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

The meaning of terrorism

After reading and participating in the past few weeks' worth of Israel-Palestine threads, I've noticed that the newest wave of IP rhetoric involves a great deal of equivocation and confusion about the meaning of terrorism itself. It doesn't just apply to the IP debate either - I've seen it repeatedly used to describe, for example, the American government and George Bush.

Clearly, the word is attached to a low moral standard and many negative emotions, which I think is something everyone can agree on. Where we all seem to differ, of course, is on exactly what the word means, and what constitutes "terrorism" and what does not.

One of the principles of formal debate, which everyone who's ever been in a real debate should know, is that the opening speaker must clearly define the resolution of the debate including any ambiguous terms. Both sides have to be able to agree on the definition as well. If the initial definition is too narrow or too broad or otherwise distorts the resolution into something other than what it would reasonably be interpreted as, the opposing debater(s) may call a point of order to accuse the first side of "squirreling" the debate. That is essentially debate slang for re-interpreting the resolution in a form intended to "throw off" the opposition or otherwise bias the issue in a subjective sense toward the speaker.

Normally, this is taken care of at the very beginning of the debate, and if both sides cannot agree on a reasonable definition, the debate is not allowed to continue. In a way, with many of these political threads, we seem to be stuck on the definition of terrorism but are trying to continue with the debate anyway. It should be clear to everyone by now that this constant equivocation has turned the debate into a lot of rhetoric and only a bare minimum of logic - such is the reason why a formal debate has the above rules in the first place.

So since nobody else has bothered to do it, I will now try to come up with as objective a definition as possible for the word "terrorism", as well as a few other commonly used terms like "war" and "freedom fighter", using the only objective source I know of, the dictionary. To try and avoid any equivocation on my personal behalf, I have used two dictionaries (dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster) and tried to make sure that my definition agrees with both sources. Essentially, rather than coming up with a long and complicated wordy definition, I want to sum them up in a list of criteria based on what they must entail, should entail, and what they do not have to entail. So without further ado...

----------------------------------------------
Terrorism
From Dictionary.com: 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.

From Merriam-Webster: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, where terror is defined as (4) violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

Since both definitions use the word "coerce", for the sake of brevity I will use dictionary.com's (1) definition: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation.

So from this, I propose that terrorism:
Must be:

• Violent and unlawful;
  
• Against 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.

nu-uh terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

Know one can define it

agreed?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus nu-uh terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. Know one can define it

Who is Mr. One, how do you know him and when will he define it?

quote:

Terrorism From Dictionary.com: 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. From Merriam-Webster: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, where terror is defined as (4) violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands Since both definitions use the word "coerce", for the sake of brevity I will use dictionary.com's (1) definition: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation. So from this, I propose that terrorism: Must be: Violent and unlawful; Against 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. Terrorism does not have to be: Against people; it can refer to destruction or damaging of property as well. Actual physical violence; it can be the threat of violence or force. Committed by a group that is suffering or oppressed; it can be committed by anyone. A last resort, i.e., whether or not all other means of change have been exhausted is not relevant to the definition.

Agree

quote:

Terrorism should be: Committed by a smaller group against a larger group, as inferred from the language "by groups in order to intimidate a population or government". This is not a necessary part of the definition but is generally implied by it.

Disagree, and contradited by yours truely...

quote:

Committed by a group that is suffering or oppressed; it can be committed by anyone

That means anybody, small or large, state or non-state and powerful or none powerful.

Also, the Palestinian terrorists (or should that be 'terrorists' until later on in the thread?!) would fit into both your definitions of "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". Therefore, the two definitions are NOT mutually exclusive - a freedom fighter can be a terrorist and vica versa (according to your definitions)

Also, your definition of "oppression" can also fall under your definition of "terrorism". Therefore, these two terms are also NOT mutually exclusive - oppression can be terrorism, and terrorism can be oppression (and it is precicely that point that I have been trying to explain to you when telling you about my opinions)

Where I think we have been disagreeing is who commits terrorism...

(Good thread by the way and I like the conclusions you have come to from the definitions you posted )

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Who is Mr. One, how do you know him and when will he define it?

well he's not you!

that's for sure

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley quote: Terrorism should be: Committed by a smaller group against a larger group, as inferred from the language "by groups in order to intimidate a population or government". This is not a necessary part of the definition but is generally implied by it. Disagree, and contradited by yours truely... quote: Committed by a group that is suffering or oppressed; it can be committed by anyone That means anybody, small or large, state or non-state and powerful or none powerful.

"Anyone" in the given context only means anyone who falls within the remainder of the definition. That particular word was only used logically to refer to:
A: The set of terrorists (as compliant with the remainder of the definition) who are suffering and oppressed, and
B: The set of terrorists (as compliant with the remainder of the definition) who are not suffering or oppressed.
The "anyone" does not extend beyond the limits of the definition, so when I say that anyone can be a terrorist, that does not mean that any other part of the definition can be ignored.

Having said that, there was a reason I put smaller-against-larger in the "should be" category - because it is merely implied by the definition and not explicit. Since terrorism is defined as being committed BY a single person or group (meaning there is no limit to how small that group can be), but always ON an entire government or society, the implication is that smaller groups commit acts of terrorism on larger groups. While it may be possible for a larger group to commit terrorism on a smaller group, it is not generally the case.

Can we agree on that it is generally true but that it is not a requirement?

If you have an objection to this based on the definition itself then please feel free to post that - keep in mind however that "anybody" was not meant in the universal sense and hence does not contradict the rest of the definition.

quote:

Also, the Palestinian terrorists (or should that be 'terrorists' until later on in the thread?!) would fit into both your definitions of "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". Therefore, the two definitions are NOT mutually exclusive - a freedom fighter can be a terrorist and vica versa (according to your definitions)

Again I'll ask you to please leave specific examples out of this discussion. This is not a thread on the IP debate, merely on the meaning of certain words.

Having said that, the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is indeed hazy, and that haziness is independent of whether or not you accept the above "should be" clause, but there is indeed a difference that makes them mutually exclusive.

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.

quote:

Also, your definition of "oppression" can also fall under your definition of "terrorism". Therefore, these two terms are also NOT mutually exclusive - oppression can be terrorism, and terrorism can be oppression (and it is precicely that point that I have been trying to explain to you when telling you about my opinions)

There is a fine line between these two definitions as well, but I can show you that they are indeed mutually exclusive, because it would present a logical paradox for something to be both. Specifically:

Oppression can only be committed by someone with authority. Therefore, it can be committed by a government only against people who it has political or military power over. If I punch you in the stomach, I am not oppressing you because we stand on equal footing with regards to authority.

However, a government cannot commit terrorism against people who it has political or military power over. Since the government is what effects political change, it cannot "coerce" its own people to effect a political change, since the people have less power than the government which would be responsible for that change.

So the definitions themselves are not mutually exclusive, but a logical consequence of each of those definitions is that a single entity cannot fit into both categories.

quote:

Where I think we have been disagreeing is who commits terrorism...

That is a topic for a different debate. This is merely a clarification of terms.

quote:

However, a government cannot commit terrorism against people who it has political or military power over. Since the government is what effects political change, it cannot "coerce" its own people to effect a political change, since the people have less power than the government which would be responsible for that change.

Governments do coerce people! Thats what they do! And they do it a hell of a lot more than any non-state actor

Look, I like your original post and you gave some good definitions, but at the end of the day, we simply have different definitions. There is no way in hell I am going to accept your views that governments cannot commit terrorism because that conflicts with my definition of terrorism. Just as I have no chance in convincing you that governments do commit terrorism as in your opinion (or definition), governments cannot commit terrorism.

Just ask people for their definitions and leave it at that cos going further is a non starter and it is precicely for that reason that the other thread has gone on for 15 pages!

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow This is my definition of a terrorist: j/k when i have more time i'll come back and edit this post.

be honest, are you really joking?

it's been done

i'd argue with some of your finer points diginut if i wasn't so lazy

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Governments do coerce people! Thats what they do! And they do it a hell of a lot more than any non-state actor

From above:

Coercion: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation

I never said that governments cannot coerce people, I said that a political or military authority cannot coerce its own people, thus making oppression and terrorism mutually exclusive.

Nor did I say that governments cannot commit terrorism. There is nothing whatsoever in that definition that precludes a government from committing terrorism against a separate country or government. The only logical consequence of the definitions used is that the definition of terrorism becomes inoperable when describing the interaction between an authority and its subordinates (i.e. a government and its people), because the element of coercion cannot be present.

To make a long story short: governments can commit terrorism, but only in a limited context.

quote:

Look, I like your original post and you gave some good definitions, but at the end of the day, we simply have different definitions. There is no way in hell I am going to accept your views that governments cannot commit terrorism because that conflicts with my definition of terrorism. Just as I have no chance in convincing you that governments do commit terrorism as in your opinion (or definition), governments cannot commit terrorism.

And that, unfortunately, is the problem with your debate and the reason why I created this thread. An objective definition needs to be agreed upon, not a separate definition for everyone involved in the debate.

You, unfortunately, wish to define these words based on emotion and by example, which is the exact opposite of how definitions must be worked out in a formal debate. "This is terrorism, this isn't terrorism" is not a valid definition of terrorism. You define the word terrorism around specific actions or situations which you would like to be called terrorism, but have no objective definition. In particular, you use a fallacious circular definition of terrorism which amounts to something like "terrorism is an act committed by terrorists, and terrorists are people who commit terrorism."

Once again, this is why I proposed this thread, to settle this issue once and for all. Subjective definitions have no place within a formal debate, otherwise we inevitably end up dealing with a Fallacy of Equivocation, the concept of which Arbiter introduced earlier and one which you either do not understand or do not acknowledge.

quote:

Just ask people for their definitions and leave it at that cos going further is a non starter and it is precicely for that reason that the other thread has gone on for 15 pages!

Incorrect; it is a "non-starter" to simply assume your definition is the correct one as that is a clear case of relativism ("it may not be true for you, but it is true for me") - this is also considered a logical fallacy. It is a serious misstep in logic to say "this definition means (X) is not terrorism, but I know it is, therefore the definition is invalid because it doesn't include (X)." You come up with the definition first, and reach your conclusions about (X) after, not before.

The definitions I posted in this thread are not my "personal" definitions of these words. They are merely the logical extensions of definitions which come from the only objective sources which have been introduced thus far (the dictionaries).

If you have other objective sources you wish to use to amend or replace these definitions, please feel free to post them. And if you have objections to these definitions beyond those of pure subjectivity, again please feel free to post those. I will not, however, ask you to define the word on your own personal basis, as that defeats the purpose of an objective definition in the first place.

This is where I put my foot down. I am not sure whether others have taken the time to read this thread and/or will be willing to follow in my footsteps, but I hope that they will. If you consistently refuse to abide by an objective definition, then I will accept it as proof that your arguments are subjective, equivocal, and thus fallacious, and incapable of leading to constructive debate.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with these definitions either, but they are, for all intents and purposes, unarguably objective. The concept of this thread isn't complicated, and I don't have any alterior motives. The point is to get us all on the same page so that debates can consist of a little more logic and a little less rhetoric and specious reasoning. There is nothing I am trying to prove, and nothing I am trying to convince anyone of. I have not said a word about morality and I have not said a word about who or what these definitions might apply to. I simply defined the words as objectively as possible.

Are you, or are you not, going to compromise on your definition of these ambiguous terms? If you intend to laugh in the face of logic, please tell me now, as it is becoming more and more clear that a real debate with you might prove to be impossible.

diginut, why do you claim terrorism has to be systematic?

umm Diginut, I dont mean to demean your argument or overtly attract your focus, but all of this seems to be enacting a discussion on *your terms* with *your sources*...

I am sure you will disagree, but you seem to be attempting to put difficult issues into an easily definable situation, in accordance to your beliefs...which i believe to be a risky proposition|

quote:

Originally posted by biznology umm Diginut, I dont mean to demean your argument or overtly attract your focus, but all of this seems to be enacting a discussion on *your terms* with *your sources*... I am sure you will disagree, but you seem to be attempting to put difficult issues into an easily definable situation, in accordance to your beliefs...which i believe to be a risky proposition|

What does any of this have to do with my beliefs? I used two dictionary sources to be as objective as possible, and put the definitions together into a logical bulleted list.

I don't even have an "argument", so I just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Once again, if anyone else here has objective sources they wish to present, I'd be more than happy to discuss it!

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T diginut, why do you claim terrorism has to be systematic?

One definition literally uses the word systematic. Other definitions do too, for example Princeton WordNet: the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments.

I'm just trying to put it all together into a comprehensive definition. Do you think this is incorrect according to the dictionary definitions?

My definition of a terrorist would be anyone of a particular group, large or small that sets out explicitly to bring harm to innocent civilians in as catastrophic a manner as they possibly can, without having any compunction or remorse about said actions.

The key here is that the main purpose is to bring death to civilians because they cannot defend themselves instead of fighting mainly against an opponent who can such as an army. The aim thus of terrorism is to instill fear in the minds and hearts of people while hoping they can attain their objectives. Obviously it gets more complex than this but that's my definition for now.

DigiNut for fucks sake!

You've given us some dictionary definitions, then gave your own interpretations of them. YOUR OPINION

Everyone has there own definition of terrorism and we will never agree!

And just who the fuck do you think you are anyway to assume that you are right?

I'm sorry but I've read many of your posts and I would have thought you'd be the last person on here to start a brand new thread dedicated to proving to everbody else how right you are, and that everyone should agree.

Give it a rest why dont ya?

i do agree with you, i just prolly missed the word systematic on the defenition earlier

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley DigiNut for fucks sake! You've given us some dictionary definitions, then gave your own interpretations of them. YOUR OPINION Everyone has there own definition of terrorism and we will never agree! And just who the fuck do you think you are anyway to assume that you are right? I'm sorry but I've read many of your posts and I would have thought you'd be the last person on here to start a brand new thread dedicated to proving to everbody else how right you are, and that everyone should agree. Give it a rest why dont ya?

i think you have just realy realy pissed DigNut

George, I am being very deliberately cool-headed about this issue and I would appreciate it if you'd do the same, without resorting to curses.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You've given us some dictionary definitions, then gave your own interpretations of them. YOUR OPINION

If you consider this thread to be my "personal" interpretation of those dictionary definitions, then please provide evidence relating to:

1) Specifically what parts of my definitions you think are subject to interpretation.
2a) How those parts diverge from the dictionary definitions, OR
2b) Another established, authoritative, objective definition that a different interpretation could be derived from; and
3) How you would re-interpret those parts based on the given objective information.

Without all three of these things, I cannot take any of your objections seriously.

quote:

Everyone has there own definition of terrorism and we will never agree!

Does everyone have their own definition of "pants"? The only reason I can see for refusing to agree on an objective definition is that it might prevent you from continuing to use equivocation, a clearly-established fallacy, as a mode of argument.

quote:

And just who the fuck do you think you are anyway to assume that you are right?

I have provided logical evidence in support of my "conclusions" (if you can call them that, since I really have no "argument" to speak of in this thread). You, on the other hand, wish to contest that without providing any evidence or logic against it. If you are going to plead for relativism, I will not hear of it; again, you wish for words to mean whatever you want them to mean in order to make your opinion true under any circumstances, but this is simply not the way logic works, nor is it the way a formal debate is conducted.

quote:

I'm sorry but I've read many of your posts and I would have thought you'd be the last person on here to start a brand new thread dedicated to proving to everbody else how right you are, and that everyone should agree.

How right I am about what? What argument/opinion/conclusion/generalization have I made in this thread that would indicate that I am trying to prove anything, other than the fact that I wish to continue the existing debates with logic and not subjective fallacies?

quote:

Give it a rest why dont ya?

Please, don't ever enter into politics or a formal debate. This thread, regardless of how it may subjectively make you feel, is nothing more than an attempt to follow the standard procedures of any real-world debate. I saw that there were ambiguous terms and that equivocal language was being used, and I've made an attempt to clarify.

If you refuse to cooperate - by which I don't necessarily mean agreeing with my definitions, but at least providing something concrete for us to work with that might support your "version" of it - then you are the one in error, not I.

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

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

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

quote:

Violent and unlawful; Against 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.

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

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

St. Andrew and igottaknow, there are three of us now, I fully agree with both of you. Terrorism as a form of desparation!

quote:

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

I agree with this.
(good speical btw huh?)

The difference in in the conclusion - I believe you guys are the one without a leg to stand on.

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