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

Know one can define it

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here