What is Terrorism?

[Captdon]

Okay. Make the individual who launched the drone on U.S. soil and killed the Pentagon worker a soldier in the army of some Middle Eastern nation.

Although, I honestly fail to understand how someone can consider an act to be terrorism on the one hand, and simply a war-related tactical action on the other, based on whether or not the guy at the controls is wearing a uniform.

I fail to understand how you can't get it. Individuals don't have anything to do with it. Individuals can't make a decision unilaterally. A nation can. No matter how you word id you can't make them equal.

[Captdon]

Someone explain what the difference is between an arsonist that tosses a jar of gasoline at a drug store and burns it down, killing some people inside, and a "terrorist" that tosses a jar of gasoline at a drug store and burns it down, killing some people inside?

Does one get special considerations over the other?

Is the distinction between them something rattling around in your head that you must expand upon to satisfy some intellectual urge to complicate everything?

You just explained it clearly. One is an act of insanity and the other is an act of terrorism.

[Mister D]

Okay. Make the individual who launched the drone on U.S. soil and killed the Pentagon worker a soldier in the army of some Middle Eastern nation.

Although, I honestly fail to understand how someone can consider an act to be terrorism on the one hand, and simply a war-related tactical action on the other, based on whether or not the guy at the controls is wearing a uniform.

But he's not in your scenario, He is a non-state actor. It's an illegal and terrorist act precisely because of that. Intent is also an obvious factor here but that's another matter.
That's the legal and theoretical reality of the situation. Is it fair? Is it always consistent? Does it deserve criticism? These are all valid questions but the distinction is legitimate. Moreover, I can see on the one hand how some would perceive this as self-serving but its original intent was to limit violence.

[Cletus]

Someone explain what the difference is between an arsonist that tosses a jar of gasoline at a drug store and burns it down, killing some people inside, and a "terrorist" that tosses a jar of gasoline at a drug store and burns it down, killing some people inside?

Terrorism must have a political component to it. It must be an act intended to influence government.

The arsonist who throws gasoline at a business just to watch it burn is not doing it for any reason other than his own satisfaction.

[Standing Wolf]

I fail to understand how you can't get it. Individuals don't have anything to do with it. Individuals can't make a decision unilaterally. A nation can. No matter how you word id you can't make them equal.

In the case of the drone strike in Pakistan, it wasn't a "nation" that gave the order, flew the drone or pushed the button that blew up the house, killing any number of people; it was a small number of individuals who had been granted authority to perform such operations by our government. You don't view that as terrorism, as you would if a foreign power authorized one of its citizens to conduct a comparable strike on U.S. soil, because the United States has the power to make its own rules, define terms like "terrorism" however it wants to, and to brush off criticism and condemnations of its actions at will.

That's the kind of thinking that lets a government sleep well, so to speak, when it permits its own intelligence operatives to subject prisoners to waterboarding, after executing Japanese military officers after World War II for doing the same thing to our soldiers.

[Just AnotherPerson]

Interesting point, in my current thinking - straight up battle, or violence associated with a rebellion is just that. In particular, when directed at a government. Violence directed at a population used in conjunction with straight up rebellious assaults, to scare the population, for the purpose of limiting their willingness to take sides, or participate -- this is a terrorist tactic included in the overall strategy. This backfires on the rebels so far as I can tell. It silences their potentially worthy message by reducing them to mere terrorists. As we know, we are mostly all conditioned to believe a terrorist is incapable of having a worthy cause, we are auto-conditioned to believe they are just crazy.

If the governments of the world can succeed in causing their respective populations to associate anti-government speech as terrorism -- game over

Oh yes I agree with what you said here. Yes game over. I believe we are headed in that direction though. In china you cant even say certain words now, they have been banned from use, and any search that has that specific word on the internet wont show up. Our world is beginning to police our minds.

My main point with that post is that it could be considered terrorism if a person is actively trying to get others to rise up to actually start a war in their nation, and that war would be the cause of the death of many. It is like pre meditated murder in a way. A peaceful rebellion is different. I believe there are peaceful means to raise your voice. I don't think just talking about hating your government is terrorism. If that was the case then all of us here in the forum are terrorists. :) There is nothing wrong with talking about it till the cows come home. It is only when a person actually begins to really plan for a civil war in our nation and starts recruiting others to join, and is calling soldiers to come forward in their future overthrow of their government. I believe that is when it crosses into the territory of terrorism. That is just me though.

That being said I totally agree with what you said.

[Lummy]

You just explained it clearly. One is an act of insanity and the other is an act of terrorism.

So, the terrorist would want to plead insanity in order to get special considerations, interesting drugs and possibly a reduced sentence.

Terrorism must have a political component to it. It must be an act intended to influence government.

The arsonist who throws gasoline at a business just to watch it burn is not doing it for any reason other than his own satisfaction.

But the crime is identical in both cases, and so its the crime alone that should define punishment. The logic of redefining the act of arson and its punishment along political lines or according to reasons not related to the crime itself allows one criminal, say a Democrat, to go free or be tried on lesser charges, while someone whose guts Democrats hate, say a Republican, could and probably would be more severely punished.

Big, big problemo. Yuge problemo.

[donttread]

I really wish people would stop misusing the word "terrorism" and its derivatives.

In the US, terrorism is actually defined by law. 18 U.S. Code, Part 1, Chapter 113B, subsection 2331 defines "terrorism".

"International Terrorism" is defined as activites which

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affectt the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;



The term "Domestic Terrorism" is defined as activities
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
C. occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Where is the " anything done by our government is exempt " clause?

[Captdon]

In the case of the drone strike in Pakistan, it wasn't a "nation" that gave the order, flew the drone or pushed the button that blew up the house, killing any number of people; it was a small number of individuals who had been granted authority to perform such operations by our government.

I don't know what strike you're talking about. If it was authorized by the United states government it is the US doing it. You're not making sense on this.

We as a government are not terrorists. Being permitted to do something by a government is not an independent act.

[Captdon]

So, the terrorist would want to plead insanity in order to get special considerations, interesting drugs and possibly a reduced sentence.



But the crime is identical in both cases, and so its the crime alone that should define punishment. The logic of redefining the act of arson and its punishment along political lines or according to reasons not related to the crime itself allows one criminal, say a Democrat, to go free or be tried on lesser charges, while someone whose guts Democrats hate, say a Republican, could and probably would be more severely punished.

Big, big problemo. Yuge problemo.

Who said anything about "special considerations?" We are defining terrorism. It is the intent not the act that determines whether something is terrorism or not. The punishment isn't what we're defining.

What problem is there? The people we have stopped before they could act are given the sane prison terms as anyone conspiring to do these crimes. In the example you used the crime is the same and so is the punishment if the person did it on his own.

There could be a second charge of conspiracy added if true.