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

DigiNut, can I ask you what your motivation was for starting this thread?

Shall I hazard a guess?

Well, you originally said you wanted everyone here to agree on a deinition so we could use that when discussing terrorism in other threads. I actually thought that that was it, simple as.

But I have since been forced to change that...

At first, I thought you merely had a definition in your head and wanted to impose that onto everybody else, and you thought you were gonna be able to do that by definitions (and YOUR interpretations of them).

However, your insistance that states cannot commit terrorism (even tho actions of states fit into every definition of the word) has lead me to think something else...

You have started this thread with the sole intention of defining Israel's actions so they do not get labelled terrorist, as you started this thread due to other people calling Israel 'terrorist'. You began to argue against that, and around the same time, decided to start this thread. You are a strong supporter of Israel, and have taken offence that people use the negative buzz word against it, while you see Israel in a very positive way.

I put it to you, that the motivation of this thread, which would explain your reluctance to accept (everybody else's belief) that states can commit terrorism, is purely so in future I/P threads, you can point to this thread when people start labelling Israel a terrorist state and counter those beliefs...

I dont expect you to admit that of course, but I think I shall leave it here as I have said all I have to say in a logical and coherent way, and you have chosen to ignore or belittle everything I have said. That says a lot to me about you, and has helped me to see what your real agenda actually is...I dont need to contribute to this thread any further...

George, I'm not even going to respond to your ad hominems. You're incapable of debate and you can't deal with being wrong, choosing instead to get all emotional and start hurling insults.

Seriously now, go to your room and let the grown ups talk. I hope you are serious about not "contributing" to this thread because you haven't contributed a thing so far.

Epicurus managed to come up with a perfect example of a state committing terrorism that I haven't been able to refute. That is what I call logic. You just bitch and moan. Get lost.

Of course I wasn't serious about not contributing further!

But not to the topic, as I have said all I have to say...

You say I cant admit I'm wrong...pot, kettle, anyone?

You claim I have not contributed anything to this thread. You say that because you do not agree with anything I have said! I have managed to have a good debate with others apart from you, simply because you will not back down!

quote:

Epicurus managed to come up with a perfect example of a state committing terrorism that I haven't been able to refute

I tell ya what, I seriously will leave this thread if you can admit that certain actions of the state of Israel fit into definitions of terrorism (into the definitions we have listed)...?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Of course I wasn't serious about not contributing further! But not to the topic, as I have said all I have to say... You say I cant admit I'm wrong...pot, kettle, anyone? You claim I have not contributed anything to this thread. You say that because you do not agree with anything I have said! I have managed to have a good debate with others apart from you, simply because you will not back down! I tell ya what, I seriously will leave this thread if you can admit that certain actions of the state of Israel fit into definitions of terrorism (into the definitions we have listed)...?

This thread isn't about the IP debate George, and if you can't keep that out of it, it's not my problem.

I would admit I'm wrong (as I have, in a few posts in this thread) if someone posted a logical or concrete refutation of one of my arguments. The reason I don't admit I'm wrong to YOU is because you've come up with no such logic.

You have posted nothing but insulting and emotional gibberish riddled with logical fallacies in order to prove a point that doesn't even make sense. I don't think you're in any position to be making "deals" or using the "pot, kettle" defense. I think with all your combined posts in this thread, you've covered almost the entire spectrum of logical fallacies!

I'd love to see you post your "dissertation" so I can rip it to shreds like I've done with almost all of your other posts. All of your discussion points emerge from fallacious logic that is in and of itself built on a weak foundation of personal morality.

You wouldn't survive for 5 minutes in real politics. Go home and use your political degree for what it's actually meant for - TOILET PAPER.

quote:

I'd love to see you post your "dissertation" so I can rip it to shreds like I've done with almost all of your other posts

You mean like you did in the previous I/P thread?! LOL!!! In fact, you have "ripped to shreds" none of my posts! DigiNut, you proved you know jack shit about Israel/Palestine in the previous thread, I dont think you'd know where to start with my dissertation!

Why is it that other people have acknowledged what I have said and you cannot? Despite your claims to the contrary, you haven't refuted anything I have said, and others have agreed with what I have posted (or parts of it)

How can my point not make sense when you yourself are now back tracking over what you said about it being paradoxical for a state to commit terrorism?!



Can you see that some of Israel's actions can fit into many of the definitions of terrorism that both you and I have posted? Yes, or no?

quote:

I would admit I'm wrong (as I have, in a few posts in this thread) if someone posted a logical or concrete refutation of one of my arguments

Ok, Israel demolishes civilian's homes in the occupied territories to coerce them into not pressing for independence or a greater say in the running of their lives...that fits into every definition of terrorism we have seen

quote:

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)

George I never said or implied that coercion has, as intent, the change of people. I don't really know where you got that from. Yes, my example was one where coercion had, as intent, a particular change, but in no way shape or form does that imply that I hold that as a general rule.

quote:

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.

George they are NOT the same nor does one HAVE to logically flow from the other. In other words, sure, perhaps a form of oppression COULD use coercive means, but it does not imply that EVERY instance (which is what would be required for them to be "the same") of oppression needs to use coercive means. For instance, they could simply beat the living shit out of the populace, just for kicks, without the specific desire of extracting demands (which would make it oppression but NOT coercion).

My point is simple:

IF oppression is true, then coercion does not NECESSARILY have to be true. IF it did, then you'd have a point. However, I NEVER discounted the possibility that oppression could not occur through coercive means. Only that it does not NECESSARILY have to (which was our point of contention, because that would make them NOT the same).

Anyway, if what I just clarified is what you originally meant, then we're on the same page.

quote:

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...

Good and valid point, but one that can be addressed when the time comes to agree (perhaps) to a set of laws, either universal (such as international law) or laws within the context of the conflict. Specifically, in the case of I/P, I like using international law, because as you mentioned, they don't have "legal" rights over the occupied territories, and so, the application of some international standard of law would be the best.

Furthermore, I didn't see the need to actually use this line of defence when presenting my argument for states being hypothetically able to commit terrorist acts on their own populations since even by playing with the state's own laws, you can find examples of such occurences (as was done in a previous post). So yes, you were right about states being able to commit terrorist acts after all, even by such a constrained definition

Finally, and in all fairness, to say that Diginut will refuse to accept that Israel is a terrorist state in the future etc BEFORE we've even discussed this specific case is unfair. Logic is logic, and he's conceded points before, and we can easily present cases where this is true and where he will HAVE to conceed the point

quote:

Ok, Israel demolishes civilian's homes in the occupied territories to coerce them into not pressing for independence or a greater say in the running of their lives...that fits into every definition of terrorism we have seen

Case in point. Stop stealing my examples

And that's that. From this point onward, and in all of the other threads I post seriously in, I'll be using the definitions on page 1 of this thread plus the amendment discussed between Epicurus and I as the working definition of terrorism (and other things). Since no valid arguments against them have been presented, and people from opposing ends of the political spectrum all seem to be able to accept them without too much huff-huff, this seems to be the best course of action.

The major points of contention, as I see them, in specific debates, are:

• What the specific goals of the actions in question are (i.e. are they intended to intimidate, regardless of whether or not they succeed in doing so).
  
• If intimidation/coercion is the goal, then what the nature of the demands are (i.e. are they political/ideological in nature).
  
• Whether or not the actions are indeed unlawful (i.e. whose law are we using, is it applicable to the current situation, and does the law have any authoritative power).

These are the subjective components to the definition and are of course not always easy to agree upon. Nevertheless, it does allow us to have a methodical approach for resolving any disputes over the word. It should be obvious at this point precisely what people are disagreeing upon and should make it quite easy for people to explain why they think their point of view is valid, at least in some specific context.

I won't close this thread because people might wish to contest or amend something in the future. However, I won't argue about specific examples, nor will I argue about hypothetical examples that bear striking resemblances to specific examples - so don't bother questioning me because I simply won't answer. The intent of this thread was to have a working definition for other threads and I won't willingly turn it into another I/P thread, since that would take attention away from what we've actually agreed upon and generally defeat the purpose of the thread.

Epicurus, igottaknow and everyone else who contributed positively, I thank you for your input on the subject. I'm happy to see that compromises are possible, at least on some level.

Epicurus...

quote:

George I never said or implied that coercion has, as intent, the change of people. I don't really know where you got that from. Yes, my example was one where coercion had, as intent, a particular change, but in no way shape or form does that imply that I hold that as a general rule

Ok I guess I was assuming from your example. However, DigiNut did attempt to use coercion to exclude states from committing terrorism by stating that states cannot coerce its own population. But the only way states cannot coerce their population, by his logic, is if coercion means, in this sense, political change (why would a state change the current political system?!) However, if coercion does not mean 'for change' (which it doesn't) then states can coerce populations to not change the political system (which we would call oppression). Basically, if we are using the coercion factor of terrorism to say who can commit terrorism, then for DigiNut, coercion has to mean for change otherwise the actions of a state can fit into the definition of terrorism (just using coercion mind)

quote:

George they are NOT the same nor does one HAVE to logically flow from the other

If you look back at what you quoted me as saying you will see I specifically said "Therefore, I still say that coercion and oppression CAN be the same" I never said (because I do not believe!) that they ARE the same, just that they CAN be the same (which is basically what you also said)

quote:

Anyway, if what I just clarified is what you originally meant, then we're on the same page.

See above

quote:

Finally, and in all fairness, to say that Diginut will refuse to accept that Israel is a terrorist state in the future etc BEFORE we've even discussed this specific case is unfair. Logic is logic, and he's conceded points before, and we can easily present cases where this is true and where he will HAVE to conceed the point

Yea right!!!!!

DigiNut...

For me the areas of contension are not the actual definitions (as as far as I can see everybody pretty much argeed on them quite soon) but interpretations of those definitions, and more specifically, interpretations of who can fit into the definition (ie. the debate on whether or not states can be called terrorist, as they do fit into numerous definitions of the word)

I still say terrorism is merely a negative buzz word that people (myself included) like to use to attatch negative value to certain acts they disagree with. Terrorism is a very broad term and there are no narrow definitions as nobody can agree on one!

^--- Yep

*grabs dictionary and throws it out the window*

*breath a sigh of relief*

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Terrorism is a very broad term and there are no narrow definitions as nobody can agree on one!

Clearly, some people can agree on one, and they don't have to have the same opinions on who is committing it or why.

And since I have excluded physical examples and merely dealt with the hypotheticals, there really isn't much interpretation, just elaboration and/or expansion.

Neither the definition nor most of the ensuing discussion has resulted in any real narrowness - there is still a lot of room for interpretation and the one thing you are still complaining about in your previous post (why?) has already been sorted out.

So let's just lay it to rest, unless there are any legitimate objections or questions.

Obviously some people can agree on a definition or we wouldn't have the word in the first place!

But everyone cant agree on one definition (or at least interpretate it the same way)

Terrorism has become the new communism - its just gonna get thrown around to describe anyone who is on the other side (or just not on our side) just like communism has lost all meaning in America due to the Cold War

Terrorism will go the same way...even if we could agree on what terrorism is, and who can commit it, eventually it will become to mean anyone who is not on our side...

Your predictions for the future set aside (didn't know you were an expert on socio-linguistics too), it's fairly obvious to me that this thread won't be read or accepted by the entire world, but it's more than enough if its taken into account by this forum.

The thread's a framework for future debate. Nothing more.

Ok, so just for my future reference, if, in another thread I want to describe something as terrorist or terrorism, I would first have to consult this thread and decide whether or not that something can be defined as terrorism?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ok, so just for my future reference, if, in another thread I want to describe something as terrorist or terrorism, I would first have to consult this thread and decide whether or not that something can be defined as terrorism?

I obviously cannot force people to consult this thread, but if I see an outrageous use of the word then my response is just going to be something like:

"I don't see how this is terrorism. Please show how the act in question is:

• Violent and unlawful;
  
• Against the will of a population, society, or government (i.e. not a single person or small group);
  
• Intended to coerce that entity; to bring about change specifically by intimidation and/or the threat of more violence;
  
• Organized or systematic, as having some kind of pattern or regularity;
  
• Related to a set of specific demands or a specific ideology; not simply random violence.
  
• Specifically targetted on people who could not reasonably be expected to defend themselves, or their property.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Violent and unlawful; Against the will of a population, society, or government (i.e. not a single person or small group); Intended to coerce that entity; to bring about change specifically by intimidation and/or the threat of more violence; Organized or systematic, as having some kind of pattern or regularity; Related to a set of specific demands or a specific ideology; not simply random violence. Specifically targetted on people who could not reasonably be expected to defend themselves, or their property.

There may be a slight problem tho...

This is what was posted on p1 right? Now I have no problem with this definition whatsoever, yet we have spent 8 pages arguing over what might fit into this definition...how would that be any different on another thread?

For example, if on the previous I/P thread where I described Israeli actions as terrorist (which you disagreed with), I could easily have fit those actions into the above definition, yet there is no way you would ever accept that certain things Israel do is terrorist would you?

Sorry to use an example but its just to show you why this little exersize may not work the way you want/expect





Also....

quote:

Intended to coerce that entity; to bring about change specifically by intimidation and/or the threat of more violence

Do you mean...

"Coerce that entity" AND "to bring about change"

or...

"Coerce that entity" OR "to bring about change"?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley This is what was posted on p1 right? Now I have no problem with this definition whatsoever, yet we have spent 8 pages arguing over what might fit into this definition...how would that be any different on another thread?

Correction: you have spent 8 pages arguing over it. I've hardly spent any time or space arguing about what fits the definition, only what the definition is, and the discussion with other members has been pretty agreeable.

quote:

For example, if on the previous I/P thread where I described Israeli actions as terrorist (which you disagreed with), I could easily have fit those actions into the above definition, yet there is no way you would ever accept that certain things Israel do is terrorist would you?

See a few posts above, I have no intention of arguing about specific examples in this thread. Save it for the IP threads - this one is just for the definition.

quote:

Sorry to use an example but its just to show you why this little exersize may not work the way you want/expect

On the contrary, it will work exactly the way I expect it to. People who refuse to justify their use of the word terrorism will either stop using it or look extremely stupid. People who successfully justify their use of the word will receive no argument from me.

quote:

"Coerce that entity" AND "to bring about change" or... "Coerce that entity" OR "to bring about change"?

Coercion always modifies behaviour otherwise it isn't coercion. You seem to be hung up on the idea of modifying future behaviour from existing behaviour, and you're listing it as a point of contention that coercion could act to discourage behaviour that hasn't happened yet.

That is not, however, where the change occurs, and that is where you seem to be lost. Coercion modifies actual behaviour from intended behaviour and that is the key issue to realize. If a store clerk holds up a gun and tells you not to steal anything, he hasn't really "coerced" you unless you actually intended to do so.

Regardless of whether the coercion is positive or negative (to do something or to not do it), it can't exist - or rather, if it could exist, it simply has no meaning - when the intentions of the target are the same as the desires of the alleged perpetrator. There is always some behavioural modification, whether that modification is with respect to what someone is doing or to what they are thinking. If your "coercee" is already doing something out of their own free will, it simply makes no sense to "force" them to do it.

I am absolutely not going to argue this issue any further. I know why you are complaining about it - because it prevents you from taking virtually any act of violence and claiming that it could be interpreted as being intended to coerce someone for some unknown thing. Let me assure you that this is precisely the reason why it is in there in the first place - to prevent just such an equivocation.

Coercion does not necessarily imply diverging actions, but it does imply diverging intents - and if you can't identify those, you don't have coercion. End of discussion.

I know that the thought of an objective definition scares the living crap out of you, but try to deal with it. You're beating a dead horse here George.

Let's start a new thread entitled...

"The meaning of Coercion"

or else...

quote:

Coercion always modifies behaviour otherwise it isn't coercion

You are totally wrong...

Coercion DOES NOT mean to force someone to act a DIFFERENT way, coercion means to force someone to act a CERTAIN way

There is not one dictionary definition to back your opinions up, yet every definition from this page (Link) says that I am right and that coercion means to force someone to act a certain way, no mention of a different way.

Here are some synonims of the word 'coerce' that also suggest that coercion does not have to mean change or different...

enslave
constrain
repress
restrict
suppress
terrorize
command
enforce
intimidate
subjugate

(Link)

Coercion in no way whatsoever means to modify behaviour or to change behaviour. Coercion, by every definition on that page, means to force people to behave a certain way, whether that certain way is the way they are currently acting or whether that way is a different way to how they are currently behaving...

Please can you acknowledge this and amend your definition to account for your mistake?

wow are you guys still going at this?

Well let me know the definition when you agree to it

Time to put this issue to rest, George.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Coercion DOES NOT mean to force someone to act a DIFFERENT way, coercion means to force someone to act a CERTAIN way

Fine, you in your own definition have used the word "force." Let's take a look.

quote:

Force: 1. The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power: the force of an explosion. 2. (a) Power made operative against resistance; exertion: use force in driving a nail. (b) The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force. 3. (a) Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech. (b) Moral strength. (c) A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force of logical argumentation. (d) One that possesses such capacity: the forces of evil.

You'll note that every single one of these definitions carries either the word "change" or some synonym ("affect"), or the implication of resistance.

I assume you've got the sagacity to realize that the sub-headings under definitions 1, 2, and 3 all have to be read as groups, so please don't try to take any of them out of context. Definition 1 explicitly states physical change. Definition 2 implies power against resistance. Definition 3, which is extremely vague compared to 1 and 2, still uses the words affect and efficacy.

The application of force has to act against a resistance or cause a change, otherwise it isn't force.

Here's another little tidbit from Webster:

quote:

Coerce had at first only the negative sense of checking or restraining by force; as, to coerce a bad man by punishments or a prisoner with fetters. It has now gained a positive sense., viz., that of driving a person into the performance of some act which is required of him by another; as, to coerce a man to sign a contract; to coerce obedience. In this sense (which is now the prevailing one), coerce differs but little from compel, and yet there is a distinction between them. Coercion is usually acomplished by indirect means, as threats and intimidation, physical force being more rarely employed in coercing.

There you have it. Coercion is identical to compelling except carries an implication of indirect means. However, it still must be restraining (acting against an entity's tendency to do something) or driving (acting against an entity's tendency NOT to do something). Both of these imply an adversity and a change.

quote:

Please can you acknowledge this and amend your definition to account for your mistake?

As you can clearly see, there is no mistake, and there is nothing to amend.

I can only assume that you either have very poor linguistic skills or very poor deductive skills, or both. Give it up - you're fighting a lost cause here. Coercion has a very specific meaning and you're not going to change it with pathetic specious logic like that.

A thesaurus is not a definition. A synonym is not the same word, it is a similar one. "Shot" is a synonym for "try" when used in the context of "I'll give it my best shot", but they are clearly not the same word.

Just let it go. Case dismissed. End of discussion. You have no argument and never did.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus wow are you guys still going at this? Well let me know the definition when you agree to it

Definition is the bulleted list about 5 posts above, whether Georgey likes it or not. Enjoy.

quote:

Fine, you in your own definition have used the word "force." Let's take a look.

So I ask you to give me a definition of the word "coerce" that specifically says that it is for change, and you instead give me a definition of the word "force" to prove your point

Even your definition of "force" does not back up your points as number two says "Power made operative against resistance" which means it is actually against change (the resistance is the factor pushing for change)

quote:

Coercion has a very specific meaning and you're not going to change it with pathetic specious logic like that.

So show me the definition that specifically says coercion means to change...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So I ask you to give me a definition of the word "coerce" that specifically says that it is for change, and you instead give me a definition of the word "force" to prove your point

Because coercion is the use or threat of force which even you admitted with YOUR own definition of coercion above.

quote:

Even your definition of "force" does not back up your points as number two says "Power made operative against resistance" which means it is actually against change (the resistance is the factor pushing for change)

What is this garbage? It is power AGAINST resistance. This implies that there must BE a resistance. Again, you seem to be physically incapable of understanding the difference between an intent and an action (which seems to be an ongoing problem with you in every debate, but also happens to be one of the founding principles of every single democratic country's criminal justice system).

In order for coercion to occur, there must be force or the threat thereof. In order for force to exist, there must be an opposing force (a resistance). That means that the target's intent must somehow be different from what you want them to do.

IT DOES NOT MATTER whether you are trying to prevent an action ("opposing change" as you call it) or compel them to take an action, it is still modifying their actual behaviour from their intended behaviour. If you are trying to prevent them from doing something they weren't going to do, it is not coercion. If you are trying to compel them to do something they were already going to do, it is not coercion. Take your pick - neither one makes any sense!

quote:

So show me the definition that specifically says coercion means to change...

IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXPLICIT in the definition in order to be logically consistent with it. I have already explained to you numerous times how it is a fallacy to think this way.

Please, for once actually READ and COMPREHEND what I am saying to you instead of just picking up on the vague notion that someone disagrees and reposting the same incoherent rambling nonsense that I've already ripped apart.

You always do this. You refuse to acknowledge anything that anyone else says in an argument and just post the exact same thing you posted before, recycled and paraphrased. LISTEN to the people you are having the discussion with, and you might actually learn something (in this case, an elementary-school-level education in deductive reasoning).

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