What is terrorism

[med142]

Terrorism is not all about violence. A terrorist is a label that is also given to a person or groups that also seek
change in a peacful way, by governments/countries who are against such people or groups.
But once a government gives a a person or group that label, and depending how influencial that government/country is,
then many other governments/countries follow suit.
A terrorist can succeed without violence inflicting terror on a country just by the thought that a terrorist is
in that country,by way of disruption of the normal way of life.
Never forget that over many hundreds of years it was not called terrorism this is a relatively recent term for it.
If i am correct, i think it goes back to the days of pirates or the french revolution etc, and a person in politics said that that they inflict terror.
Do not forget, mention the word terrorist to the majority of people and they will think of violence.

[clarkkent]

Seems to be some sort of dissembling by answering partially one question, of a multi-part question and preceding comments.

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?

When a political party gives credence and acceptance to a group or persons that uses intimidation, coercion, and violence as a tool for change - I say that is irresponsible. It gives respectiblity to the improper use of 'freedom of speech' and says to the public that it's alright to take to the streets and be crude and vulgar, looting, and arson - in the name of democracy. But what It does is take away from and makes a farce of democratic ideals; when the government, legislature, and judiciary, as well as society at large can be intimidated and coerced by a non-constitutional outside force whose tactics is the threat of violence to the majority of the population to stifle the voice of majority of peace-loving citizens.

[clarkkent]

Congratulations are in order
After one month of capturing one terrorist; we Thais can take pride in the effectiveness and efficiency of Thailand's security apparatuses. They have caught another terrorists!! This terrorists was apprehended within minutes after setting off three bombs.

I personally was impressed - NOT!

That the terrorist was 'captured' only after blowing off his own legs does not give me much comfort in the ability of our National Police Commissioner and our security apparatus. If he, the Police Commissioner, were someone else other than thaksin's brother-in-law, he would have been removed from his position straightaway. Take for example his predecessor's removal for not closing down and allowing gambling dens in Bangkok. I would say that this, Valentine event, is a little more serious with more serious repercussions; wouldn't you say?

And in the way of thaksin clones - they say by dissembling, that it was not an act of or for sabotage, or terrorism; but meant for an assassination attempt!!

Excuse me!! That we have had this terrorist and his friends (who are still at large) in Thailand for the past weeks; is akin to offering them safe harbor to plan and execute any act of terrorism, is in and of itself - IRRESPONSIBLE!!

This past month, I haven't heard our distinguish barbie pm yingluck denounce terrorism in any form, and set as a priority to working closely and in conjunction with relevant international agencies to put a stop to and the eradication of terrorism in any form that seeks to harm and affect the safety of citizens of the world and in Thailand. Because even if we want to keep our heads in the sand and mouth that it has nothing to do with us - it does. That's why they call it international terrorism because it has no borders, and affects all countries all over the world.

Finally, our government said it was a

small matter

!! A small matter when 1 bomd blew up the safe house; a 2nd bomd blew up a taxi-cab; and the 3rd blew up the terrorist's legs. By what quality measure do they use to distinguish the severity of a terrorist act or event??

IRRESPONSIBLE INDEED

[hawaiiman]

Terrorism is good or bad depending on how it affects you. It is a tactic of warfare,pure and simple.
Blanket statements of any kind prove very difficult to defend. The founders of Israel were mostly terrorists against the \\ ////. for example. No one can deny that innocent Germans were killed and injured by their bombings and other techniques.
My feeling is that the association of ethics with politics ( and by extension, warfare )is remarkably rare, and like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[med142]

I totally agree.

[hawaiiman]

Based on world historical view, WWII would have been considered a "good" war.
In case you missed it, my point was that ethics and politics and/or war don't belong in the same sentence, so to speak. Terrorism is a tactic of warfare related to guerrilla war.It is a technique used where a small and relatively powerless group seeks an objective against a larger, more powerful foe.
If you attempt to define war in ethical terms, you're on quicksand for a number of reasons. Mostly, that we don't all agree on the same set of ethics. I had a Christian tell me the other day that "Thou shalt not kill" didn't apply to warfare because "Thou shalt not murder" is actually the original meaning. Of course as murder is defined by local law and culture, so this opens the door to almost anything, like "honor killing", stoning to death for adultery, Auschwitz, etc.
War is a time honored human activity, like politics and prostitution, none of which bear intense ethical scrutiny. Don't like it? Change species!

[perplexed]

I myself know what a "dissembler" is and it was fairly easy as it derives from a word that is familiar to me.

And I am against violence in any shape or form. Violence against a legal and lawful government by a group of people who seek to incite violence and divisiveness on behalf of a person or persons in the form of mobs being let loose to rampage across the city and its environs; killing, arson, and looting.

I would agree with CK that some contributors are for a better word, 'wishy washy', and maybe don't wish to or even want to come out in favor of or against "violence". Instead of sitting on the fence and not stating exactly what one thinks is to be a "dissembler" and disingenuous. To make it easier state your feelings with conditions; as an example, just say that - violence is unacceptable in any form in a civilized society that has a lawful and legal government, with laws and system of justice - "unless it is against tyranny, dictatorship, and violence against the states' own people by the government (as in the case of Cambodia, Serbia, Syria and Libya) or outside perpetrators (as in the case of Hitler's \\ ////)".

[med142]

I agree. violence is not acceptable in a civilised society. It is human nature to use violence to achieve what they belive in, and in their eyes it is justified.
Some people say that violence is not acceptable as i do.But i would fight against terrany and people who would threaten the lives of my loved ones.
Some of these people are hypocrites who make statements about violence and how it is not acceptable.
I have done my tours of duty in NI in the 70's. Also been involved in other terrorist atrocities.

[perplexed]

I have done my tours of duty in NI in the 70's. Also been involved in other terrorist atrocities.

No wonder it seemed so hard and so long to condemn and denouce violence!! But with a caveat no less

It is human nature to use violence to achieve what they belive in, and in their eyes it is justified.

Well I guess that working in the NI, it is and was a a necessary sop to idealism and morality to justify violence and atrocities.

Atrocities is such a strong word connoting bloodthirsty acts of barbarism (crimes) against humanity. But I guess it's alright to morally accept terrorism and atrocities as long as we can justify and we believe in what we are doing.

Never thought of it that way. Never will either ja!

[clarkkent]

It is human nature to use violence to achieve what they belive in, and in their eyes it is justified.

Really it is the most bases, vilest, of human nature. One that is more akin to animal instinct than to rational and logical human beings.

And that's what we're talking about. What do we or can we as human beings; beings who should have a high level of "humanity", accept to be moral and ethical acts.

Terrorism is morally accetable?

Atrocities against fellow human beings is acceptable?

No amount of justification or (ir)rationality can allow anyone to commit an immoral act. To make excuses and be apologists for such acts is to be as 'perplexed' states: disingenous and a dissembler. To incite mobs towards such acts just shows the base and vile nature of those leaders who will use any means to achieve their own goals.