Does someone have a neutral, non-biased definition of what a "terrorist state" is?

That's part of the challenge I guess.

Dictionary.com says:

ter·ror·ism The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments.

But those suck. I think the best definition is routinely killing noncombatants, including women, children, the old, the crippled, etc. just to make people afraid on a daily basis and wear them down.

Yeah, by the definitions above, you could say that American involvement against Germany in WWII was terrorism because we used violence to make them stop doing what they were doing. And, of course, many civilians were killed in WWII, i.e., the firestorm in Dresden. I really don't see "war" involving large armies as having anything to do with terrorism. Maybe if one side sent in special forces to blow up nursing homes and day care centers just to freak out the other side.

So then would Sherman's "March to the Sea" in the Civil War be terrorism? It's kinda off topic, but it helps in the search for a definition. I say "no," because it involved armies, never mind the scorched earth tactics.

Most who were involved in World War II came to the conclusion that the large-scale bombing of civilian populations was wrong.

The Romans, on the other hand, glorified in that kind of killing. They were conquerors, through and through. You can find Roman basilicas that celebrate the killing of enemy children, the rape of enemy women, etc. They weren't nice people, the Romans. Not at all.

By my own definitions I'd say the Romans frequently employed terrorism. And if we are to judge them by our standards, they were a horrid despotic regime. On the other hand, if you believe we're basically more morally advanced now...

I can't believe that any sane person would suggest that the American involvement in WWII was an act of terrorism. Hitler - remember him and the deaths of millions of innocents because they had a different ideology...
We were coming to the rescue not trying to invade and conquer. We weren't doing any cleansing.

Do you also believe that we are now committing act of terrorism? Is Israel?

Many people do and they are nut-jobs. Are you a nutjob?

This interesting point does nothing to bridge the cultural divide of two millennia. The Roman Empire was itself a product of its own time and circumstances. Many ancient governments are despotic by today's standards. The ancient Mycenaean conquerors were every bit as arrogant as the Romans were and every bit as cruel. I doubt if the even more ancient Assyrians were better. The Assyrians enjoyed humiliating the conquered.

I believe it is inappropriate to judge the Romans by today's morals. Morals were entirely different then. Slavery was commonplace. Sex cults were common among the rulers. Some Roman emperors were actively bisexual. Rape was not even a crime. Gladiators killed each other for entertainment. The same was reserved for Christians and lions.

These were times where brutality was meted out with relish by every conqueror on every conquered subject who did not pay obeisance to his conqueror. Terrorism as I understand it today involves the wanton murder of innocent civilians by nonuniformed combatants using asymmetrical warfare.

The Romans would never put up with this. They certainly did defeat their share of uniformed enemies in battle. Is there any documentation of Roman armies murdering innocent civilians not involved in combat or revolt against the Romans? I believe they were harsh to those who did not pay Roman taxes and recognize Rome as their ruler. As long as you obeyed these two edicts, you could live as you wished.

Kevin Brehmer

Kevin,
When the Romans got particularly exasperated they could sometimes annihilate a people. There was CArthage. A tribe in North Africa, the Nasamones, revolted and apparently stuck in the Romans' craw somehow. When the emperor reported to the Senate on the results of the war he said he and the army were well, and the Nasamones had ceased to exist.

Still the comment about cultural context is important and true. In those days everybody took slaves and frequently massacred the populations of captured cities that resisted, especially if the resisitance was prolonged. This was effectively legal under what passed for international law of the time, right up to the 17th Century in fact. Caesar's Gallic Wars turned into enormous slaving expeditions. But the Romans often restrained their bloodlust too, the better to keep their emprie together. The fact that the Jews survived as a people after making three of the most hopeless revolts against Roman rule that ever were shows this. Of course, the fact that the Herodians were Jews and were friends of (i.e. suckups to) the Emperors may have helped in this regard.

So I would have to say no to the question of the Romans being terrorists. They tended to fight within the rules of their time and did not in general gratuitously slaughter noncombattants in preference to combattants. It is these characteristics, together with the practice of such acts in the service of some ideology, that define modern terrorism, I believe.

Mr. Lonie,

I agree with your assessment for the reasons you give. Terrorism is a modern term describing the asymmetrical warfare you describe. Modern terrorists combine their love of ideology with the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians. This latter element gives this type of warfare its asymmetrical element.

Respectfully,

Kevin Brehmer

Im doing this thing for a class, i need an interesting fact about the Gallic Wars, and frankly it bores me, HELP!!