Who is the biggest terrorist?

LOL at the two answers saying the US.
But the US, love em or hate them, are not terrorists. Terrorists act without warning or provication. Now although the provication is arguable in alot of american actions, they do atleast declare war before they storm in.
The biggest terrorists at the moment would have to be Al Queda, I dont think anyone will argue that the 911 attacks were by far and away the worst terrorist act to have ever happened on this planet.

Comments

I think it's acceptable to call the current US Government 'Economical Terrorists', but they certainly aren't in the same class of terrorism as people such as Osama Bin Laden or Zarqawi. Remember, all terrorism involves is using violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. Bush or Cheney for example, completely fit those criteria, they are, as I said, 'Economic' terrorists, rather than the more physical terrorists of Al-Queda or something...
- Report
by Twhupfold on June 1st, 2007
why were the 9/11 attacks by far the worst terrorist attacks in the history of humanity? there have been other 'terrorist' attacks where more inoccent civilians have been killed.
- Report
by haggis on June 1st, 2007
Like what?
- Report
by slothmister on June 1st, 2007
I think the very public, arguably brutal murders of 3'500 people on live TV feeds was pretty horrific, there have probably been worse attacks in the past, but they were not broadcast live around the world like 9/11 was, so 9/11 has a much stronger impact on many people, and of course, it was the first terrorist attack on US soil in history I believe, so for many Americans, for these reasons & more, I think that is why it is considered the worst attack in history
- Report
by Twhupfold on June 1st, 2007
OK, firstly I want someone to name a terrorist attack that killed more than the 911 attacks did.
Secondly the 911 attacks were the 2nd time Al Queda had attacked the world trade center and there are hundreds unpon hundreds (maybe even 1000's) of terrorist attacks on US soil through recent history.

But please someone tell me a terrorist attack that killed more then 911 did
- Report
by slothmister on June 1st, 2007
here are some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

what is really worrying about other terrorist attacks is how continuous they are. i am not interested in, how many people were killed all at once, but the state of peoples lives and how they live thanks to terrorism in their lives.
it is of course sad and hard in every case and i am not taking away the pain and frustration from 9/11, i just think it is important to see how terrorism is in our lives and affects us as to opposed to others who live in a constant state of fear in subhuman standards.
by the way since the 9/11 attack three times if not more inoccent iraqi civilians have been killed by terrorists both governamental and not.
- Report
by haggis on June 1st, 2007
Ok, I hardly know any US history, so forget what I said about it being the first attack on US soil (like, I know there have been bombings before, but they were all from US citizens I thought; 9/11 was the first from overseas... never mind then, my mistake). It's not 'quite' a terrorist attack, because it was not done under the disguise of a civilian, but the bombing of Nagasaki was a 100% unnecesary bombing which immediately took the lives of over 73'000 people, injured another 70'000, and diseased around 120'000 more... Nothing can justify Nagasaki, it was the 2nd bomb, Hiroshima is arguable either way given the context, but Nagasaki was utterly unnecesary, and just murdered more people faster than ever before in history... Though misshell should respond to that, I only said 'probably' worse attacks, because you need to factor in so many different things, etc
- Report
by Twhupfold on June 1st, 2007
yes, nagasaki was absolutely horrifying.
- Report
by haggis on June 1st, 2007
The thing is it's not fully classifiable as a terrorist attack, because it was done by military forces with no attempt to hide their identity (It would have been a terrorist attack if for example, the US had shipped it in with disguised personel, planted it at location, then detonated it, all the while disguised not as military, but civilian)
- Report
by Twhupfold on June 1st, 2007
The definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated with a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
- Report
by haggis on June 1st, 2007
RE the nuclear attacks on japan in WW2, they were an act of war, unneccasary? Indeed! But the showed the world the power of the nuclear bomb and probably stopped more powerful bombs from being detinated at later dates (still arguable)

RE the terrorists attacks and the number of people killed. Thank you very much for the link, its a good information read and I did not know it existed (not wowwiki, but that paticular link) but did you actually read it?
Ill quote you now... "there have been other 'terrorist' attacks where more inoccent civilians have been killed." according to the link you posted NO THERE HAS NOT!!!
Please if you are going to try to argue a point, try to stick to the point or admit you were mistaken. I dont think you are an idiot, but the fact you are arguing a silly point in the way you are trying to argue it is pointing towards an idiotic point of view. If you can not prove a point, admit you are wrong dont try to change the point!
- Report
by slothmister on June 1st, 2007
The main point is the disguising yourself as a civilian non-combatant, that is against the Geneva Conventions and is against the "Laws of War". ANYONE (military or non-military) who disguises themselves as civilian non-combatants then takes part in military actions is a Terrorist. If however, they do exactly the same action while clearly marked as military personel, they are more likely to be charged with "War Crimes" than "Terrorism". However I think some actions which Terrorists do, if copied exactly by marked military personal don't actually classify as war crimes or terrorism, but as simply a part of combat... Which is terrible in quite a few ways *sigh*. Though really, the main point is that the people who are being violent, etc, are clearly marked as combatants, so the 'enemy' knows exactly who to attack, to reduce innocent casualties; Terrorists dress as civilians for example, so that their enemies don't know who to shoot, essentially making 'human shields' out of EVERYONE around them
- Report
by Twhupfold on June 1st, 2007
Sloth, Nagasaki was the second bomb, Hiroshima was the first, we are talking specifically about Nagasaki, the US had already shown the awesome power of the nuclear bomb, Japan was hesitant to surrender immediately after Hiroshima, but records show that they were going to, then the US bombed them again, forcing them to immediately surrender. Personally I think Hiroshima was at least a partially justified act of war; Nagasaki however was simply mass-murder. Um, about the whole 'idiot' thing, are you reffering to me or misshell?
- Report
by Twhupfold on June 1st, 2007
Very good comment and I agree entirely. Terrorism is bad and needs to be stopped, but unfortuntly it will allways be here with us and will only get worse and worse! :(
- Report
by slothmister on June 1st, 2007
It's quite a macabre thing to say... But given the wildly suicidal methods currently used by terrorists, they'll kill themselves long before they kill all of us : ( <- Unless of course they get hold of nuclear weapons, then... 'potentially' the end of life on this planet : /
- Report
by Twhupfold on June 1st, 2007
okay i will reiterate i am not interested in whether or not there were more people killed at once, i find more horrifying the systematic nature of killing in many countries to be much more dire.
if you think it necessary i take back the "there have been other 'terrorist' attacks where more inoccent civilians have been killed". i hadn't intended for that to be my central argument and thats not whats most important here.
- Report
by haggis on June 1st, 2007
Idiot thing was to musshell, not you! :)
The nuclear thing is an argument for the ages, I have read that nither bombing was neccassary but that they did prevent further nuclear bombs being dropped.
As for the 2nd bomb being completely unneccassary, I think the official reason was to prove that they could repeat the explosion and as such, yes it is completely unjustified!
But this was a question about terrorism and like you correctly said earlier, a person at war is not a terrorist.
- Report
by slothmister on June 1st, 2007
Ok, ill reword my original answer too, may it now say that the 911 attacks were by far and away the worst SINGLE terrorist attack in history
- Report
by slothmister on June 1st, 2007
It just occured to me how to say it sloth: The bombing of Nagasaki was an 'act of terror', but it wasn't 'terrorism'. Yes : ) That's how I'd put it, it wasn't terrorism, but it was certainly a horrible, unneccesary act designed to terrify the people of Japan into an instant, unconditional surrender (as it succesfully did). About 9/11, it wasn't a single attack, it was several in one day, put them all together and you have the worst 'terrorist attack', but really it was several of them, all together in one larger intentional attack. It can be argued that the constant string of bombings against specific groups of people in Iraq is one attack, over a long time (maybe better reffered to as a kind of war actually, but still), but really we refer to such events in individual cases more often than not. *shrugs* never mind lol, I'm too tired to think properly right now, and I'm not sure if what I'm saying will be interpreted as I mean it (If I seem to be talking nonsense don't worry, it's just me talking nonsense : P )
- Report
by Twhupfold on June 1st, 2007
OK, by one act of terror I mean all commited by the same group of people at roughly the same time and all planned by the same person and designed to be one attack.
The 911 attacks where one attack! All the hijackers knew each other and had the whole thing planed to go down at the same time on the same day and in almost identical ways!
The bombings in Iraq can not be considered one attack as they all happen independently and (probably) have diffrent planners and i am guessing the people who carry out the suicide bombings are all unaware of each other (to a larger extent).
Anyways, I think we have driffted too far from the original question/answer.
Lets just leave as this....
The 911 bombings were the worst acts of terrorism on any single day by any single group.
The nuclear bombing of Japan (one or both of them, it dont really matter) was by far the worst act of scaremongering in history.
- Report
by slothmister on June 1st, 2007
Well, Zarqawi was a planner of many hundreds of suicide bombings, all for the same purpose, so although we don't refer to them all as one attack, my point is that there is non-stop terrorist violence over there, and it is all planned by the same group of people, and it has cost many, many, MANY thousands more lives than 9/11 took : ( . But yes, 9/11 is the worst -single terrorist attack- and the bombing of Nagasaki is the worst -act of terror- in modern history (if not all recorded history...)
- Report
by Twhupfold on June 2nd, 2007
Well, if your talking like that then what about the 1000's of lives the IRA took during the 70's, 80's, 90's and arguably still doing so now in the naughties!
But that is a diffrent discussion entirely! :)
- Report
by slothmister on June 2nd, 2007
Yeah, that's why I said 'probably a worse attack', because if you include such things as the IRA or the continued violence in areas like Iraq, 9/11 pales by comparison in magnitude : ( {Leading to what I said about it being considered the worst attack because it all happened at once, and was all shown on live tv across the world - people actually watched as thousands of people got crushed or burnt to death, that is beyond horrific... Most of the deaths in Iraq for example go unnoticed, and certainly go un televised thus a majority of people only recognise them as happening in numerical terms "100 people die in bomb blast." or something, whereas with 9/11, especially in America, there was probably a much more personal feeling about it given it's being live on TV, and much closer to home, etc... Eh, I don't really like talking about such horrible things, I think we're in agreement though right? Although 9/11 is the worst single attack, it is by no means the worst act of terror, nor does it involve the greatest number of deaths due to terrorist action.
- Report
by Twhupfold on June 2nd, 2007

i wish i could give you more points!!!
- Report
by haggis on June 1st, 2007
well it is true! The words he speak are words of terror and fear and the number of unnecessary deaths caused under his government is huge!
- Report
by Jimmyz101 on June 1st, 2007
i'll give you points, i hate the bugger lol
- Report
by Seraphim Shinobi on June 1st, 2007

yeah i agree, i think the term terrorism is so loosely defined in many occasions. the governement because it is a legal entity should not be exempt from being called terrorist since they use violence to intimidate and control people. i also agree with how you put in religion...
- Report
by haggis on June 1st, 2007

amen!!!!!!
- Report
by haggis on January 28th, 2008
I accidently unsubscribed this post is to resubscribe
- Report
by koldkanuck on January 28th, 2008
how thoughtful of you ^_^
- Report
by haggis on January 28th, 2008

yes, i have heard that before... good answer!
- Report
by haggis on December 16th, 2007
I plussed you on your answer.
However the resident idiot in texas is still looming large.
Crawford
- Report
by koldkanuck on January 28th, 2008

ignorance?
- Report
by haggis on December 19th, 2007
yes that too.
- Report
by mad scientist on December 19th, 2007
isn't it incredibly depressing?
- Report
by haggis on December 19th, 2007
only if you let it become that way.
- Report
by mad scientist on December 19th, 2007
its kinda hard when they're bombing your house.
- Report
by haggis on December 19th, 2007

in fear is no way to live
- Report
by haggis on August 2nd, 2008
i consider myself dead since long time anyway.
- Report
by Jabeer on August 2nd, 2008
why?
- Report
by haggis on August 2nd, 2008
cuz i have fear.
- Report
by Jabeer on August 2nd, 2008
what do you fear?
- Report
by haggis on August 2nd, 2008
harm for me or for people i love.
- Report
by Jabeer on August 2nd, 2008
do you live in harms way?
- Report
by haggis on August 2nd, 2008
i live in harms place.
- Report
by Jabeer on August 2nd, 2008
ok...
- Report
by haggis on August 3rd, 2008

You are absolutely RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!!! How about all Political Leaders>... lololo!!!! ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!! Most folks are sleep walking, just zombies about this. They are willing to allow the reduction of their civil rights in order to feel safe and will wind up losing both. One World Order is underway! Cameras everywhere in side every store, inside and outside, and now on freeways and even in neighborhood intersections. Freedom to tap into phone conversations, all this video stuff on cell phones and on and on!!!
- Report
by onemill555 on August 2nd, 2008

uumm okay. can you please explain?
- Report
by haggis on January 28th, 2008
Its a play on words you know Osama ben Laden right?
You know who goliath was?
The biggest terrorist was the ? right?
Hence Osama Ben Goliath the big giant terrorist OMG! its lost its humor In the translation ROFLMAO & LOL
- Report
by koldkanuck on January 28th, 2008
heh, okay i see!!!!!!!
- Report
by haggis on January 29th, 2008

Question

Who is the biggest terrorist?

Answers. 21 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!