Define terrorism.

[Drake Dun]

Let's play a game.

My entry:

"The use or threat of violence for the purpose of instilling fear to the end of accomplishing a political goal."

Drake

[Godslayer Jillian]

That's pretty much it.

[gothicusmaximus]

I'd even make it broader and eliminate the requirement that the motive be political.

"An attack upon, or manipulation of, a group or individual through the deliberate instillment of fear in that group or individual."

[delicti]

I'd say:

"The organized use of violence or threats of violence by a non-governmental entity to manipulate or control a populous."


The fact that it has to be non-governmental may seem petty, but it is an acute distinction. Governments have to abide by the Geneva Conventions; when they do not, they are considered fascist.

Not that I endorse fascism either, but trying to keep things accurate.

[CptSternn]

That opens up a whole new issue - when you say 'non-governmental', what exactly does that constitute?

If America funds a rebel group in Iran, Iraq, or Nicaragua - would that be considered terrorism? They are not part of their own countries government, but they have direct ties to governments in other nations.

Also, in Columbia and elsewhere they have government funded (and US backed) death squads who kill anyone with opposing views on the governments current ruling party. Would these groups not be considered terrorists?

Then, I have to ask, what would the proper distinction for the Founding Fathers of America be? They took up arms as volunteer 'minute men', created what we know today to be 'guerrilla warfare', and were known for their attacks on government, police, and military personnel. Would you then classify the Founding Fathers all terrorists, as the brits did?

[Drake Dun]

Yeah, I'm not wild about that condition, either. "State terrorism" is already thoroughly entrenched in our conceptual inventory. As for fascism, I have heard the term used in many senses, but never in a sense defined with respect to the Geneva Conventions.

Drake

[Drake Dun]

However, I'm going to remove "or threat" from my own definition. That's too broad, and would include, for example, any criminal law. As much as I might like that broadening of the term. :P

Drake

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

That opens up a whole new issue - when you say 'non-governmental', what exactly does that constitute?

I does open up a whole new can of worms, but I think the distinction needs to be made, because otherwise we'll find that it's very easy to throw most wars under a broad definition of terrorism. By governmental, for contemporary purposes we could say a UN recognized government, but I'm sure there's a better way to word it that is more abstract.

If America funds a rebel group in Iran, Iraq, or Nicaragua - would that be considered terrorism? They are not part of their own countries government, but they have direct ties to governments in other nations.

I would say yes, if it meets the other criteria. It is very important to mention that were are talking about manipulating populations, and not governments. Moreso, I'd be willing to revise my definition to mention specifically that terrorism does not disguish between military and civilian targets. Does that help?

Also, in Columbia and elsewhere they have government funded (and US backed) death squads who kill anyone with opposing views on the governments current ruling party. Would these groups not be considered terrorists?

Obviously I'm skeptical about that claim. I just googled around and it looks like you're going to have a tough time proving it. However, if the US was backing that type of activity, then yes, the government would backing terrorism. Those involving in backing those types of activities should be held for trial for war crimes.

Then, I have to ask, what would the proper distinction for the Founding Fathers of America be? ... Would you then classify the Founding Fathers all terrorists, as the brits did?

I think I'm going to have to revise my statement a bit:

The organized use of violence deliberately targeting civilian population and infrastructure to manipulate or control a populous, by a non-governmental entity.

[DepthsofSpace]

Terrorism - 'The use of force to instill fear and coerce an audience into compliance with ideological demands.'

This can mean lighting up an entire city with bombs to 'shock' them with the horror of what you can accomplish and force their compliance and/or surrender, or hauling people out of their homes at night and beating/executing them in the street, along with any other use of force and fear to coerce conformity.

It could include the threat of a past act you have accomplished with a subtle or blatant statement of "you're next."

[DepthsofSpace]

Originally Posted by delicti

Obviously I'm skeptical about that claim. I just googled around and it looks like you're going to have a tough time proving it. However, if the US was backing that type of activity, then yes, the government would backing terrorism. Those involving in backing those types of activities should be held for trial for war crimes.

Look up the Contras. We also backed Osama, our late-great friend Hussain, not to mention overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran, and a slew of other cases in South America.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by DepthsofSpace

Look up the Contras. We also backed Osama, our late-great friend Hussain, not to mention overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran, and a slew of other cases in South America.

Of course I'm familiar with the Contra scandal, but the thing he's talking about I'm not familiar with. Our government has certainly not had a clean slate when it comes to use of force that violates international law. However, I doubt in any cases we've done it to spread fear and in the traditional sense that terrorists employ. Even in cases where we have, it is moot for purposes of this discussion, because I think we will all agree on what should have happened, and it is off topic.

That being said, the reason I make the distinction is because we have current international law through which we should persecute officials who participate or fund this behavior. Terrorism, on the other hand, does not have such immediate confines.

As much as it is fun intellectual exercise to stretch the definition of terrorism to new bounds, there is clearly a huge difference between a sovereign state protecting itself and a group of lawless ideologues deliberate targeting civilians. If we stretch the definition of terrorism too far, then all governments are terrorist just by nature of creating arms stockpiles. I'm just trying to prevent us from going down any slippery slopes we would be better off avoiding.

[DepthsofSpace]

Originally Posted by delicti

As much as it is fun intellectual exercise to stretch the definition of terrorism to new bounds, there is clearly a huge difference between a sovereign state protecting itself and a group of lawless ideologues deliberate targeting civilians. If we stretch the definition of terrorism too far, then all governments are terrorist just by nature of creating arms stockpiles. I'm just trying to prevent us from going down any slippery slopes we would be better off avoiding.

Or rather not avoiding. That is exactly where I am going with this. If you look at my definition, could it not apply to the Madrid bombings, as well as the 'Shock and Awe' campaign of Iraqi 'Freedom' in a preemptive war? I'm not justifing either, and not quite condeming. Just look at it from differant vantage points. All force is force, I don't care who it is directed towards.

[CptSternn]

delicti -

Did you miss this thread?

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showthread.php?t=5423

Or more importantly this article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ts_N.htm?csp=1

Or this video:

http://video.indymedia.org/en/2006/09/467.shtml

Or this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...763030,00.html

I could go on, but you made the connection to the Iran-Contra affair, so thats something I don't have to rehash.

The US in Colombia, and Indonesia, has troops that are there to 'train and observe'. That means they don't shoot anyone, they just train these death squads, outfit them, and send them on their way to protect US companies interests in the various regions.

You end up with quasi-legal groups of armed militias funded by the American government who kill indiscriminately and face no legal repercussions, much like Black Water and the other contractors in Iraq today.

I also urge top to look up Ken Saro-wiwa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa

*Note - the wiki has been 'sanitised' recently, that article is under dispute because someone removed the bit about Shell so you might want to Google that as well.

I personal know his mates and family members - I have heard the first hand accounts of what is happening there - with death squads, trained, outfitted, and working for America in Nigeria killing families for no other reason than voicing their opinion.

Also, SkyOne here in Ireland/UK did a show last year called Secrets Of The CIA. It was feckin' brilliant. It had all these top former CIA lads talking about how they ran death squads (among other things) in pretty much every country where there has been strife. They talk about uprooting government in Chile, Iran, Nicaragua, and Lebanon - just to name a few.

You can find a torrent for it here:

http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/in...deo&search=cia

Along with many other foreign TV shows you will NEVER see in America.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Did you miss this thread?

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showthread.php?t=5423

...

I personal know his mates and family members - I have heard the first hand accounts of what is happening there - with death squads, trained, outfitted, and working for America in Nigeria killing families for no other reason than voicing their opinion.

Also, SkyOne here in Ireland/UK did a show last year called Secrets Of The CIA. It was feckin' brilliant. It had all these top former CIA lads talking about how they ran death squads (among other things) in pretty much every country where there has been strife. They talk about uprooting government in Chile, Iran, Nicaragua, and Lebanon - just to name a few.

That thread is indeed an interesting read.

I have one question though. Are these the same Nigerians from this quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Since then, this battle over oil lead to the conflict which was depicted in the film 'Tears Of The Sun' with Bruce Willis. They don't go into detail in the film about the conflict, but this was a war created by oil corporations in efforts to destabilise the region so they could swoop in and take control of the oil there.

That being said, the Nigerians depicted in the film were taken to Ireland. Co. Clare to be precise, where they still reside today. I know these men and women and have attended numerous meetings with them on this very subject.

Cause it'd be interesting if you're getting your information from refugees of a fictional movie about a fictional conflict that never happened.

I'm also confused about who is hiring death squads. I thought you said back then that it was the British oil companies that were doing all the hiring of death squads in Nigeria. Now it's the CIA too? Who else is in on it? Don't tell me McDonald's hired death squads to kill off all the people who complained about the hamburgers too!!! What does CONSPIRACY CENTRAL have to say about this??!?! Find me an Irish documentary about the vast McDonald's death squad conspiracy in Nigeria!!!! I must hear from former CEOs and refugees from fictional movies that now live in Ireland!!!!

[DepthsofSpace]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

That thread is indeed an interesting read.

I have one question though. Are these the same Nigerians from this quote:

Cause it'd be interesting if you're getting your information from refugees of a fictional movie about a fictional conflict that never happened.

I'm also confused about who is hiring death squads. I thought you said back then that it was the British oil companies that were doing all the hiring of death squads in Nigeria. Now it's the CIA too? Who else is in on it? Don't tell me McDonald's hired death squads to kill off all the people who complained about the hamburgers too!!! What does CONSPIRACY CENTRAL have to say about this??!?! Find me an Irish documentary about the vast McDonald's death squad conspiracy in Nigeria!!!! I must hear from former CEOs and refugees from fictional movies that now live in Ireland!!!!

Advice: Research logical fallacies please. At minimum that's one great, big Strawman.

Where did McDonald's enter the equation? And I believe (though I'm not sure I understood correctly) that the movie was based off of real events and that some of the actors had actually been in situations like what were depicted in the film. Am I correct, CptSternn?

On the issue of death squads, you hear a lot about sectarian violence in Iraq, eh? And these death squads/gangs that tear people out of their homes and murder them in the street. Most of those death squads are our Iraqi trained police. During the day, they are rounding up and in fire fights with the Iraqi Resistance Force. After they pick up the IDs of the insurgents, that night, off duty, they don their black skimask and go into the Sunni neighborhoods where the insurgents are from and drag out family members, often torturing them before murdering them in the street. Now, US soldiers rarely assist in these vigilant raids, though they at times provide information. I knew a gentleman who was ex-Blackwater and said at times his fellow employees would engage in these 'cleansings' out of revenge...

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by DepthsofSpace

Where did McDonald's enter the equation?

It's tongue-in-cheek. Sternn's conspiracy theory takes on new facets of who the bad guy is every other month. In this case, he's accused two separate entities of being responsible for the same act for radically different reasons. The difference here is that he has no real creditable source to outline the CIA's role in any of his accusations in regards to Nigeria.

And I believe (though I'm not sure I understood correctly) that the movie was based off of real events and that some of the actors had actually been in situations like what were depicted in the film. Am I correct, CptSternn?

You don't need CptSternn to tell you. You can look it up on any one of these articles and websites that give a detailed plot synopsis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_of_the_sun

"Tears of the Sun is a 2003 war film directed by Antoine Fuqua depicting a rescue mission by U.S. Navy SEALs in the midst of a fictional contemporary Nigerian civil war."

http://www.unreel.co.uk/reviews/t/Te..._Sun/index.cfm

"Nigeria is depicted as the war torn country in Antoine Fuqua’s latest film. The conflict is a fictional one, however, the pictures and events that are shown seem all too real."

Or let's just take it directly from the official site:

http://www.sonypictures.com/homevide...igation-2.html

"Though a fictionalization, Tears of the Sun deals with the gritty realism of human conflict as Lt. Waters travels to war-torn central Africa to rescue Dr. Lena Kendricks (Monica Bellucci), a U.S. citizen who runs a mission in the countryside."

If none of that is convincing enough, go study Nigerian history and see if the Igbo have ever had a "royal family" in the last few decades.

On the issue of death squads, you hear a lot about sectarian violence in Iraq, eh? And these death squads/gangs that tear people out of their homes and murder them in the street. Most of those death squads are our Iraqi trained police. During the day, they are rounding up and in fire fights with the Iraqi Resistance Force. After they pick up the IDs of the insurgents, that night, off duty, they don their black skimask and go into the Sunni neighborhoods where the insurgents are from and drag out family members, often torturing them before murdering them in the street. Now, US soldiers rarely assist in these vigilant raids, though they at times provide information. I knew a gentleman who was ex-Blackwater and said at times his fellow employees would engage in these 'cleansings' out of revenge...

Blackwater employees may very well do that and knowingly several disgraced US soldiers take out revenge in such a way. That does not reflect official or unofficial policies adopted by either the State Department, Department of Defense, or the CIA, DIA, NSA, or all of the above. Pure, unadulterated speculation does not amount to credibility in making those kinds of accusations.

The Iraqi police are some of the most distrusted government employees in Iraq. Distrusted by not only the citizens, but by US soldiers. These guys have major problems with corruption and infiltration that make it impossible to attribute their actions to any one source.

[Splintered]

You know, I've been thinking about the definition of terrorism.

I think it can be summed up in five words.

The use of unnecessary force.

Fear and Terror, even though it's the root of the word, doesn't seem like a requirement for it to be "Terrorism".

To me, it just seems that terrorism would be too much force at any given moment, no matter how large or small.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by DepthsofSpace

Advice: Research logical fallacies please. At minimum that's one great, big Strawman.

Where did McDonald's enter the equation? And I believe (though I'm not sure I understood correctly) that the movie was based off of real events and that some of the actors had actually been in situations like what were depicted in the film. Am I correct, CptSternn?

I'm not sure where McDonalds came from - like you said Depth, it appears to be a strawman. Magu is known for that - which is why I block his posts, so I didn't read the original question. But judging by your response, it's safe to say your correct.

As far as the comment about the Nigerians not existing (once again I'm going off your response, not the orginal post), I point you here:

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&cl...G=Search&meta=

http://www.sternn.com/stuff/media/ShelltoSeaprotest.jpg

Thats myself and Dr. Mathews. He is a brilliant man, and was elected to our local council and is now a prominate politician in Ireland. We work together on the Shell To Sea campaign, as Shell has moved into Ireland and is trying to do the same thing here as it did in Nigeria. Ennis, Co. Clare is home to one of the largest groups of Nigerian refugees. The refugees here are the ones that were depicted in the movie Tears Of The Sun. Many also saw the violence from the Shell death squads, and have had many public meetings where they have in detail told us about them, and shown videos and pictures of their lives before they got here.

I am currently working with a group that is fighting an almost identical battle here in Ireland...but thats a topic for another thread.

What I can tell you is I know first hand how multi-national companies with American engage in activity that can be classified as nothing other than terrorism.

For example, Ken Saro-wiwa was executed after Shell claimed he was causing problems by giving speeches about the environment. He, and many others, were drug from their homes at the behest of Shell and hung in the early morning hours. Left to hang in the middle of town as a warning to anyone else who spoke out against the oil companies.

The pipeline they built, which they claimed was safe, has had five major incidents in the past 5 years, each causing hundreds, in one case thousands, of deaths in the surrounding communities. Not one family has ever been compensated, Shell has never apologised nor accepted responsibility, and they make billions a year, while the local community next to the pipelines which cut right through villages and farm land, live in mud huts.

Anyone who speaks out gets killed by death squads. Death squads trained, funded, and put there by America to protect their oil interests in the region.

But don't take my word for it take a look at the articles in Google:

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&cl...G=Search&meta=

Then we have the Iraq issue. Once again, I can tell you volumes about that. I speak regularly with men who have been in Gitmo....but that too is a topic for another thread...

[MaguMan]

Need I further document the ridiculousness of this guy? After seeing all of the plot synopsizes documented on several different sites, let alone having the official website of the movie note that it was about a fictional conflict, you're telling me statements like this...

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The refugees here are the ones that were depicted in the movie Tears Of The Sun.

...lend this guy any credibility? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. At least he doesn't waffle from his laughably idiotic and outright obvious fabrications.

Thank you for playing, CptSternn. Buh-bye!

[Empress Enoc]

Oh please. Fear is instilled in all political movements, whether this fear is concious or unconcious. Whether it's obliterating a government through warfare or simply following the federal law of your country, your actions are all controled and impulsed by fear. That been said, let's examine what we mean when we say terrorism.

Terrorism definetely carries a negative signification. But that should not be a reason to refute it as soon as we hear the word (which happens very often). In a crude sense, terrorism is the use of violence to meet a political end. I'm sorry, but terrorism is simply the violent antagonist political movement which holds a contrary ideology to those of the popular masses.

[CptSternn]

EmpressEnoc -

You say contrary to the popular masses - but wouldn't you agree that popular should be 'currently in power' or some other term that signifies those in power? A movement contrary to the current government could be more popular than the sitting government, however since they are not in power, they are deemed as terrorists.