Fanaticism

I couldn't think, speak or write in Turkish, Boss . . . and wouldn't preen myself on my own language skills, either . . . i'm an inveterate editor of my own pieces, and often come back days or even weeks after writing something to correct errors which i have made.

On one occasion, he did. He was attempting to write a receipe for Turkish bread, but ended up suggesting that my mother attempted physically impossible feats on a farm. This resulted in a contract I put out on Setanta. As you can see, it failed, and I'm out five bucks.

The definition of terrorism.

In Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) it is defined as the following:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.



According to the U.S. State Department on October 5, 2001, the "Immigration and Nationality Act" defines terrorist activity to mean:

Any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States) and which involves any of the following:

(I) The hijacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel or vehicle).

(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.

(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.

(IV) An assassination.

(V) The use of any -
(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or
(b) explosive or firearm (other than for mere personal monetary gain) with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.

(VI) A threat , attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing."

Notice how the definition in the Immigration and Nationality Act does not include the term "politically motivated". A broadening of the term. Why? Under this definition, isn't it possible that a guy who steals a car can be prosecuted as a terrorist?

I define terrorism as acts committed by any group that targets lives and property of innocent men, women, and children for the purpose of exterminating 'undesirables' or coercing a government or people into capitulating to their desires and/or demands. Those who do that are terrorists.

foxfyre are you describing the israelis or the palestinians, cause they both meet your description dead on.

Terrorism is what the guys we don't like are doing, when we do the same thing it is liberating, or stabilizing, or helping, it seems that it is that simple these days.

A few events I can recall.... that are terrorist attacks that have been somehow rationalized by people doing it.....

1. All of the palestinian suicide bombings
2. All of the israeli attacks on the so called infrastructure of terror.
3. Indiscriminate killing in iraq by both sides
4. US invasion of afghanistan
5. events of 9-11
6-.........infinity basically any form or event of what we call "modern warfare".

Therefore I offer this definition terrorism is resorting to violence when dealing with others, and terrorists are those that employ violence in order to get their ends. Pure and simple, no loopholes and no exemptions for anyone. It is terror no matter who does it to whom.

Therefore let us think before we get all self-rigteous and maybe realize that it may just be that the US is bullying the rest of the world around...... that the most fanatical of the fanatics is actually ourselves.....

By your definition, if I hit someone for pinching my wifes ass I am a terrorist. I just don't buy that, nor do I buy your equating Israel's targetting of known terrorists and their compatriots to the suicide bombings of palestinian fanatics. One is an act of terrorism, the other is a act of war. You seem to be smart enough to be able to deferrentiate this.

I don't know Yilmaz. I just haven't seen the Israelis brainwashing young fanatics into strapping bombs onto their bodies and walking into shopping malls or getting on crowded busses to blow people up. I haven't seen them target innocent men, women, and children. And I haven't seen Israelis using innocent men, women, and children as human shields. It seems their military actions have been prompted by terrorist acts from the other side. Do innocents get caught in the crossfire in military conflict in urban areas? Almost always. Has Israel gone past reasonable retaliation for terrorist acts? I suppose that is a subject for debate.

The Palestinians may view Israel as 'terrorists' but Israel does not fit my definition.

yilmaz:

Very true. I've noticed a decidedly pro-Israeli slant to the majority of the news we receive in this country.

When a Palestinian radical blows up a bomb in Haifa, it's the subject of news coverage in the USA for days on end.

However, when the Israeli military launches airstrikes in the Gaza killing dozens of Palestinian civilians, it hardly gets a mention.

In the American media, there is no such thing as 'fair and balanced.'

Maybe it's because of the rarity of such an event occuring?

A Palestinian blowing himself up is almost a common occurance anymore. An Israeli airstrike that kills "dozens of Palestinian civilians" is quite rare.

I beg to disagree about the frequency of events... It is almost as often if not more that the israeli defence forces (thats an oxymoron if there ever was one) strikes palestinian targets. Well they claim to be targeting known terrorists. Like the children sleeping in their beds in the apartment building in gaza that was hit by a 2000lb laser guided bomb a couple years back.... that is not how you target known terrorists. And oh yes foxfyre believe that the israelis are brainwashing their young fantics into thinking that it is ok to press the weapons release button on those airplanes, or to tie a 14 year old palistinian boy in front of their jeep so that the palestinians protesting the worlds new "wall of shame" wont throw stones at their vehicles.

In the conflict in the holy lands each side is as murderous, as fantical and as base and scum of the earth as the other, when it comes to their attitude towards innocent life. The israelis train their snipers saying that anyone age 14 up is a fair target. Most of the time they fire rubber bullets that don't kill, but certainly maim, but sometimes those ruber bullets find some critical soft tissue and do enough damage to kill, and sometimes the bullets are real, and that is how they handle stone throwers, in gun fights it is appaches and mirkava tanks against the palestinian gunmen. The palestinians justify their suicide bombings saying that it is the only way they have of striking back at the israilis. And also let me just remind you all that the only civilians in israel are the children, as all adults are either reservists, with their weapons entrusted to them, instead of being kept in armories, or actively serving in military. It can also be argued that all palestinian adults are militants, and that would more or less be correct.

No it wasn't. The thread was about Muslims. You seem to get the words "terrorist" and "muslim" confused. But the fact the article talked about the crusades (which in my history book talked about Christians as the invaders) is a good clue.

This thread is pure idiocy.

Killing mililtary personel in an occupied country is not terrorism. The Iraqis did not start the invasion of their country by killing Americans.

Five bucks ? ! ? ! ? Hell, i had to pay that clown $20--Twenty bucks US, not that monopoly money you use--to take a walk . . .

It doesn't strike you as odd that you have to reach back to a single events that happened years ago to use as an example of Israel killing innocent civilians?

The 14 year old boy is alive and probably saved other lives

yilmaz writes:


Do you have any proof for this, or is it accusations claims by the Palestinians who have not been adverse to making some very outrageous (and unproven) accusations re the Israelis.

I believe that you believe your point of view yilmaz. But I think it is weighted heavily against the Israelis who I see as possibly using excessive force in retaliation for intentional targeting of their non-militant citizens but that I do not in any way equate with condoning or carrying out terrorist acts. I am not unsympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but I cannot accept their terrorist tactics as righteous or honorable.

A linguist from the late 1800s said "The difference between a language and a dialect is that the speakers of one have a navy."

Yilmaz points to something quite real, and which can easily pass under our intellectual radar. For example, we tend (I think) automatically find it easier to use the term 'terrorist' to describe a Palestinian than to use it to describe the caucasian americans who planted the bomb in Oklahoma. We might use the terms 'deranged' or 'extremists' more immediately or readily.

As to Palestine and Israel, I've forgotton now exactly what the ratio is when tallying innocents killed, but on this figure, it is something like 10 or more Palestinians for 1 Israeli.

Under British occupation of Israel, Irgun committed acts (eg, blowing up Brit barracks) which seem little different from attacks on American barracks or on the Cole. Are we as willing to use the term 'terrorist' there?

Or consider the acts of American indeendence soldiers against British bases and forces a few hundred years past. Terrorists?

Yilmaz also has an argument where he notes the difference between one force in a conflict which is affluent, highly trained, and well armed, and another force which is without such resources. That latter force has fewer options in carrying out their conflict.

All that being said, the targetting of non-combatants is clearly a wrong (acknowledged now by international law).

People who strap bombs on an ignorant, fanatical kid and send him to blow up a busload of school children are terrorists. That this act provokes retaliation from the better armed, better equpped victims does not make the stronger entity terrorist.

Clearly, there are differences, and anyone who might encourage a young and impressionable person to sacrifice his/her life for a cause while being unwilling themselves to do so, is despicable. But that moral principle has broader application than this case you refer to.

That is true.

However would does not justify the hypothetical "better equipped victims" if they would use torture, build settlements on occupied terroritory, use missles from helicopters to make assassination in civilian areas or harse economic collective punishments.

Violence does not justify violence. That is the point. When you justify the actions of one side, you are approving of the current cycle of violence.

This hypothetical stronger entity would not be called a terrorist for a civilized response. They would only called terrorists only if they respond by using brutal force in away that killed civilians.

I fear, Mr. Mountie, that you need to spell these things out more clearly for Our Dear Miss Fox--you need to explain that there is no qualitative difference between this, and sending abolescent boys in uniform with assault rifles to assasinate an alleged terrorist leader.

ebrown, I disagree. When the Palestinian 'militants' hide among non combative men, women, and children it is they, not the Israelis, who put their people at risk. It is a cowardly and despicable thing to do. And it is no different than the terrorists in Iraq who are doing that as well and thereby increasing civilian casualities so they can 'prove' how brutal and savage the Americans are. If they are not confronted, then they can strike with impunity by merely retreating behind the skirts of the women.

As far as the ethics/morality of building settlements on occupied territory, that is a reasonable debate. Whether Israel has used excessive force in response to terrorist attacks is also a reasonable debate.

Both the West Bank and Gaza Strip were seized when Israel retaliated to an unprovoked attack and soundly defeated the aggressors. Why should the aggressors not now be accommodating the Palestinians in granting them a homeland instead of demanding that Israel do so? That is also a reasonable debate.

As is Setanta's comment about sending (adolescent?) boys with assault rifles to assassinate a (perceived) terrorist leader a basis for a reasonable debate.

But in the definitions of terrorism as defined here, I do not agree that Israel constitutes a terrorist state.