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

quote:

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 meet the definition of terrorism

Yes, and that's fine. As for the definition of terrorism, see my previous post.

I don't see any problems here.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus 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

Well, you and the article both make a good point of course.

The problem is that if we abide solely by that definition, we automatically equate terrorism with counterterrorism, since both usually kill innocent people. If we take that to its logical conclusion, the only way to fight terrorism would be to either accede to terrorist demands or become a terrorist yourself.

Acceptance of that definition also raises the question of what constitutes innocent, and what constitutes a civilian. In a sense, if we throw out the dictionary definition in favour of the one in that link, we are back to square one, opening up the gate for equivocation and relativism.

Another question it brings up is how many "innocent" casualties it takes to be considered terrorism. The article says common sense, but as we have already seen, common sense seems to differ from person to person, and some people can't be expected to exercise it at all. This leads us to the same arguments.

So we can see that this isn't exactly a "healthy" definition by itself.

Here is my proposition. We keep all the original criteria, but add one criteria to terrorism:

- Must specifically target people who could not reasonably be expected to defend themselves, or their property.

This to me seems much more objective than a term like "civilian" or "innocent." It does not clash with the original definition, and it eliminates the first hypothetical case you specified.

It does not eliminate the second case you specified, but in this case I must ask, is it really required to? I do not see the necessity in having a definition of terrorism that encompasses every single act of politically-charged violence. The people in example #2 are still violent criminals, and that leaves plenty of room for moralizing, they just aren't terrorists.

Somehow I'm sure that this is going to spark a lot of debate, but remember, it was not I brought it up. I'm just trying to come to a compromise that preserves some semblance of an objective definition but more effectively highlights the difference between terrorism and other politically/ideologically-motivated violence. I think a large part of the "moral outrage" stems from that defenselessness, by the victims being either completely unarmed or completely unaware of the impending attack.

Thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow 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.

In your hypothetical example, we have state-on-state conflict. This fits snugly into the definition of war, so I have to ask, does the definition of terrorism really matter in that case?

But in case you insist on an answer, then I will summarize my previous answer to a similar question (don't worry, I fully understand that this thread has a lot of material to sift through): I only ever stated that terrorism was not an act that could logically be committed by a government on it's own people. Nothing in the definition precludes terrorism against other states/governments.

Therefore, if a non-state entity is characterized as committing terrorist acts, and that entity becomes a state and continues to commit those acts, the acts are still terrorism regardless. This, in fact, would be the ideal definition of "state terrorism".

Alright, I have a suggestion/compromise that would solve both our problems. In other words, it would maintain your definition/clauses PLUS the very important clause that you just added AND encompass my hypothetical examples which I feel MUST be included in any "healthy" definition (it could be rationalized that the attacks on Madrid were intended to "destroy the government" by making voters vote the existing government out, and according to your definition, that would not have been a terroristic attack...and yes i know I'm cheating by introducing this example but hey, if this is not a terrorist attack then what is )

The compromise is as follows:

Simply remove your previous distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist based on coercion (in your clarification):

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 -

Let's assume for now that they can both coerce governments to have their demands met or they both can have intent to eliminate them (and thus, freedom fighters need not destroy governments but can coerce them into meeting their demands and terrorists may have intent to destroy governments and need not only "coerce" governments into meeting their demands), but now introduce your new clause:

quote:

Must specifically target people who could not reasonably be expected to defend themselves, or their property.

Suddenly, the distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist is clear (since freedom fighters physically attack government targets, which obviously can protect themsleves well), and both examples are included in this definition. In example 1, group A would be freedom fighters and in example 2, they would be terrorists. In example 2, simply because they aren't "coercing" a government and want it's complete "destruction" should not allow them to "get off on a technicality".

So now, and correct me if I'm wrong, we have a pretty good objective definition of what we set out to get

By the way, the new clause is pretty nice. I will use it from now on in my (real life) arguments rather than using the term civilians

Can the definition of terrorism consider the use of the word by governments and individuals to incite, take sides or group 'others'?

I dunno, this seems to me to be the main issue on the difficulty of applying and terming a definition - as despite whatever the academic definition may truly mean. (i.e. how Russia groups all Chechens into a 'terrorist' grouping)

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Simply remove your previous distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist based on coercion (in your clarification): Let's assume for now that they can both coerce governments to have their demands met or they both can have intent to eliminate them (and thus, freedom fighters need not destroy governments but can coerce them into meeting their demands and terrorists may have intent to destroy governments and need not only "coerce" governments into meeting their demands), but now introduce your new clause: Suddenly, the distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist is clear (since freedom fighters physically attack government targets, which obviously can protect themsleves well), and both examples are included in this definition. In example 1, group A would be freedom fighters and in example 2, they would be terrorists. In example 2, simply because they aren't "coercing" a government and want it's complete "destruction" should not allow them to "get off on a technicality". So now, and correct me if I'm wrong, we have a pretty good objective definition of what we set out to get

An objective definition yes, but the problem is that coercion and intimidation are key aspects of the meaning of the word that are covered by almost all existing definitions.

If we try to take that out of the equation, we are redefining terrorism rather than simply defining it. I also need to point out that the paragraph you quoted - while it was a logical deduction from the definition - was not actually part of the definition itself, so it's hard for me to really strike it out per se (sure, I can retract my comment, but the logic is still there ).

I see where you're coming from, but I've been thinking about this more and I've come to the conclusion that the existing definition of terrorism - plus our "amendment" but still containing the "struck out" clause - actually does cover the hypothetical situation you suggested earlier.

How? Everybody keeps getting mixed up and thinking that the coercion aspect of terrorism refers to coercing the government. But this actually isn't the case. Terrorism is something which is committed for a political end, but the coercion/intimidation can be against a government or against a society or population as stipulated in the original definition.

Specifically, your examples:

quote:

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.

Let's summarize this hypothetical situation more concisely as attacks on civilians in order to prompt a regime change. Under our original definitions, even though their end goal is to remove the government, they achieve this by coercion of the population - not the government. It is still systematic, politically-motivated violence with the intent of intimidation. The only difference is who they intimidate - but intimidating an entire society is still covered by the very first definition.

quote:

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.

This was another example you stated that should be covered under our definition of terrorism, but isn't. I would argue that this should not be called terrorism. We already have a different word for this and that is genocide: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. (in this case we are talking about either national or political).

So I don't think we really need to broaden our definition of terrorism to cover that example, because it's already covered by other words that carry equally powerful (or even more powerful) moral weight.

With this in mind, would you say it might be appropriate to keep the clause you suggested striking out, while still keeping our amendment? I think it covers all the bases quite nicely.

Let's hear your thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology Can the definition of terrorism consider the use of the word by governments and individuals to incite, take sides or group 'others'? I dunno, this seems to me to be the main issue on the difficulty of applying and terming a definition - as despite whatever the academic definition may truly mean. (i.e. how Russia groups all Chechens into a 'terrorist' grouping)

I think what you're saying is that governments and other politically-motivated people will use the word to suit their own personal ends, regardless of an objective/academic definition... right?

So your question is, does the definition cover this? Clearly no, and what we're specifically trying to avoid is the "it means whatever I want it to mean" definition. Even though we can't make governments abide by our definition, at least it helps us to say "Hey, it doesn't matter whether or not Bush calls it terrorism, it's not!"

I guess in the real world, the definition of terrorism does consider its use by governments and individuals to incite, take sides, or group others. And many many words in the English language, not just terrorism, are exploited and used to manipulate people in this way, and it happens because people allow it to happen. But this isn't a good thing, and I've been hoping that with a little bit of rational discussion, we can avoid having that happen between those of us in the PF, even if we can't stop the fanatics from doing it.

I guess you slightly misunderstood me in my previous post, and I admit I wasn't extremely clear due to the fact that we were going clubbing and I needed to hurry on out of my place

At any rate, I will attempt to clarify what I meant. My objections result NOT from the original definition PLUS the new clause (I actually like it now ), but from the introduction of a specific axiom (which I will highlight shortly) that you used in order to make the original distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist, based, in my opinion, on a confusion or misinterpretation of fighting/coercing.

You quote the following:

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 - the difficulty, of course, is assessing the specific aims of the person or group being classified as a terrorist/freedom fighter.

This distinction is based on the fact that coercing and fighting are mutually exclusive (otherwise, you wouldn't have obtained your distinction). I am still not convinced that it is true. I still maintain that you can fight a government by coercing them into meeting your demands. This point of contention is more easily seen if we refer to the logic you used to make the above quote:

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. 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.

It is axiom 2 that I have beef with The end result of resistance does NOT necessarily have to be destruction or damaging of the other entity but COULD be the desire of certain demands to be met. To concretize these thoughts, assume group A is fighting an oppresive government in order to gain self-determination for their people. Assume furthermore that group A attacks ONLY military or government targets, in the hope of getting the government to meet their demands (specifically in this case, self-determination). Then technically, since their main intent is to get the government to meet their demands, this is coercion. However, this is indeed THE prototypical example of freedom fighting, as I understand it...which brings us ultimately to my initial point that you can can fight governments by coercing them.

Thus, when you quote:

quote:

I also need to point out that the paragraph you quoted - while it was a logical deduction from the definition - was not actually part of the definition itself, so it's hard for me to really strike it out per se (sure, I can retract my comment, but the logic is still there ).

my point of contention is that in fact, the above was NOT a logical deduction from the definition. Techincally, I have no problems with the logic itself, only with the axioms (specifically axiom 2) that you chose to make those logical deductions. I think you'll agree with me that the selection of axioms, in this case, depends on whether you see fighting/coercing as mutually exclusive or not (or that what freedom fighters do and what terrorists do are mutually exclusive). Because I don't, I maintain that axiom 2 is false.

Note that at this point, I have no real issue with the definitions per say, only with the way you interpret fighting/coercing (or the way you interpret what the goal of freedom fighting is). That's what I meant to express in my previous post, although admittedly, in a much more convoluted way

So in summary, the definition with the new clause is fine ...I only ask you to modify your interpretation of fighting/coercing as it relates to freedom fighting. Note that we could then agree that the MAIN difference between freedom fighting and terrorism lies in the new clause introduced to your definition, and not in coercing/fighting. I think that would agree much better with what is generally understood to be the main difference between the two. Furthermore, if you refuse to do so, I will make sure to impale you and feed you to the lions...and no that was not coercion on my part

Fair enough. So I guess what we're saying here is that:

1. Even though coercion is a defining characteristic of terrorism, there might be some limited instances in which a "freedom fighter" also attempts coercion.

2. Even though a defining characteristic of a "freedom fighter" is an oppressive government, there might be some limited instances in which a terrorist is fighting against an oppressive government also.

3. To further highlight the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, we focus on who their attacks target and their ability to defend themselves.

I see #3 as being already implicit in the definitions but I have no problem with making it explicit, if anyone thinks that will clear up confusion.

I'd also like to note that the clause as we've stated it:
Must specifically target people who could not reasonably be expected to defend themselves, or their property.
does leave room for civilian casualties, as long as the primary target is something military or otherwise defensible in nature.

Obviously, we're still left with having to use a bit of common sense; if the primary target is a single military outpost but its destruction takes millions of noncombatant/bystander casualties, it could reasonably be said that the attack did specifically target those noncombatants as well as the military outpost. But if an attack takes out 50 on-duty soldiers and 10 bystanders, it would be hard to make the case that those bystanders were actually the targets.

So... everybody on the same page then?

quote:

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

I probably could if you weren't so bloody frustrating!

quote:

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.

I can forgive you for not cottoning onto what I was getting at as I didn't explain it well. When I said "against governments" I meant not committed by governments. (ie. when I said only one of those definitions says it is against governments I mean it could be interpreted as not being committed by a government)

Still, none of the definitions states that terrorism (as defined by that dictionary) cannot be committed by a government (state). You then say that governments cannot coerce civilians into political change, and by political change you are saying governmental (you are saying how can a government coerce civilians into changin the government, right?)

But why does coercion have to be for change? Coercion merely means compel or force (from Collins). So why cant a government coerce civilans (ie oppressed civilians) into preserving the status quo? Coercion does not mean change.

Lets go through each definition and see if they can be applied to governments (seeing as you seem to have no objections to the majority of the definitions, and neither do I)

quote:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

This definition does not exclude states/goverments does it?

quote:

the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands.

This definition certainly does not! In fact, according to this definition, most terrorists would be terrorists!

quote:

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

This does not exclude governments/states

quote:

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes

This does not exclude governments/states

quote:

The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.

Hey! This excludes governments (I'm tempted to say this could include governments if they were at war, but then they would be attacking another government as well as civilians, and the definition says the target is only civilians)[/quote]

quote:

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

Few! Back to definitions that do not, by definition, exclude governments or states

quote:

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

Another definition that would mean most terrorist acts would be carried out by governments/states

quote:

(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)

This definition does not exclude governments/states

So, out of the 10, only 2 do, by definition, exclude goverments or states (and if we acknowledge the fact that those two definitions are actually the same then we have 7 that do not exclude governments compared to the 1 that does)

However, what is even more interesting about those ten definitions that you seem to have no problem with, is that none of them state that terrorism must be for political change only. In fact, none of them even mention political change at all!

quote:

A state cannot coerce its own civilians for political change. How is this possible?

Like I said, why do you equate coerce with change? No, you are entirely right, a state cannot coerce its civilians for political change (unless you can count violent revolutions such as the French, or Russian in the years after the fall of the Tzar) as they would be for changing themselves. But governments can coerce their civilians into keeping the status quo, which every oppressive government in history has done. Can you show me the definition that states that an act of terrorism must be for political change only? Or if you cant find one, can you tell me why, by definition, terrorism can only be for politcal change (coercion for political change)

quote:

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.

There is a reason you cannot accept that states can committ acts that will be considered terrorism, otherwise you would have accepted that fact as very very few of the definitions we have looked at have excluded governments from their definitions (in fact, the whole "coerce for political change" was something added by you?) Therefore, I assume there is a personal reason for this?

On the subject of the word "state-terrorism"...

If you accept that states committ terrorism, and that this is different than other forms of terrorism (which is why we stick 'state' on the front) then would it not be logical that these other forms of terrorism can be labelled "non-state-terrorism" under the same umberella as terrorism?

quote:

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.

The articles were useful to show you why this thread will never conclude in the way you want it to. We will never agree on this as nobody in the world has succeded. I agree it would be useful, but it will never happen (and I believe this is most probably due to the state vs non-state argument we are having)

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus 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.

The word "state-terorism" does not in anyway imply that the word "terrorism" cannot be applied, nor does it imply something 'different'. Its like the word 'socialism' and 'communism'. Socialism is the umberella term for a number of leftist ideologies, one of which is 'communism'.

If there is a word to describe terrorism committed by a state then it would mean that the word 'terrorism' is an umberella term under which fall a number of different forms of terrorism (like a number of different forms of socialism, like communism, anarchism or social-democracy, fall under the umberella term 'socialism')

Maybe it would be useful to seperate all forms of terrorism for our definition exersize? Just as it is useful to seperate all forms of socialism as they are not all the same...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley

Okay Georgie, we've been paying lots of attention to you, but now it's time to be quiet and let the Grown-Ups talk, okay? Now be a dear and go get us some more coffee.


(Seriously, if we are to take anything you say seriously, then police officers would be considered terrorists. Let's get back to reality here!)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The word "state-terorism" does not in anyway imply that the word "terrorism" cannot be applied, nor does it imply something 'different'. Its like the word 'socialism' and 'communism'. Socialism is the umberella term for a number of leftist ideologies, one of which is 'communism'. If there is a word to describe terrorism committed by a state then it would mean that the word 'terrorism' is an umberella term under which fall a number of different forms of terrorism (like a number of different forms of socialism, like communism, anarchism or social-democracy, fall under the umberella term 'socialism') Maybe it would be useful to seperate all forms of terrorism for our definition exersize? Just as it is useful to seperate all forms of socialism as they are not all the same...

very well said.

George, you are totally right when you quote:

quote:

The word "state-terorism" does not in anyway imply that the word "terrorism" cannot be applied, nor does it imply something 'different'.

That was my mistake...in my haste, i failed to note that it obviously makes more sense that a word COULD indeed contain a concept that is explicitly being "brought out" by the use of a "prefix", such as state, to denote that specific concept (amongst many it is assumed) contained within that word. In fact, if terrorism did refer to small groups attacking large ones ONLY, then the addition of state in front of it to make this new word/expressopm would be in effect paradoxal. So valid point and well-said.

On a different note, and perhaps off topic here, I don't agree with your analogy (at all). Socialism does NOT include communism and does NOT refer to the umbrella of left wing ideologies. Although this term "socialism" has many different connotations, I understand it as the third stage of "human progress" in Marx's Manifesto, as opposed to his last or fourth state: communism. As you probably know, Marx's political theory was based on Hegelian philosophy, which was based on the concept of "progress". Socialism was merely the stage to be attained by human society before they reached the last stage, communism. They are completely distinct and most definitely, socialism does NOT include communism. I'm sure you already know all this so I won't go into detail as to what each one refers to specifically. If on the other hand, you wish to point out that in today's vernacular, socialism is used as the subsuming label of all left wing ideologies, then the vernacular is wrong

quote:

1. Even though coercion is a defining characteristic of terrorism, there might be some limited instances in which a "freedom fighter" also attempts coercion. 2. Even though a defining characteristic of a "freedom fighter" is an oppressive government, there might be some limited instances in which a terrorist is fighting against an oppressive government also. 3. To further highlight the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, we focus on who their attacks target and their ability to defend themselves.

Exactly my point, in a much more succint way.

quote:

I see #3 as being already implicit in the definitions but I have no problem with making it explicit, if anyone thinks that will clear up confusion.

It is implicit in the definitions upon the addition of the new clause. My intentions were not to make it explicit, simply HIGHLIGHT that this now becomes the main distinction (by deduction from the definition, thus it is implicit) between freedom fighting and terrorising, as opposed to what you originally postulated (coercing versus fighting). So as long as the new clause is included, I have no issues with it's implicit nature.

quote:

I'd also like to note that the clause as we've stated it: Must specifically target people who could not reasonably be expected to defend themselves, or their property. does leave room for civilian casualties, as long as the primary target is something military or otherwise defensible in nature.

Totally agreed with, and never claimed the contrary.

So yes, in conclusion, we are on the same page.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I probably could if you weren't so bloody frustrating! I can forgive you for not cottoning onto what I was getting at as I didn't explain it well. When I said "against governments" I meant not committed by governments. (ie. when I said only one of those definitions says it is against governments I mean it could be interpreted as not being committed by a government) Still, none of the definitions states that terrorism (as defined by that dictionary) cannot be committed by a government (state). You then say that governments cannot coerce civilians into political change, and by political change you are saying governmental (you are saying how can a government coerce civilians into changin the government, right?) But why does coercion have to be for change? Coercion merely means compel or force (from Collins). So why cant a government coerce civilans (ie oppressed civilians) into preserving the status quo? Coercion does not mean change. Lets go through each definition and see if they can be applied to governments (seeing as you seem to have no objections to the majority of the definitions, and neither do I) This definition does not exclude states/goverments does it? This definition certainly does not! In fact, according to this definition, most terrorists would be terrorists! This does not exclude governments/states This does not exclude governments/states Hey! This excludes governments (I'm tempted to say this could include governments if they were at war, but then they would be attacking another government as well as civilians, and the definition says the target is only civilians) Few! Back to definitions that do not, by definition, exclude governments or states Another definition that would mean most terrorist acts would be carried out by governments/states This definition does not exclude governments/states So, out of the 10, only 2 do, by definition, exclude goverments or states (and if we acknowledge the fact that those two definitions are actually the same then we have 7 that do not exclude governments compared to the 1 that does) However, what is even more interesting about those ten definitions that you seem to have no problem with, is that none of them state that terrorism must be for political change only. In fact, none of them even mention political change at all! Like I said, why do you equate coerce with change? No, you are entirely right, a state cannot coerce its civilians for political change (unless you can count violent revolutions such as the French, or Russian in the years after the fall of the Tzar) as they would be for changing themselves. But governments can coerce their civilians into keeping the status quo, which every oppressive government in history has done. Can you show me the definition that states that an act of terrorism must be for political change only? Or if you cant find one, can you tell me why, by definition, terrorism can only be for politcal change (coercion for political change) There is a reason you cannot accept that states can committ acts that will be considered terrorism, otherwise you would have accepted that fact as very very few of the definitions we have looked at have excluded governments from their definitions (in fact, the whole "coerce for political change" was something added by you?) Therefore, I assume there is a personal reason for this? On the subject of the word "state-terrorism"... If you accept that states committ terrorism, and that this is different than other forms of terrorism (which is why we stick 'state' on the front) then would it not be logical that these other forms of terrorism can be labelled "non-state-terrorism" under the same umberella as terrorism? The articles were useful to show you why this thread will never conclude in the way you want it to. We will never agree on this as nobody in the world has succeded. I agree it would be useful, but it will never happen (and I believe this is most probably due to the state vs non-state argument we are having)

Alright, I'll give a real response to avoid this turning into a flame war, but I'm not going to waste a lot of time on it.


George, your logic is that unless an entity is specifically excluded from a given definition, then ipso facto that entity is capable of fulfilling that definition.

That logic is patently false, as there is no dictionary ever written that makes such explicit exclusions. When specific situations are encountered, common sense must be used in order to determine whether or not an entity fits the definition. My logic, which you have failed to provide a rational flaw in, clearly outlines this common sense. For the sake of convenience, I'll repeat it again.

Terrorism, by definition, aims to have demands granted by a political authority with the power to do so. If we reverse the roles, we arrive at a logical impossibility: since the government has a higher level of political authority than its own citizens, it cannot possibly coerce those citizens for a political reason. It does not matter whether the coercion would be for change or for "non-change" - in either instance, it is solely the governing body and not its citizens that are capable of providing that change or preserving that status quo.

Try to visualize this role reversal and you will understand what I am referring to. Imagine you are the terrorist, and want to have your demands granted by some specific authority. Now imagine that you are innocent and they are making these demands from you. Does this make sense? Are you capable of granting these demands?

A government may be fully capable of committing terrorism against other governments or governing bodies, but ipso facto cannot do so against its own citizens. Failing to accept this logic would make the definitions of terrorism and coercion so broad as to include traditional means of law enforcement and court proceedings.

You are looking for something specific in the definitions, but the definitions are just "first principles" - it is perfectly acceptable to use logic, as long as that logic is sound and free of fallacies, in order to make valid extensions of the definition that might exclude certain entities not excluded by the definition itself.

The word for violent and/or totalitarian governments is oppressive. NOT terrorist.

I'd imagine that the reason this is "frustrating" to you is that I am using objective logic to construct my arguments, which do not support your subjective opinions. Unfortunately, frustration doesn't make your point any more valid.

DigiNut, the reason you frustrate me so much is due to your very annoying habit of making things up to suit your argument, or, when you have realised that your back is up against the wall, totally change the rules of the game.

In the last thread you attempted o prove your worth, when me and Cyrus King totally debunked everything you had said in your post, you never replied to are arguments and facts. Then, after we had carried on the debate with other members, you mysteriously reappear! Still, you refuse to answer any of mine or Cyrus Kings arguments after your previous post, instead opting to carry on where we had taken the debate.

You never acknowledge anything anyone has said if it contradicts whats in your head, and you will never ever come to any kind of agreement with anyone (in this thread you want us to come to some kind of agreement over the definition of terrorism, but you dont, you want everybody else to agree with your definition of terrorism)

When I write a perfectly well thought out post, your (predictabally obvious) reply was this...

quote:

Okay Georgie, we've been paying lots of attention to you, but now it's time to be quiet and let the Grown-Ups talk, okay? Now be a dear and go get us some more coffee

Well bravo. What a way to win the argument and show to everyone how wonderful you are at arguing against opposing view points.

quote:

Alright, I'll give a real response to avoid this turning into a flame war, but I'm not going to waste a lot of time on it.

I might as well have stopped reading there hadn't I? It was pretty obvious you were gonna stick to your guns but I must admit I found your argument amusing.

The very amusing argument is that you claim that because the vast majority of definitions do not exclude governments, it is logical for us to exclude governments from those definitions ourselves...

And then you have the cheek to end your post with this marvelous statement...

quote:

I'd imagine that the reason this is "frustrating" to you is that I am using objective logic to construct my arguments

I was going to use a pissing-my-self-laughing smiley, but I decided it was not needed...!

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus George, you are totally right when you quote: That was my mistake...in my haste, i failed to note that it obviously makes more sense that a word COULD indeed contain a concept that is explicitly being "brought out" by the use of a "prefix", such as state, to denote that specific concept (amongst many it is assumed) contained within that word. In fact, if terrorism did refer to small groups attacking large ones ONLY, then the addition of state in front of it to make this new word/expressopm would be in effect paradoxal. So valid point and well-said. On a different note, and perhaps off topic here, I don't agree with your analogy (at all). Socialism does NOT include communism and does NOT refer to the umbrella of left wing ideologies. Although this term "socialism" has many different connotations, I understand it as the third stage of "human progress" in Marx's Manifesto, as opposed to his last or fourth state: communism. As you probably know, Marx's political theory was based on Hegelian philosophy, which was based on the concept of "progress". Socialism was merely the stage to be attained by human society before they reached the last stage, communism. They are completely distinct and most definitely, socialism does NOT include communism. I'm sure you already know all this so I won't go into detail as to what each one refers to specifically. If on the other hand, you wish to point out that in today's vernacular, socialism is used as the subsuming label of all left wing ideologies, then the vernacular is wrong

Socialism is actually the term for any ideology that advocates public ownership of property(the Labour Party in the UK, for example, are (were) socialist, but are not communist!)

This is the opening paragraphs of the definition of socialism in the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics...

quote:

A political and economic theory or system of social organisation based on collective or state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange - although, like capitalism, it takes many diverse forms, and is a continually developing concept. The actual term 'socialism' was first used in the early 1830s by the followers of Owen in Britain and those of Saint-Simon in France. By the mid-nineteenth century the word was used to denote a vast range of reformist and revolutionary ideas in Britain, Europe and the United States.

Now you can accept that, or you can reject it, but either way, it does show you what an umberella term would look like, and what I was trying to say about terrorism?

George,
I agree with your concept of an umbrella term and have already stated that. Again, regarding what you were saying about terrorism, I again agree that it could encompass both state and other elements in it (as I stated in my previous post).

Now regarding our off-topic, as I stated, socialism these days have SO many different connotations that it would not be wise to use it as an analogy to your exmaple for terrorism since it can legitimately be construed as mutually exclusive from communism.

Here's a link that reinforces your point that it was Owen and the Saint Simonites that "created" the word, but similarly points that it can be construed legitimately in the Marxist sense of the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Here's another link that gives the Marxist perspective:

http://www.artpolitic.org/infopedia/so/SocialisM.html

Having said all of this, your point would have been much better made if you referred to the umbrella term of left-wing idelogies as left wing rather than socialist, and pointed out that many different ideolgies (insert here) would fall within this umbrella term.

I know exactly where you are coming from, as it is a debate I have had many times with people who call themselves 'socislist'.

Now I would consider myself socialist as I believe in social democracy (a blend of socialist ideas with capitalist ones). However, anarchists and communists tell me that I am not socialist, as they argue that their respective ideologies are the only true form of socialism.

Socialism, like terrorism, is a buzz word that is argued and contested over. While people fight over who to label terrorists (as it is a negative buzz word), people fight over the right to call themselves socialist (and not others) as to them, socialism is a positive buzz word.

To those on the outside however, in education for example, when I studied ideology at uni, socialism was the topic that covered the ideologies I have mentioned above.

But this is quite a way off topic and it doesn't really matter as all I intended to do is give an example of an umberella term for a number of different but related terms (and I am sure that there are plenty more examples that we could agree on, like 'dog' being an umberella term for a number of related animals!)

So, back onto topic (!) would you consider the term 'terrorism' as being an umberella term for a number of different, yet related, acts?

quote:

So, back onto topic (!) would you consider the term 'terrorism' as being an umberella term for a number of different, yet related, acts?

Yes I do. Having said that, it is not a bad idea to attempt to describe what those acts would be/look like. I don't think it is impossible as such as we simply have to make sure to include certain "obvious" acts and situations as part of this umbrella term in order to get a "healthy" definition that we can agree to. Furthermore, we have to make sure to distinctly seperate it from freedom fighting (which is what most interests me, and I therefore spent considerable amounts of time debating this until it was agreed to include an ammendment in Diginut's definition to make that distinction clear). In my opinion, the final definition that Diginut has come up with is pretty good as it is wide enough to include many forms of violence we understand as terrorism, including "state terrorism". For instance, I've taken Israel as an example and applied the definition to it, and low and behold, they are a terrorist state at best or a state intent on ethnically cleansing a population at worst Of course, we're not supposed to give live examples here, so I'll give my justification in another thread

The only problem is, that altho I have had no objections to the vast majority of definitions I have seen, including the one's DigiNut has posted (and we both seem perfectly able to see that those definitions could quite easily be applied to the actions of a state) there is no chance whatsoever, even tho actions of a state can (and have, as you pointed out) be applied to any of those definitions, that DigiNut will ever accept that there is such a concept as "state-terrorism" that actually is a form of terrorism.

(And I dont see what right DigiNut has to order us not to use examples as it is a perfectly reasonable way for any of us to back up our views and apply them to real life actions)

Here's my two penneth worth on 'freedom fighters'...

I think this is an even more difficult concept to define than terrorism!

The thing is, one mans 'freedom fighter' really is another mans terrorist.

IMO, both are the same and the only difference in terms of words is who is calling them it.

For example, if we have a group of people that are oppressed by a state, those people would call their representitive 'terrorist' group "freedom fighters". They would call them that even if they did kill civilians and if you think about it, the citizens of that state (the unoppressed ones) usually support the actions of the government, and therefore, it could be argued that they become a legitimate target in the eyes of the oppressed as they would see them as supporters of the oppression.

At the same time, it is extremely easy to say that anyone who attacks innocent people is a terrorist. However, that is in our eyes. How do we know that the terrorists view the people they kill as innocent? Especially if those people support the oppression of the terrorist's people?

For me, the differene between freedom fighter and terrorist really is in the eye of the beholder...

quote:

For example, if we have a group of people that are oppressed by a state, those people would call their representitive 'terrorist' group "freedom fighters". They would call them that even if they did kill civilians and if you think about it, the citizens of that state (the unoppressed ones) usually support the actions of the government, and therefore, it could be argued that they become a legitimate target in the eyes of the oppressed as they would see them as supporters of the oppression.

With the new ammendment introduced, people who kill civilians would be called terrorists. HOWEVER, one might wish to say that in such a case, the terrorism was justified. Simply because it is COMMONLY assumed that terrorism is "bad" does not mean that it is not justified in ALL situations. So, in other words, if they kill civilians (as in the above case), they are terrorists, and then you might present a case as to why you believe this terrorism is justified. The purpose of defining terrorism was simply to categorize certain acts according to certain criteria.

Furthermore, I never really liked the argument (or similees of that argument) that you gave above:
Since people support the government, they are legitimate targets.

What about the people who don't support the government (who, for instance, didnt vote for that government). They shouldn't be legitimate targets according to what you say, but the terrorists don't know who does and doesn't support the government. Furthermore, what if I support a government and vote for it, and then an event occurs during their rule which causes them to take action that I would have opposed (and thus NOT vote for them if I knew a priori that they were going to take that stance). I can protest against it but the government might still go ahead with it. I again should not be a target but the terrorists don't know that (I'm obviously thinking of the spanish example here).

quote:

At the same time, it is extremely easy to say that anyone who attacks innocent people is a terrorist. However, that is in our eyes. How do we know that the terrorists view the people they kill as innocent?

They might not but that's not the point. If it can be shown that they are "objectively" innocent, then it doesn't really matter what the terrorists think now does it. Otherwise, this line of defence can be used by anyone to commit any crime (ex: I believe that this guy stole my car because God told me so I am going to kill him. I don't believe he's innocent because I believe in God's word. So i kill him). Obviously, something is wrong.

So you see, the problem is as follows:

You start with the assumption that terrorism is bad, and freedom fighting is not. You then realize that coming up with criteria to seperate the two based on "badness" is impossible since one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. In other words, you see certain acts that involve killing civilians, for instance, that you believe could be justified, and thus, refuse to give those organizations the "bad" label of terrorist.

I go the opposite route. I start with criteria to define both terms, and then categorize certain groups as terrorists and others as freedom fighters. Now I might believe that certain acts (such as killing of civilians under certain circumstances) are justified but I would be forced to call it terrorism and present my arguments for justifying such action.

The positive element in your approach is that you introduce the moral component into your definition as people understand the word because in common context, it's used that way. The downside is that you have no objective definition.

As for my approach, i get my objective definition but am not sitting pretty when I have to defend certain terroristic acts that I believe could be justified because of the negative stigma associated with that word. Furthermore, the word loses some of it's moral bite when I can attempt to justify it.

The entire CRUX of the argument between you and Digi, in my opinion, rests on whether you should be allowed to introduce the moral component into your definition a priori (i.e. allowed to associate it with bad). If you can, you're right, if you can't he's right. The more I think about it, the more I'm unsure as to whether that should be allowed or not, based on how definitions are created...

Yes I've confused myself I'll get back to you on that...

I said the same thing in the Yassin thread, which then lead to this thread.

I think everyone would agree that terrorism is: the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve a political or ideological objective. The term also has a negative connotation.

I don't think we can agree on a narrow definition. The real argument is over the application of the word. I doubt all of us will ever agree on who or where terrorism can be applied. The most important thing I've realized from this discussion is that definitions are creations of man to better describe the world he lives in. In reality the world and the people who inhabit it do not fit into the clean, neat boxes, that man has created.

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