Terrorism

Defining terrorism has always been difficult. One of the criteria for an act being considered a terrorist act is often the use of violence for the furtherence of political or social goals. Political terrorism specifically refers to terrorism whose goal is to effect political change.

Terror is to 'make" one fear someone or something. Terrorist is one who installs fear in someone or something. Congress, the Teaparty movement, the GOP, some Host on TV , some religious fanatitics, some fascist groups , some who do not support healthcare for all, when over 45,000 die every year, for lack of it,those by voting against it or not supporting it.Those who support WAR over peaceful solutions, for profit or political gain, those are some who could be considered terrorist, they install fear,fear of death,fear for their life. Or there called terrorists because they make terror

The West generally speaking does not generally ascribe to a State religion. As such, the targets of jihad, which may be selected based purely on faith or creed in the East, are considered to be random, civilian targets. We tend to tie the term "terrorism" to attacks and conflicts that do not occur between clearly identified military forces, but instead focus on the non-aligned, non-military personnel.

lf you had a closer look at an scene in a terrorism bombing, you will see maimed children and other innocent persons.

Yes, the ANC is still listed internationally as a terrorist organization with ties to the South African Communist Party and the Governments of Libya ,Cuba and North Korea.

The Security Council is responsible for maintaining international peace and security.

Through SC Resolutions, it can establish peacekeeping operations, international sanctions and authorize military action to ensure this goal.

A monster might start by giving horrible screem that has enough intensity to break all the glasses of window. Then he might jump on one of the building and drop it down. use its fire and supersonic speed to disturb people turn a well developing town to nothing exept for him standing in center of destroyed town.

Hamas claims that they are a SUNNI Jihadist organization. It is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimin) and, as a result, has the same religious policies as the rest of the Brotherhood, which is Sunni-oriented. While Hamas continues to be primarily made of Sunni Muslims, but the largest percentage of their funds comes from the Shiite Islamist government of Iran.

Except in its ability to overpower Fatah, Hamas is generally unsuccessful. Its rule in the Gaza Strip has only resulted in (1) more destruction of Palestinian territory, (2) decreased rights and freedoms for Palestinians because of domestic laws banning dancing, music, and imposing curfews, (3) decreased access to goods because of the Israeli and Egyptian blockade due to Hamas militancy, and (4) increased rates of death from conflict both from Israeli weapons and from Hamas policies of using human shields.

I would like to start out by saying our Fourth Amendment Rights have been abrogated in the name of safety by our Courts, but not because of real danger. Terrorism Laws have to do with imminent threat and the reasonableness of the threats. One of the first things I learned when I went through the police Academy was you have to have Probable Cause to make a Vehicle stop. The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police (1990) v. Sitz, the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. Although acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the state interest in reducing drunk driving. What they are saying is 'Yes checkpoints violate your Fourth Amendment rights, but only because of the imminent threat of drunk driving.' The "Threat" outweighed The Fourth Amendment. Now apply this to the "THREAT OF TERRORISM", no warrants are needed to determine whether the threat is real or imagined. This complex issue and a great answer will take lots of work. As you're looking into this, you might consider the PATRIOT Act and TIA. And also FISA, which has been recently modified. That's interesting. It is a pity that congress was not given time to "look into" the PATRIOT act, and read and decipher the thousands of pages of legalese before signing. That was deliberate. It's a destruction of civil rights for reasons deeper than "the war on terror". On the subject of drunk drivers, they are such a serious danger on the road that the rights of sober drivers (being inconveniently stopped for a breath test) should be considered a trivial issue. A driver's license is not a right, but a privilege that carries responsibility. I think that a debate about the patriot act and the laws that have arisen after 9-11 only needs one response, from Benjamin Franklin: Any society that will give up a little liberty to receive a little security will deserve neither and will lose both. ---- The querent asks about the new laws -- what are they? There was no request for opinion on those laws. May I suggest we retire the discussion to the DISCUSSION section, where we're all free to editorialize? Terrorism Law is large subject the question is to general to answer. What do you want to know In regards to driving is a privledge.Driving is an act the person is what is protected.We have recently held that 'the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,' Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 511, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), and wherever an individual may harbor a reasonable 'expectation of privacy,' id., at 361, 88 S.Ct. at 507, (Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring), he is entitled to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Of course, the specific content and incidents of this right must be shaped by the context in which it is asserted. For 'what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures.' Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1446, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960). Unquestionably

Yes

In modern day torrorist organizations, I've had to offer a guarded "no".

While it's not at all uncommon for a standing government to refer to insurgents as terrorists and their tactics as terrorism, just saying it doesn't make it so. Looking back to the American Revolution, many of the British allegations against the tactics the colonists employed probably would translate into modern-speak as terrorism. Surely, the same is true of the Indian Mutiny and the PIRA troubles in Ireland.

That said, most modern terrorist organizations have a very poorly formed political agenda. They don't make demands, negotiate much, have a well-formed goal, and sometimes they don't even take credit for attacks. If an organization's goal is insurgency, this is a surprisingly ineffective way to achieve it.

More often, I think you'll find the modern terrorist paradigm akin to that of the street gang, or micro-community, in the realm of sociology, more than religious or political insurgency.

TERRORISM can (simply) be defined as "causing fear and insecurity to the innocent"(though it has some definitions which are much acceptable)

MUSLIM is one of the big religion. uses quran as its sacred book, believe in one god and claim that Muhhamad (pbuh) is the last prophet.

Terrorism has negatively affected the way people treat Muslims because they link TERRORISM WITH ISLAM.....!

1. In most events its found that The terror attacks are conducted by Islamic groups and bad enough they claim to be responsible with the attacks.....!

2. Terrifying groups claim to fight for Islam & Allah(holy war ..JIHAD)

3. Muslims arround the world march and demonstrate to support them

4. the attacks are mostly to non-Muslim

terrorism has affected the perception of people toward Muslims as they see no separation between the two....!

Of course terrorism is a sin, regardless of how justified one might feel about the cause it's said to be fighting for- nothing can justify the mindless slaughter of innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the issues. This goes for terror groups in ANY country and for any cause- Islamic fundamentalists, Irish Republicans, anti-abortionists, neo-Fascists, Communist rebels or ANYTHING else. It's one thing to target specifically individuals who are actively involved in the oppression and exploitation of a nation, religion, language or cause (or who deliberately promote intolerance or hatred towards these)- it's quite another to kill or maim innocent people indiscriminately, who probably harbour no ill-feeling towards the cause that the terrorists claim to be acting for, and are absolutely nothing to do with it. No amount of sophistry or political polemic can excuse such atrocities. Were terror groups to switch their tactics to the specific, pinpoint assassination of individuals who actively advocate violence or prejudice against their cause, as oppose to indiscriminate bombings, I think they would find that they would have fewer enemies, and that their aims would be taken far more seriously by the thinking population of the world. Acceptance of terrorism is certainly AS MUCH OF a sin as terrorism itself (you can't really say that it's bigger when the act of terrorism is so evil to start with). It should certainly never be accepted- but how it should be dealt with is a complex matter. Terrorism cannot be fought against as one would fight a conventional war against a nation state or a guerrilla army- the whole point of it is that it is elusive, random, and that the terrorists themselves are immensely hard to track down, and melt away into the background of society at all other times. To send whole armies in to a community or population in order to rout our terrorism is like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Terrorism can only be dealt with effectively by the use of targeted intelligence to effect arrests, and also by diplomatic and political work behind the scenes to secure a negociated solution to what the terrorists calim to be fighting to achieve, which will thus undermine them.

In 1981, a car bomb was discovered outside the perimeter fence of Naval Base Subic Bay Philippines. It was loaded and armed with 3000+ pounds of high explosives. This device was placed by members of the New People's Army to attempt to kill United States military personnel. The device was examined and rendered safe by Craig Goodwin Special Agent insuring the safety of local military and civilian personnel at great risk to himself. Craig Goodwin Special Agent was later awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Medal by the U.S. Department of Defense for his actions.

Terrorism is an act by a group of individuals with fanatical ideologies to create fear by terror and hold the society at ransom by intimidation, killing, kidnapping, rape, bombing and other actions to destabilize both the society & government of any nation.

Often People/groups resort to terrorism when they have a religious-political sympathy by minority groups who feel that political-religious hegemony has deprived them their rights & freedom which they consider to be a highly urgent issue, but are unable to accomplish by means of negotiation, democratic process, or traditional warfare.

A differentiation must be made between revolutionaries who resort to terror against a political system while terrorism mushrooms as a clash of civilization.

Injustice in socaity,corupt leaders,wanting of more money in short way.

Poverty is a cause of terrorism.

Belief religion and ethinc issues

Hate may consume a person and they choose to act out in a violent manner. There are many motivations for terrorism. Sometimes underlying conditions influence the method terrorist organizations choose to carry out their attacks. See the Terrorism Overview article at related links to read more about terrorism.

The mission name was Neptune Spear. I've often wondered if this was a veiled reference to the trident that appears in the SEAL emblem (aka The Budweiser).

Terrorism can result in killing people, which is against one of the Ten Commandments. Christianity also preaches peace, which terrorism is not a manifestation of. Christianity says that we should love our neighbour, which again is something that terrorism is not about. So there are lots of reasons why Christians and members of all other religions disagree with terrorism. People can take the Bible, and books of other religions, and selectively quote and twist things in an effort to promote violence and terrorism, but Christianity, like other religions, does not support terrorism.

The idea that President Obama somehow set up Al-Qaeda is not true. President Obama has been using drones to kill Al-Qaeda leaders.With that said, the question refers to the terrorist Osama bin Laden.

Really interesting question! In that most "terrorist organizations" come from closely knit cultural groups, and one is born into a given culture, the answer is an oblique "yes". Some examples and discussion are however needed.

There is growing evidence that modern terrorist groups are not so much political action based organizations or even religious cadres, as they are social structures more in line with the format of a street gang. And street gangs are nothing if not cultural, social groupings.

This assertion is reinforced by failures in conducting human intelligence (HUMINT) in terrorist organizations. Simply put, the West has a very difficult time developing covert operatives and Intel sources within Middle-eastern (for instance) terrorist communities -- the reason largely being that the members of the terrorist group are typically from the same culture and quite often from the same geographical micro-community (or village, and they resist inclusion of strangers.

However, most members of a community group that sprouts terrorists are not themselves terrorists. While actual numbers are pretty much impossible to nail down, it seems that even in the most virulent hotbeds of terrorism, only a small minority of the overall population actively participates in terrorist activities, much in the same way that members of a street gang will often all come from a given region, but the majority of dwellers within that region are not themselves street gang members.

That said, I'd have to say that the elements of ones birth regulate entrance into the terrorist community, but do not determine that one "must" enter. You can't get in if you aren't born into the culture, but being born into that culture doesn't mean you're going to become a member of a terrorist organization.