Moscow Metro suicide bombings

[Zhukov]

I guess we're getting down to definitions here. I define terrorism as an act that inflicts terror, with the goal of inflicting terror. You say it's individuals or non state (or unrecognised state) groups when they target non-combatants.

It's WWII. Let's say that there is an old Belorussian man that sends the German garrison a carton of milk every two days so that they can have healthy teeth and bones, simply because it's a nice thing to do. Let's say he has no family, friends or contacts. He is a hermit. The Germans don't know who sends the milk they just guzzle it like the filthy swine they are. The local partisans send out someone to kill him, because they want the Germans to have weak bones so that fighting on the front lines they will drop their guns and not kill so many sons of the motherland.

So the partisan kills the old man by clubbing him in the back of the head. He dies, and the Partisan buries him in his backyard. Nobody knows about the killing, nobody cares, but an operative of an unlawful group has killed a non combatant. Is that terrorism?


I say no, it's just murder.

You can't get bogged down with definitions when you are defining the actors rather than the act. Much more logical and precise to identify whether the act itself is terrorism, by looking at the aims and outcomes of the act.

You are looking at individual's acts, not the overall goals of the terrorist group.

True. Ok. You can be a terrorist if you are part of a group that commits terrorist acts (my definition). That is fair enough. In the examples I have put forward I never stated if said hypothetical person was part of a group though. If they are part of a terrorist group, then yes, they are a terrorist using at that point in time non-terrorist tactics. If they aren't part of a terrorist group, then they are not a terrorist, since they are not using terror tactics (my definition). My example of the partisan killing the old man, is the act an act of terror? Not in my defining of the word. Is the partisan a terrorist for that act? No. Is he a terrorist if he belongs to a group that regularly dips into the pool of terrorist tactics, knows about the use of these tactics and doesn't disagree with them? Yes.

The aim of both of those is to cause a withdrawal of military forces

Yes, but I was looking slightly less far into the future. Same future aim (no more soldiers in my country), same act (blowing yourself up), different .. uh, bit in the middle? The history of warfare is not always about killing the enemy soldiers until they are dead, it's usually about killing the enemy soldiers until they give up. Anyway, I think once you put on the uniform, swear the oath of allegiance and what not, then you are representing your nation, it's morals and values, and you are responsible for it. I think a soldier is a fair target for disagreement. All subjective of course to what you are disagreeing over. Am I babbling and not making sense? It's nearly 5am.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I guess we're getting down to definitions here. I define terrorism as an act that inflicts terror, with the goal of inflicting terror. You say it's individuals or non state (or unrecognised state) groups when they target non-combatants.

non-state actors who use violence or the threat of violence against noncombatants to coerce individuals or governments into adopting change.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

It's WWII. Let's say that there is an old Belorussian man that sends the German garrison a carton of milk every two days so that they can have healthy teeth and bones, simply because it's a nice thing to do. Let's say he has no family, friends or contacts. He is a hermit. The Germans don't know who sends the milk they just guzzle it like the filthy swine they are. The local partisans send out someone to kill him, because they want the Germans to have weak bones so that fighting on the front lines they will drop their guns and not kill so many sons of the motherland.

So the partisan kills the old man by clubbing him in the back of the head. He dies, and the Partisan buries him in his backyard. Nobody knows about the killing, nobody cares, but an operative of an unlawful group has killed a non combatant. Is that terrorism?


I say no, it's just murder.

Correct, they were not attempting to affect wider change. Their intent was to merely kill the dude supplying the milk, not to cause Nazi withdrawal or influence anyone.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

You can't get bogged down with definitions when you are defining the actors rather than the act. Much more logical and precise to identify whether the act itself is terrorism, by looking at the aims and outcomes of the act.

Whether or not someone or a group is a terrorist is defined by their actions or intent. Read my definition.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

If they are part of a terrorist group, then yes, they are a terrorist using at that point in time non-terrorist tactics. If they aren't part of a terrorist group, then they are not a terrorist, since they are not using terror tactics (my definition). My example of the partisan killing the old man, is the act an act of terror? Not in my defining of the word. Is the partisan a terrorist for that act? No. Is he a terrorist if he belongs to a group that regularly dips into the pool of terrorist tactics, knows about the use of these tactics and doesn't disagree with them? Yes.

An individual can use terror tactics. The underwear bomber was not sent out by Al Qaeda, he was not given that mission from them. Yes, he had ties to terrorist groups but he was acting of his own individual accord. Look at my definition for why I would count a individual such as he as a terrorist.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Yes, but I was looking slightly less far into the future. Same future aim (no more soldiers in my country), same act (blowing yourself up), different .. uh, bit in the middle? The history of warfare is not always about killing the enemy soldiers until they are dead, it's usually about killing the enemy soldiers until they give up. Anyway, I think once you put on the uniform, swear the oath of allegiance and what not, then you are representing your nation, it's morals and values, and you are responsible for it. I think a soldier is a fair target for disagreement. All subjective of course to what you are disagreeing over. Am I babbling and not making sense? It's nearly 5am.

See my definition. ;/ And you're making sense.

[Zhukov]

Not really much disagreement going on here, I think it's just that we've both got different definitions, I think yours is probably closer to what the official line is, but I like mine better. I lean towards every action being subjective at the time, rather than trying to fit it into pre defined categories, easy enough to say, maybe not easy enough to do. Especially when you are a government, and require a stance on such actions at all times.

What's your paper about?


Oh, and you said that the partisan killing the old man was both a terrorist and not a terrorist.

[Zhukov]

Hang on, I was going to ask:

What if your non-state actor causing a violent act on a non-combatant isn't trying to affect change? What if they are simply doing this act for the sake of it? Say, blowing up a hospital simply for the act of causing terror and panic in the population?

By me, it's terrorism. Causing terror. But if they aren't doing it to affect change with the government or individuals, is it terrorism to you?