Terrorism: Definitions and Causes

[AnthoniusII]

Accussing the followers of a Faith as terrorists is completly false. Terorism creates by conditions other than Religion but few fondamelists USE Religion to triger a purst of anger.
Let me remind you that countries like Germany, France, UK, Scandinavic countries has Islamic immigrands for decades (some for over a century) without any serius problem.
So...why religion comes to surface now and used as a triger to violence?
Let me remind you again that immigrands (of all minorities and in every country) of second generation or more try hard to fit in the cultures of the countries they live in.
Ofcourse there are reflexes comming from the fammily of the immigrand (in an attempt to keep th eethnic routes alive) but also from the community of each country that finds hard to accept anything "foreigner" to its culture.
In those "reflexes" several conditions come to make them stronger.
Education, Social acceptance and cultural tollerance or lack of it, unemployment and lack of a future that leads to extreme measures.
Lets take France for example. For centuries all people of its collonies could migrade to France. So many "ghetos" created. While financial grouth was in porgress and almost everyone could have a job and a descent life everything
looked good and peacefull. When financial collapse came then everyone needed to blame someone for it.
French wanted immigrands to stop working to allow them find work. That caused huge unemployment to immigrands areas (remember the Paris uprissing before ISIL emerges). That caused a lack of hope to those people that felt that they have been betrayed. That is when "Religion" came to fill the gap in their lack of hope. Believe me...no one ever awakes a morning and instead go to work goes to stab someone else.
Lack of future creates depresion (i know because i sufair from it) and fear. For many people religion is the finall refuge. BUT ALAS, Religion is one thing and false Religion is another.
Those that believe that stubbing a person they do not know , on a street is not a believer. He is just a coward.
I could continue with all other countries but it would be a long post. But have we ever thought why ISIL 90% of members were born and raised in western societies?
A finall example.
Fredie Mercury was a Pakistani but back then who cared for that detail?
Religion was always an excuse for autrocities.
Christianity used many times as such but no one ever called Christians terrorists.
We must be extra carefull of such accusations.
Real Islam and Christianity raised honored and famous civilisations guarded by HONORED and famous warriors that were respectfull from friend and foes alike.
Stabing in the back is not a sign of curage or bravery in any religion.
Burning Mosques or Churches are same crime in every aspect.

Non-event-specific tangent moved from this Mudpit thread. Some of the posts responded to this earlier (not OP-suitable) post as well:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Fairly sure we've had this discussion before.

~ Iskar

[athanaric]

Accussing the followers of a Faith as terrorists is completly false.

Very few people are painting all Muslims as terrorists. What they're saying is that Muslims are more prone to become terrorists or people who support Islamist terrorists than the followers of any other religion, or atheists. This is proven by statistics.

Let me remind you that countries like Germany, France, UK, Scandinavic countries has Islamic immigrands for decades (some for over a century) without any serius problem.

That's completely inaccurate, but do carry on.

Fredie Mercury was a Pakistani but back then who cared for that detail?

Wrong again, he was a Zoroastrian from India, and hence his ancestors would have been Persians who fled from Islamic persecution in Iran. Calling him a Pakistani is about as accurate as calling you an Uzbek.

[Prodromos]

The main point is that it's neither comprehensive enough to be useful nor coherent.

How so? Go to the Wiki article and point out which attacks they have omitted.

[AnthoniusII]

Very few people are painting all Muslims as terrorists. What they're saying is that Muslims are more prone to become terrorists or people who support Islamist terrorists than the followers of any other religion, or atheists. This is proven by statistics.

Define terrorism.
Its a rhetorical question because when in Palestine 1st Indifada broke up,Israel called those that participated in it terrorists.
Also PLO was for decades a "terrorist" organisation.
AT that momment UN made a conferance in South Africa for one purpose only. To define what terrorism is.
From 189 countries there was no conclusive result in that definition.
Let me explain:
Terrorists
Freedom Fighters
Where is the thin line that makes a diference?
Lets suppose that we deside that "the person that attacks inocent and unarmed people with out direct provocation" , a description that matches to those loonitics that stab people today,
are terrorists.
Lets focus on th edefinition its self.
RAF put Dresde to the ground despite that the city was declaired "open city".
Why UK and its PM never accused for terrorism or better of war crime?
So what makes a terrorist?
The one that carries a knife is a terrorist and the one that has thousands of planes and tanks is just an "enemy" ?
When people in Africa fought for their freedom the collonists accused them as terrorists. Where they or they were freedom fighters?
Those that liberated South America from Portugal and Spain were terrorists (because they had no army) or they were freedom fighters?
Terrorism is a byproduct of our civilisation...You mentioned statistics.
Yes...before those loonitics started to stab people others made them selvs human bombs because they had NO TANKS or planes to liberate their countries.
If those loonitics had a tank in a German street and killed people they would be considered "soldiers" and not terrorists?

[PointOfViewGun]

How so? Go to the Wiki article and point out which attacks they have omitted.

Well, we don't have to go far to notice the incoherence. The link the graph is supposedly dependent on says "List of battles and other violent events by death toll" and the graph is labeled "Number of terrorist attacks per ideology".

The link, however, has 359 instances in the tables it presents with only 176 of them listed under a category of "Terrorist attacks" while the graph you used had 273 instances of terrorism for Islamism alone.

Another thing that stands out for me is how while the list mentions a bunch of ISIL attacks in Turkey it completely omits any and all attacks by PKK. Even though the list of incidents go back till 1921 we don't see a mention of any terror attack by ETA, IRA, ASALA or LRA. Though, admittedly, the list suggests that it only lists incidents with 50+ kills which seems like an arbitrary and pointless criteria.

So, I don't know why anyone would use the graph or the link for any purpose whatsoever...

[athanaric]

Define terrorism.
Its a rhetorical question because when in Palestine 1st Indifada broke up,Israel called those that participated in it terrorists.
Also PLO was for decades a "terrorist" organisation.
AT that momment UN made a conferance in South Africa for one purpose only. To define what terrorism is.
From 189 countries there was no conclusive result in that definition.
Let me explain:
Terrorists
Freedom Fighters
Where is the thin line that makes a diference?
Lets suppose that we deside that "the person that attacks inocent and unarmed people with out direct provocation" , a description that matches to those loonitics that stab people today,
are terrorists.
Lets focus on th edefinition its self.
RAF put Dresde to the ground despite that the city was declaired "open city".
Why UK and its PM never accused for terrorism or better of war crime?
So what makes a terrorist?
The one that carries a knife is a terrorist and the one that has thousands of planes and tanks is just an "enemy" ?
When people in Africa fought for their freedom the collonists accused them as terrorists. Where they or they were freedom fighters?
Those that liberated South America from Portugal and Spain were terrorists (because they had no army) or they were freedom fighters?
Terrorism is a byproduct of our civilisation...You mentioned statistics.
Yes...before those loonitics started to stab people others made them selvs human bombs because they had NO TANKS or planes to liberate their countries.
If those loonitics had a tank in a German street and killed people they would be considered "soldiers" and not terrorists?

No need to wax lyrical about it. Grab a dictionary or encyclopaedia and look up the definition of "terrorism" yourself.
Besides, only a true cretin would try to legitimize the recent attacks in Hamburg and Constance... or any other one of those recent crimes and acts of terrorism committed in Europe by perpetrators who were all immigrants and almost exclusively Muslim.

[RandomPerson2000]

.

I have checked the Wikipedia provided in the graph to see if I could find the graph was actually in the source, I could not find it. I've checked the edit history of the wikipedia page and still I could not find it and then I checked Wikimedia commons to see if I could find the graph and again I could not find it at all. However the only sources that I could find that provided the map were often posts on social media sites such as Reddit and 9GAG and alternative news sites such as beforeitsnews.com. The article that I found that on beforeitsnews.com that was about this graph only provided a broken image link perhaps originally displaying this graph and a source that linked to a very obscure news website/blog called The Steady Drip. There is a possibility that this graph could be on other versions of Wikipedia(based on language) however it would be incredibly odd that the graph would even be found on these different versions as the graph is written entirely in English. It is far more likely that this graph was in fact created by a person with political intentions who had pretty slapped on a link to a wikipedia page on the graph to make it seem like it was an accurate and reliable graph whereas in reality it was not either of those two things. Also it appears that the creator of this graph has greatly underestimated the number of terrorist attacks perpetrated by non-Islamist terrorist groups such as the Irish Republican Army etc.

Here I will discuss three ideologies with the number of terrorist attacks associated with them that was underestimated by the creator of this graph, Irish Republicanism, Communism and Neo-Fascism

Irish Republicanism
In the graph, it says that 8 terrorist attacks were carried by groups associated with Irish Republicanism, given that 2058 people were killed by Irish Republican paramilitary groups from 1968 to 1998 during the Troubles and that the single deadliest bombing of the troubles, the Omagh bombing in terms of civilian life had only killed 29 people it is impossible that only 8 terrorist attacks were perpetrated by Irish republican paramilitary groups occurred during the Troubles.
Here is a list of 17 terrorist attacks committed by Irish republican paramilitary groups with links to their Wikipedia articles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Aldershot_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberco...aurant_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday_(1972)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudy_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M62_coach_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_pub_bombings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Newry_mortar_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballygawley_bus_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teebane_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bomb_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Bishopsgate_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Ealing_bombing

Communism
On the graph it says that only 2 terrorist attacks were committed by Communist terrorist groups. it's quite obvious that this is a ridiculous underestimation
Here is a list of 10 terrorist attacks committed by Communist terrorist groups with links to their Wikipedia articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarata_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_N..._Darbha_valley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Bihar_Maoist_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Lucanamarca_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japane...hostage_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Aldo_Moro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirillo_kidnap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nari%C...rport_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_253_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_..._426_hijacking

Neo-Fascism
On the graph it says that only 1 terrorist attacks were committed by Neo-Fascist terrorist groups. like what I've said in my previous post about Communist terrorist attacks, it's also quite obvious that this is a ridiculous underestimation for the number of terrorist attacks committed by Neo-Fascist terrorist groups.
Here is a list of 10 terrorist attacks committed by Neo-Fascist terrorist groups with links to their Wikipedia articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_S...n_arson_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Cologne_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza...Loggia_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-M...annes_and_Nice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overla...enter_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3...evler_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ground_murders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...le_Kiesewetter

Since I don't know who created this graph, we cannot know for sure whether this underestimation was a mistake or intentional however given the nature of this graph, I'm leaning a lot more towards the latter.

Sources where I found this graph
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/..._per_ideology/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SargonofAkk...terrorist_per/
https://9gag.com/gag/aqNox2L/number-...ng-more-to-say
https://me.me/i/number-of-terrorist-...-list-17736925
https://www.facebook.com/nordicpatri...117664/?type=3
https://diasporabr.com.br/posts/7fed...1d005056818546
https://onsizzle.com/i/number-of-ter...-1-1-1-8816682
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-con...y-2936302.html
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.ie/201...-ideology.html

Yes I do know this post is getting a little bit off topic but I felt I needed to address this graph

[Pinarius]

I have checked the Wikipedia provided in the graph to see if I could find the graph was actually in the source, I could not find it. I've checked the edit history of the wikipedia page and still I could not find it and then I checked Wikimedia commons to see if I could find the graph and again I could not find it at all. However the only sources that I could find that provided the map were often posts on social media sites such as Reddit and 9GAG and alternative news sites such as beforeitsnews.com. The article that I found that on beforeitsnews.com that was about this graph only provided a broken image link perhaps originally displaying this graph and a source that linked to a very obscure news website/blog called The Steady Drip. There is a possibility that this graph could be on other versions of Wikipedia(based on language) however it would be incredibly odd that the graph would even be found on these different versions as the graph is written entirely in English.

Um ... Adding "source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks" does NOT at all mean that this graph needs to be one that has been published on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. It's totally sufficient, if it's a graph, which simply displays the information you can find on this site in an accurate way. So what do they write in this Wikipedia-article? "This section lists terrorist attacks in which at least 50 individuals were killed." So that explains the missing of IRA-bombings in this picture. They should have nevertheless changed the title of that graph (with a reference to the minimum number of 50 killed individuals).

[Prodromos]

Well, we don't have to go far to notice the incoherence. The link the graph is supposedly dependent on says "List of battles and other violent events by death toll" and the graph is labeled "Number of terrorist attacks per ideology".

The link, however, has 359 instances in the tables it presents with only 176 of them listed under a category of "Terrorist attacks" while the graph you used had 273 instances of terrorism for Islamism alone.

Another thing that stands out for me is how while the list mentions a bunch of ISIL attacks in Turkey it completely omits any and all attacks by PKK. Even though the list of incidents go back till 1921 we don't see a mention of any terror attack by ETA, IRA, ASALA or LRA. Though, admittedly, the list suggests that it only lists incidents with 50+ kills which seems like an arbitrary and pointless criteria.

So, I don't know why anyone would use the graph or the link for any purpose whatsoever...

I have checked the Wikipedia provided in the graph to see if I could find the graph was actually in the source, I could not find it. I've checked the edit history of the wikipedia page and still I could not find it and then I checked Wikimedia commons to see if I could find the graph and again I could not find it at all. However the only sources that I could find that provided the map were often posts on social media sites such as Reddit and 9GAG and alternative news sites such as beforeitsnews.com. The article that I found that on beforeitsnews.com that was about this graph only provided a broken image link perhaps originally displaying this graph and a source that linked to a very obscure news website/blog called The Steady Drip. There is a possibility that this graph could be on other versions of Wikipedia(based on language) however it would be incredibly odd that the graph would even be found on these different versions as the graph is written entirely in English. It is far more likely that this graph was in fact created by a person with political intentions who had pretty slapped on a link to a wikipedia page on the graph to make it seem like it was an accurate and reliable graph whereas in reality it was not either of those two things. Also it appears that the creator of this graph has greatly underestimated the number of terrorist attacks perpetrated by non-Islamist terrorist groups such as the Irish Republican Army etc.

Here I will discuss three ideologies with the number of terrorist attacks associated with them that was underestimated by the creator of this graph, Irish Republicanism, Communism and Neo-Fascism

Irish Republicanism
In the graph, it says that 8 terrorist attacks were carried by groups associated with Irish Republicanism, given that 2058 people were killed by Irish Republican paramilitary groups from 1968 to 1998 during the Troubles and that the single deadliest bombing of the troubles, the Omagh bombing in terms of civilian life had only killed 29 people it is impossible that only 8 terrorist attacks were perpetrated by Irish republican paramilitary groups occurred during the Troubles.
Here is a list of 17 terrorist attacks committed by Irish republican paramilitary groups with links to their Wikipedia articles

Communism
On the graph it says that only 2 terrorist attacks were committed by Communist terrorist groups. it's quite obvious that this is a ridiculous underestimation
Here is a list of 10 terrorist attacks committed by Communist terrorist groups with links to their Wikipedia articles.

Neo-Fascism
On the graph it says that only 1 terrorist attacks were committed by Neo-Fascist terrorist groups. like what I've said in my previous post about Communist terrorist attacks, it's also quite obvious that this is a ridiculous underestimation for the number of terrorist attacks committed by Neo-Fascist terrorist groups.
Here is a list of 10 terrorist attacks committed by Neo-Fascist terrorist groups with links to their Wikipedia articles.

Since I don't know who created this graph, we cannot know for sure whether this underestimation was a mistake or intentional however given the nature of this graph, I'm leaning a lot more towards the latter.

Sources where I found this graph

Yes I do know this post is getting a little bit off topic but I felt I needed to address this graph

The graph is a visual representation of the information available on Wikipedia and other databases. I'm certain you didn't check it, because it clearly says, in quite simple English, it lists terrorist incidents where at least 50 individuals were killed. Therefore, your list of incidents resulting in not more than a handful of casualties, is completely irrelevant. Unfortunately due to the fact that Islam still exists, the Wikipedia list is constantly updated and the graph is guaranteed to be outdated. The pattern of "Islamists" maintaining a monopoly on the deadliest terrorist incidents still holds, however.

Setekh is more relevant when he criticizes the "arbitrary" standard of 50 casualties. I am certainly willing to accept a lower threshold, such as 40, 30 or even 20 casualties. I'm certain it too would show that "Islamists" are behind the vast majority of terrorist incidents.

Unless you reject the entire standard of counting only mass casualty incidents? That's quite a position. What is your reasoning for holding that an act of terrorism that kills dozens, wounds hundreds, traumatizes thousands, and causes terror in the minds of millions, is in no way any different from a drive-by shooting of a couple police officers, who may or may not have died?

For what it is worth, this is a list that counts all types of terrorist incidents regardless of casualties. It seems that the "Islamists" continue to be Number 1.

[mongrel]

The graph is a visual representation of the information available on Wikipedia and other databases. I'm certain you didn't check it, because it clearly says, in quite simple English, it lists terrorist incidents where at least 50 individuals were killed. Therefore, your list of incidents resulting in not more than a handful of casualties, is completely irrelevant. Unfortunately due to the fact that Islam still exists, the Wikipedia list is constantly updated and the graph is guaranteed to be outdated. The pattern of "Islamists" maintaining a monopoly on the deadliest terrorist incidents still holds, however.

Setekh is more relevant when he criticizes the "arbitrary" standard of 50 casualties. I am certainly willing to accept a lower threshold, such as 40, 30 or even 20 casualties. I'm certain it too would show that "Islamists" are behind the vast majority of terrorist incidents.

Unless you reject the entire standard of counting only mass casualty incidents? That's quite a position. What is your reasoning for holding that an act of terrorism that kills dozens, wounds hundreds, traumatizes thousands, and causes terror in the minds of millions, is in no way any different from a drive-by shooting of a couple police officers, who may or may not have died?

For what it is worth, this is a list that counts all types of terrorist incidents regardless of casualties. It seems that the "Islamists" continue to be Number 1.

So you are saying that the Birmingham pub bombings, Warrington and Omagh are completely irrelevant to terrorism? Love to see you tell that to the victims.

[Infidel144]

So you are saying that the Birmingham pub bombings, Warrington and Omagh are completely irrelevant to terrorism? Love to see you tell that to the victims.

Where did he say that?

[AnthoniusII]

No need to wax lyrical about it. Grab a dictionary or encyclopaedia and look up the definition of "terrorism" yourself.
Besides, only a true cretin would try to legitimize the recent attacks in Hamburg and Constance... or any other one of those recent crimes and acts of terrorism committed in Europe by perpetrators who were all immigrants and almost exclusively Muslim.

Why search in dictionary when everything is politics?
Mujahideen in Soviet Union-Afgan war were TERRORISTS for Soviet Union and FREEDOM FIGHTERS for USA.
Then USA gave to Ossama's Mujahideen branch called Taliban 200 Stinger missiles (AS FREEDOM FIGHTER THEY WERE) to support their war against Soviets.
But when those stinger missiles turned against USA interests those "freedom fighters" became TERRORISTS.
When Saddam Hussein agreed to invade IRAN was a HERO for USA and WEST. Later when west wanted his oil he becam world wide terrorist and dictator.
YPG (the syrian branch of PKK) was a terrorist organisation for USA when their relations with Turkey were perfect.
Now that USA need despertly a Kurdistan in the area YPG are FREEDOM FIGHTERS and recieve heavy weapons from USA.
I could make a list s extend that would require several posts in this thread only for their titles.
So....is there a dictionary that EXPLAINS when a "terrorist" becomes a Freedom Fighter and vice versa?
I write it again...UN conferance in South Africa could not MAKE a final statement of who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter.
In 1821 Greeks rebeled against Ottoman Empire.
Still today Turks see those rebels as "terrorists" that rebeled against the lawfull order of the Empire.
They (the greeks) saw themselvs as freedom fighters.
The great powers of that time accused those rebels as terrorists also (because they were afraid that more rebelions would brake in their lands) but when their interests changed they suported Greeks as freedom fighter fought for their right to have a country.
According to any dictionary who and when was right...Were they terrorists or freedom fighters?
The line is so thin and so political flexible that no real definition exists.

[PointOfViewGun]

The graph is a visual representation of the information available on Wikipedia and other databases. I'm certain you didn't check it, because it clearly says, in quite simple English, it lists terrorist incidents where at least 50 individuals were killed. Therefore, your list of incidents resulting in not more than a handful of casualties, is completely irrelevant. Unfortunately due to the fact that Islam still exists, the Wikipedia list is constantly updated and the graph is guaranteed to be outdated. The pattern of "Islamists" maintaining a monopoly on the deadliest terrorist incidents still holds, however.

Setekh is more relevant when he criticizes the "arbitrary" standard of 50 casualties. I am certainly willing to accept a lower threshold, such as 40, 30 or even 20 casualties. I'm certain it too would show that "Islamists" are behind the vast majority of terrorist incidents.

Unless you reject the entire standard of counting only mass casualty incidents? That's quite a position. What is your reasoning for holding that an act of terrorism that kills dozens, wounds hundreds, traumatizes thousands, and causes terror in the minds of millions, is in no way any different from a drive-by shooting of a couple police officers, who may or may not have died?

For what it is worth, this is a list that counts all types of terrorist incidents regardless of casualties. It seems that the "Islamists" continue to be Number 1.

You asked me to tell you why the graph or the list you used was a bad one and we're labeled as "detectives" as if we moved earth and water to provide the points we made. It didn't require a rocket science degree to see how BS your source was. The graph only indicated that its based on the Wikipedia link. It wasn't out of date but it was outright distorting it. Out of 176 incidents listed as terror incidents in the link the graph attributed 273 of them to Islamists which is a mathematical impossibility. Since you utterly failed to acknowledge failure at such a fundamental level it indicates that you're not basing your position on an intelligent thought but on elements like extreme bias. You asked me to point out the shortcomings. You should have owned it.

The number of casualties an attack could cause is not certain. The 9/11 perpetrators didn't think the towers would collapse. What they designed would cost only up to a thousand deaths (including the passengers) but ended up killing around 3 thousand people. When a terrorist detonates a bomb there is certain number of people that would die. Kill a hundred civilian and traumatize a few thousand people. Start killing a few off-duty cops suggesting a series and you traumatize the entire police force. What matters is the act of terror, that they took the step to commit it.

On your new list though, I wonder how much of it is happening in battlefields like Iraq or Syria. The Unknown section alone casts doubt. Of course, one notices that you pick a particular time frame where Muslim terror organizations have been more active. The cherry on top is that you had to copy paste that from a different site since you can't access the database anymore.

[AnthoniusII]

The number of casualties an attack could cause is not certain. The 9/11 perpetrators didn't think the towers would collapse. What they designed would cost only up to a thousand deaths (including the passengers) but ended up killing around 3 thousand people. When a terrorist detonates a bomb there is certain number of people that would die. Kill a hundred civilian and traumatize a few thousand people. Start killing a few off-duty cops suggesting a series and you traumatize the entire police force. What matters is the act of terror, that they took the step to commit it.

As far as I know no human can ever know what an other human thinks and what are his/her calculations. Am I wrong or am I missing something?

[Kraut]

Then USA gave to Ossama's Mujahideen branch called Taliban 200 Stinger missiles (AS FREEDOM FIGHTER THEY WERE) to support their war against Soviets.

Often said, wrong nevertheless.
The Taleban only emerged AFTER the Soviet-Afghan War in the early 90s during the inner-Afghan civil war (Mujahideen versus Mujahideen). Neither did the Taleban fight the Soviets, nor did the US "create" them in any way.
Neither had OBL any hand in the rise of the Taleban, he had already left Afghanistan during that time and only returned years later as a "guest" after Sudan (his former host) had him kicked out.

The guys (Mujahideen) who got US Support to fight the Soviets in the 1980s fought themselves in the 1990s after the soviets left, then fought against the Taleban when they emerged from Pakistani refugee camps via southern Afghanistan (or joined them, sometimes both back and forth, yes I am looking at you Dostum), became later known as the "Northern Alliance" and then *surprise* got US Support (and bearded advisors) again after some Event commonly called 9/11, eventually making them the Afghan Government and Army again.

To shorten the Story: today, it is still the same guys (or their sons or nephews) who get US Support like in the 1980s, at least partial.
The mistake was that the west left Afghanistan alone after 1989, not that some creature turned on its master

[AnthoniusII]

Wrong USA offered Ossama 10 million dollars of EACH stinger (an outrage price) but Ossama refused. A a couple of years later twin towers were under attack. Almost all military themed magasines arround the world had it as news.
You see how a "freedom fighter" becomes a "terrorist" ?
Interests makes friends or enemies, freedom fighters or terrorists. But those interests are far away from all that inocent people all arround the world that try to live a peacefull life.

[PointOfViewGun]

As far as I know no human can ever know what an other human thinks and what are his/her calculations. Am I wrong or am I missing something?

We can if they state what they think:

Bin Laden didn't expect New York towers to fall

[athanaric]

Why search in dictionary when everything is politics?
Mujahideen in Soviet Union-Afgan war were TERRORISTS for Soviet Union and FREEDOM FIGHTERS for USA.
Then USA gave to Ossama's Mujahideen branch called Taliban 200 Stinger missiles (AS FREEDOM FIGHTER THEY WERE) to support their war against Soviets.
But when those stinger missiles turned against USA interests those "freedom fighters" became TERRORISTS.
When Saddam Hussein agreed to invade IRAN was a HERO for USA and WEST. Later when west wanted his oil he becam world wide terrorist and dictator.
YPG (the syrian branch of PKK) was a terrorist organisation for USA when their relations with Turkey were perfect.
Now that USA need despertly a Kurdistan in the area YPG are FREEDOM FIGHTERS and recieve heavy weapons from USA.
I could make a list s extend that would require several posts in this thread only for their titles.
So....is there a dictionary that EXPLAINS when a "terrorist" becomes a Freedom Fighter and vice versa?
I write it again...UN conferance in South Africa could not MAKE a final statement of who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter.
In 1821 Greeks rebeled against Ottoman Empire.
Still today Turks see those rebels as "terrorists" that rebeled against the lawfull order of the Empire.
They (the greeks) saw themselvs as freedom fighters.
The great powers of that time accused those rebels as terrorists also (because they were afraid that more rebelions would brake in their lands) but when their interests changed they suported Greeks as freedom fighter fought for their right to have a country.
According to any dictionary who and when was right...Were they terrorists or freedom fighters?
The line is so thin and so political flexible that no real definition exists.

You're missing the point of this thread, and it doesn't help that your posts here are structured in the pattern that people usually call "idiotic rambling".
If you want to argue about the definition of terrorism and other philosophical points, go make your own thread.

[Infidel144]

Wrong USA offered Ossama 10 million dollars of EACH stinger (an outrage price) but Ossama refused. A a couple of years later twin towers were under attack. Almost all military themed magasines arround the world had it as news.
You see how a "freedom fighter" becomes a "terrorist" ?
Interests makes friends or enemies, freedom fighters or terrorists. But those interests are far away from all that inocent people all arround the world that try to live a peacefull life.

Not wrong. Kraut is correct. Taliban was formed in 1994, the US did not create or fund UBL or Al Qaeda.

[Nebaki]

You guys forgot the past Terror from the State of Serbia which caused the WW1 or should we talk about the Narodnaja Wolja or Serbian Variant Black Hand etc.

In 1821 Greeks rebeled against Ottoman Empire.
Still today Turks see those rebels as "terrorists" that rebeled against the lawfull order of the Empire.
They (the greeks) saw themselvs as freedom fighters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarino_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tripolitsa

Those Rebels which kill and murder innocent people are in many Greeks Eyes today Freedom Fighters?

Also the Collapse of the Ottoman Empire is a very different Story then to talk it here.