OK, a lot of terrorists (Mideastern, IRA, KKK, whatever) are indoctrinated from childhood, throughout whatever school they get, through their media, and through circumstances.
I, for instance, would like to think I’d have joined the French Resistance. And I hope I’d not join Hamas even if I grew up in Palestine.
Can you, under any circumstances, see yourself strapping a bomb to yourself and taking out the enemy? (Not civilians and kids, I don’t see any Dopers ever doing that).
I don’t feel able to say that, were I born and bred in Palestine, I would not become a suicide bomber.
And I guess mentioning the French Resistance demonstrates the vagueness of the boundaries of terrorism.
I deeply admire such terrorists as Nat Turner, Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, and John Brown. Violent people, yes. But violence begets violence.
Suicide bomber…no way. I have much better things to do than throw away my life like that.
Resistance fighter I could do. I have some small skills that would be useful in that area, and I think I could do more damage to say, The Invading Hordes From Canada that way than I could as a bomb. Besides, if I live to strike again, I increase my effectiveness at Driving The Foreign Scum of of Our Beloved Motherland. 
Still wouldn’t strike at civilian targets, no matter what the cost.
Personally, no. I think I could be a lot more use to “the cause” alive. Live to fight another day and all that.
One gripe about the OP and the term terrorist in general. After 911, it seems like the definition of terrorist applies to anyone against us, wither they use guerrilla tactics or terror tactics. For instance, I personally see most of the attacks against CPA in Iraq as guerrilla attacks and not terror attacks. It is the suicide attacks that I consider terror oriented. Just nitpicking on my part I guess.
I believe that people don’t know what they would do or not under extreme circumstances. Wannabe heroes turn into cowards, pacifists into fighters, and all other possible combinations.
From what I read here and there, I also notice that some people are oblivious of circumstances. Some are quick to tell they’d take their gun and fight, not seriously considering they would face tanks or would receive mortar’s fire in return. Some forget that their first priority would probably to make sure that thier children are safe and fed, not taking arms. Some at the contrary forget that anger and hate could drive them to extreme behaviors they wouldn’t even consider in normal circumstances. Some fail to consider that they could just not understand the situation, that said situation is likely not to be very clear-cut, and that they could be unable to take a stance or to react apropriately.
To sum up, when someone makes a statement about what he would do in such or such extreme circumstance, I just don’t believe him for an instant, especially if what he states he would do is akin to heroism or is level-headed. Except if he actually faced such a situation in the past. Only then he knows what he’s talking about.
I don’t know what could turn me into a terrorist, and I hope I’ll never know.
What if those ‘better things’ were taken away from you, with no hope of rightful return? (serious hypothetical question)
The “better things” I was referencing were my small skills in blowing things up, marksmanship, and quite a bit of practical knowledge in being very annoying to People I Don’t Like. Never mess with science teachers…we know what to make with what’s under your sink. :eek:
As for what you were really asking, if I was oppressed and downtrodden…gotta go with clairobscur on that one. I don’t know, and I really don’t want to. But I do know that civilians would be safe from any actions I undertook.
The only way I could become a terrorist (in the literal sense of the term) was if I was so suicidal and so hate-filled that going out in a blaze of glory would seem worth it just to spit on those I hated. As far as any rational purpose goes, no I wouldn’t commit useless defiant gestures just to feel rebellious; I would want to pursue some kind of coherent strategy toward an achievable goal.
In the modern world, the difference between a rebel and a terrorist is winning and losing.
I think I’m pre-disposed to being a “terrorist.” I loved Les Miserables from the first time I saw and read it (at a young age), and idolized the image of the student revolutionary ever since.
One day more… one more day before the sword, at the barricade of freedom, when the ranks begin to fall, will you take your place with me? The time is now, the day is here! One more day to revolution… there’s a new world to be won, do you hear the people singing?
American colonials, French revolutionaries, hippies, hell, even Bolsheviks. They all arouse me in ways I can’t describe (I can’t help but think of how exciting and energizing it must have been to be a Bolshevik in 1918 and have the whole world ahead… and how depressing to be one in 1928. Revolution turns out poorly more often than not. But man, if I could go back in time and live in Europe between 1780 and 1860 or something!)
It wouldn’t take much - destruction of my beloved government or rights, mainly. I don’t highly value my life, so I’d be willing to risk it for something I believe in. I don’t know about suicide bombing, since I know I can be more effective in other ways. Maybe if I was surrounded, I’d do the take-the-whole-building-and-cops-out thing.
(Don’t do it, Eponine! I love you!)
I would argue that this applies to everyone. To some degree or another we are all a product of the influences of our formative years. So, when you come out with statements like…
…have you examined the reasons why you would think this? Do you think that the aims of the French Resistance were honourable, whereas those of Hamas are not (if so why), or is it more of a distaste for the tactics used. If the latter, I would argue that the difference in tactics between the two groups are a product of the different histories and contexts of the two conflicts.
Compulsary ID cards 
WEll, I can honestly say that I think nothing would turn me into one, and, unlike everyone else here, I’ve had the opportunity to test that belief. I didn’t take it up then.
This was after schoolfriends were hauled off for torture by the regime & others were leaving the country for the military training camps in neigbouring countries, then slipping back in as freedom fighters. My sister was a wanted woman, my grandfather died a headcase after torture and imprisonment. I grew up in a country where I was a second-class citizen, and the armed struggle against oppression was an everyday reality. Granted, I came of age at the tail end, but other age-mates went into the MK resistance forces.
Me, I’ve always been too cynical to fight or die for anyone’s ideology, as I don’t believe in religion, nationalist fanaticism or political movements. They are all the products of old men’s brains, and they are all fed by young men’s blood.
This is not just my supposition on what I’d do - I know. I won’t fight for anything except in immediate self-defence of me and mine*. Not for ideas or creeds.
*Oh, and duelling for a Ladie’s honour, but that’s a different matter 
I have much more enjoyable ways of throwing my life away! 
I don’t think I could be a suicide bomber. But I’m not sure about “terrorist”, i.e., IRA. I’ve never been in a position where I wanted to support an underfunded movement. I suppose that day could come, but I have no idea how far I would take my support.
The French Resistance took out German soldiers (and collaborators) in order to chase an invader out of their country.
Hamas takes out civilians in order to “fix” an unfixable situation (we could talk for years about how the Mideast situation is just as much the fault of the surrounding countries as Israel’s, but that’s not the point of the post).
And the ‘collaborators’ that you refer to were not civilians?
Did the French Resistance not attack ‘civilians’ (except collaborators who are apparantly fair game) because they regarded that as beyond the pale, or was it because there were no German civilians for them to attack. If the Germans had established ‘settlements’ in Northern France, do you really think that those would not have been targeted too?
And, if you had been born in Palestine, maybe you would consider that Hamas are fighting to ‘chase an invader out of their country’. My point, again, about context.
Um, I don’t want to get too involved in this, but sometimes a deliberate attempt is made to target civilians during a war in order to demoralize the population, prevent them from working to aid to war effort in any way, turn them against the government, etc. The allies chose this course during the latter part of WWII. The Dresden bombing, for instance, which was the most egregious implementation of the policy.
My feeling is that it is impossible to answer this for someone who didn’t grow up under the circumstances that breeds and provokes revolt against a situation that is percieved as utterly injust and desperate. Whatever form this injustice and desperation takes and whatever form of revolution one refers to.
We are all the product of our uprbringing, our culture, background and education.
This to say: Being the person I am now, I would never consider “terrorism” or “guerilla war” or whatever you name it as an option. But that is because I have other possibilities at my disposal, being the person I am as product of my situation in life. I can’t say how things would be in my eyes if I was not who I am, not born where I was born, not raised and educated as I was.
Nevertheless: Knowing myself I can safely claim to be sure that targetting civilians would never be an option for me.
Salaam. A
It’s easy to say that I’d not ever become a ‘terrorist’ from the comfort of my office. But I think that if anyone set up a regime that took everything away from me, or hurt my family (this is the big one for me), I think that it’d not be too much of a stretch to say that I’d take up arms against them somehow.
Suicide bombing? Not unless this regime was responsible for the deaths of my wife and kids. Then, I’d not have anything to live for anyway.
Like others I hope I never have to find out. But I guess when **I think I have nothing to lose ** might be the time to turn to hopeless “terrorism”.
If an occupation allows me largely to get on with my life, does not remove my wife and family, livelihood or personally hurt me I suspect that discretion would be the better part of valour and I would do nothing believing the risks to outweight the potential benefits. I suspect I would be in the majority - I recall reading about the passive collaboration of the population with the Germans in the Channel Islands during WW2 and really do not blame them one iota. Also the French and Italian resistence only really got going when the Germans were already at least looking over their shoulders if not in retreat. Militarily that is the sensible time to strike too. Seemingly hopeless resistence whilst the enemy have overwhelming firepower, and the military and political will to use it, fills me we awe at the desperation/bravery/determination of those resisting whatever their motivation (irrespective of whether the cause is mistaken or just).
I personally would find it OK to differentiate between civilians who are in your country whilst it is under occupation by their armed forces, and civilians who stay at home. I see no reason why the former should not be targeted - I would assume their presence is somehow furthering the occupation. Does not matter if they are settlers, or administators, policemen etc. The French and Polish resistence had no qualms about targeting civilians in the latter catagory in WW2.