TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The meaning of terrorism
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I agree with this.(good speical btw huh?)The difference in in the conclusion - I believe you guys are the one without a leg to stand on.

If you have something intelligent to add to the conversation do so, otherwise snipping at people with one-liners is pretty lame. While I don't agree with Diginut at least he takes the time to postulate well thought out ideas not barbs you would see in a chatroom.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow If you have something intelligent to add to the conversation do so, otherwise snipping at people with one-liners is pretty lame. While I don't agree with Diginut at least he takes the time to postulate well thought out ideas not barbs you would see in a chatroom.

just illustrating to you that we have the same thought, different conclusion. I agree that terms have there technical use which is not always there common use, however, you belief the common use of the word terrorism is completely opposite to what I believe the common use of terrorism is.

As for me, terrorism is clearly not an insturment of the state of Israel which uses a tank to attack militants, or uses a bulldozer to knock down a house, but is what people who plant bombs to explode trains and kill as many civilians on purpose do.

Sorry if this isn't "good enough" for you


...
and this all brings us back to Digi's point.
Since we can't define the common use of terror - as it is different for all, while debating on the subject we must use it only in the context of its technical definition.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew okay, lets assume that you are right, terrorism is a single group fighting against something bigger and war is a nation/state fighting for something (bigger or smaller). To me this ones should be about equally bad, or perhaps even terrorism should be better. BUT in the media / by you 'terrorism' sounds sooo bad compared to everything else, yes they behave really bad and they kill innocent on purpose. But they are fighting for something as much as a state/nation using regular war methods. they (terrorists) just don't have the money/possibilities to do it in a fair way.

You are entitled to that opinion, of course. The definitions are not designed to equate any moral or ethical standard to any of the words - they are merely, as stated, to define them.

Coercion is most likely the key aspect of terrorism that creates such a division between debaters in the moral sense. But I am not about to speculate on whether or not it is moral, only to define what it is. Whether I see it as moral/immoral is a subjective issue, but as you see, I am trying to avoid any subjectivity here.

quote:

so what i'm trying to say is that your definition of terrorism is wrong too, you see it as something plain evil without any purpose or reason. with your logic, you could use the word "state terrorism" to define a war that is not fair (due to human rights etc).

On the contrary, terrorism by definition must have a purpose or reason. I don't recall mentioning anything about evil either. There's no emotional, political, or philosophical significance attached to those definitions, and it's irrelevant to this discussion what I consider to be ethical, and it is even irrelevant what specific instances I consider to be terrorism. Failing to recognize that would be a clear instance of an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy (i.e. "your argument is incorrect because it's not consistent with your actions").

quote:

for example all those fits into isreal as well, more or less:

I'd be more than happy to discuss Israel in particular in one of the IP threads; in this case I am not going to respond because I am only trying to see if we can all agree on a definition. I'm not waving off your argument - so please keep that in mind before assuming I'm being stubborn or conceited - I'd just prefer to keep it out of this particular thread.

quote:

and i also just have to say that, a word is what you use it for not what the dictionary says...

Debate is futile unless we can agree about what we're debating.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow St Andrew makes a good point. I sometimes I get tired of listening to ppl bicker over the legal definition of a word. In the frontline Rwanda special last night they had clips of Whitehouse spokes women refusing to agree what was occurring in Rwanda was genocide because it didn't fit their narrow, legal interpretation of the word. It's like when Clinton argued the definition of sex. You pretty much can tell when someone doesn't have a leg to stand on, they fall back upon the technicalities of word definition.

I respect your opinion and I agree that in most instances it's not productive to argue about the definition of a word. But when the alternative we're faced with is neverending relativism and equivocation, those words need to be clarified. Even the definitions I posted still leave plenty of room for interpretation or debate, and I can't even see how they specifically support my argument - the only reason I bothered with this thread was to get us all on the same page.

Consistent to my first post in this thread, I am not trying to exculpate or impeach anyone or anything based on a technicality - I see this as a typical issue in as those that come up in formal debate, where one or more words are ambiguous and simply need to be clarified before the debate can continue.

As I stated to St. Andrew, any kind of debate is futile unless both sides can agree upon what they're actually debating. Since such a significant part of the debate revolves around words like war, terrorism, etc., it's hard to make any headway when everybody is using their own version of those words. And while I recognize that it's not fun to watch people argue over the meaning of a word, my intention in creating this thread was to reduce future instances of that by getting everyone to agree to something, once and for all.

Make sense?


---
I sincerely believe I've written this without any emotion or other personal opinion. I again welcome everybody to post valid objections to the definitions I concluded with, but I will say with clear conviction that I this thread serves a definite, objective and neutral purpose; and any comments on the usefulness (or lack thereof) of an objective definition or on the thread itself, while duly noted, are going to be immaterial to me unless you can come up with a better strategy.

Thank you everyone for the replies, I appreciate you all at least taking the time to read over this and think it through, even if you are not in full agreement. Perhaps, in this case, compromising on our definitions might be the lesser of two evils?

quote:

I'd be more than happy to discuss Israel in particular in one of the IP threads; in this case I am not going to respond because I am only trying to see if we can all agree on a definition. I'm not waving off your argument - so please keep that in mind before assuming I'm being stubborn or conceited - I'd just prefer to keep it out of this particular thread.

And how, exactly, are we supposed to back up our opinions if we cannot use any examples as proof?

quote:

Does everyone have their own definition of "pants"?

What a superb example DigiNut! You use the word "pants" to describe a pair of trousers etc, whereas I use the word "pants" to describe underwear. So again, thanks for the wonderful example that managed to disprove itself!

Any word or concept can be interpretated in anyway somebody wants to, especially words that are used to attatch certain preconstructed opinions about whatever it is you are describing. We all want to describe what we consider a terrorist attack as being bad (or we would not use the word terrorism in the first place)

Its like the new off side rule where players are only off side if the referee interpretates thew rules that way. We have a rule, but it is down to the referee to use that rule to judge whether a player is interfering with play or not - and that will change with every referee in the game!

quote:

I have provided logical evidence in support of my "conclusions" (if you can call them that, since I really have no "argument" to speak of in this thread).

Yes you have! You are arguing that your definition is right and everyone else's is wrong.

My dictionary says...

quote:

Terrorism: Use of violence and intimidation to achieve political ends

I agree with that definition. You obviously do not. Can you explain to me why?

Yoepus is a terrorist.

At least in the eyes of the gerbils....

MrS

I had time to reread digi definition. I'll make one quick point:

quote:

So from this, I propose that terrorism: Must be: Violent and unlawful;

What do you mean by unlawful? By who's law must a terrorist be unlawful to? For example, dictators can create the worst and most unfair laws. Does breaking those "laws" make you "unlawful"? Once you are considered "unlawful" should it be used to start to build a case against you for being a terrorist?

I would also point out that both the definition of war and terrorism have been expanded to the point you can define all your enemies as terrorists and call any conflict a war. Are you familiar with the US slogan "The War on Terrorism"? Didn't you say war needs to be between two nations or states? How about "the war on drugs"?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley And how, exactly, are we supposed to back up our opinions if we cannot use any examples as proof?

No dictionary I've seen uses examples as definitions - examples are things that logically follow from a definition, but not the definition itself.

How does one "prove" a definition anyway? In order to prove anything, we need to start with something objective - an axiom, if you will - and when it comes to language issues, the only standard we have to work with is the dictionary.

Attempting to "reverse engineer" a definition on the basis of "this is, this is, this isn't, this is, etc." is almost invariably going to result in a definition that is either too broad or too narrow (or perhaps both - such as the classic "an apple is something that is round and red"). Not to mention that it also flies in the face of all principles of linguistics and the way in which languages evolve.

quote:

What a superb example DigiNut! You use the word "pants" to describe a pair of trousers etc, whereas I use the word "pants" to describe underwear. So again, thanks for the wonderful example that managed to disprove itself!

quote:

From dictionary.com: Pants: 1. Trousers. Often used in the plural. 2. Underpants. Often used in the plural.

Notice how the dictionary *cleverly* contains instances of both definitions to avoid just such an issue. The actual meaning of the word, therefore, depends on its context, but still must fit into either (1) or (2).

quote:

Any word or concept can be interpretated in anyway somebody wants to, especially words that are used to attatch certain preconstructed opinions about whatever it is you are describing. We all want to describe what we consider a terrorist attack as being bad (or we would not use the word terrorism in the first place)

Once again, however, I haven't attached any moral or ethical significance to these words. The "preconstructed opinions" are independent of the words themselves, and indeed must be independent in order to have any kind of logical debate.

Nowhere did I mention "bad" in my definition of "terrorist" - that is up to the person reading it to decide. The point - as I seem to have repeated several times now - is to come up with a concrete definition that precludes any emotional reaction, so that we can all be on the same page.

quote:

Its like the new off side rule where players are only off side if the referee interpretates thew rules that way. We have a rule, but it is down to the referee to use that rule to judge whether a player is interfering with play or not - and that will change with every referee in the game!

That is interesting, for sure, but I fail to see how it is in any way analogous to the current situation?

quote:

Yes you have! You are arguing that your definition is right and everyone else's is wrong.

Ah, but that is where you're wrong! The operative word here is "your" - but these are not "my" definitions, they come from well-known dictionaries which anyone and everyone is free to view for themselves!

quote:

My dictionary says... quote: Terrorism: Use of violence and intimidation to achieve political ends I agree with that definition. You obviously do not. Can you explain to me why?

Please identify your source.

Fallacy: Anonymous Authority

quote:

The authority in question is not named. This is a type of appeal to authority because when an authority is not named it is impossible to confirm that the authority is an expert. However the fallacy is so common it deserves special mention.

Please and thank you.

quote:

Pants: 1. Trousers. Often used in the plural. 2. Underpants. Often used in the plural. Notice how the dictionary *cleverly* contains instances of both definitions to avoid just such an issue. The actual meaning of the word, therefore, depends on its context, but still must fit into either (1) or (2).

I noticed you *cleverly* left out another defintion of the word pants:
3. To breathe rapidly in short gasps, as after exertion.

"My dog pants on hot days after a run around the block."

you don't look so clever now do you.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow What do you mean by unlawful? By who's law must a terrorist be unlawful to? For example, dictators can create the worst and most unfair laws. Does breaking those "laws" make you "unlawful"? Once you are considered "unlawful" should it be used to start to build a case against you for being a terrorist?

Ah, very good question, now we're getting somewhere!

The simple answer to your question would be that this is where the definition ends and the debate begins. There is no definition of "unlawful" that is specific enough to put everybody on the same page.

All I can say is that unlawful IS lumped together with violent, so we wouldn't be talking about just *any* law. It would have to be a law against some sort of violent act, and not a law against, say, brushing one's teeth. Whether or not that law is fair/moral is a different question, so perhaps there might be some instances where terrorism is justified? (Mind you that's just food for thought, not necessarily my personal opinion).

But whose law are we talking about? Your guess is as good as mine. It's going to depend on the context, most likely. Hopefully, we as debaters can find some well-established law as opposed to making up our own.

quote:

I would also point out that both the definition of war and terrorism have been expanded to the point you can define all your enemies as terrorists and call any conflict a war. Are you familiar with the US slogan "The War on Terrorism"? Didn't you say war needs to be between two nations or states? How about "the war on drugs"?

Indeed, and if you want my personal opinion, those "wars" are a load of bull honkey.

The definitions of war and terrorism have indeed been expanded, up to a point which I fear the words are beginning to lose all concrete meaning, and that is why I've been trying to narrow it down again, so we don't fly off the handle arguing about what is terrorism/war and what isn't. Of course there's always a subjective component but we would like to minimize that.

So, to make a long story short (man I've been using those words too much lately), I am not really disagreeing with you and I think perhaps we are finally in the same hockey rink here. (but maybe that's just wishful thinking?)

Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow I noticed you *cleverly* left out another defintion of the word pants: 3. To breathe rapidly in short gasps, as after exertion. "My dog pants on hot days after a run around the block." you don't look so clever now do you.

Quiet you, I was trying to simplify. I was talking about pants as a noun not a verb.

quote:

Notice how the dictionary *cleverly* contains instances of both definitions to avoid just such an issue. The actual meaning of the word, therefore, depends on its context, but still must fit into either (1) or (2).

You totally missed the point didn't you? Either because you aren't the brightest spark or you're doing it on purpose? Trousers are not underwear. My definition of 'pants' is underwear, not trousers. In 'my definition', pants does not mean trousers. No amount of arguing will ever change that fact.

I have found a website (Link) that links 20 definitions of the term 'terrorism'. I only disagree with two of them.

Bartleby.com says terrorism is: "Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion. Israel has been a frequent target of terrorism, but the United States has increasingly become its main target"

Encarter says: "Terrorism, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or�equally important�the threat of violence. These violent acts are committed by nongovernmental groups or individuals�that is, by those who are neither part of nor officially serving in the military forces, law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, or other governmental agencies of an established nation-state."

However, Encarter then contradicts itself when it says: "The word terrorism was first used in France to describe a new system of government adopted during the French Revolution (1789-1799). The regime de la terreur (Reign of Terror) was intended to promote democracy and popular rule by ridding the revolution of its enemies and thereby purifying it. However, the oppression and violent excesses of the terreur transformed it into a feared instrument of the state"

The fact that the origins of the word are from the actions of a state suggests that, funily enough, states can commit terrorism.

I agreed with all other 20 definitions. None of them stated that terrorism could not be committed by a state, and none of them had anything to say about the size of the terrorists or their targets.

Of special interest to you will be this definition (Link). It includes a few paragraphs dedicated to the problems of definig terrorism.

Here are some quotes...

quote:

A definitive description of terrorism and terrorists is difficult because the only definition all those who have a political interest in the subject would probably agree on is that "Terrorism is something you do but I don't".

quote:

There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism

quote:

State terrorism is a term refering to acts which fit some definition of terrorism but are committed by an official state military or are sponsored by a sovereign government. According to Spanish judge Baltasar Garz�n, "State terrorism is a political system whose rule of recognition permits and/or imposes a clandestine, unpredictable, and diffuse application, even regarding clearly innocent people, of coercive means prohibited by the proclaimed judicial ordinance. State terrorism obstructs or annuls judicial activity and transforms the government into an active agent in the struggle for power." Israeli actions against the Palestinian population are sometimes cited an example of state terrorism. In defending Israel's hostilities, dissenters deny the label of terrorism, claiming that because innocent bystanders are not the intended target, and the targets are terrorists and potential terrorists, that the definition of terrorism doesn't qualify.

quote:

He and others argue that it is used not to describe a type of behavior, but as a label to demonize a perceived enemy in terms that convey moral repulsion and outrage

(What I was saying about the "preconstructed opinions" attatched to the word terrorism (which again you totally missed the point of)

You said...

quote:

Nowhere did I mention "bad" in my definition of "terrorist" - that is up to the person reading it to decide

I was talking about the word terrorism, not your definitions (or interpretations of)

I think you should read all of that article on terrorism from the link above and pay special attention to the diferent types of terrorism at the bottom (and look at the example of state terrorism)

(BTW, my dictionary is Collins, and that definition is no different than any other dictionary)

George excellent link another quote that more concisely describes my opinion of the word terrorism

quote:

The use of the term terrorism or terrorist is politically weighted, because of the universally negative connotation of harming civilians. A nation that supports terrorism may then tend to dissociate itself from the term, by using neutral or even positive terms to characterize its combatants �such as fighters or freedom fighters �both of which are ambiguous terms for describing terrorist actors.

That link pretty much puts an end to diginut's belief that there is a universal definition. It also puts to rest a lot of the things that have been debated here on this subject. Many ppl in this forum have tunnel vision on this subject and can only think of terrorism in terms of the I/P conflict.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You totally missed the point didn't you? Either because you aren't the brightest spark or you're doing it on purpose? Trousers are not underwear. My definition of 'pants' is underwear, not trousers. In 'my definition', pants does not mean trousers. No amount of arguing will ever change that fact.

Again with the insults, eh? No offense, but you'd be booted out of a formal debate in a matter of seconds.

I didn't miss your point, I stated that (and provided a logical argument for why) it was not a valid one.

quote:

I have found a website (Link) that links 20 definitions of the term 'terrorism'. I only disagree with two of them.

Here are 10 other definitions from the source you posted, excluding the two that you disagree with (notice that one is repeated - but it actually is the result of two separate links):

• the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
  
• the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands.
  
• 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.
  
• the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes
  
• The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.
  
• The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals
  
• the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments
  
• the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.
  
• (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation (sic) or coercion or instilling fear)
  
• the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow That link pretty much puts an end to diginut's belief that there is a universal definition. It also puts to rest a lot of the things that have been debated here on this subject. Many ppl in this forum have tunnel vision on this subject and can only think of terrorism in terms of the I/P conflict.

Funny - you dismiss the authority of 10 dictionaries, but you accept as absolute the testimony coming from an anonymous-user-based encyclopedia? If that is the kind of logic I can expect from the replies to this thread, then debate really is futile.

Appeal to authority

quote:

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if: (i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject, (ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue. (iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

Wikipedia is both an instance of (i) and an instance of hearsay. It is based on the opinions of anonymous users and not on any objective fact. We could have heard that same testimony from a CNN announcer and it would have just as much authoritative power. Posting articles from Wikipedia is very much like posting links to a thread on the political forum and using someone's paragraph as an authoritative source. It is also an instance of "anonymous authority" as explained a few posts above.

That's three fallacies in one! But hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

Here's my two cents on this subject.

First of all, I agree that an objective definition of words in necessary in order to have any simile of constructive formal debate. The fallacy of equivocation and "semantics wars" should be enough to convince people that though a word may be particularly hard to define initially, it saves a lot of time later during the actual debate and sheds clarity on the topic at hand. Analogously, it would be rather peculiar and quaint if every mathematician, for instance, had his own definition of the word derivative, and attempted to construct any formal proof for a theorem involving the concept of a derivative based on a subjective "definition" of the latter. Math would not be sitting very pretty.

Second of all, there's nothing wrong with Diginut's attempt at providing an objective definition of the word. If you don't agree with his definition, then simply state your objections and work on ammending the definition.

Regarding the main point of contention, specifically, whether terrorism can or cannot be performed by a state, I think the generally accepted definition (according to the many dictionary sources) seems to be that of a small group attacking a larger one (like a state or government). Indeed, the use of the hyphenated word "state-terrorism" or the expression "state terrorism" is a case in point. The fact that the word state is used before terrorism in the same word/expression points to the fact that the word terrorism does not include, in it's definition, the concept of state. Otherwise, the linguists would not have deemed it necessary to create such a word/expression.

Having said all of that, Diginut, your distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist is still hazy to me. You mention:

quote:

A freedom fighter is fighting directly against a government, in an attempt to destroy or overthrow that government. A terrorist does not directly fight that government but rather tries to coerce them. The difference is thus the goal of these two people: the freedom fighter wants to gain power or at least destroy the power of someone else, but the terrorist is only interested in having his demands met. The key difference is coercion, and this variation does indeed make them mutually exclusive

By fighting directly against a government, do you mean ONLY attacking government (or military) targets as opposed to other targets; because you could be fighting a government by coercing them. Thus your intent would be to fight the government, but the means used to fight this government might not be directed specifically at government targets. I assume I'm not sure how to interpret your use of "directly" in your clarification.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus By fighting directly against a government, do you mean ONLY attacking government (or military) targets as opposed to other targets; because you could be fighting a government by coercing them. Thus your intent would be to fight the government, but the means used to fight this government might not be directed specifically at government targets. I assume I'm not sure how to interpret your use of "directly" in your clarification.

Good question. And I know we disagree on several issues so I'm glad to see more rational debate here.

((blah, I wrote a longer post but I'm trying to keep this simple, because if I can't explain it with simple logic then it's useless to begin with)).

Here is the logical sequence I follow:

• A freedom fighter is engaged in "resistance" against a government, which is a physical opposition to that government (not things loosely associated with the government, or its people, but the government itself, as the definition states).
  
• The end result of a resistance must be one entity "breaking through" - i.e. the destruction or damaging of the other entity.
  
• By definition, a terrorist wishes to coerce a government into having his demands met.
  
• But in order for the government to meet his demands, the government must continue to exist in its full capacity.
  
• Thus the eventual result of terrorism and "freedom fighting" are incompatible - if the government is removed or damaged, it cannot grant any demands.
  
• Therefore, one's simultaneous existance as a terrorist and freedom fighter is incompatible.

Hmmm...I see some slight problems in your clauses. The logic deduction might be fine, but your clauses still allow for gaps that are too large for comfort.

You state:

quote:

By definition, a terrorist wishes to coerce a government into having his demands met. But in order for the government to meet his demands, the government must continue to exist in its full capacity.

But you also state:

quote:

A freedom fighter is engaged in "resistance" against a government, which is a physical opposition to that government (not things loosely associated with the government, or its people, but the government itself, as the definition states). The end result of a resistance must be one entity "breaking through" - i.e. the destruction or damaging of the other entity.

For the moment, let's ignore what constitutes "government" (is the army part of the government, or is that a loose association?)

Now let's take a hypothetical example where group A has, as it's final intent, the destruction of a specific (oppressive) government, but that does NOT engage in physical opposition to that government and instead, attacks a loose association of that government (like it's people for instance). Then technically, this group A could not be qualified as a freedom fighting group because it violates your first clause, but similarly, could not be qualified as terroristic because it's intent is not to coerce the government but eliminate it. As you well know, MANY groups would fall in this category, and thus, the attempt at defining terrorists versus freedom fighters using your above clauses doesnt succeed very well since you are leaving out a rather large group.

Note that in this case, I am entitled to bring up a hypothetical example to justify my position since we are working on a definition of the term (and definitions are intended to label/categorize certain things/events), and leaving out such large groups of organizations would threaten to innocuate the actual word which would defeat the entire purpose of the exercise to reach some "healthy" definition of the word.

EDIT/ I just saw:

quote:

I can see only one instance where the two terms are logically compatible, and that would be when the terrorists' demands are specifically to be given permanent governmental power/authority.

Not necessarily, since they would not be freedom fighters IF their means to achieve these demands include attacking non-government targets, thus violating your first clause.

quote:

Here are 10 other definitions from the source you posted, excluding the two that you disagree with (notice that one is repeated - but it actually is the result of two separate links):

DigiNut!!!!!! What the hell are you on about?! Only one of those definitions ("The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals") says terrorism is against Governments! (And even that one doesn't say a government cant do it!) None of the other definitions YOU posted says that terrorism cannot be committed by governments! Go to school mate!

quote:

Almost all of them agree that terrorism is violent, systematic, for political or ideological or religious reasons (i.e. opposed to a government or power), having specific goals, and most importantly, intended to bring about change by a means of coercion or intimidation;

Yes, they do dont they?

quote:

Most say that terrorism does not have to be violence against people, and also say that it can be the mere threat of violence;

Well done, maybe your English skills aren't as bad as I earlier thought?

quote:

Almost none of them say that terrorism is committed by a group that is oppressed or committed as a last resort.

Hey, my faith in your understanding-what-you've-read skills is finally being restored!

quote:

About half of them say that terrorism is committed against civilians

Yep, you've done it again! You've successfully understood what you have read! Well done mate your parents will be so proud! You may be ready for Spot the Dog next!

quote:

Are we, then, to construct our arguments debates using definitions that fell out of common use hundreds of years ago, in the 18th century?

Er..who says any definition of terrorism has "fallen out of use"?

quote:

In fact, I never even personally argued that state terrorism was impossible - I only logically deduced that the idea of a government committing terrorism against its own people would be a paradox, and you failed to present any refutation of that logic

If you've already picked it up, I suggest you put Spot the Dog back on the shelf!

Where oh where has this stupid idea that states cannot commit terrorism on their own people?! Please dont tell me to go back and look at what you wrote earlier cos I have and I still dont get it. You say states cannot coerce its own civilians...explain this funny idea to me please

quote:

The "word" terrorism is not a "bad word", nor does its definition imply "bad"

Yes it is and yes it does! It is a word that describes an action. Lots of other words could be used to describe an act of terrorism or to describe a terrorist (eg Freedom Fighter which has positive implications, but it is the same person doing the same acts)

Here's a good article from the Guardian highlighting to you what I have been trying to tell you the last few days! (Link)

And one from the UN (Link) who tell us that for around 60 years states have been trying to come up with a definition and no-one can agree! (And you think people from tranceaddict can do it!)

ABCNews (Link)

And I shall finish with the Washington Post (Link)

So you see (well, you probably dont but I shall finish my sentence) that there is NO ONE SINGLE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM that anyone in the world has agreed on!

One thing that is apparent, is that people will use definitions of terrorism to suit their own political beliefs. You accuse me of doing it so I can define Israel as a terrorist, and I can accuse you of doing it because you support Israel and therefore cannot agree that states can be guilty of terrorism (as, like I keep telling you, the word terrorism has negative preconstructed opinions attatched to it)

quote:

(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject

Well I've got a politics degree so anything I say carries considerably more weight than anything you say (unless of course you also have similar qualifications?)

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus

^^ heh, yes, I see your point, and obviously a hypothetical example is valid since the intent here was to leave out any real examples.

I think we can define government broadly enough to include military/army. Technically it's not part of the government itself, but it is very tightly associated with it. I see no inherent logical contradiction with a freedom fighter waging attacks on a military.

Now I am not sure I agree with you that it's very common to attack an entity or group of entities that are loosely associated with the government (like its constituents) with the intention of destroying that government; mainly because attacking loosely associated entities could not possibly accomplish that objective unless the government said "okay, we're stepping down, you now have rule of the country/state". Attacking non-governmental property or people is more suited to having demands granted but not destroying the government itself. Of course, we are talking in hypotheticals here and I understand that, and I suppose the former case is possible, but it seems like it would be a pretty unsuccessful ideology.

Nevertheless, it's a possibility, and if a violent group attacked civilians with the hope of somehow destroying their government (maybe they are hoping that those civilians would revolt against the government, instead of retaliating against the violent group?), then they technically would not be terrorists under this definition. That's what I call getting off on a technicality, are you a lawyer by chance? Mind you, this wouldn't be much different from ordinary criminals committing those acts for no specific purpose at all.

Hey I never said that there weren't loopholes in the definitions. I'd still conclude that freedom fighting and terrorism are mutually exclusive ideologies, but that in no way prevents the existence of a third ideology with elements of the first two that doesn't fit into the definition of either one.

I would call military government though, which might account for many of the cases you were thinking of.

You say:

quote:

Now I am not sure I agree with you that it's very common to attack an entity or group of entities that are loosely associated with the government (like its constituents) with the intention of destroying that government; mainly because attacking loosely associated entities could not possibly accomplish that objective unless the government said "okay, we're stepping down, you now have rule of the country/state". Attacking non-governmental property or people is more suited to having demands granted but not destroying the government itself. Of course, we are talking in hypotheticals here and I understand that, and I suppose the former case is possible, but it seems like it would be a pretty unsuccessful ideology.

Oh but it's very possible Two different "hypothetical" examples come to mind, one involving the destruction of the state itself, and one involving the "destruction" of that specific government.

Example 1: For instance, assume that group A has as it's intent the destruction of the (oppressive) state by killing every civilian in that state (i.e. the complete extermination of that state's people). That would be pretty effective at destroying the state/government if they could achieve that goal.

Example 2: Group A decides to hit non-government targets in the hope of causing fear, panic etc in people's minds and hearts, thus prompting these civilians to turn against their government by physical means (revolts, revolutions etc, as you mentioned...) or by constitutional means (voting them out of power). To me, group A could claim to have achieved their goal of "destoying" that government since a new government is now in place. Granted, that's a loose interpretation of destroyed, but I think still valid.

Now the point I'm trying to make is that clearly, group A NOT being labeled as terrorists (or freedom fighters) and as part of some newly defined third category for the sake of sticking with the above clauses/definitions is not very reasonable. Instead, a more reasonable approach would be to ammend the clauses/definitions in order to include this (very real) group as part of either the freedom fighter or terrorist category. Coming up with a new word for this group is unecessary (since the clauses could easily be ammendable), and in my opinion, would simply add to the confusion in the actual debates, something that this entire exercise was meant to avoid.

George:

States can commit terrorism: it's called state terrorism. Now the fact that there is a word/expression for that specific type of terrorism implies (as I mentioned previously) that the linguists (or us) felt the need to further qualify that brand of terrorism as state terrorism, which means that the word terrorism does not include the concept of state. Furtermore, since there is no equivalent qualifier for "small groups attacking large entities (like governments)" (at least none that I'm aware of), that mean that it is probably implied implicitly in the word terrorism, thus the need to qualify terrorism by a state as state terrorism.

I know this is slightly far fetched, but it would mean that you and Diginut don't really disagree about this point since states could commit terrorism, but it would have a different expression/word than simply terrorism (i.e. would have to be qualified as state terrorism), which would simultaneously imply that terrorists are a small group attacking a larger entity.

Anyway, my two cents.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley DigiNut!!!!!! What the hell are you on about?! Only one of those definitions ("The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals") says terrorism is against Governments! (And even that one doesn't say a government cant do it!) None of the other definitions YOU posted says that terrorism cannot be committed by governments! Go to school mate!

These insults really aren't helping your case. You just can't stay cool headed for even one minute, can you?

Before I respond to the rest of this, I'd like to know where I actually stated that terrorism was against governments? I said that freedom fighters opposed governments, not terrorists.

In any event, you're still wrong! I'm not sure if you're intentionally omitting half the definitions or if you're just blind, but let me repost that list for you with the relevant terms in bold text:

• the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
  
• the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands.
  
• 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.
  
• the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes
  
• The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.
  
• The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals
  
• the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments
  
• the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.
  
• (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation (sic) or coercion or instilling fear)
  
• the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

Out of 10 definitions, 6 directly mention the term "government", and otherwise state for "political purposes." Ironic how you comment on my reading and comprehension skills.

Nevertheless, I'll repeat again that I never conjectured that terrorism must be committed against a government. That is entirely false. It is against a government, population, OR society, as defined originally. We can surmise from the definitions that it is often committed against governments, but in no way did I ever say that it was a requirement.

quote:

Yes, they do dont they? Well done, maybe your English skills aren't as bad as I earlier thought? Hey, my faith in your understanding-what-you've-read skills is finally being restored! Yep, you've done it again! You've successfully understood what you have read! Well done mate your parents will be so proud! You may be ready for Spot the Dog next!

Once again with the ad hominems. Do I need to remind you that this is an established fallacy and doesn't help your argument?

quote:

Er..who says any definition of terrorism has "fallen out of use"?

It's noted as "archaic" in WUD, that's generally a good sign that it has fallen out of common use. Since it's not included in 21 out of 22 dictionaries, I think it's safe to say that it's not used anymore.

quote:

Where oh where has this stupid idea that states cannot commit terrorism on their own people?! Please dont tell me to go back and look at what you wrote earlier cos I have and I still dont get it. You say states cannot coerce its own civilians...explain this funny idea to me please

A state cannot coerce its own civilians for political change. How is this possible? The state is what institutes the change, not the civilians.

quote:

Yes it is and yes it does! It is a word that describes an action. Lots of other words could be used to describe an act of terrorism or to describe a terrorist (eg Freedom Fighter which has positive implications, but it is the same person doing the same acts)

Freedom Fighter is not the same person doing the same acts. You've taken a great leap from the original definitions here, and one that unfortunately has left many logical fallacies and contradictions in its midst.

quote:

Here's a good article from the Guardian highlighting to you what I have been trying to tell you the last few days! (Link) And one from the UN (Link) who tell us that for around 60 years states have been trying to come up with a definition and no-one can agree! (And you think people from tranceaddict can do it!) ABCNews (Link) And I shall finish with the Washington Post (Link) So you see (well, you probably dont but I shall finish my sentence) that there is NO ONE SINGLE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM that anyone in the world has agreed on!

Thank you for stating the obvious. If there was a single definition that the entire world agreed on, then there would be no need for threads like these because we would have an official definition to go by.

Unfortunately, even the dictionaries don't agree on every detail and that's why I only included the parts that are consistent in the original definitions. Your articles also explain why it is useless to use a subjective (encyclopedic) source as opposed to an objective (dictionary) source. I'd like you to explain how a dictionary definition can be motivated by self-interest.

Your articles merely prove the existence of the same problem (equivocation) that I created this thread in order to solve. Whereas I am trying to get everybody on the same page by getting them to abide by a fair and objective definition which still leaves some room for interpretation, you just want to throw out all the objective definitions so you can use whatever version you want to satisfy your viewpoint. I won't hear of it - take your complaints to someone who cares if you have a problem with that.

quote:

One thing that is apparent, is that people will use definitions of terrorism to suit their own political beliefs. You accuse me of doing it so I can define Israel as a terrorist, and I can accuse you of doing it because you support Israel and therefore cannot agree that states can be guilty of terrorism (as, like I keep telling you, the word terrorism has negative preconstructed opinions attatched to it)

Once again, I will ask you to leave specific examples out of this thread!

If you can kindly explain to me how the definitions in this thread are anything other than objective - if you can show me how anything in this thread is out of self-interest - please go ahead and do so, otherwise, please let it go.

quote:

Well I've got a politics degree so anything I say carries considerably more weight than anything you say (unless of course you also have similar qualifications?)

Ohhhh, a politics degree, I ph33r thee. How does that make you an expert on linguistics? That's what this thread is about.

I'd also have to call into question the authority of your degree when it's obvious that you've never been in a formal debate. Here's a starter for you on parliamentary rules, including the part about defining motions, established by your very own homeland, the UK.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Oh but it's very possible Two different "hypothetical" examples come to mind, one involving the destruction of the state itself, and one involving the "destruction" of that specific government. Example 1: For instance, assume that group A has as it's intent the destruction of the (oppressive) state by killing every civilian in that state (i.e. the complete extermination of that state's people). That would be pretty effective at destroying the state/government if they could achieve that goal. Example 2: Group A decides to hit non-government targets in the hope of causing fear, panic etc in people's minds and hearts, thus prompting these civilians to turn against their government by physical means (revolts, revolutions etc, as you mentioned...) or by constitutional means (voting them out of power). To me, group A could claim to have achieved their goal of "destoying" that government since a new government is now in place. Granted, that's a loose interpretation of destroyed, but I think still valid. Now the point I'm trying to make is that clearly, group A NOT being labeled as terrorists (or freedom fighters) and as part of some newly defined third category for the sake of sticking with the above clauses/definitions is not very reasonable. Instead, a more reasonable approach would be to ammend the clauses/definitions in order to include this (very real) group as part of either the freedom fighter or terrorist category. Coming up with a new word for this group is unecessary (since the clauses could easily be ammendable), and in my opinion, would simply add to the confusion in the actual debates, something that this entire exercise was meant to avoid.

Absolutely right.

So then... what would be your recommendation for amending the definitions, without using language that makes them too narrow and/or contestable?

Well, this is how I see it:

The main distinction in my opinion between terrorists and freedom fighters is the means they use to achieve their goals.

To prove the above point, I present you with two sets of examples that highlight why the clauses/definitons you gave are not quite adequate and why the above definition helps to solve the problem and hopefully allows us to arrive at a "healthy" distinction.

Example 1: Group A hits government targets directly such as military outposts, government buildings etc (and not civilian populations) without necessarily wanting to bring the complete destruction of that government, but simply to extract certain guarantees for their people from that government, which is of course oppressing this people. This would be an example of coercion, but this would be categorized as terrorism according to your definitions, which i think is not reasonable. This sounds much more like freedom fighting to me.

Example 2: See hypothetical example i mentioned in my previous post, which would not be considered terroristic according to your definition/clauses (they would be defined as part of this new third category). Somehow, that doesnt ring true either.

What would remedy the situation and hopefully help define terrorism is the means used to achieve these ends. In other words, if group A attack ONLY government targets, whether they have as final intent complete or partial destruction of government, or extraction of guarantees, they would be labeled as freedom fighters.

If their methods involve direct targeting of non-government elements to achieve their goals, then they are to be considered terrorists.

The logic is as follows:

1) Definitions are meant to label things/events in order to give clarity to certain concepts of interest that are discussed or debated.
2) In order to give clarity to these concepts, they must be "healthy" enough to include enough relevant content to the discussion at hand without becoming too vague.
3) Examples 1 and 2 are relevant contents to the discussion at hand
4) Therefore acts performed in examples 1 and 2 must be included in the definition of interest.
5) One good way (perhaps not the only one) that would take care of point 4) (without compromising other potentially relevant examples from being excluded)is to create a distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist based on means to achieve goals.

Here's an interesting article with some merit to it:
http://www.therationalradical.com/d...-definition.htm

It might actually help you and George come to terms

I can't possible hope to comment on the 1 page of posts since I last replied. I like to pose a scenario on the issue of terrorism vs. state-terrorism.

Let's say we could agree Palestinians (not a state) vs. Israel (state), meets the definition of terrorism. What would happen if the Palestinians were granted statehood and continued same terrorist tactics? Now we have a State vs. State, so do the same actions then become not terrorism because it doesn't meet the definition, or would we instead need to call it State-Terrorism? If we are saying we can apply terrorism to a state by simply tacking on "state-" then that opens up the possibility to label any state including Israel as state-terrorism, if it meets the definition of terrorism. Which then leads us back to what is terrorism.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.