Sep 10, 2006 3:05:07 AM cite

the answer to this question is actually not so deep to look for. the difference appears to people because terrorism is always against the people that live in a certain region,place, the civilians. the great purpose of terrorism, especially the islam terror, can not be seen, as its seeking for unrealistic goals: a state to disappear, a religion to overcome and so on. terrorism does not tolerate anythinh besides itself, and never doubts on anything. while doubt and criticism are the keys to an intelligent community/society, terrorism does not ever tolerate that. furthermore, terrorism is is called that way, because it has no ethnical standards. people are being kidnapped and killed in front of cameras, their video is spread all over the world. People are killed doing their breakfast shopping. people are killed getting just married. the aim of terror is therefore to terrorise the people. to enerve everybody to a certain extent, so that their resistance will fall down. by the way the question is asked it sounds biast. so why not leave the powerful alone and not terrorise its population anymore?why be legbiter at all times, and then wonder why the powerful comes back at the other? it is simple: in a war, armys are fighting the winner gets it all. the terror although has no purpose and is simply nonsense. personally, im sick reading newspaper in the morning, learning about another car bomb hitting irak. im sick of these actions of terror that kill people for no reason and even without purpose and aim. there is nothing to achieve for the terror, only if state joins officially with his army the objectives of terror, it will become greater. that is why the issue with iran is so delicate. the theme you started, Haya, is very comlicated, obviously, and depends a lot and mostly on peoples beliefs. it is because a certain group of people believes in greater realities than life, that they do not care about their life, and anybody´s life. but the life is the most precious thing that we have, without nothing would be, so why take it away for nothing?

by Xavier Morgan

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: They all speak about terrorism and its danger, as about a group of cruel and bloodthirsty people. In reality these people are products, children born of a system. If all people on Earth could feel respect and become their share of dignity, if the mankind, all countries, the society would have preserved a sense of dignity, if all people would care problems with great attention, there would be no terrorism. Of course, when men come to a foreign country or other people’s territory to conquer, and then those people try to defend and liberate their land. First of all they fight for their freedom, the possibility to continue their lives, for their inner, moral and physical freedom. And in this case it would be a just war, yet it is very difficult to say, that a war can be fair. Every war is unjust. If only causes of wars and terrorism could be wiped out! All the causes are here [in our minds]; it is a result of a work done by few people who wanted to seize control and are interested in power.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: Exactly that happened some days ago in the war in Lebanon... what Israel has done was considered to be self-defence and legal war but what Hezbollah has done was considered to be terrorism. Killing hundreds of civilians and children and destroying a country was considered to be legal war, but on the other hand, kidnapping two soldiers and killing 8 Israeli soldiers - which is of course very bad thing- was considered to be attack. Nobody asked why that is the case just because Israel is a state and Hezbollah is an illegal militia. Of course, what Hezbollah has done is extremely condemned, but I wonder why we forget when Israel kidnaps ministers, assassinates and kills civilians and destroys the whole country. I also wonder why we make differences when use force is used by a state or by militias... one description should be found for both of them.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: I think this is one of the most persuasive questions. It is a fact that the powerful can talk about preventive wars or democratical security or friendly fire and that they use all these abhorrent words, and I believe that those powerful countries that use strategies of selfdefense are also terrorists. For me terrorism is the power of using arms and the possibility to subordinate other people by the fear of death. And I think that all human beings are rulers of the life of others and we are all able to take possesion of the life of other human beings and we are able to destroy it. All these forms are in my opinion terrorism. They are all forms of violence. There are forms of legitimate reaction concerning an oppression and there are extreme forms of reactions because the violence or the oppression have been also extremely. Many times the reaction to what you get is proportional. In my opinion that’s why people react violently to terrorism. They react with a violence of blood. Thus I think that there is a double moral when we talk about selfdefense and about other terrorists that also use their legitimate right of selfdefense.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: Answertext will be available soon.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Everyone wants to be the right one. Lo and behold, without any exceptions everyone wants to be better than the other. Self-defense and terrorism is in fact the same. No matter how you look at it the end result is always the same. Someone loses. It does not matter who, but someone will lose. So what responsibility do you and I have in eliminating that force we use on one another? How can I defend myself from oppression? How can the oppressor be made aware of being oppressing others? Until we eliminate those you and I we will have a hard time to be equal. And you and I here, we need to be equal. We are equal. It does not matter where we come from. It does not matter who we are. It does not matter what’s happening. You and I we are equal. So you and I we’re responsible for determine all these like self-defense and terrorism, both do not belong amongst us. Both will be eliminated from within us. Peace inevitably will arrive within us and without us. Thank you.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: This is an excellent question and a very timely one, Israel. The term self-defense is routinely used to refer to the right of states. But, at the same time, I think the problem is slightly more nuanced in that the actions of certain states can be termed terrorism, not just the actions of, as the question asks, the weak. So, for example, if a state is an enemy to the United States, states such as Iran or states such as Syria, the term terrorism will be used by the media, by politicians, by the punditry to refer to their actions. So, the concept of state terrorism is permissible as long as it is restricted to our enemies. But, on the fundamental thrust of the question, it is absolutely correct that the right of self-defense has invoked a tremendous hypocrisy and that the term terrorism is used with even greater hypocrisy in the world today. So, for example, the United States, which invades Iraq illegally and unjustly to achieve its imperial objectives in Iraq and beyond that in the Middle East and in the world is acting in self defense and yet, the people of Iraq who are resisting occupation, resisting foreign intervention into their lives and very violent form intervention are considered terrorists for exercising their legitimate right of self defense. And the question of the right of self defense also was – the hypocrisy of how that’s used was also recently exposed with the Israelian invasion of Lebanon, where the right of self defense is systematically denied to the people of Lebanon, while it was repeatedly invoked by the defenders of the war in regard to Israel’s right to protect itself from foreign attack. The issue really couldn’t be more important to interrogate.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala: Force is always used between two powerful leaders; one is strong, the other one is weak. So the weaker one is always – it is always – what is the word – phenomenon that the weaker sex are always dominated so that is why the weaker sex is called terrorism. And if a stronger force uses to defend themselves then they call it self defense. This is the problem. There are so many examples in the world that they themselves call themselves human rights activists and human right followers, but you can see that they are violating the human rights by calling themselves self defense.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: That’s an excellent question. But, yes, it is true that when the powerful use force it is called self-defense and when the weak use it, it is called terrorism because the powerful have the power and the ability to frame it the way they want it as the Bush administration has done that their acts in Afghanistan, that their acts in Iraq are not called colonization, they are not called aggression, they are not called terrorism, but they are called the right to self-defense. We saw it in the case of Israeli aggression in Lebanon that it was really about the right to self-defense where it was really collective punishment against the people of Lebanon because they have the power to be able to frame it the way they want to. But I think we have to also remember ANC was once called a terrorist organization because the powerful, the apartheid regime, had the ability to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist; and we have to take away that power of framing. We have to shift the terms of the debate in this one and seek their powers so we can actually call that all acts of violence whether conducted by states, whether conducted by the empire called United States of America, that they are still basically nothing but acts of terrorism and they are being committed right now in Iraq, in Afghanistan, around the world where the rich countries are selling their weapons and allowing people to be able to kill each other.

by Anuradha Mittal