| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2005 : 1:44:41 PM
|
I thought it may be helpful to discuss an agreeable definition of terrorism with the hope that this definition will be used in Lebanon to outlaw terrorist groups and keep legitimate non-terrorist ones. This may become tremendously important as many terrorists around the world may decide to seek refuge in Lebanon (now that our borders are porous), in addition to the many terrorists that are already in.
A definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states and Intenational organizations for decades. The dictionary defines "Terrorism" as "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." This sounds pretty sweeping and includes almost every militant action or organization.
A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favor in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.
The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".
If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.
In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".
Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
1. League of Nations Convention (1937):
"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".
2. UN Resolution language (1999):
"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;
2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)
3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):
Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
4. Academic Consensus Definition:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
5. USA Definition of Terrorism:
Terrorism is defined in the U.S. by the Code of Federal Regulations as: "..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorists:
• Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
• International terrorism involves violent acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which the perpetrations operate or seek asylum.
For a legal definition of Terrorism, go to: http://i-p-o.org/terrorism-legal-definition.htm.
How would Lebanon today define Terrorism? Taking of course into consideration that Lebanon has forgiven repeatedly and officially many outlaws throughout history and may be willing to do the same again and again to postpone unrest to a more convenient time.
|
|
|
Talal
Syria
21 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2005 : 10:16:49 AM
|
Would you consider Muslim cleric Omar Bakri a terrorist?
He ran out of Britain as soon as the British government announced a crack on terrorism. Why? If he were innocent, wouldn't he have stayed there and faught for his innocence?
Why did he flee to Lebanon to hide there?
This guy is running away from Syria and now from Britain; the only country that hides him is Lebanon. Can any one blame the Syrian government for closing the borders with Lebanon.
Lebanon has become a haven for terrorists. |
 |
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 12:43:25 PM
|
No Talal. Lebanon has not become a haven for terrorists.
As for your cleric Bekri, I knew nothing of him before he fled London, but you may be interested to know he has been arrested in Beirut (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4141948.stm). |
|
|
|
Akhwat Shanai
14 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 4:51:58 PM
|
I do not agree with Talal.
Every one that supports a terrorist person, a terrorist organisation , or a terrorist act is a terrorist.
Saying that Syria is closing the borders with Lebanon because she is afraid of terrorist is uncceptable for many reasons:
I am not going to list all terrorist organisations supported by Syria and remember that a lot of them get their training in Syria, nor the terrorist acts commited by Syrian authorities, I am just going to comment the
Muslim cleric Omar Bakri case:
Mr Bakri is in Lebanon today because he got the Lebanese nationality under the syrian occupation:
وصل عمر بكري (زعيم جماعة «المهاجرون» المنحلة في بريطانيا) الى بيروت مساء السبت الفائت من طريق المانيا. الخبر أعلن أول من أمس في لندن وأمس أكدته السلطات اللبنانية. لكن المفاجأة التي حملها شيخ «لندنستان» في حقيبته الى اللبنانيين هي جواز السفر اللبناني الذي في حوزته، إذ راح الجميع يتساءل في بيروت من أين حصل الشيخ السوري اللاجئ في لندن على الجنسية اللبنانية؟ الجواب الراجح ان يكون الرجل حصل على الجنسية في مرسوم التجنيس الأخير في العام 1994، فهو المرسوم الأخير الذي منح الجنسية لعشرات الآلاف من طالبيها من بينهم آلاف من السوريين. ولكن هذا يستدعي ايضاً اسئلة اخرى، ففي تلك الفترة منحت الجنسية لهؤلاء تحت رقابة سورية، وعمر بكري سوري ايضاً .عدم انجلاء هذا اللغز يبقي على الكثير من الغموض في قضية الجنسية.
I think this text clarifes everything: for 30 years Syria commited terrorist acts in the name of Lebanon, and what we see today is one of these acts.
Anyway, every dictatorship is a terrorist country and it deals with terrorist because their leader is ready to do everything to keep his position. And this applies to Assad regime. |
Edited by - Akhwat Shanai on 08/11/2005 4:57:22 PM |
|
|
|
Talal
Syria
21 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2005 : 11:37:04 AM
|
Ya Akhwat Shanai, Omar Bakri was released in LEbanon after being arrested. Now this guy is forbidden from returning to the UK and wanted in Syria and wanted in the UAE. Why is he free to do as he like in Lebanon?
Doesn't Syria have the right to fear that this kind of terrorism will cross the border from Lebanon into Syria.
As for the regime Syria, each people has the right to be governed the way they like. We in Syria like our government. If the people were not behind president Assad, he would not be in power. |
|
|
|
Akhwat Shanai
14 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2005 : 2:26:33 PM
|
Ya akhi Tala,
Omar Bakri is not forbidden from returning to UK, but they prefer that he does not come back.
I do not think that Syria fears that the terrorism that is in Lebanon cross the border from Lebanon to Syria, because Syria was behind such kind of terrorism in Lebanon and this terrorism will not go to Syria, because there is no terrorist acts between brothers.
I agree with you that each people has the right to be governed the way they like, that is what we call democracy. But there are people that says they like their government because they are afraid of repression. I do not think that the people in Syria really like the government. Everyone remembers what happened in HOMS and HAMA.
quote:
Originally posted by Talal
Ya Akhwat Shanai, Omar Bakri was released in LEbanon after being arrested. Now this guy is forbidden from returning to the UK and wanted in Syria and wanted in the UAE. Why is he free to do as he like in Lebanon?
Doesn't Syria have the right to fear that this kind of terrorism will cross the border from Lebanon into Syria.
As for the regime Syria, each people has the right to be governed the way they like. We in Syria like our government. If the people were not behind president Assad, he would not be in power.
|
Edited by - Akhwat Shanai on 08/22/2005 2:27:16 PM |
|
|
|
Israel
Israel
11 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2005 : 11:20:57 PM
|
Terrorism is killing innocent civilians dining in a restaurant in northern Israel as an act of vengence for the execution of a terrorist leader.
Terrorism is threatening to wipe a whole state and a whole people off the map.
Terrorism is Ahmadinejad and the Iranian system. Terrorism is all those who revolve in the Iranian orbit.
Terrorism is a huge explosion in Downtown Beirut to assassinate a peaceful leader.
Terrorism is a car bomb to kill a journalist and to kill a communist leader.
Terrorism is to hijack a people with a hateful ideology and take them to war against a fictional enemy.
Terrorism is starving innocent children to death.
Terrorism is displacing innocent civilians from their homes whether in Gaza or in the West Bank.
Terrorism is displacing Jews from their hometowns in the Arab World with fears and threats.
Terrorism is intolerance of differences. |
|
|
|
Talal
Syria
21 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2005 : 8:44:21 PM
|
Terrorism is displacing innocent civilians from their homes in the west bank and Gaza.
Terrorism is bombing cities populated by civilians with F-15 and F-16 fighter jets.
Terrorism is refusing to allow displaced refugees to go back to their lands and homes
Terrorism = Israel
Terrorism = Zionism
Terrorism = The West |
|
|
|
fraizzze
Canada
58 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2005 : 10:36:40 PM
|
Terrorism is being too close minded to know that there is a way to talk with other people, and to understand that one's opinion can be dicussed.
Terrorism is done by every person who uses violence toward innocent people for any cause. |
|
|
|
UN 1559
2 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2005 : 11:37:53 PM
|
Terrorism is an opposition to the freedom of expression of the Lebanese people and their representatives.
Terrorism is Hizbullah Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem calls (Threats) for MPs not to participate in a committee meeting for 1559 on Wednesday.
Terrorism is to refuse all mechanisms of dialogue about Resolution 1559 set by the international community and the Security Council.
|
Edited by - UN 1559 on 10/30/2005 11:38:25 PM |
|
|
|
Pietro
Lebanon
64 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 12:35:19 PM
|
| Terrorism is not having enough power to justify one's violence. |
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 4:04:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pietro
Terrorism is not having enough power to justify one's violence.
The point you make is an interesting proposition for a phylosophical debate.
Without disagreeing or agreeing with it, I make the following observation:
Reading your point closely, once could say that any form of violence (that is not justified by power) is terrorism!
Allow me then to ask: was the attack that killed 3000 civilians on September 11, 2001 in the USA justified by power?
Are the attacks launched every now and then against innocent Lebanese civilians in the Christian sector, justified by power?
Are the attacks on Israeli civilians eating peacefully in restaurants justified by power?
I happen to believe that terrorism is the intentional or reckless killing of innocent civilians.
It does not make much difference whether it is justified by power or not, whether it is for a political cause or not, whether it is for a just cause or not, and whether it came from a friend or an enemy.
|
|
|
|
Pietro
Lebanon
64 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 5:57:02 PM
|
Truth Squad,
I didn’t want to drift from the subject so I was very concise, but since you’ve shown interest I’ll elaborate…
I’ll elaborate by giving you back the exact example you have given.
11th of September is terrorism for you, AND for me, because the ones who have done it have failed – they didn’t even try – to convince us of the justice of the action. But for the ones who have made the actions, and the many supporters of Al-Kaaida, it was a sacred act.
The concept of innocence, and even whether killing is wrong or right mutates from a society to another. Hence the definition of terrorism is totally dependant of the socio-religious values one has… It’s pretty much like Machiavellism, the more powerful the actor is over a certain mass, the more he can justify any mean by the goal…because his power would eventually allow him to achieve that goal.
That’s for philosophical talk. Now for jolly humanist everyday talk, terrorism is a very terrible thing.
Regards,
Pietro
|
|
|
|
fraizzze
Canada
58 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2005 : 7:49:38 PM
|
Just a simple question guys : do you think if I have asked you to give me a definition of Terrorism BEFORE september 11, your answer would be the same?
|
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2005 : 3:23:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by fraizzze
Just a simple question guys : do you think if I have asked you to give me a definition of Terrorism BEFORE september 11, your answer would be the same?
As far as I am concerned, YES.
Terrorism is the intentional or reckless killing of innocent civilians. I amend my former definition to include to say: Terrorism is the intentional or reckless killing of or threatening to harm (physically or otherwise in their livelihood) innocent civilians. |
|
|
|
Eyad
Lebanon
24 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 11:08:44 AM
|
| Truth - ditto. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Definition of Terrorism
Forum Locked
