Defining Terrorism

[the.ultimate.maverick]

The President of the International Court, Justice Guillaume, proposed the following definition:

le terrorisme implique l'usage de la violence dans des conditinos de nature a porter atteinte a la vie des personnes ou a leur integrite physique dans le cadre d'une enterprise ayant pour but de provoquer la terreur en vue de parvenir a certaines fins

Indeed this, with slight alterations was issued as the Common Position of the Council, 2001/931/PESC, OJEC 28.12.2001, L 344/70. But I question whether it goes far enough.

My definition (far rougher) is :

Terrorism implies the use of, support of, or lack of reasonable action to prevent, violence with the aim of creating, or fermenting, an atmosphere of terror and/or fear of physcial aggression, primarily targetted against the civilian population, to further, or achieve political, religious or ideological aims. This includes, but is not limited to, murder, hostage taking, marine sabotage, assasination, production, possesion or supply of explosives, and various other weapons, setting fires, massive destruction of various types of infrastructure, and so on.

What do you guys think? What is terrorism? And if that question is too densely lodged in a difficult area of jurisprudence, perhaps it is easier to ask;What are the aims of terrorism? How can it be represented? Who can underake it and when?

[Figisaacnewton]

Federal Bureau of Investigation –The unlawful use of force and/orviolence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

That is the FBI's defintition, I just added in the '/or' to make it a little less confusing. That woudl be my definition of terrorism, short and to the point.

[the.ultimate.maverick]

Originally Posted by Figisaacnewton

Federal Bureau of Investigation –The unlawful use of force and/orviolence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
[/url]

Well on a national level that has many flaws and on an internation level it simply doesn't stand up. On a national level, it does not define funding of a terrorist organisation as terrorism (as it was defined on numerous occasions by Bush), nor does it reference those who simply allow terrorist acts to occur.

Internationally you hit the same problems, and it would also nullify a 'war on terror' explanation for invasion of Afghanistan

[SiN|ScarFace]

To broaden the definition, is dangerous and unnessasary. The FBI definition works fine. There should be no 1 grand world definition of the term for obvious reasons.

[Eden]

I believe in the US anyone who breaks any law, who someone thinks is breaking the law or who someone thinks may break the law can be classed as a terrorist. But that's what happens when you pas the patriot act.

[SiN|ScarFace]

Originally Posted by Eden

I believe in the US anyone who breaks any law, who someone thinks is breaking the law or who someone thinks may break the law can be classed as a terrorist. But that's what happens when you pas the patriot act.

lol true, thats why is pointless to define it. They define it on the fly per case/person as they see fit.

[Crawley]

I believe in the US anyone who breaks any law, who someone thinks is breaking the law or who someone thinks may break the law can be classed as a terrorist. But that's what happens when you pas the patriot act.

So in other words your saying that you hate the Bush Administration without saying it in those words, please expand on your views.

[Eden]

Originally Posted by Crawley

So in other words your saying that you hate the Bush Administration without saying it in those words, please expand on your views.

No, I cant say i agree with everything he has done but I by no means hate him. I do however thing the patriot act was a very bad idea, if you actually read it you'll find you have very little rights left as an American citizen of foreign for that matter.

[Crawley]

I haven't read the whole thing, but i dont think giving up a few rights to protect millions is a big deal.

[NikovK]

It would just be a damned shame to have my rights violated as an American citizen just to prevent me from blowing up the Golden Gate Bridge.

The Patriot Act is fine, lern not 2 be a terrerest.