The difference between political assassination and terrorism is that terrorism kills innocent bystanders, not just a political target.

A number of people took exception to this definition, but I stand by it. Of course in the killing of a political target, there is what the Americans call 'collateral damage'; however great this is, and however many people are killed, it doesn't change the objective.

And how does terrorist killings change the objective, they have an objective too, some might even call it a more moral objective than a political bombing?

It's quite an Alien thing for us to comprehend.

But in their mind, they are not the terrorist. In the mind of the extremist they genuinely believe that anybody that does not believe in their faith is a terrorist themselves. A severe threat to their belief and their god that must be eliminated for the safety and security of those they care about.

It's a profound thing, but us much us we think they are wrong, they think they are right in equal or greater measures.

I know you don't want to go down the "one man's terrorist blah blah" moss, and I quite agree. But it's such a difficult thing to escape on this subject.

Mooners,

Firstly there is no difference in objective, unless Isan has poorly written his response, and in response to your post what makes you think it is always faith that drives an uprising, Spring, not sure what the differencce beneath civil disobediance, Spring, uprising and revolution is, but although they can be inextricably linked they are not always the same.

Mooners,

Firstly there is no difference in objective, unless Isan has poorly written his response, and in response to your post what makes you think it is always faith that drives an uprising, Spring, not sure what the differencce beneath civil disobediance, Spring, uprising and revolution is, but although they can be inextricably linked they are not always the same.

I was referring to the guys who actually "pull the trigger".

The suicide bombers who sacrifice their lives for what they believe in, the pawns.

But otherwise yeah. I agree that the guys calling the shots, it is political.

But let's go back even further, to 1605, and Guy Fawkes.

Another terrorist to this day is still literally celebrated!

Ironically, Fawkes may have been celebrated by and been an inspiration to the Islamic terrorists behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre....simmilar MO (considering the advance in technology).

I think that the notion that some terrorists are worse (more evil?) than others is inextricably linked with one's sense of morality....what is a noble cause vs what is an evil deed.

From that, we can extrapolate to consider what acts of "terrorism" are forgivable (before or after a punishment).

But let's go back even further, to 1605, and Guy Fawkes.

Another terrorist to this day is still literally celebrated!

Ironically, Fawkes may have been celebrated by and been an inspiration to the Islamic terrorists behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre....simmilar MO (considering the advance in technology).

I think that the notion that some terrorists are worse (more evil?) than others is inextricably linked with one's sense of morality....what is a noble cause vs what is an evil deed.

From that, we can extrapolate to consider what acts of "terrorism" are forgivable (before or after a punishment).

I have to recant on Fawkes.

Guy Fawkes himself is not celebrated, it's the fact that he failed that is celebrated.

My bad

I was referring to the guys who actually "pull the trigger".

Ok Mooners, it appears we are only one's talking here, despite my wish for someone else to answer a couple of questions...

Do you think that the one's pulling the trigger are political, driven by faith, injustice or a belief in social injustice.

In my opinion there is no right or wrong opinion, just circumstance.......

I was referring to the guys who actually "pull the trigger".

Ok Mooners, it appears we are only one's talking here, despite my wish for someone else to answer a couple of questions...

Do you think that the one's pulling the trigger are political, driven by faith, injustice or a belief in social injustice.

In my opinion there is no right or wrong opinion, just circumstance.......

From what I understand

The guys that are 'pulling the trigger', by which I mean the guys that blow themselves up, are driven by faith. I understand that they are taken advantage of because of their faith, and these people are vulnerable because of their faith and what they believe in.

The guys that are giving the orders are probably doing so for other reasons. Otherwise if sacrificing yourself is such a glorious thing to do, why not do it yourself?

And to your last remark, I agree entirely. Had I been born in Oxford, I may well have been an Oxford fan. It's just by circumstance that I support a rival club.

I was referring to the guys who actually "pull the trigger".

Ok Mooners, it appears we are only one's talking here, despite my wish for someone else to answer a couple of questions...

Do you think that the one's pulling the trigger are political, driven by faith, injustice or a belief in social injustice.

In my opinion there is no right or wrong opinion, just circumstance.......

The one's pulling the trigger come in all shapes and sizes....all the differing ideals are represented.

Osama bin Laden (I suspect) was not driven by religion but by a sense of grievance, whereas the footsoldiers he commanded were cunningly recruited from a religious aspect.

We have a terrorist commander with a political/"justice" motive, but the ones he is directing (the ones that pull the trigger) have a religious motive.

Was Osama actually a terrorist or a recruiter and director of terrorists but not one himself?

From what I understand

The guys that are 'pulling the trigger', by which I mean the guys that blow themselves up, are driven by faith. I understand that they are taken advantage of because of their faith, and these people are vulnerable because of their faith and what they believe in.

Some of those who blow themselves up do it because their life really sucks and by strapping on the vest their family gets paid and they become a hero with a street named after them.

From what I understand

The guys that are 'pulling the trigger', by which I mean the guys that blow themselves up, are driven by faith. I understand that they are taken advantage of because of their faith, and these people are vulnerable because of their faith and what they believe in.

Some of those who blow themselves up do it because their life really sucks and by strapping on the vest their family gets paid and they become a hero with a street named after them.

Are you sure of that?

Perhaps, in some cases, their families recieve donations as wil happen to bereaved families around the world.

Perhaps, in some cases, the society considers that an act of martyrdom has occurred and names a street after the hero.

But you make it sound like it is an automatic thing for a poor person to do to gain some wealth for their families.

Just how does the life of a Palestinian "suck", and why? That would be an interesting thing to review.

Just how does the life of a Palestinian "suck", and why? That would be an interesting thing to review.

They can'r drink. They can't have sex if they are single and then only with their wives. They can't eat bacon. They probably do not have a job because the Israelis had to stop hiring them because of Palestinian terrorism.

No wonder they all want to blow themselves up and collect somre cash and get those vegans!

Mossfin and Harcourt, you were talking while I was sleeping, hence my late response.

I find the last lot of posts muddled because I still don't think you're defining your terms... so I'll try again!

Political assassination is where one or more (usually one) person is targeted, but the assassin doesn't care if others are hurt or killed. Examples:- Rajiv Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Habiri (I think... sorry if I've misspelt).

Terrorism aims to destabilise the community. Its targets are therefore generally random, though they may target a group, such as the police or the army (as in Afghanistan). Examples:- Al Qaeda (9/11 etc), S Thailand, Afghanistan (Taliban). This may or may not have a religious pretext.

In this respect (and answering OP's question) (pause while I don my armour-plated clothing) I don't think there is much difference between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Except that the Israelis have the US and the West's Press on their side.

Mossfin and Harcourt, you were talking while I was sleeping, hence my late response.

I find the last lot of posts muddled because I still don't think you're defining your terms... so I'll try again!

Political assassination is where one or more (usually one) person is targeted, but the assassin doesn't care if others are hurt or killed. Examples:- Rajiv Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Habiri (I think... sorry if I've misspelt).

Terrorism aims to destabilise the community. Its targets are therefore generally random, though they may target a group, such as the police or the army (as in Afghanistan). Examples:- Al Qaeda (9/11 etc), S Thailand, Afghanistan (Taliban). This may or may not have a religious pretext.

In this respect (and answering OP's question) (pause while I don my armour-plated clothing) I don't think there is much difference between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Except that the Israelis have the US and the West's Press on their side.

I disagree with your definitions. Assassination, political or otherwise, is a targeted "taking out" of a person. Terrorism is, by definition, acts that evoke terror in a general population to subdue or influence or avenge.

That some assassinations incur "collateral damage" does not, in my view, make them terrorist acts.

Nato targetting Gaddafi's compounds are attempts at assassination....and there have been numerous cases of innocents being killed...but the attacks are not designed to create terror and are thus not terrorism. 9/11, suicide bombers in Kabul, and bombs in a pub in Londonderry are terrorism because they make their statement with terror.

Political assassination is where one or more (usually one) person is targeted, but the assassin doesn't care if others are hurt or killed. Examples:- Rajiv Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Habiri (I think... sorry if I've misspelt).

Terrorism aims to destabilise the community. Its targets are therefore generally random, though they may target a group, such as the police or the army (as in Afghanistan). Examples:- Al Qaeda (9/11 etc), S Thailand, Afghanistan (Taliban). This may or may not have a religious pretext.

I disagree with your definitions. Assassination, political or otherwise, is a targeted "taking out" of a person. Terrorism is, by definition, acts that evoke terror in a general population to subdue or influence or avenge.

That some assassinations incur "collateral damage" does not, in my view, make them terrorist acts.

Nato targetting Gaddafi's compounds are attempts at assassination....and there have been numerous cases of innocents being killed...but the attacks are not designed to create terror and are thus not terrorism. 9/11, suicide bombers in Kabul, and bombs in a pub in Londonderry are terrorism because they make their statement with terror.

You are saying exactly the same as I did, Harcourt. In an earlier post, and again in this one, I agree that a political assassination may incur collateral damage (horrid phrase!). I did not say, or even imply, that the collateral damage ipso facto turns them into terrorist acts.

They can'r drink. They can't have sex if they are single and then only with their wives. They can't eat bacon. They probably do not have a job because the Israelis had to stop hiring them because of Palestinian terrorism.

No wonder they all want to blow themselves up and collect somre cash and get those vegans!

I didn't realise they were vegetarians too

From what I understand

The guys that are 'pulling the trigger', by which I mean the guys that blow themselves up, are driven by faith. I understand that they are taken advantage of because of their faith, and these people are vulnerable because of their faith and what they believe in.

Some of those who blow themselves up do it because their life really sucks and by strapping on the vest their family gets paid and they become a hero with a street named after them.

Are you sure of that?

Perhaps, in some cases, their families recieve donations as wil happen to bereaved families around the world.

Perhaps, in some cases, the society considers that an act of martyrdom has occurred and names a street after the hero.

But you make it sound like it is an automatic thing for a poor person to do to gain some wealth for their families.

Just how does the life of a Palestinian "suck", and why? That would be an interesting thing to review.

http://www.istar.upe...eople-berko.pdf

For starters see Decisions to Become a Martyr (Shahid) on page 8; "My life was useless, my life had no use for anyone..."

They can'r drink. They can't have sex if they are single and then only with their wives. They can't eat bacon. They probably do not have a job because the Israelis had to stop hiring them because of Palestinian terrorism.

No wonder they all want to blow themselves up and collect somre cash and get those vegans!

I didn't realise they were vegetarians too

“There’s already been some trouble for Osama bin Laden in the afterlife.

There was a mix up and he was greeted by 72 vegans.”

But if we take the case of Benazir Bhutto - she was killed by an offshoot of Al Quaeda, as I understand it. Not by her husband or political opponents who stood to gain from her death.

So was it an assassination or a terrorist act?

But if we take the case of Benazir Bhutto - she was killed by an offshoot of Al Quaeda, as I understand it. Not by her husband or political opponents who stood to gain from her death.

So was it an assassination or a terrorist act?

In Pakistan are there clear lines between the terrorists and political opponents of the head honcho? The Islamists are part of the opposition, aren't they?

That said, I would call it an assassination.

But if we take the case of Benazir Bhutto - she was killed by an offshoot of Al Quaeda, as I understand it. Not by her husband or political opponents who stood to gain from her death.

So was it an assassination or a terrorist act?

In Pakistan are there clear lines between the terrorists and political opponents of the head honcho? The Islamists are part of the opposition, aren't they?

That said, I would call it an assassination.

If her husband or Nawaz Sharif had been behind it (and who's to say that one or the other did not have a part in it?), then I would say definitely assassination.

But the Islamists are not taking any particular benefit from this one act, it did not change their standing in the community or give them political power, it was just a killing for the sake of killing someone important and thus getting publicity. Thus a terrorist act - in my opinion. If she had been unalterably opposed to the Islamists, then maybe assassination. But she had been prepared to discuss future plans with some of the leaders and was going to replace Musharref, which should have benefitted most of the population.

I don't know that groups are exclusive to either terrorism or assassination. AQ, I am sure would have no problem in bumping off a political leader and there are political groups that might engage in terrorism. In Thailand there seems to be a fluid situation between assassination and terrorism in the political arena.

I don't know that groups are exclusive to either terrorism or assassination. AQ, I am sure would have no problem in bumping off a political leader and there are political groups that might engage in terrorism. In Thailand there seems to be a fluid situation between assassination and terrorism in the political arena.

I think you're right in that there are always grey areas once you start making definitions.

In Southern Thailand I would have said it was clearly terrorism. The killings (I think there have been two or more) linked with the election are possibly a third category... election violence. The Philippines is especially good at this!

In the Palestine situation, the Israelis no longer indulge in terrorism; they just bully the Palestinians.

In the Palestine situation, the Israelis no longer indulge in terrorism; they just bully the Palestinians.

The "Palestinians" who have been practicing terrorism since before there was an Israel and until this very day.

In the Palestine situation, the Israelis no longer indulge in terrorism; they just bully the Palestinians.

The "Palestinians" who have been practicing terrorism since before there was an Israel and until this very day.

they were practising terrorism because Hollywood refused to produce movies about Palestinians and Palestine

Maybe because fiction was not a big box office draw at the time.

And there's an awful lot of fiction published on this subject.

The trouble is, as we all know, by repeating the fiction long enough people begin to regard it as incontrovertible fact.

And when political or religious dogma is used to support such fictions people not only take sides but are often prepared to sacrifice themselves and their loved ones to such creeds.

This is what turns into terrorism.

Assassination is usually a unique event, designed to promote a cause or a person that is opposed by the assassinated person. Terrorism can be a series of events, again designed to promote a cause, but without having immediate impact and without having a mechanism in place that will promote the desired result after a unique attack.

Yes, some of these terrorist causes appear to be justified to outsiders. But did the ANC win power in South Africa by it's terrorist tactics, or by the pressure of world opinion, sanctions and a change of government that led to majority rule? Or any combination thereof?

And is it 'a good thing' now?

In Northern Ireland a peace (truce) has been negotiated and some of the people earlier regarded as terrorists are now a part of the establishment - but both Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness were always the public face of the independence movement. They were not themselves the bomb planters, the Barrett rifle shooters. Same with the other extreme - Ian Paisley preached hatred and was the public face of Unionism, without himself doing any terrorist acts / same with David Trimble as far as I recall.

But there are still extremists on both sides who do not accept the status quo and continue to plan and carry out attacks on their opposite numbers (and I know, a lot of it now is more of a criminal nature than a political one). So these to me are terrorists pure and simple. The political solution has been agreed between the earlier protagonists and life has become almost normal for the majority. The extremists carry on fighting the new establishment, maybe for good reasons (discrimination in employment? education? Is this still the case, or is it just that employment is a problem for everyone there?)

but this is no longer a 'freedom-fighter' situation, as far as I am concerned.

In the Palestine situation, the Israelis no longer indulge in terrorism; they just bully the Palestinians.

The "Palestinians" who have been practicing terrorism since before there was an Israel and until this very day.

they were practising terrorism because Hollywood refused to produce movies about Palestinians and Palestine

Not just Hollywood, not a single film made across the entire planet either.

In the Palestine situation, the Israelis no longer indulge in terrorism; they just bully the Palestinians.

The "Palestinians" who have been practicing terrorism since before there was an Israel and until this very day.

they were practising terrorism because Hollywood refused to produce movies about Palestinians and Palestine

Not just Hollywood, not a single film made across the entire planet either.

except for these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_films

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 April 2011

Passion and politics at the London Palestine film festival

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/apr/28/london-palestine-film-festival

my ethiopian muslim driver sent me this link:

http://palestinefilmfest.com/en/taxonomy/term/51

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 April 2011

Passion and politics at the London Palestine film festival

http://www.guardian....e-film-festival

You make that Hollywood comment based on my recent thread. My thread which made a valid point that not a single person here - yourself included - could disprove. The point being that "Palestinians" were not mentioned in world cinema before the 1970's. Now you try to twist it around here by linking to modern films about Palestinians. I would think someone with as many advanced degrees as you would bring more to the table than just distorting the points made by others. Your weak attempts at wit to cover up your lack of anythng of substance to contribute wouldn't be so tiring if you actually were witty.