Well, this is how I see it:

The main distinction in my opinion between terrorists and freedom fighters is the means they use to achieve their goals.

To prove the above point, I present you with two sets of examples that highlight why the clauses/definitons you gave are not quite adequate and why the above definition helps to solve the problem and hopefully allows us to arrive at a "healthy" distinction.

Example 1: Group A hits government targets directly such as military outposts, government buildings etc (and not civilian populations) without necessarily wanting to bring the complete destruction of that government, but simply to extract certain guarantees for their people from that government, which is of course oppressing this people. This would be an example of coercion, but this would be categorized as terrorism according to your definitions, which i think is not reasonable. This sounds much more like freedom fighting to me.

Example 2: See hypothetical example i mentioned in my previous post, which would not be considered terroristic according to your definition/clauses (they would be defined as part of this new third category). Somehow, that doesnt ring true either.

What would remedy the situation and hopefully help define terrorism is the means used to achieve these ends. In other words, if group A attack ONLY government targets, whether they have as final intent complete or partial destruction of government, or extraction of guarantees, they would be labeled as freedom fighters.

If their methods involve direct targeting of non-government elements to achieve their goals, then they are to be considered terrorists.

The logic is as follows:

1) Definitions are meant to label things/events in order to give clarity to certain concepts of interest that are discussed or debated.
2) In order to give clarity to these concepts, they must be "healthy" enough to include enough relevant content to the discussion at hand without becoming too vague.
3) Examples 1 and 2 are relevant contents to the discussion at hand
4) Therefore acts performed in examples 1 and 2 must be included in the definition of interest.
5) One good way (perhaps not the only one) that would take care of point 4) (without compromising other potentially relevant examples from being excluded)is to create a distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist based on means to achieve goals.

Here's an interesting article with some merit to it:
http://www.therationalradical.com/d...-definition.htm

It might actually help you and George come to terms

I can't possible hope to comment on the 1 page of posts since I last replied. I like to pose a scenario on the issue of terrorism vs. state-terrorism.

Let's say we could agree Palestinians (not a state) vs. Israel (state), meets the definition of terrorism. What would happen if the Palestinians were granted statehood and continued same terrorist tactics? Now we have a State vs. State, so do the same actions then become not terrorism because it doesn't meet the definition, or would we instead need to call it State-Terrorism? If we are saying we can apply terrorism to a state by simply tacking on "state-" then that opens up the possibility to label any state including Israel as state-terrorism, if it meets the definition of terrorism. Which then leads us back to what is terrorism.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

quote:

If we are saying we can apply terrorism to a state by simply tacking on "state-" then that opens up the possibility to label any state including Israel as state-terrorism, if it meet the definition of terrorism

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

I don't see any problems here.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Well, this is how I see it: The main distinction in my opinion between terrorists and freedom fighters is the means they use to achieve their goals. To prove the above point, I present you with two sets of examples that highlight why the clauses/definitons you gave are not quite adequate and why the above definition helps to solve the problem and hopefully allows us to arrive at a "healthy" distinction. Example 1: Group A hits government targets directly such as military outposts, government buildings etc (and not civilian populations) without necessarily wanting to bring the complete destruction of that government, but simply to extract certain guarantees for their people from that government, which is of course oppressing this people. This would be an example of coercion, but this would be categorized as terrorism according to your definitions, which i think is not reasonable. This sounds much more like freedom fighting to me. Example 2: See hypothetical example i mentioned in my previous post, which would not be considered terroristic according to your definition/clauses (they would be defined as part of this new third category). Somehow, that doesnt ring true either. What would remedy the situation and hopefully help define terrorism is the means used to achieve these ends. In other words, if group A attack ONLY government targets, whether they have as final intent complete or partial destruction of government, or extraction of guarantees, they would be labeled as freedom fighters. If their methods involve direct targeting of non-government elements to achieve their goals, then they are to be considered terrorists. The logic is as follows: 1) Definitions are meant to label things/events in order to give clarity to certain concepts of interest that are discussed or debated. 2) In order to give clarity to these concepts, they must be "healthy" enough to include enough relevant content to the discussion at hand without becoming too vague. 3) Examples 1 and 2 are relevant contents to the discussion at hand 4) Therefore acts performed in examples 1 and 2 must be included in the definition of interest. 5) One good way (perhaps not the only one) that would take care of point 4) (without compromising other potentially relevant examples from being excluded)is to create a distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist based on means to achieve goals. Here's an interesting article with some merit to it: http://www.therationalradical.com/d...-definition.htm It might actually help you and George come to terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

___________________
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:

Originally posted by igottaknow I can't possible hope to comment on the 1 page of posts since I last replied. I like to pose a scenario on the issue of terrorism vs. state-terrorism. Let's say we could agree Palestinians (not a state) vs. Israel (state), meets the definition of terrorism. What would happen if the Palestinians were granted statehood and continued same terrorist tactics? Now we have a State vs. State, so do the same actions then become not terrorism because it doesn't meet the definition, or would we instead need to call it State-Terrorism? If we are saying we can apply terrorism to a state by simply tacking on "state-" then that opens up the possibility to label any state including Israel as state-terrorism, if it meets the definition of terrorism. Which then leads us back to what is terrorism.

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

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

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

___________________
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

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

The compromise is as follows:

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

quote:

A freedom fighter is fighting directly against a government, in an attempt to destroy or overthrow that government. A terrorist does not directly fight that government but rather tries to coerce them. The difference is thus the goal of these two people: the freedom fighter wants to gain power or at least destroy the power of someone else, but the terrorist is only interested in having his demands met. The key difference is coercion, and this variation does indeed make them mutually exclusive -

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

quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, your examples:

quote:

Example 2: Group A decides to hit non-government targets in the hope of causing fear, panic etc in people's minds and hearts, thus prompting these civilians to turn against their government by physical means (revolts, revolutions etc, as you mentioned...) or by constitutional means (voting them out of power). To me, group A could claim to have achieved their goal of "destoying" that government since a new government is now in place. Granted, that's a loose interpretation of destroyed, but I think still valid.

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

quote:

Example 1: For instance, assume that group A has as it's intent the destruction of the (oppressive) state by killing every civilian in that state (i.e. the complete extermination of that state's people). That would be pretty effective at destroying the state/government if they could achieve that goal.

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

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

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

Let's hear your thoughts.

___________________
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:

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

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

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

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

___________________
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

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

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

You quote the following:

quote:

A freedom fighter is fighting directly against a government, in an attempt to destroy or overthrow that government. A terrorist does not directly fight that government but rather tries to coerce them. The difference is thus the goal of these two people: the freedom fighter wants to gain power or at least destroy the power of someone else, but the terrorist is only interested in having his demands met. The key difference is coercion, and this variation does indeed make them mutually exclusive - the difficulty, of course, is assessing the specific aims of the person or group being classified as a terrorist/freedom fighter.

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

quote:

A freedom fighter is engaged in "resistance" against a government, which is a physical opposition to that government (not things loosely associated with the government, or its people, but the government itself, as the definition states). The end result of a resistance must be one entity "breaking through" -i.e. the destruction or damaging of the other entity. By definition, a terrorist wishes to coerce a government into having his demands met. But in order for the government to meet his demands, the government must continue to exist in its full capacity. Thus the eventual result of terrorism and "freedom fighting" are incompatible - if the government is removed or damaged, it cannot grant any demands. Therefore, one's simultaneous existance as a terrorist and freedom fighter is incompatible.

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

Thus, when you quote:

quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So... everybody on the same page then?

___________________
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:

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

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

quote:

Before I respond to the rest of this, I'd like to know where I actually stated that terrorism was against governments? I said that freedom fighters opposed governments, not terrorists.

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

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

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

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

quote:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

This definition does not exclude states/goverments does it?

quote:

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

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

quote:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons

This does not exclude governments/states

quote:

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

This does not exclude governments/states

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands

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

quote:

(the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation (sic) or coercion or instilling fear)

This definition does not exclude governments/states

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

If you can kindly explain to me how the definitions in this thread are anything other than objective - if you can show me how anything in this thread is out of self-interest - please go ahead and do so, otherwise, please let it go.

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

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

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

quote:

Thank you for stating the obvious. If there was a single definition that the entire world agreed on, then there would be no need for threads like these because we would have an official definition to go by.

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