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

Epicurus, in my previous post I didn't actually say "this is my definition of a freedom fighter", all I gave was merely a comment on the concept of freedom fighters, giving some arguements or points that you would have to consider when debating the issue. I cant give a definition of 'freedom fighter' as opposed to 'terrorist' because I dont think it is possible except from a personal perspective (but by its very nature, that definition would be rejected by many)

All I said about freedom fighters is that it is a positive buzz word that people use when they try to justify the actions of a certain group. It is just like 'terrorism' when people use it against groups they do not agree with.

If I supported Palestinian hostilities against the Israelis, I would call them freedom fighters. If I thought they were wrong, or ther methods were wrong (which I do incidently) I would label them terrorists. But my point is, whatever you call them, they have still committed the same acts...

quote:

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.

I like I like

quote:

Epicurus, in my previous post I didn't actually say "this is my definition of a freedom fighter", all I gave was merely a comment on the concept of freedom fighters, giving some arguements or points that you would have to consider when debating the issue.

'

George, I know...and I never claimed that you did...I was simply illustrating why those arguments aren't very good (in my opinion of course)...but the main point you raise is still valid.

George, I'm just going to ignore most of the ad hominem you posted, and try to get this discussion back on track without all the subjectivity and moralizing:

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley 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...

That is simply not correct. I never claimed this. I said it is not logical to assume that an entity is included in the definition because it isn't specifically excluded. That is nothing more than argumentum ad ignorantiam (i.e. argument from ignorance in the form of "it is true because you cannot prove that it is false"). But in your case, not only is this argument fallacious in nature, but even the fallacious part is false because it can be proven false! By twisting this argument into the form you've described it as, you are denying the antecedent, another very common fallacy I see from you.

Does it bother you that I identify so many fallacies in your logic? Then stop using them, please.

Simply stated, we cannot make any judgments from the definition alone on whether or not a government can commit terrorism on its own citizens (and again, you are consistently ignoring that against its own citizens component). What we can do, however - and all that we can do - is to come up with a hypothetical example of a government committing terrorism and show that it is logically impossible for it to fit the definition.

Thus, if you wish to define a state terrorism, that is fine, but it must be wholly separate from terrorism itself, and not using terrorism as any kind of "umbrella term."

So far, almost none of your posts to me have been absent an ad hominem attack - frustrated or not, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you aren't capable of a proper logical debate. Everything must be subjective for you. Unfortunately, a proper debate must make use of logical arguments, not a shred of which exists in any of your posts in this thread.

Parts of this definition do not support my "side" of the argument with respect to IP debates in any way or form whatsoever. If anything, they indicate that terrorism might not always be immoral in some instances, which only serves to weaken my position in many of these debates. However, it is an objective definition and that is ultimately what we need in order to have a useful debate.

So thus it would be premature if not patently false to say that my "standing by my convictions" is the problem with this thread - rather, the problem is that you refuse to back down even after your logic has been proven to be, at best, riddled with fallacies. You simply won't accept any definition which even slightly disagrees with your personal moral view of world affairs, because apparently you believe that by virtue of your political degree, you are the supreme authority on this topic.

But with all your vast knowledge of politics and world affairs, you seem to be lacking even an elementary-school-level education in logic. I continually identify fallacies in your reasoning and you continually shrug it off as if it were meaningless. Once again, this proves nothing other than the fact that debating with you is a colossal waste of time.

Now please try to spend a little more time thinking things through and a little less time ranting and raving.

Epicurus: while I understand and appreciate your point about moral vs. objective definitions, I think it is safe to say that in a debate, we need the objective definition if we are to keep the debate in "good order." And on that same note, we can't simply pull an objective definition out of thin air, we need to work with the material we already have (i.e. the dictionary/dictionaries).

While I respect everybody's personal beliefs in a personal way, I don't think it does anyone any good to have people run off at the mouth with their own definitions in a debate. If you want to say, a state which violently oppresses its citizens is immoral, then okay, you're entitled to that opinion and I agree! But if you want to say a state which violently oppresses its citizens is terrorist, that is NOT an opinion but rather a patently false deduction that ignores the real meaning of the word in question.

DigiNut...

What is state-terrorism? Is there such a concept?

By the way, you never told me where your idea that terrorism had to be for political change came from...care to explain?

quote:

Epicurus: while I understand and appreciate your point about moral vs. objective definitions, I think it is safe to say that in a debate, we need the objective definition if we are to keep the debate in "good order."

I understand where you're coming from...as I said, I need to think about it...As you can tell by my thread, I need to think a couple of things through...

quote:

But if you want to say a state which violently oppresses its citizens is terrorist, that is NOT an opinion but rather a patently false deduction that ignores the real meaning of the word in question.

I don't know if I speak only on my behalf or also on George's here (as I am too lazy right now to go and see George's specific opinion here), but the word for a state oppressing their own citizenry is "oppression". HOWEVER, a state can "terrorize" OTHER people or populations (not the state's own people), which is the way I uderstand state terrorism. Now I don't know where George falls exactly, but perhaps that might be his point of contention.

Oh, and the only reason I went through those definitions and proved to you that they do not exclude governments was because you kept on saying that by definition, governments cannot commit acts of terrorism.

However, nobody is arguing that because they are not excluded, this is the reason why they can commit terrorism.

The reason people believe states can commit terrorism is because WE CAN PROVIDE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS COMMITTED BY STATES/GOVERNMENTS THAT CAN FIT INTO THE DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM WE HAVE SEEN IN THIS THREAD

(I do not expect you to answer any of the points I have raised, or if you do you will twist what you have read, as per usual, into your own little views, but if you do respond to anything, please respond to the capitals please...)

quote:

I don't know if I speak only on my behalf or also on George's here (as I am too lazy right now to go and see George's specific opinion here), but the word for a state oppressing their own citizenry is "oppression". HOWEVER, a state can "terrorize" OTHER people or populations (not the state's own people), which is the way I uderstand state terrorism. Now I don't know where George falls exactly, but perhaps that might be his point of contention.

The Eskimos have hundreds of different words for snow!

There are many words to describe the same thing, in this case, we are looking at terrorism. I se no reason why DigiNut feels he has the righ to dictate to us that we can only use one word for each action or event (for example, war, oppression, genocide, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, violence). But many people will overlap many of those terms.

A state that oppresses its citizens may be called oppressive, but it can also be called authoritarian or totalitarian, in fact, it can, and is, called a great deal more, and for millions of people all over the world, one of those words is "terrorist"

quote:

A state that oppresses its citizens may be called oppressive, but it can also be called authoritarian or totalitarian, in fact, it can, and is, called a great deal more, and for millions of people all over the world, one of those words is "terrorist"

The fact that people might use different words from their vocabulary to refer to specific events/things doesn't mean they are right in using these different words. Unless two words are exact synonyms, then they are wrong.

The point is you have to show that they are synonyms. That's actually the point of contention! Otherwise, you're simply begging the question so to speak.

Fair enough...

Oppression means subjugate by cruelty or force (Collins)

The key word there I am picking up on is force

One of the key factors of 'terrorism', as stated by DigiNut in his original post is coercion

Coercion means to compel or force (Collins)

Therefore, if force is a defining characteristic of 'oppression' AND 'coercion', then oppression can be the same as coercion, and therefore, oppression can be a factor of terrorism if coercion is a factor of terrorism....

Therefore, if states can be oppressive, and if oppression is a characteristic of terrorism, then states can commit acts of terrorism...there...simple!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus I don't know if I speak only on my behalf or also on George's here (as I am too lazy right now to go and see George's specific opinion here), but the word for a state oppressing their own citizenry is "oppression". HOWEVER, a state can "terrorize" OTHER people or populations (not the state's own people), which is the way I uderstand state terrorism. Now I don't know where George falls exactly, but perhaps that might be his point of contention.

Yes, I made this point in the beginning and I still stand by it.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley DigiNut... What is state-terrorism? Is there such a concept?

It's not in the dictionary, no. We could define one, if we wanted, and if we were able to get everyone to agree upon it - I guess it would be a type of particularly violent oppression, perhaps? But we have to keep in mind, still, that state terrorism, if we choose to define it, is not the same as conventional terrorism. And besides, if we're using the term to mean something synonymous with violent state oppression, then why not just use the term violent state oppression? The only reason I can see for calling it "state terrorism" is to attempt to equate (or equivocate) the term with conventional terrorism and have them considered as moral equivalents.

However, even if you believe that state oppression and conventional terrorism are morally equivalent, that does not make it sensible to define them as equivalents, since objective definitions should be free of morality. Rather, it should be up to the individual to determine whether he or she thinks that state oppression is morally equivalent to conventional terrorism. Referring to state oppression as state terrorism solely on the basis of a belief that oppression is morally equivalent to terrorism is, well, a classic case of equivocation.

quote:

Oh, and the only reason I went through those definitions and proved to you that they do not exclude governments was because you kept on saying that by definition, governments cannot commit acts of terrorism.

I did not say by the definition alone, I said as a logical consequence of that definition, because otherwise we arrive at a logical paradox.

quote:

The reason people believe states can commit terrorism is because WE CAN PROVIDE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS COMMITTED BY STATES/GOVERNMENTS THAT CAN FIT INTO THE DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM WE HAVE SEEN IN THIS THREAD

No, the specific examples fit into *your* *subjective* definition, not the definition here, for reasons I have already explained. If we can't even come up with a hypothetical example of a government committing terrorism against its own people, how could we hope to come up with a real one? Use a hypothetical example, and show that it meets all the criteria specified in the original definition.

quote:

Fair enough... Oppression means subjugate by cruelty or force (Collins) The key word there I am picking up on is force One of the key factors of 'terrorism', as stated by DigiNut in his original post is coercion Coercion means to compel or force (Collins) Therefore, if force is a defining characteristic of 'oppression' AND 'coercion', then oppression can be the same as coercion, and therefore, oppression can be a factor of terrorism if coercion is a factor of terrorism.... Therefore, if states can be oppressive, and if oppression is a characteristic of terrorism, then states can commit acts of terrorism...there...simple!!!

Oh my god, I'm sorry but that's TERRIBLE logic!!!

You have picked one word out of each definition (force), taken it completely out of context, and stated that because both oppression and coercion involve force, they are therefore synonyms!

This is a textbook case of the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.

Try again!

Not so fast George

The main characteristic of coercion is the "extraction of a set of demands" by use of force. Oppression does not specifically have that characteristic. So your train of thought is not incorrect, simply incomplete I'd say.

In order to show that governments terrorize their own citizenry, you'd have to imagine the government coercing their own citizenry into meeting a set of specific demands. In other words, the government would want to extract certain demands from it's citizenry (or continue to threaten it with more violence). The only way I see this possible is if an oppressive government comes into power and wants to extract certain demands from it's citizenry by threatening force if they didn't meet their demands. For example, the Taleban are in power and threaten to use force on the local population if the women don't cover up. Here, the government has a set of demands it would like a certain portion of it's citizenry to meet and threatens the use of force if those demands are not met.

Let's check the definition:

1) Violent and Unlawful (check)
2) Against a population (check)
3) Intended to coerce (check)
4) Systematic (check)
5) Related to a specific set of demands (check)

That would be considered terrorizing your population. Hmmmmm...I guess I've just shown myself that states could, in certain situations, terrorize their populace. However, oppression is still not the same as terrorism, but ya...

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus In order to show that governments terrorize their own citizenry, you'd have to imagine the government coercing their own citizenry into meeting a set of specific demands. In other words, the government would want to extract certain demands from it's citizenry (or continue to threaten it with more violence). The only way I see this possible is if an oppressive government comes into power and wants to extract certain demands from it's citizenry by threatening force if they didn't meet their demands. For example, the Taleban are in power and threaten to use force on the local population if the women don't cover up. Here, the government has a set of demands it would like a certain portion of it's citizenry to meet and threatens the use of force if those demands are not met. Let's check the definition: 1) Violent and Unlawful (check) 2) Against a population (check) 3) Intended to coerce (check) 4) Systematic (check) 5) Related to a specific set of demands (check) That would be considered terrorizing your population. Hmmmmm...I guess I've just shown myself that states could, in certain situations, terrorize their populace. However, oppression is still not the same as terrorism, but ya...

Edit: forget this post, a much better argument is posted below.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus 1) Violent and Unlawful (check)

No Unlawful doesn't fit. I voiced my objection earlier. (uncheck)

quote:

2) Against a population (check)

terrorist can target anyone including the government or the military (uncheck)
do i need to site specific examples?

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow No Unlawful doesn't fit. I voiced my objection earlier. (uncheck)

Duh, how could I miss that, lol. Thanks!

If a state has a law requiring people to cover up (however unjust that law may be), then enforcing that law cannot in itself be unlawful.

Even if the law itself is said to violate some international standard of human rights, it's still not technically correct to say that their enforcement of it is illegal - it's just that the law is not just (which would fall under the category of state oppression).

And you don't need to remind me that unlawful is an ambiguous part of the definition, but as we have seen, the very fact that it is open to some logical interpretation is the critical point that enables us to move law enforcement out of the realm of terrorism. Man, why did I not think of this earlier, I wasted a lot of time in this thread coming up with other arguments...

quote:

Ah, but are these demands political in nature? I think we missed a small part there.

Fair enough, but examples can still be easily provided.
Let's imagine a certain part of the population demonstrates peacefully against it's oppressive government for the purpose of, for instance, self-autonomy for a specific region in this state. The government retaliates by threat of force if that certain part of the population does not stop demonstrating. Let's check the definiton shall we:

The acts of the government are:

1) Violent and unlawful (check)
2) Against a population (check) (in this case, part of it's own)
3) Intended to coerce (check)
4) Systematic (check)
5) Related to a set of specific demands that are POLITICAL in nature (check)

The demands of the government are political in nature here since these demonstrations for self-autonomy threaten their political grip on the country. I think we here have a case of a state terrorising it's own populace (or at least a portion of it).

/Edit: Furthermore, these demonstrations are legal let's assume since they are peaceful. Also, the government hasn't YET passed a law banning demonstrations when they were threatening to use force, so yes they are "unlawful".

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Fair enough, but examples can still be easily provided. Let's imagine a certain part of the population demonstrates peacefully against it's oppressive government for the purpose of, for instance, self-autonomy for a specific region in this state. The government retaliates by threat of force if that certain part of the population does not stop demonstrating. Let's check the definiton shall we: The acts of the government are: 1) Violent and unlawful (check) 2) Against a population (check) (in this case, part of it's own) 3) Intended to coerce (check) 4) Systematic (check) 5) Related to a set of specific demands that are POLITICAL in nature (check) The demands of the government are political in nature here since these demonstrations for self-autonomy threaten their political grip on the country. I think we here have a case of a state terrorising it's own populace (or at least a portion of it).

Yeah I know, that was kind of a crappy argument so just ignore it, hence my editing the post.

I could probably elaborate on it more, but I'd have to think about it, and the "unlawful" part is what's much more important here.

Edit to your edit: hmm, well I think we're getting into technicalities here - yes I suppose your hypothetical example is a possibility and it would be terrorism, but a more likely real-world scenario would be for that government to issue a "cease and desist" order (which intrinsically becomes law even if it is not written directly into the state law) before actually using force.

So you've found a hypothetical example, but I think it's obscure enough not to upset the definitions too much. Besides, if the populace is committing no act of violence - just demonstrating peacefully - I don't really have objections to that being called terrorism.

But you're right, I guess in very very limited instances, a state could commit terrorism. I'll have to think about this more to see if I can find any contradiction...

quote:

I could probably elaborate on it more, but I'd have to think about it, and the "unlawful" part is what's much more important here.

I know, that's why I added the edit in my previous post...
My point is that the government can violate it's own laws in circumstances where, for instance, certain things such as I mentioned in my previous post are happening quickly, and the only way to "make it stop" so to speak is to threaten use of force (presumably until, if they can, ban "legally" that thing that is happening).
Yes far fetched, but still possible

quote:

quote: 2) Against a population (check) terrorist can target anyone including the government or the military (uncheck)

Ya I know, but they can also attack a population, thus my check. Please uncheck your uncheck back to a check
Good point though on the unlawful.

quote:

But you're right, I guess in very very limited instances, a state could commit terrorism. I'll have to think about this more to see if I can find any contradiction...

Good I'm glad Take a break from this thread and go work on your responses in the gay marriage thread...I'm still waiting for your reply and I don't have all day ...I actually need to do some real studying

Yeah, I think Epicurus is actually right, if anyone here like igottaknow can come up with sound logic to dispute his example then I'd be very impressed, because I think I'm stumped.

To use a hypothetical extension of a real example, let's imagine this were 10 years ago in Canada, when Quebec was holding referendums in order to obtain public support for becoming a sovereign nation. Of course those referendums never succeeded and Quebec is still very much a part of Canada. But...

If Quebec had voted "yes" on the referendum and actually tried to become a sovereign nation, and the federal government decided to send RCMP officers to detain all the Quebec MPPs and threaten them not to separate or else they'd be imprisoned or killed, then this logically would seem to fit all the criteria for terrorism.

Having said that, it would have to be a very stupid government to pull off something like this. If the Canadian federal government merely threatened to cut off financial support and build a concrete border around Quebec with an ordinary federal border crossing, that would not be terrorism at all, because it would be neither violent nor unlawful. Canada has full legal rights to cut off financial support to Quebec (if it became sovereign that is) and build a border on its own territory, and neither of those are violent.

So yes... I suppose state terrorism is possible with his example, unless someone can find a flaw in this. I am still looking for one... I may retract my position on this tomorrow so don't hold your breath anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Not so fast George The main characteristic of coercion is the "extraction of a set of demands" by use of force. Oppression does not specifically have that characteristic. So your train of thought is not incorrect, simply incomplete I'd say. In order to show that governments terrorize their own citizenry, you'd have to imagine the government coercing their own citizenry into meeting a set of specific demands. In other words, the government would want to extract certain demands from it's citizenry (or continue to threaten it with more violence). The only way I see this possible is if an oppressive government comes into power and wants to extract certain demands from it's citizenry by threatening force if they didn't meet their demands. For example, the Taleban are in power and threaten to use force on the local population if the women don't cover up. Here, the government has a set of demands it would like a certain portion of it's citizenry to meet and threatens the use of force if those demands are not met. Let's check the definition: 1) Violent and Unlawful (check) 2) Against a population (check) 3) Intended to coerce (check) 4) Systematic (check) 5) Related to a specific set of demands (check) That would be considered terrorizing your population. Hmmmmm...I guess I've just shown myself that states could, in certain situations, terrorize their populace. However, oppression is still not the same as terrorism, but ya...

Your falling onto the same trap as DigiNut by implying that for someone to be coerced, they must be forced to change their actions. This does not have to be the case at all. An oppressive state can coerce its citizens into not changing their behaviour (for example, in an oppressive state the people will obviously be striving for a change, or more of a say in the politics of that country, so the state can coerce the population into not striving for change, by targeting groups that are fighting for change)

Coerce to me, means forcing people to act a certain way. That does not mean forcing them to act a different way as I think it can mean forcing them to act the same way if they are opposed to that.

Therefore, I still say that coercion and oppression can be the same. A population can be coerced by oppression. Forcing people to act a certain way (coercion) will have the result of oppression. The definition(s) of terrorism merely say that coercion is one of the characteristics. DigiNut himself says that coercing a population (to act a certain way, not a different way) is a characteristic of terrorim, therefore, oppression from the state fits into that characteristic...

On the 'unlawfulness' point...

Who decides what is the law or what actions are legitimate?

If it is the state committing the crime, then obviously, they will declare that it is lawful (by definition)

However, what if that country is not a democracy? If there is no democratic legitimacy (ie the people have not voted to live by thsoe laws) then is is there a 'law' there at all? And what about when the state commits its actions in another state? Israel, for example, has no legal claim over the occupied territories (by international convention), therefore, is anything Israel does in the West Bank 'lawful'? I'm sure the Germans would have viewed the bombing of their cities during WW2 as 'unlawful'!

My point is...

Just because the oppressing state declares an action lawful or unlawful, it does not mean that we (on the outside) will view it that way...

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