By definition:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
We are entering a new era. War as a timed event, or war as "pistols at 50 paces" is no longer in vogue. Conflicts are no longer pre-planned. War declarations are the source of amusement in bars of the east. Wars are no longer declared or the ends clearly defined. Standing armies have only temporary effect as the willingness by a losing nation to submit to assimilation is no longer guaranteed as it was then. Carrier deck or caboose surrenders are no longer in vogue. Wars are passed onto children and grandchildren. A skirmish on the street of a nation is a continuance of an existing war and is evident of the new style.
Standing armies of today have to be justified. Tax payers will no longer accept the reason "we have to have them around just in case". These men need to be fed and armed and the taxed citizen shown they are of use to once again "save" the nation. Every decade the generals will push and find a new reason to convey it's necessity.
I suppose trying to anaylse terrorism in these uncertain times is like trying to measure the temperature of a room while running from a burning building. But I was hoping to have a discussion on terrorism itself, but I realize personal biases will be a factor in this heated topic. But it is clear we need a common understanding of what it means in this new era. In the past we have seen terrorists become heroes based on context of the times.
The simplified dictionary definition above does not assist us in solving our specific understanding. The word unlawful is always going to be disputed between the two opposing forces. If the definition is the guide, a rigid adherence to the recipe above must include a lesser group intimidating a larger group. By the above definition one is not given the option of labeling a society or government as terrorist even though they have the ability to reason and act collectively.
I think it is fair to say by western definitions some common factors among others seems to be predominant. The westerner will assign the label to groups/individuals who, even though may have some grounding in truth for their defiance and aggression, do not have the means to acquire the apparatus of war ie: uniforms,recognition in the world community as a nation,weapons,armies/navy,etc., and cannot receive recognition in the world community unless they have something to sell. To the eyes of the westerner they are simply Molotov/stone throwing groups/individuals who will not behave or assimilate, regardless how valid the argument. Unlike the cease fires amid war like Korea, his aggression is never accepted as a continuing expression of past injustice, but taken as a new hostility relative to the last peace conference or initiative. It is to the advantage of the defender to have it appear that all hostility is new and unjustified based on the last peace initiative, and the original injustice be kept obscure.
Up to WW2, the west has been familiar with wars that were expected to have some formal finality. Now that it has broadened it's sphere of potential enemies, it has discovered unital families that have an ideology of war as a family precept, of governments where puppet leaders can hope for a stay in office measured in weeks. In war with these types of people it becomes one where the war actually ends when a future generation of that family decides to end it. In other words, winning generation wars supposes the descendants of the initial family units of each side will determine when it ends. Therefore, western leaders should realize they are becoming embroiled with generation wars, not wars where each side is expected to perform in a predetermined manner.
By the eastern concept the "terrorist" is a family member of generations who have been seeking justice decades before the west knew they existed. He is the army, the tactician the strategist. His cries for justice are unheard over the media din of the disapproving voice of a nation who's agenda is to continue trade with the opposing force.
What of the question of time. Terrorism can switch colors. The armed terrorist who fits the above description are condemned by the neutrals for disturbing the peace, only to become patriot heroes after independance is won.
When is terrorism being acted out.? Is terrorism being acted out when:
a/ .... valid retaliation of it's citizens against an occupying force in a continuing state of war and situation where there as not been an official acceptance of surrender by the majority of the defending nation.?
b/ .... an acceptance of surrender has been made, the population submitting to the wishes of the occupation force, a new government uninfluenced by the occupying force is in effect and established by the "native" population.?
What of the violence mentioned. How does the use of violence differ from persuasive methods used by nations in war? Should terrorists restrict themselves from violent methods used by nations?
In closing it is appropriate to name some well known terrorists. This is by the definition alone.
Polish and French underground - viewer Germans - bases German law.
American patriots - viewer British - bases British law.
We need a higher standard and authority for the definition, it is not enough to accept the right being the more powerful opponent and the wrong being the lesser. We should insist on answers and all the facts FROM THE BEGINNING, ask for a complete history of the situation from the very start. Only then do we assign the label terrorist, and refuse to pass it on unfairly.
Andy.
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
We are entering a new era. War as a timed event, or war as "pistols at 50 paces" is no longer in vogue. Conflicts are no longer pre-planned. War declarations are the source of amusement in bars of the east. Wars are no longer declared or the ends clearly defined. Standing armies have only temporary effect as the willingness by a losing nation to submit to assimilation is no longer guaranteed as it was then. Carrier deck or caboose surrenders are no longer in vogue. Wars are passed onto children and grandchildren. A skirmish on the street of a nation is a continuance of an existing war and is evident of the new style.
Standing armies of today have to be justified. Tax payers will no longer accept the reason "we have to have them around just in case". These men need to be fed and armed and the taxed citizen shown they are of use to once again "save" the nation. Every decade the generals will push and find a new reason to convey it's necessity.
I suppose trying to anaylse terrorism in these uncertain times is like trying to measure the temperature of a room while running from a burning building. But I was hoping to have a discussion on terrorism itself, but I realize personal biases will be a factor in this heated topic. But it is clear we need a common understanding of what it means in this new era. In the past we have seen terrorists become heroes based on context of the times.
The simplified dictionary definition above does not assist us in solving our specific understanding. The word unlawful is always going to be disputed between the two opposing forces. If the definition is the guide, a rigid adherence to the recipe above must include a lesser group intimidating a larger group. By the above definition one is not given the option of labeling a society or government as terrorist even though they have the ability to reason and act collectively.
I think it is fair to say by western definitions some common factors among others seems to be predominant. The westerner will assign the label to groups/individuals who, even though may have some grounding in truth for their defiance and aggression, do not have the means to acquire the apparatus of war ie: uniforms,recognition in the world community as a nation,weapons,armies/navy,etc., and cannot receive recognition in the world community unless they have something to sell. To the eyes of the westerner they are simply Molotov/stone throwing groups/individuals who will not behave or assimilate, regardless how valid the argument. Unlike the cease fires amid war like Korea, his aggression is never accepted as a continuing expression of past injustice, but taken as a new hostility relative to the last peace conference or initiative. It is to the advantage of the defender to have it appear that all hostility is new and unjustified based on the last peace initiative, and the original injustice be kept obscure.
Up to WW2, the west has been familiar with wars that were expected to have some formal finality. Now that it has broadened it's sphere of potential enemies, it has discovered unital families that have an ideology of war as a family precept, of governments where puppet leaders can hope for a stay in office measured in weeks. In war with these types of people it becomes one where the war actually ends when a future generation of that family decides to end it. In other words, winning generation wars supposes the descendants of the initial family units of each side will determine when it ends. Therefore, western leaders should realize they are becoming embroiled with generation wars, not wars where each side is expected to perform in a predetermined manner.
By the eastern concept the "terrorist" is a family member of generations who have been seeking justice decades before the west knew they existed. He is the army, the tactician the strategist. His cries for justice are unheard over the media din of the disapproving voice of a nation who's agenda is to continue trade with the opposing force.
What of the question of time. Terrorism can switch colors. The armed terrorist who fits the above description are condemned by the neutrals for disturbing the peace, only to become patriot heroes after independance is won.
When is terrorism being acted out.? Is terrorism being acted out when:
a/ .... valid retaliation of it's citizens against an occupying force in a continuing state of war and situation where there as not been an official acceptance of surrender by the majority of the defending nation.?
b/ .... an acceptance of surrender has been made, the population submitting to the wishes of the occupation force, a new government uninfluenced by the occupying force is in effect and established by the "native" population.?
What of the violence mentioned. How does the use of violence differ from persuasive methods used by nations in war? Should terrorists restrict themselves from violent methods used by nations?
In closing it is appropriate to name some well known terrorists. This is by the definition alone.
Polish and French underground - viewer Germans - bases German law.
American patriots - viewer British - bases British law.
We need a higher standard and authority for the definition, it is not enough to accept the right being the more powerful opponent and the wrong being the lesser. We should insist on answers and all the facts FROM THE BEGINNING, ask for a complete history of the situation from the very start. Only then do we assign the label terrorist, and refuse to pass it on unfairly.
Andy.
Last edited: