Difference between revisions of "Terrorism"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Silver Sloth (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
== Alternate meanings == | == Alternate meanings == | ||
{{cquote|Anyone who uses threats, or the illusion of threats, or actual damage, to coerce some reaction or action from others, is a terrorist. Wouldn't that include made-up threats to websites? Or actual ones, to cause confusion and disruption? I won't argue something that is stupid as someone defending such anti-intellectual actions. --TK /MyTalk 22:58, 24 May 2007 (CDT)<ref>[http://www.rationalwiki.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_Talk:Sysops&oldid=3913 TK, again, and as always...]</ref>}} | {{cquote|Anyone who uses threats, or the illusion of threats, or actual damage, to coerce some reaction or action from others, is a terrorist. Wouldn't that include made-up threats to websites? Or actual ones, to cause confusion and disruption? I won't argue something that is stupid as someone defending such anti-intellectual actions. --TK /MyTalk 22:58, 24 May 2007 (CDT)<ref>[http://www.rationalwiki.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_Talk:Sysops&oldid=3913 TK, again, and as always...]</ref>}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==The Rand Study on How Terrorism Movements Terminate== | ||
| + | |||
| + | According to a study done by Rand recently<ref>[http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html Rand Research Brief]</ref> on how terrorist movements terminate: | ||
| + | |||
| + | *43% by converting to mainstream political movements. | ||
| + | *40% by law enforcement apprehension | ||
| + | *10% by achieving their stated goals. | ||
| + | *7% by being neutralized through military action. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Since 9-11 the entire focus of the United States has been on that 7 percent solution. | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 03:16, 9 April 2009
Terrorism, in popular meaning, is the military strategy of threatening civilian populations and property, often in guerilla warfare, in order to force some change from their government.
The difference between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter" is which side you are on.
A strict definition is almost impossible, as everyone uses the term slightly differently. However, a common set of criteria used in international relations is:
- Violence[1]
- Non-state or covert actions[2]
- Targets civilians.[3]
- Clandestine[4]
- Political agenda.[5]
Notable terrorist groups
- Al-Qaeda
- The traitors to Britain — being a terrorist is A-OK. As long as you're white, male, and wealthy.
- The Baader-Meinhof Gang
- The British Army
- The Cuban revolutionaries
- The George W. Bush administration
- Hamas
- The Irish Republican Army
- Timothy McVeigh, and other angry white American males
- The Viet Cong ("victor charlie")
- The Cabal
Alternate meanings
“”Anyone who uses threats, or the illusion of threats, or actual damage, to coerce some reaction or action from others, is a terrorist. Wouldn't that include made-up threats to websites? Or actual ones, to cause confusion and disruption? I won't argue something that is stupid as someone defending such anti-intellectual actions. --TK /MyTalk 22:58, 24 May 2007 (CDT)[6]
|
The Rand Study on How Terrorism Movements Terminate
According to a study done by Rand recently[7] on how terrorist movements terminate:
- 43% by converting to mainstream political movements.
- 40% by law enforcement apprehension
- 10% by achieving their stated goals.
- 7% by being neutralized through military action.
Since 9-11 the entire focus of the United States has been on that 7 percent solution.
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ no matter what China says, the President of Taiwan is not a terrorist for saying that Taiwan is an independent country.
- ↑ If a military does it, it's a war crime, not terrorism. However, this is usually considered the most debatable of the criteria.
- ↑ If it targets a military, it's guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. Yes, that includes the attack on the USS Cole.
- ↑ If it's announced, it's not terrorism. Probably a useless criterion, but it's there.
- ↑ If someone shoots up a McDonald's to send a message to the US, it's terrorism. If they do so because their dog told them to, they're a mass murderer. And insane, too, but that goes without saying.
- ↑ TK, again, and as always...
- ↑ Rand Research Brief