posted) is France after the revolution in 1789, Robespierre executed hundreds of possible political enemies and innocent people, thus inflicting  fear in the population. Another good example of a state promoting terrorism is the United States of America. Want examples? The A-bombs in Japan, the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, the funding of anti-soviet guerrilla groups in Afghanistan (Osama Bin Laden was in one of those groups), the funding of the Contra guerrilla in Nicaragua, the sales of weapons to IRAN during the 80's which eventually led to the Iran-Contra Scandal, the funding of anti-goverment and terrorist groups inside Saddam's Iraq during the 90's.
674975
murdering helpless civilians is terrorism, and we do it too by bombing villages the explosion doesnt ask for names whenit goes off ,,soo we are part of the problem ,also any government that kills to make a policy stick like the saddam regeme one of our best customers by the way,, America makes and builds and sells more weapons than any country in the world ,,so we evn indirectly help to spawn revolutions ,,and arm drug gangs ,,around the world,, and terrorists
239669
I agree with, bigman2006.  Terrorism isn't just bombing places and people.  A terrorist destroys lives and has a personal agenda, such as, Bush.  Bush doesn't care about the American people but cares about big business and the rich.  Outsourcing of jobs is destroying the American dream.
230190
the term "Terrorism" should be thought of as a marketing term, a generic term for "bad guys": it's used so that the electorate will believe that a problem is being addressed and solved.  In the eighties, the "free world" confronted communism; today, we confront terrorists.\n\nSo, to answer your question, a complex definition would be confusing, but would explain the actual political and economic issues at hand; a simple definition would encourage the masses to actually read the newspaper and rally behind the US.
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.
733247
Tough question considering that they war on terror is not technically supposed to be a war against any certain nation yet we focus on the middle east and its extremist religions. The Iraqi forces are having trouble organizing because of the sectarian nature of the population. This seems to me like it would provide a great and easy avenue for the organized entrance into our nation of small coordinated covert extremist terrorist groups. I hate to say it.
998148
and while this war is going on, there has not been another attack on US soil.  We are making some serious headway in the global war against radical Islam. Money well spent to me.\n\nHere are the facts.\n\nWe invaded Iraq in March of 2003, can you tell me of a terror attack that has happened on US soil since then?
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.
1181616
terrorism isnt a thought, its an act. and a networked group of people who infiltrate governments and societies for the purpose of destroying other countries who they claim are against Allah.
708410
Did you happen to know that putting the US into bankruptcy is the main goal of the terrorists?  Why do you think that most of terrorist attacks are mainly happening in Iraq?