i found this explanation of terrorism on a complelty unrelated site:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/terrorism.phpI wasn't going to write this, but I thought its importance outweighed the requests against this type of topic.
I am going to tell you the definition of terrorism.
It is a misconception to dismiss the concept, claiming that terrorism is a word used to dehumanize people fighting against the norm. It is also not a word used to describe people fighting dirty, against the Geneva Convention, or using sneak attacks. Furthermore, it is not a word being used to describe people who fight using weaker tactics and means. That is a misunderstanding that could possibly reverse the role of terrorism and fighters against terrorism if taken as its full meaning.
If today's terrorists fought any less dirty, and with a modern arsenal, they would still be terrorists. If people fighting against terrorists started using similar tactics to fight, they wouldn't suddenly become terrorists, or "the real" terrorists as people like to state. Terrorism is simply a method used in politics, and I will explain further.
When I had the meaning explained to me, things around the world made a little more sense. There was still a lot of truth to the misconceptions, but those explanations only dealt with terrorism as a method of fighting, and therefore an incomplete definition. I can only hope to explain this concept as well as I understood it when it first made sense to me.
Many will not agree with what I will say, and I probably will disagree with myself in about two days as I witness, hear and read more.
Terrorists are first defined as the underdog, meaning that they could not win in arms against their enemy. Being the underdog is a strategic position. Rather than declaring war, fighting against all odds and most likely losing, terrorists will attack their much stronger, peaceful and unsuspecting enemy. They will often go for an easy and non-military target, but the target must be close to the heart for their enemy. Mainly, the attack must be one that is one hundred percent successful, hence the soft target. This is to anger the enemy and instigate a disproportioned war. The terrorists are aware of the cause and result of their attack, and try to cause a situation where their people will be attacked in retaliation, and in larger numbers.
When their own people are dying, the terrorists are achieving their goals by creating a cause, gaining recognition, receiving funding or charity, and recruiting more fighters or supporters into their organization. I am not talking about converting people to also hate their enemy, but to recruit people who share that common enemy into or to support their organization, rather than a similar, but less active organization. It is harmful for terrorists to not attack for a long period of time. They must always be or at least seem active. They may never have to destroy their enemy by arms, but only dehumanize them and create political, psychological and economic uncertainty for their population. Destabilizing their government is also a bonus.
Many will never agree that terrorists attack to have their own people killed, or that they have anything to gain from death. Many will be offended to hear that terrorists attack first or purposely instigate war from stronger enemies. I already know 85% of readers will disagree with me, and I don't need that reminder. I did my best to leave out any names, and make this as politically correct as possible. I hope I was able to show something from a different angle, even if it is wrong.
#7 Skippy 9/4/2004 03:39PM PST
Sort of an unrelated point, but one of arguments I use with people who wonder what the US did to provoke 9/11, or beseeches us to "understand why" the terrorists hate us is to point out that terrorism is like rape - just as it doesn't matter what a woman was wearing or how she was dancing, there is nothing which makes rape acceptable. Who cares "why" the rapist did it?
Author