FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


'Int'l Cooperation Must In Fight Against Terrorism'





AnafraniL
Quote:
Major General Ali Erdinç, head of the General Staff Education Department, yesterday called for international cooperation and understanding in the fight against terrorism, warning that it would otherwise become much more difficult to handle.
His remarks came during a conference at the Swiss Hotel in Ankara, which was attended by U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Ross Wilson, as well as academics and experts from different countries including Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia and Russia.

Erdinç said the ideological dimension of terrorism encountered significant changes due to the globalization, noting that uncontrolled and rapid change could lead to an increase in the support for terrorism. 'It will be much more difficult to fight against terrorism if international cooperation and understanding is not guaranteed.'

Six panels will take place during the conference that ends on Friday. The event aims to revise measures and develop future polices to fight against ideological dimensions of terrorism.


Kaynak: Turkish Daily News
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=73196

[mod: quote tags and source added - Bikerman]
liljp617
I don't know what terrorism is. Surely you can't beat an ideology if you don't know who you're fighting past the label "terrorist." Target individuals and groups, not ideology. And surely guns and tanks won't defeat this ideology. Everybody recognizes the actions of these "terrorist" groups is a problem that must be solved. I don't see how this guy making a vague statement like this helps or is significant.
ThePolemistis
liljp617 wrote:
I don't know what terrorism is.


I think the real problem is to distinguish terrorism from legitamate act of self-defense / resistence.

And further to make note that state terrorism (i.e. commited by nation states) can equally exist as terrorism commited by groups of people can. Neither are above the law, and neither are justified as right.

Resistence groups on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable IMO and all free people. But then again as they say, "One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter. -- so resistence groups are also "said to be" hard to define.
liljp617
I would simply like to get rid of the word and call the people, groups, and organizations we're fighting by their names. The word has been used the wrong way for too long for it to serve any positive general purpose. It's much too easy to say "We gotta go kill all those evil terrorist folks" and gain support (we all know who this is).
ThePolemistis
liljp617 wrote:
I would simply like to get rid of the word and call the people, groups, and organizations we're fighting by their names. The word has been used the wrong way for too long for it to serve any positive general purpose. It's much too easy to say "We gotta go kill all those evil terrorist folks" and gain support (we all know who this is).


But then how can we distinguish between struggles of good, and struggles of evil? I think a better definition of the word "terrorism" should be made, and groups that are called terrorist ones should fulfil the definition's criteria.

Sadly, the UN cannot provide us on a detailed definition for the word terrorism. And the US definition of the word is grossly biased.

Perhaps a better word should be used in its place?
Moonspider
ThePolemistis wrote:
Sadly, the UN cannot provide us on a detailed definition for the word terrorism. And the US definition of the word is grossly biased.


U.S. Code Title 22, Chapter 38, Section 2656f, (d) wrote:
(1)the term ``international terrorism'' means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term ``terrorism'' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term ``terrorist group'' means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms ``territory'' and ``territory of the country'' mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms ``terrorist sanctuary'' and ``sanctuary'' mean an area in the territory of the country--
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization--
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under--
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371(a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780(d) of this title.


What part do you find "grossly biased?"

Respectfully,
M
ThePolemistis
Moonspider wrote:
(2) the term ``terrorism'' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;


Would Nelson Mandela's struggle against apertheid South Africa be classified as terrorism in the above case?
In fact, wouldn't all resistence movements (whether for good e.g. Free France Movement that took place during WW2) therefore be considered terrorism?

And finally, what about terrorism commited by nation states (ie. non subnational groups)?
liljp617
Moonspider wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:
Sadly, the UN cannot provide us on a detailed definition for the word terrorism. And the US definition of the word is grossly biased.


U.S. Code Title 22, Chapter 38, Section 2656f, (d) wrote:
(1)the term ``international terrorism'' means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term ``terrorism'' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term ``terrorist group'' means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms ``territory'' and ``territory of the country'' mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms ``terrorist sanctuary'' and ``sanctuary'' mean an area in the territory of the country--
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization--
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under--
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371(a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780(d) of this title.


What part do you find "grossly biased?"

Respectfully,
M


Probably the fact the people in charge of our government rarely use those definitions unless it suits them to do so...lol
Moonspider
ThePolemistis wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
(2) the term ``terrorism'' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;


Would Nelson Mandela's struggle against apertheid South Africa be classified as terrorism in the above case?


I don't see how. Did Mandela commit and/or support violence against noncombatants (i.e. civilians)?

ThePolemistis wrote:
In fact, wouldn't all resistence movements (whether for good e.g. Free France Movement that took place during WW2) therefore be considered terrorism?


No. A resistance movement that engages combatants would not be considered terrorism. That obviously falls outside the definition since it specifically says "violence perpetrated against noncombatants."

ThePolemistis wrote:
And finally, what about terrorism commited by nation states (ie. non subnational groups)?


Nation states cannot commit terrorism under this definition, and for good legal reasons in my opinion. A nation state is bound by international law and any applicable treaties. Therefore, any acts committed by a nation state that might be considered terrorism are war crimes, acts of war, or other breaches of the law.

Respectfully,
M
ThePolemistis
Actually, the terrorism definition I read quite some time ago was:

Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms wrote:

Terrorism — The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to
inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit
of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Terrorist — An individual who commits an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in
pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives.

Terrorist group — Any number of terrorists who assemble together, have a unifying
relationship, or are organized for the purpose of committing an act or acts of violence or
threatens violence in pursuit of their political, religious, or ideological objectives.


The above definitions are from the US Department of Defense. You can download it here

The above statement certainly would go against organisations such as Free France Movement and the ANC, which in my opinion are resistent movements. The statement would also portray that any form of resistence in any nation (including against oppression) is a form of terrorism.

When I said grossly biased I was referring to them. But then again no definition of terrorism is correct in my opinion so let me look at your definitions.
Shame there is no consistency within the US though.

Moonspider wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
(2) the term ``terrorism'' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;


Would Nelson Mandela's struggle against apertheid South Africa be classified as terrorism in the above case?


I don't see how. Did Mandela commit and/or support violence against noncombatants (i.e. civilians)?


Whilst his intention was to sabotage govt and military targets and clearly stated not to target civilians, civilians did however die as a consequence

Moonspider wrote:

No. A resistance movement that engages combatants would not be considered terrorism. That obviously falls outside the definition since it specifically says "violence perpetrated against noncombatants."


What about violence against purely govt institutions? That is considered terrorism? The ANC targetted govt institutions -- and well done to them-- it was apertheid South Africa. This act was be considered an act of Terrorism in the US?

Moonspider wrote:

Nation states cannot commit terrorism under this definition, and for good legal reasons in my opinion. A nation state is bound by international law and any applicable treaties. Therefore, any acts committed by a nation state that might be considered terrorism are war crimes, acts of war, or other breaches of the law.


So there is no such thing as a terrorist state? Try telling George W Bush that.
Moonspider
ThePolemistis wrote:
Actually, the terrorism definition I read quite some time ago was:
Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms wrote:
Terrorism — The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. Terrorist — An individual who commits an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives. Terrorist group — Any number of terrorists who assemble together, have a unifying relationship, or are organized for the purpose of committing an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of their political, religious, or ideological objectives.
The above definitions are from the US Department of Defense. You can download it here The above statement certainly would go against organisations such as Free France Movement and the ANC, which in my opinion are resistent movements. The statement would also portray that any form of resistence in any nation (including against oppression) is a form of terrorism. When I said grossly biased I was referring to them. But then again no definition of terrorism is correct in my opinion so let me look at your definitions. Shame there is no consistency within the US though.


Yes, the DOD definition is vague and more inclusive than the Department of State definition.

ThePolemistis wrote:
Whilst his intention was to sabotage govt and military targets and clearly stated not to target civilians, civilians did however die as a consequence.


I wasn’t familiar with Mandela’s history, so I read up on it briefly. It’s true that the U.S. did until very recently consider the ANC a terrorist organization. According to the Wikipedia, Mandela himself admitted that the ANC violated human rights. (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Political_activity)

ThePolemistis wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
No. A resistance movement that engages combatants would not be considered terrorism. That obviously falls outside the definition since it specifically says "violence perpetrated against noncombatants."
What about violence against purely govt institutions? That is considered terrorism? The ANC targetted govt institutions -- and well done to them-- it was apertheid South Africa. This act was be considered an act of Terrorism in the US?


It was considered terrorism by the U.S. as the U.S. classified the ANC as a terrorist organization.

In general terms (not directly related to ANC activity) I think it can be terrorism. For example, I don't think there is any debate that the 1994 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City was a terrorist attack. It's difficult to judge and entirely dependent upon the person making the call. (Personally, I like the Department of State definition.) That being said, my opinion is just that, my opinion.

ThePolemistis wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
Nation states cannot commit terrorism under this definition, and for good legal reasons in my opinion. A nation state is bound by international law and any applicable treaties. Therefore, any acts committed by a nation state that might be considered terrorism are war crimes, acts of war, or other breaches of the law.
So there is no such thing as a terrorist state? Try telling George W Bush that.


I believe a "terrorist state" is a nation that supports terrorist organizations. If the state acts directly, international laws and treaties apply, IMO. For example, Hezbollah may receive funding and/or training from Iran. Hezbollah attacks Israeli targets. Israel will respond against Hezbollah but they will probably only protest Iranian involvement and conduct clandestine intelligence operations. However, if Iran attacked Israel directly using what might otherwise be considered terrorist tactics, then that would be an overt act of war by a state against another state. Israel would be legally justified to go to war with Iran.

You're right though, there is no definitive definition of terrorism and I doubt one will ever exist that satisfies everyone.

Respectfully,
M
Related topics
The downfall of american society
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Interpol sends special notice against Dawood Ibrahim
the crossaders come back to fight muslims?
Pakistan - Nuclear Arms Threat
[Opinion] Iraq War
Sufi Muslims prove Islam is cool.
What you think about our president?
Israel started this war, broke ceasefire first
Italy convicts 23 Americans in Bush Rendition Case
Obama’s Indefinite Detention of US Citizens
Anti-Terrorism Day
How will History view Obama's presidency?
CIA drones based in Saudi Arabia
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.