Jump to content


Criteria for a terrorist organisation?

Recommended Posts

Who says if an organisation is a terrorist one or not? What is the specific criteria?

 

I'm assuming a legitimate state cannot be a terrorist organisation, so for example...

 

Germany invading France - the German state is not a terrorist organisation?

 

French government capitulates, but some French form a resistance and fight back against the Germans - are these French now terrorists?

Edited by Waldo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of terrorism has changed over the years but the main purpuse is to bring government to the negotion table. However, even that seems to be done away with in some cases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who says if an organisation is a terrorist one or not? What is the specific criteria?

 

I'm assuming a legitimate state cannot be a terrorist organisation, so for example...

 

Germany invading France - the German state is not a terrorist organisation?

 

French government capitulates, but some French form a resistance and fight back against the Germans - are these French now terrorists?

 

There isn't an agreed definition of terrorism internationally, in the UK the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there just might be a thing called state terrorism, in which hypothetically for instance, where a powerful state might threaten, invade, pay for an uprising in another sovereign country state through employing the unemployed as freedom fighters.

 

Some say Israel practices state terrorism, with the occasional assassination her or there, Iran being a favorite, as they help Muslim scientists to fast track paradise for instance. Gaza is totally controlled, by land sea and air and any individual acting suspiciously is sport for target practice, as the Palestinians for instance are "Animals" or as another prime minister called them "Locusts" either way it suggests a status around the concept of vermin, thus sport. Gaza is in effect a prison camp, where food and water are regulated to the barest minimum as is fuel, thus the population live in a state of terror, as apart from declared war, the killings of these peoples is continuous, with of course a bumper crop when war is declared, a bit like the opening of the Grouse season in Scotland.

 

The USA overthrows governments at will, a friend becomes a target almost out of the blue, as we cannot forget the backing of Saddam in killing 1-2 million Iranians in which they helped enormously. In Egypt it seems they have the same crew in again killing civilians almost like the Israelis do, except the chosen for paradise have a warped sense of what democracy is all about. Its not who wins the vote, its who has the power, and thus what were once voters for a party, have been transformed into terrorists, which allows their execution, imprisonment and torture, a favorite of the Egyptian army.

 

So it seems state terrorism where a state exerts unpleasant power, causing cruelty and such is a good thing, and if a group objects to this form of collective punishment, and decides to fight the system then they are demoted to terrorists, thus paradise fodder. Thus might is right, and questioning some authorities is now regarded as an act of terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Who will be the first to say "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"? oh, it was me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's only 14 years out of date

Er, no. The legislation is still in force. Which bits do you think were not passed by Parliament and brought into force?

To help, here's section 1:

 

1 Terrorism: interpretation.

 

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

 

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

 

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

 

©the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

 

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

 

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

 

(b)involves serious damage to property,

 

©endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

 

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

 

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

 

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

 

(4)In this section—

 

(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

 

(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

 

©a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

 

(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

 

(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

Edited by Jeffrey Shaw
Typo corrected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jeffrey.

 

Isn't that just the UK governments' opinion on what terrorism is? No doubt, any group (including a government) defining terrorism, will do so with a slant to suit it's own agenda.

 

Isn't there a globally recognised standard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Er, no. The legislation is still in force. Which bits do you think wee not passed by Parliament and brought into force?

To help, here's section 1:

 

1 Terrorism: interpretation.

 

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

 

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

 

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

 

©the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

 

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

 

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

 

(b)involves serious damage to property,

 

©endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

 

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

 

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

 

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

 

(4)In this section—

 

(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

 

(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

 

©a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

 

(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

 

(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

 

Er yes, it's been modified over the years but there is not just one definition for all. The more you add to the definition the less it fits the purpose https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228856/7052.pdf

 

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism.html

Edited by Mecky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Er, no. The legislation is still in force. Which bits do you think wee not passed by Parliament and brought into force?

To help, here's section 1:

 

1 Terrorism: interpretation.

 

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

 

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

 

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

 

©the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

 

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

 

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

 

(b)involves serious damage to property,

 

©endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

 

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

 

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

 

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

 

(4)In this section—

 

(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

 

(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

 

©a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

 

(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

 

(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

 

 

 

Fits Israel like a glove, not just with Pallestine, but its state sanctioned murders in in Iran, and its perpetual; threat of war for nearly 2 years, bombing Syria, Lebanon to mention just a couple of instances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fits Israel like a glove, not just with Pallestine, but its state sanctioned murders in in Iran, and its perpetual; threat of war for nearly 2 years, bombing Syria, Lebanon to mention just a couple of instances.

 

Yea, because all those other countries you mentioned there are totally innocent of any wrong doing and are all basically battling it out for the nobel peace prize :loopy::loopy::loopy:

 

---------- Post added 29-07-2014 at 16:14 ----------

 

The anti-semitic rubbish people spout over the Israel->Palestine situation is really silly sometimes.

 

Neither party are innocent, both have done wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Jeffrey.

 

Isn't that just the UK governments' opinion on what terrorism is?

No- Parliament's, with Royal Assent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.