~* Terrorism *~

Egypt
September 28, 2008 8:32am CST
when i searched the net to know what the world defines the meanning of terrorism i was amazed to find that There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism! how it comes?! do every country create a definition by herself and according to it it follows her thoughts and start to kill or destroy under the name of elimanating terrorism?! according to what the whole world should follow a specific country in her definetion although there are diffrent one from country to another?! why we can see some countries forcing other to admit the meanning of terrorism as they defined it?!..isn't it considered terrorism againest those forced countries?! so can any one define a meanning for terrorism then?! can any one reach a meaanning that the whole world agree with?!
8 responses
@dragon54u (31651)
• United States
28 Sep 08
"Terrorism" has become overused and the word has been cheapened by politicians using it to further their own goals. When you think of it, terrorism means that a country or community is terrified of the next attack or frightful that it will be attacked. The U.S. "war on terror" is such a farce, an excuse for us sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. If people were happy under Hussein, we should have left them alone. We might not like what he did but it's up to the people, not us, to change their government. Sorry, I got sidetracked. The word terrorism is misused a lot, and for purely political purposes.
1 person likes this
• Egypt
28 Sep 08
you are very right and true! but why people of these countries which use the term terror by their own don't stod againest their government?! why people support their countries for doing such awfel things under the name of clearing terrorism?! why beliveing the lies their countries throw into their minds?! i have many questions with no answers !!
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31651)
• United States
28 Sep 08
Me, too! Anyone looking at my country, the United States, from an objective point of view would wonder why the people don't rise up and kill the leaders and start fresh. But as part of the population, I can tell you that it's more complicated than that and that it's a moral and values issue as well as political--we have all become corrupted. I think that's what other countries go through, and they want to protect their families and keep them safe so they don't rebel. My country painted Iraq as an evil society that wanted women subjugated and made slaves, but really the people were thinking of their families. For every woman that suffered, maybe 50 children were safe. Horrible, but we do what we have to in order to protect our loved ones.
• Egypt
28 Sep 08
no..it is absloutly wrong! what bad thing these poor people in iraq do to be victims and to got killed this way?! by what rights they loose the one they loved and to lose their work and lose every thing for a political issue other country did?! it is too selfish that someone think about the one he loves and don't care about other people's affairs..how i can live in peace and my country is destoying and killing innocent poeople?!! every one have a role to stop such a thing..that's a horrible feeling those in iraq or palastine or any any accupied country feel :( they lose the one the love every day!!
1 person likes this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
28 Sep 08
Terrorism does have a faily simple definition. It is the use of fear (i.e. terror) as a weapon to influence people. Example: 9/11. The hijackers' real target wasn't the towers, it was the survivors. The point was to scare us, because a scared people is easier to 'push around' and influence.
1 person likes this
• Egypt
29 Sep 08
yes your definition is true and i agree with it but why don't you make it general and say the use of fear " terror " as a weapon to influnce countries?!! so what is done in palastine by killing it's innocent people for many years ago is considered terrorism?!..and whom is the reason for that?!..is it UK & USA ?!..so from where the basis of terrorism had come?!..i hope you got it ;)
• United States
28 Sep 08
As long as there are people who believe that what they do is right and what others do is wrong, the definition will never be agreed upon. Some call it ethnic cleansing, some call it making the world safe, some call it vanquishing the enemy, and some even say it's doing God's will. No matter what they call what they do, its victims call it terrorism. I love my country, the US, but it's been a terrorist nation to others. Just ask around in Iraq, Afghanistan, and much of South America and the Caribbean. We insist we're protectors, but to them, we're terrorists. Maybe all nations need to become isolationists and leave others alone in order for peace to begin to take over the world! Something has to come along that will bring peace before we're all wiped off the face of the Earth!
• Egypt
28 Sep 08
so why one country force other's to follow it's belifs and thoughts?! how for a country to pretend that it is a protector and at the same time it destoys and spread terrorism every where?! peace won't be mentained except those countries which think that they are the rulers of the whole world stop spreading their terrorism and try to help other countries instead!
• United States
28 Sep 08
You're so right! The US claims they're doing these things in the name of the people. I never want anyone killed or dominated in my name! Our current administration not only didn't ask me, they went totally around the legislature to do whatever they wanted. Now, they claim it's for national security that they're impeding on all of rights, as well. Tyranny is tyranny, no matter what they want to call it. I want my America back!
@newtondak (3950)
• United States
28 Sep 08
I find it interesting that when a country puts it's military on the line to help others that are being harmed in some way - we're "interfering" and "imposing their ideals" on others. If we should turn our heads and ignore that one group of people is trying to eliminate another, we would be deemed to be insensitive and neglectful and not doing our "job" as one of the major powers of the world. There is a definite double standard in the way that other countries feel towards the United States. When they're in trouble, we're supposed to jump right in with our troops and our resources to save the day, but when that same country is persecuting another or are persecuting their own people and we step in, then we're putting our nose where it doesn't belong. You can't have it both ways!
@evanslf (485)
29 Sep 08
I doubt there will ever be a definition that people will agree with, this is because of the saying 'one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter'. Ie, depending where you stand and what is your political point of view, you will view people committing violent acts as either terrorists or freedom fighters. So in the 1940s, the British viewed the Israeli independence fighters as terrorists, whilst the Israelis viewed them as freedom fighters. Same in Palestine where many Palestinians view Hamas as freedom fighters whilst the Israelis will view them as terrorists. So though the definition of terrorism can be simple on one level (ie the willingness to commit acts of violence that kill/main in order to frighten people / cause fear and influence their behaviour), a proper definition would need to go further than that to be useful. Perhaps we could add to the above, the following: a terrorist is a person who commits acts of violence in order to frighten people so that he can get his way even though he has an alternative outlet to express his views and influence people to his way of thinking. A terrorist is therefore someone who turns to violence even though the option of resolving his grievance is available to him via other means (eg democratic election, offer of genuine peace talks and compromise, etc.) So in the case of ETA in Spain, I would label this group as terrorists because they commit acts of violence and murder, yet Spain is a democracy and the Spanish people who live in Catalonia / Basque country have the right to vote for a seperatist party should they wish for independence. So this group commits violence when they could pursue their goal via democratic means. On the other hand, if one has a vicious repressive government which refuses to recognise elections, clamps down on all political discussion and dissent, mistreats the people, incarcerates political opponents and simply refuses at all levels to enter into any meaningful negotiations to resolve the situation, then you will get some people who will turn to violence in order to overthrow this government. In this case, I would not call these people terrorists, as all avenues to resolve their grievance / concerns have been closed off by the government in this example, and hence they will turn to violence to try to change things as this is the only avenue left to them. I don't know if this definition would cover all of the angles and would welcome any comments that you may have.
• Egypt
29 Sep 08
in you first paragraph you said that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter..is it right?! ok let us discuss the case in more depth and intense to view your words..yes you are right to some extent..we have 3 parts here..2 parts fight each others and another part watch..so the one who can judge not any of the 2 parts but instead the third part which isn't involved with the 2 parts..so when you give example of isreal and palastine whatever every part sees himself a patriot for his nation but it is very clear than one part of them is the real terrorist..you agree with me?! ok let us go deeper.. by what rights the UK gave isreals the right to launch on an islamic country and accupy it and kill it's people?!..that's something that you don't have and gave it to someone that doesn't deserve!!..so for me as a third part i see that the terror come from this accuping nation called isreal and not from the people that defends their country..you are with me?! ok let us say that your country from now is not your's and i will make another nation lands on it and you have to search for another country..what will be your response?!..you will fight for sure..so is it logical that someone describes you as terroris and the accuping one as a freedom fighter?!! if every one think by logic they will get the real meanning of terrorism..but as there is only one country which has the right to announce whom is terror and whom is freedom fighter from only it's own point of view no peace will be in this world except when this country disapper and the world become relly free
@evanslf (485)
29 Sep 08
Milanovich, Thank you for your reply. I did not however take position on the Israeli / Palestinian dispute, I only used this as an example to demonstrate how it can be very difficult to get anybody to agree as to what constitutes a 'terrorist', as in many conflicts, one group or people will view people committing violence as 'terrorists' whilst another will view them as 'freedom fighters'. I then proceeded with trying to define what a terrorist is, ie someone who resorts to violence to get his away even though there are alternative courses of action, such as elections, negotiation, etc where his aims can be achieved. A freedom fighter on the other hand would conversely have no other alternative but to resort to violence against an oppressive government / occupying power, as all other avenues to try to resolve their grievance have been closed off (ie no free and fair elections, no negotiations or peace talks, no forum to air their views and seek to achieve compromise, etc.) No doubt, many Palestinians feel that Hamas are freedom fighters since they believe the Israeli state will not vacate Palestinian land, except unless they are forced to. On the issue of Israel and Palestine, I would comment as follows: this conflict reminds me in so many ways of the conflict in Northern Ireland. The root cause of both conflicts was the mass plantation / migration of a new people onto land occupied by another people, thus leading to vicious and prolonged conflict. So in the times of Elizabeth I of England, and her successors, a policy was adopted to encourage Protestant farmers and their relatives from primarily Scotland to migrate to Ireland, which was Catholic. The policy at this time, 400 years or so ago, was therefore to have these Scottish Protestants (and others as well) to move to Northern Ireland to enable the English Queen and Kings to better control the restive native Irish population. The problem was of course that the Catholic Irish greatly resented these new Protestant migrants and conflict therefore ensued, conflict that may only now have been resolved: and it was only resolved when both populations (protestant and catholic) agreed to live side by side because they were sick of war. Now in Palestine, I see history repeating itself. The British allowed Israeli migration into Palestine, a critical mass of Israeli people moved to Palestine and then created their own Israeli state. As in the Irish example above, this has led to a great sense of anger amongst Palestinians who feel that their land has been stolen when they were evicted from their lands and homes back in 1948. And there has been conflict ever since. Now we can say that what the English Queen did back 400 years ago was wrong as we can say that what the British did in the 1930s and 40s was also wrong, but we are where we are now and realistically it is impossible to turn the clock back, despite the wrongs that have been committed in the past. The only way Palestine will find peace is when both peoples and their leaders are prepared to reach compromise. As a third party observer, to me this would mean that the Palestinians would have to accept Israel's right to exist (which will be a painful compromise for Hamas and many Palestinians no doubt) and the Palestinians will probably have to compromise on the right of return, maybe by accepting some form of compensation for those evicted from their lands when the Israeli state was created back in 1948. On the other side, Israel will have to remove all its settlements illegally built beyond the 1967 line, recognise a fully independent Palestinian state and be prepared to compromise on Jerusalem as well. But if the Israelis continue to insist on occupying Palestinian land beyond the 1967 border and if the Palestinians (especially Hamas) continue to refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist, then I can guarantee that there will never be peace, only unending war for generations to come. I hope it doesn't take the Israelis and Palestinians 400 years to work out their differences as it took the Irish - who only came together in peace once they were prepared to recognise each other's right to exist and started talking to each other.
• Egypt
29 Sep 08
thanks for your rsponse too:) but it is impossible to force someone not to defend his land whatever happened..and i think there is something called human rights and veto and many big words which must solve such cases but do you know something?they are controlled only by one country..yes one country only which have the right to say whom is terror and whom is not..she have the right to kill people with no reason..she has the right to accupy countries for fake reasons..she have the right to do evry thing and no one can punish her..i think you know now which country i mean.. so isn't it considered terrorism?!
• Philippines
29 Sep 08
Terrorism simply means to scare people and that's one thing they do.
• Egypt
29 Sep 08
so why some countries are considering that scaring people is the best way to clear terrorism?! does they have mental retardation?!
• United States
28 Sep 08
I am afraid there can be no definition of terrorism that everyone can agree with for reasons that should be obvious. I will leave with a thought that has been held dear to my heart on terrorism since I heard it some years ago. Do you know why terrorists never win? Because, If they win they are called something else.
• Egypt
28 Sep 08
yes you are true! if they win the are called world protecter's ;)
@vmksvmks (413)
• Canada
28 Sep 08
It might of created more interest and action is you laid out the definition you have and then we could agree or disagree...I am probably looking at it to simply but to me any one or any country that violates the freedom of another country is on the path to terrorism Good Luck Have a Great day
• Egypt
28 Sep 08
how for me to create something or defintion the whole world haven't done it yet?! even if i created a definition for terrorism i know that not every one will agree with me.. but if we have to put a term for terrorism then anything spoils someone's happines is considered terrorism..apply this to avery event in life.. -accuping other countries is considered terrorism.. -killing innocent people by a fake war is considered terrorism.. -one country dominating the world and all other countries have to follow her or they will be punished is consodered terrorism!.. -insulting other people's religion and arresting them for only being religious is considered terrorism.. -forcing other countries not to have weapons while you have all types of weapons is considerd terrorism.. -raping women and use them as a product is considered terrorism!.. do you need more examples?!!
28 Sep 08
I doubt seriously that we can come up with a definition everyone would agree with. Think back to the American Revolution in 1776. The British did not think much of our tactic of hiding behind trees and taking potshots at their army. They figured we should stand up and face them, literally man-to-man as warfare took place in those days. To agree on a definition, we have to have a similar world view. Since we don't, I don't think that will happen. The U.S. and western Europe can probably agree on a definition, but it will not be one accepted universally.
• Egypt
28 Sep 08
so it is impossible to get a defintion that all parts agree with..then why we find some countries insist that it's definition is the right one and start take decisions with it?! who gave those countries the right to lead the world and apply it's laws and thought everywhere?!..isn't it considered terrorism?!