TNT, wouldn’t the term unlawful be defined by the country in which the act took place, and hence, the difficulty in determining a true definition of terrorism? While we may have social norms that we all agree to be “wrong” what is unlawful in the States may be different than what is unlawful in Yemen. Ah, there in lies the problem!
So, along those lines… what about the Scud missles sold by North Korea to Yemen? just an open ended question cause I would love to hear the thoughts of you all…Did the US and Spain have a right to seize the ship?
Guys, the best definition is on page one of this thread. (A. Smid in Mr T’s post.) Mr T. would “modernise” this definition to say: terrorism maximises civilian death, legitimate acts of war seek to minimise it. I have trouble with this argument of Mr T’s. That is why we agree on Sudan but disagree on Nagasaki, which he sees as an act of war. I would describe N as terrorism, but that still leaves room for “justifiable terrorism.”
I tend to agree with you, Sharky, that “unlawful” is a tricky word. However, a short definition of terrorism was put forward to the UN by Mr Smid as : “Peacetime War crimes.” So, there may be a justifiable legal basis to act as a framework.
Can they seize the ship? Yes. Ithad painted out its name and was sailing illegally. Can they seize the scuds? No. They are legitimate. That is why the US has already agreed to release.
Sorry to be using analogies but maybe right and wrong, lawful and unlawful are like beauty… it is in the eye of the beholder… to make objective judgements is difficult… however this problem is clearly resolved when both sides start killing eachother… the last man standing is right and lawful
God bless human nature… we just love to be right and fight and kill eachother… all we need is as DYLAN says " God on our side" or maybe “ALLAH on our side” or “truth justice and the American way”
Maybe people should be paying more attention to teaching respect and tolerance of difference than standing up to defend themselves as being right… the world is becoming a global village all right… but even at home people on my street, not to mind to say village, hate eachother with a passion
I disagree. Although it is difficult sometimes to be objective, it is not impossible. We are obligated, IMO, to attempt to distinguish between right and wrong and lawful and unlawful. Bias is in the eye of the beholder, but objectivity comes from our minds. A problem between disputants may well be resolved when the last man is left standing, but this does not resolve the issue of right and wrong and lawful and unlawful, unless you are willing to subscribe to the notion that “might makes right”.
Distinctions are important because they can be used as guides to help us understand objectively whether our contemplated acts are either “right”, “wrong”, “lawful” or “unlawful”. Maybe when these are understood, people will be able to act and judge with less confusion.
Objectivity is something that can be aspired to however in reality objectivity is tainted by bias
For example I think no one is this whole thread is being totally objective
Maybe someone who has never heard of the whole threat and acts of terrorism could be objective… but for the ordinary punter who has seen on the TV or newspaper, heard on the radio or witnessed; it is impossible not to be biased
TNT. I disagree. This thread’s aim is to find a logical, objective definition of terrorism. We’ve got close. Many posts have taken an abstracted stance. I am more confident that I have a logical, dispassionate definition of terrorism than before the discussion.
I guess though what I am saying and what the thread is showing is that it is a lot more complicated and not as black and white as I and others orginally thought
I agree. This has been a good discussion. As I predicted, conclusions would differ, but likely be reasonable. This thread has caused me to reconsider my original idea, and as such, has been valuable (to me).