Jump to content

What, in your opinion, constitutes a terror attack?


Recommended Posts

So you'd need to know the perpetrator's intent first, before you could call it terrorism?

 

---------- Post added 20-12-2015 at 16:30 ----------

 

 

Don't forget horror film directors.

 

You could argue most armed robbers are terrorists then - they aim to scare people to get to what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could argue most armed robbers are terrorists then - they aim to scare people to get to what they want.

 

Quite, also loan sharks, racketeers, some workplace bosses, feuding neighbours. The list goes on.

 

I think Mafya hit the nail on the head with it being down to intent, you have to know the intent before you can call it terrorism.

Which is why, in several recent cases, it has not been treated as such unless/until the intent is known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intent to cause terror........

 

Or to use terror to further political aims?

 

It's rare that a group will have as their only aim causing terror.

 

My definition is that "terrorism is the use weapons to further the political agenda of a non-government organisation".

 

I think that covers all the options.

 

There must be a legal definition of the term terrorism, anyone know it? (or can be arsed googling it?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite, also loan sharks, racketeers, some workplace bosses, feuding neighbours. The list goes on.

 

I think Mafya hit the nail on the head with it being down to intent, you have to know the intent before you can call it terrorism.

Which is why, in several recent cases, it has not been treated as such unless/until the intent is known.

 

Are you suggesting that any of the people listed could be considered terrorists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that any of the people listed could be considered terrorists?

 

If you wnat to use the classification that the sole criteria of causing terror attempted or actual, then terrorism starts to cover a wide range of events. It makes in unmanageable.

 

Someone who threatens domestic violence= terrorist.

 

Someone who blackmails or demands money with menaces= terrorist

 

Thats why all the official definitions are not as simplistic and seek to define more clearly what is and what is not a terrorist act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please forgive me for my lack of intelligence :huh:

 

A terrorist commits acts of violence to -

 

Produce widespread fear

 

Obtain worldwide, national, or local recognition for their cause by attracting the attention of the media

 

Harass, weaken, or embarrass government security forces so that the the government overreacts and appears repressive

 

Steal or extort money and equipment, especially weapons and ammunition vital to the operation of their group

 

Destroy facilities or disrupt lines of communication in order to create doubt that the government can provide for and protect its citizens

 

Discourage foreign investments, tourism, or assistance programs that can affect the target country’s economy and support of the government in power

 

Influence government decisions, legislation, or other critical decisions

 

Free prisoners

 

Satisfy vengeance

 

Turn the tide in a guerrilla war by forcing government security forces to concentrate their efforts in urban areas. This allows the terrorist group to establish itself among the local populace in rural areas

 

Having fought terrorism on a personal level I do know what I'm talking about and the above pretty much sums it up... and just out of interest I don't see how some nutter with an explosive toilet roll, no matter what colour he is, fits into any of the above :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you wnat to use the classification that the sole criteria of causing terror attempted or actual, then terrorism starts to cover a wide range of events. It makes in unmanageable.

 

Someone who threatens domestic violence= terrorist.

 

Someone who blackmails or demands money with menaces= terrorist

 

Thats why all the official definitions are not as simplistic and seek to define more clearly what is and what is not a terrorist act.

 

Who thinks the sole criteria for being labelled a terrorist is spreading terror?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you'd need to know the perpetrator's intent first, before you could call it terrorism?

 

---------- Post added 20-12-2015 at 16:30 ----------

 

 

Don't forget horror film directors.

 

Planting a bomb or pretend bomb in a uk shopping centre when the country is on high alert status in regards to terror attacks to me is an act intending to cause terror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who thinks the sole criteria for being labelled a terrorist is spreading terror?

 

The intent to cause terror........

 

Go and read the thread started by Mafya on why isnt this a terrorist offence, he and gamston believe it is a terror offence, but the police believe its arson with intent to danger human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planting a bomb or pretend bomb in a uk shopping centre when the country is on high alert status in regards to terror attacks to me is an act intending to cause terror.

 

So you're saying that the intent was to cause terror and you know this because it was an act intending to cause terror?

 

Sounds somewhat circular to me.

 

What you appear to be doing is just guessing at what the perpetrator intended and then agreeing with yourself to confirm it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.