Tom Yum

Heard the sad and unfortunate terrorist bombing of the train in Spain. 150 people died and about 1,000 were injured.

What constitues a terrorist act? Who is defined as a terrorist? What groups and individuals will be considered a potential risk? Furthermore, what financial and technical actions will set off yellow flags for law enforecment not only in the US but abroad.

The more we see terrorist acts, the definition of terrorism will cover broader terms. People automatically assume that terrorism = extremist islam groups, but it is not the case. For example, the unibomber was an individual who plotted to hurt others for his extremist cause. I think the definition will become more inclusive.

It will be interesting to see not only how the US defines terrorism, but how the rest of the world will too. This is now more than ever an issue of international interest.

Hope Ms. J is busy at work as her credentials are needed now more than ever.

__________________
Love it, leave it or fix it.

Nazman

Hi Tom Yum,

The latest I've heard is that the fatalities have risen to 192 with over 1200 injured...terrible.

To be honest I don't what the true definition (what's accepted in International Law) of a terrorist is only that it is any individual or group that specifically targets civilians or sees them as legimimate targets. If the group or individual is representing a state, in a war say, then it would be a war crime.

A very sad day indeed.

guy incognito

Then dare i say it the US is also guilty of terrorism.Australia and britain to.

__________________
You can only win when im not affraid to lose.

Toudiyama[NL]

using violence (to support your cause)against inocent people just because they are part of a certain group or you don't agree with their opinion

Some religious fanatical like a born again christian killing an doctor from abortionclinic is terrorism too

you are right, the definition is getting more general all the time

__________________

rkcann01

Terrorist = any1 who causes terror! I guess that the U.S. could qualify in some parts of the world as terrorist, but I believe that the majority of people would agree that the U.S. has better intentions then a radical Islamic group.

ryanhall

A little off-topic, but I hope that the ETA were not responsible for this. I'm Basque, and we definitely don't need this violent trash creating problems and harming innocents--it sure as hell doesn't help our cause any.

__________________
"Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!"

aaronmason

I think that lareg scale terrorism is sick and probably everyone has comminted a minor offence in their lifetime by scaring someone. I would say that the defenition is 'someone, or a party, of people that cause panic - it could be a threat, a bomb, or even a warning'. Is there anyway that we can stop it? or even minimise it? NO... unless ourselves want to be terrorsists to the innocent people that they are hiding behind. You could argue that Britain is terrorist - however, we have a belief that what we do will benefit the world, it seems better to me that a small number of people are worth targeting if it means that a larger number of people are going to targetted in the future...but... we will never stop it. It is a good thing to discuss.


Aaron Mason

Tom Yum

Will terrorism allow the government to minimize our privacy? Is it a worthy sacrifice? Do you think the government should specifically track electronic transmissions?

Again more issues that we will confront as we learn to deal with terrorism. So many issues to deal with. A lawyer could carve out a nice niche in this area I suppose...

__________________
Love it, leave it or fix it.

gregimotis

Even more questions....


Here is the dictionary 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.

Notice it says "unlawful use of ....". This defintion effectively excludes any government action. A short paraphrase might be: Any violent politically motivated act unless it's committed by a government.

Palastinians bomb a bus = terrorists.
Isreali government fires rockets into a crowded market = military action.

__________________
.
.
I am Tired. Tired. Tired.

Szczepankiewicz

Interesting thread.

Many people confer the title of terrorist when civilians are targeted without a declaration of war.

From what I understand the Radical Islamic Groups have declared war on the United States, Isreal, and their allies.

The reason these groups are considered 'terrorists' is because they are not politically recognized as sovereign entities. We should change that. Let them live in political solidarity.

Then declare war on their nation and remove them from the Earth.

Then the discussion of 'terrorism' and 'counter-terrorism' becomes moot.

Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist. He was a convicted mass murderer. He was executed.

Sadaam Hussein is not a terrorist. He is an 'alleged' mass murderer who may be convicted and then executed.

The way I see it we have two choices, reciprocate the declarations of war and kill them like soldiers or relegate them to criminal status and hunt them down like criminals.

Like I said, very interesting...

Szczepankiewicz

HooooolllllllleeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyySSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITT!!!

That would explain the pet sheep.

Southern Idaho has a very large Basque population.

Good Chorizos, or so I hear.

KONY

Unfortunately, things like this remind me of a saying that goes something like, "When one person dies, its a tragedy. But when many die, its a statistic." What I mean by this is that when so many people suffer such a fate, we tend to forget the individuals themselves, which is a tragedy in itself.

guy incognito

I beleive that the terorrist have already won.We have increases security decreased freedoms and everyones looking over their shoulder.If they hate our democracy then they have won when our own governments decrease our freedom and rights to point where we are no longer inocent before proven guilty and people can be detained in guantanamo bay for 2 years without charge.

__________________
You can only win when im not affraid to lose.

guy incognito

Im not sugesting fear is their goal mearly their weapon.David hicks may not be entitled to your rights and freedoms but as an australian he is to ours.And as our military is forced to act along side the us(We were bulied into the gulf war eppisode II) then i think we reserve the right to prosecute our own citizens.In response to tom the internet is becoming an increased area of concern for govenments.It can be used to attack infrastructre.Eg:Water treatment plants in australia have recently been attacked in this method.

__________________
You can only win when im not affraid to lose.

guy incognito

Our gov. was preasured to join in with the threat of unfair trade agreements and the prospesct of missing out on the misille defence project.Just as we are being forced to buy the joint strike fighter and keep paying the US for parts just as we already have to with our blackhawk helicopters.All debate about going to war in this country was suppressed by US gov. as anti US and we were warned very sternly that we must not argue with the states.We must present a united front we were told.The US wanted the use of our sas(Which like it or not US special forces cannot match,Same for the brits with their SAS)for the gulf war eppisode II.

__________________
You can only win when im not affraid to lose.