Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Definition of a terrorist

Regrettable Juvenilia

22:45 / 20.09.01

...might include all sorts of scary things, under proposed new EU legislation.

quote:The proposals define a terrorist group as a "structured organisation... of more than two persons, acting in concert to commit terrorist offences".

The offences range from murder and hostage-taking, to damaging public property and urban violence, committed with with the aim of "intimidating and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic or social structures of countries".

When you bear in mind that the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the UK has already been used to justify extreme police responses to demonstrations/protests... well, you work it out.

From those bleeding-hearted lefty liberals at the Grauniad.

Jack The Bodiless

22:47 / 20.09.01

Sounds like this board could well be closed down, then. Along with every right thinking person I know. Well, that's excellent. Lovely.

Lazlo Woodbine [some call me Laz]

12:14 / 21.09.01

Spoiled little children who don't get their way so they throw a tantrum!
Fuckers!!!!!!!

Mister Snee

13:30 / 21.09.01

quote:The proposals define a terrorist group as a "structured organisation... of more than two persons, acting in concert to commit terrorist offences".

Okay, cool. So as long as I keep my terrorist offences between myself and one friend, I'm not at war with the world.

Good stuff!

grant

16:56 / 21.09.01

Nelson Mandela.

Regrettable Juvenilia

17:37 / 23.09.01

As long as we keep discussing protests, stickering, any kind of direct action on this board - as long as we keep the Switchboard running - Barbelith could quite easily be defined as a terrorist-friendly website, under this definition.

And they're going to rush through this legislation, and most of our fellow civilised citizens will applaud them for it.

DrDee

20:52 / 23.09.01

It's nice to see that a lot of years have passed, but they still can't put down a discriminant to separate Freedom Fighters from Terrorists.
"Anyone that goes up against us" might work better, as at least it's unambiguous.

I honestly espected something better from those professionals.

nul

03:30 / 24.09.01

Freedom Fighters are Terrorists until they stage the Revolution. Well, from the position of the government who is under threat of being overthrown.

I bet they're scared out of their boots, feeling terror everytime they hear a dissident opinion.

Lazlo Woodbine [some call me Laz]

12:34 / 01.10.01

quote:Originally posted by Brenden Simpson:
Freedom Fighters are Terrorists until they stage the Revolution. Well, from the position of the government who is under threat of being overthrown.

Freedom fighters target government and military instilations,
Terrorists target civilions.FUCKERS.

MJ-12

13:49 / 01.10.01

Everyone targets civilians when their back is to the wall, either to destroy the enemies capacity to fight, break the will f the people or some other such thing. It's an almost neccessary consequence of a modern Total War. The 'terrorists' have eliminated the military middle-man, as it were.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

19:13 / 01.10.01

That's not only Barbelith, that's Reclaim the Streets, the Hunt Saboteurs Association, me and my mates, you and your mates...
that's EXACTLY the kind of blanket legislation your average cunt is calling for.
Oh shit.
We fucked now.
Me go hide on big hill with dog and rifle.
Oh shit.

Disco is My Class War

06:18 / 04.10.01

See, as far as I can tell, civil liberties legislation is the one thing it might be useful to protest -- and fight, in court and heaps of other places. That definition of a terrorist includes anyone and anything -- but really the test will be in how they enforce it. Which is also a useful lever for public pressure... People really will get upset, I think, if they feel that their freedom to think differently is at risk. Someone get out there and make some stickers! Put up a website! Start testing them....

No star here laces

07:55 / 04.10.01

As has been pointed out, the real definition of a terrorist would run something like:

Anyone who intentionally causes harm to civilians to make a political point

But of course we couldn't actually use that one as the basis of an international law because it makes Henry Kissinger et al terrorists (which of course they are).

Blank Faced Avatar

07:55 / 04.10.01

I agree, or maybe just

Use of military resources against civilians.

..works pretty well for me.

Although, on reflection

Coercion by the instigation of fear

..as terror is their end as well as their means.

[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: the Humble Crab ]

Dee Vapr

14:13 / 04.10.01

Use of military resources against civilians.

is my favoured definition. Note this definitely includes the US repeatedly (Hiroshima, Clinton's bombing of Sudan etc..)

Coercion by the instigation of fear

definitely includes the US. Current military buildup in the middle east, anyone? Millions of Afghanis fleeing their country ...in ... fear....

Dee Vapr

14:15 / 04.10.01

War on Terrorism = War on Fanaticism. IMHO.

Frances Farmer

16:19 / 04.10.01

Just feel like I should point out when we're talking about definitions that finger anyone using military resources to assault civilians...

...Over the scope of history, we're talking about every center of governmental power. Not just the U.S., not just a couple people. Not just Hitler. A whole lot of sovereign states have contributed to or been involved in "terrorist action" by this definition. I still like the definition, but I don't think it's fair to act as if the U.S. is alone in the power game. The U.S. is presently the top player, but is in fact a small blip on a very large map charting human rights abuses.

Dee Vapr

18:57 / 04.10.01

True. And the UK is certainly complicit, certainly as far as actions on Iraq are concerned.

Saint Keggers

01:08 / 05.10.01

Some political theorist muckymuck defined a terrorist as "a party who takes action against a second party in order to ellict a response from a third party". Nice and general..I think I like it.

Add Your Reply