What is terrorism

[med142]

The aim of terrorism is to inflict terror on a country,individual. Whether it by means of maiming or threats. It has been described as both a tactic and stratergy. It has often been the use of a weaker side in a conflict. A justified reaction to oppression. The US states it as, The calculated use of unlawfull violence or threat of unlawfull violence. To inculate fear.
To coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the persuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.
Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim.
The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the public's or governments reaction to the act.
Many terrorists would see them selves as freedom fighters, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
There are three perspectives of terrorism, The terrorist's, the victim's, and the general public's They do not see themselves as evil. They belive that they are in a legal war fighting for what they belive in.By what ever means possible. A victim sees them as a terrorist with no regard to human life.
There are many forms and definitions of terrorism.
On this basis it would mean that nearly every country in the world is guilty of such an act. Freedom fighters WW2. American war of independence. White people's attitude to coloured people, eg south africa even the US and UK.
What has happened in Bangkok means that if there was a terrorist that they did achieve there aims. They won.
Terrorism is not new and has been with us throughout all the ages.

[audience]

Terrorism if it approve by American CIA its a freedom fighters movement for Democracy if its not going to Please American policy and American ill intention then its a Absolute act of terror.

[med142]

The CIA'S definition of terrorism, in Title 22 of the us code section 2656f(d).
It states that terrorism means premeditated,politicaly motivated violence against non combatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents.

[audience]

Yes it look like very good legal refrences but unfortunately this all laws and regulations will be ignor and everything become legitimate including secret negotiations with terrorists and Drug dealers if there is US interest behind the deal.

[med142]

You are so very correct, But i am sure that some would differ with what you say.

[audience]

yes i am agree with you but how we going to Change this world? I WISH there is Peace every where No sucide bombers no terrorist attack, people love each other regardless color of skin faith or relogion, May Arab people and Israel become friends and build and develop togeather like cousins, May India and Pakistan forget thier conflict and build a new era of love and peace in the region, May Taliban get wisdom and respect huminity and become true muslims as Islam have teach only Peace,May America should not act as a world police man but as a big brother and extend helping hand to world community not to create a WAR but only PEACE.

The world should be clean from neuclear weapons and we should have flowers of every colors on earth. Who say the heaven is only in imagination Heven is right here in your and in my heart we just need to find it we can make this world better then haven,we have enough tears enough pain how long its going to be? Can we start Now before its too late for all of us.

[med142]

In an ideal world, this would be good. Its human nature that prevents it. Isreal does not like palestine vice versa.
America backs isreal. Finanical crisis in europe, Of american making.Another country should never interfer with the running of a country, America is good at this. America has never fought for the freedom of people but for there own intrests only. Why do we have the united nations? Hague conventions,Human rights org.
It seems like America is at fault for a lot of things.

[clarkkent]

[quote][The aim of terrorism is to inflict terror on a country,individual. Whether it by means of maiming or threats. It has been described as both a tactic and strategy. It has often been the use of a weaker side in a conflict. A justified reaction to oppression. The US states it as, The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence. To inculcate fear.
To coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.
Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim.
/quote]
Although I mostly agree with yours and the US' definition of terrorism. I disagree with the statement that it is a "A justified reaction to oppression." I find the topic is one that should be discussed neutrally without biases. Terrorism whether state sponsored, politically or individually sponsored, or used by the oppressed is wrong, Period!

Terrorism is not democracy, although it is touted as being democratic. Democratic in the sense that the terrorists hide behind freedom to free assembly to hold hostage a city and the nation; to loot, burn, and intimidate. This is terrorism in disguise. And it is being used by the vested interest of an individual and like-minded politicians as a political tool to intimidate and coerce change for that individual or group of people to gain power. But it is the country and its democratic growth that is weakened while the political terrorists utilizing rhetoric, defamation, and inflammatory speeches to instill and urge on hatred and divisiveness from within and from afar. Their audience and supporters (some of whom are admittedly dis-enfranchised) are ignorant and uneducated rurals who don't understand fully that they are being used.

These so-called terrorists having won power then use their right (through their shock troops) to coercion and intimidation of the public at large. The political masters plan and integrate a strategy where the shock troops, cronies and sympathizers in academia and business, all in the name of the people, make strident and /or seemingly logic proposals for change - to be then legislated by the politicians to further cement their hold on power.

What we are seeing in Thailand is political terrorism. Terrorism that is used in place of and in the guise of democracy. A terrorism where the 'led-by-the-nose' people are compensated and accorded rights as so-called 'political prisoners' and not as criminals that they really are. But what of those killed in the South at Krue Se and Tak Bai under the heavy-handed policies of the then democratically elected government? At least those who died in Tak Bai were innocents stacked like cord-wood to suffocate and die. Where is their compensation and treatment as political prisoners in renovated accommodations?

Democracy: Thai Style

[med142]

Clarkkent.
Does that include Nelson mandela. he was still brandid a terrorist by the US,even though he was given the Noble peace prize.

[clarkkent]

Clarkkent.
Does that include Nelson mandela. he was still brandid a terrorist by the US,even though he was given the Noble peace prize.

Irrespective of the narrow stance of the US regarding terrorism; must we also conform to this too? We all should be against violence as a tool for change. Must terrorism be synonymous with violent, forceful intimidation and coercion?

Nelson Mandela, and for that matter Mahatma Gandhi never resorted to violence as a means to change. They fostered 'Ahimsa', non-violence, as a the path to change. Would you equate Mandela or Gandhi with Bin Laden? Terrorism in its narrowest definition, would seem to many to be correct for the coercion and intimidation of the 'silent majority' to change for the vehement virulent minority or individual. Terrorism does not have to be violent in nature.

Or does the definition of/need for terrorism in your view, to be violent?

Irrespective of what the US believes, must we also believe this too? We all should be against violence as a tool for change.

Don't you think so?