quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley

Okay Georgie, we've been paying lots of attention to you, but now it's time to be quiet and let the Grown-Ups talk, okay? Now be a dear and go get us some more coffee.


(Seriously, if we are to take anything you say seriously, then police officers would be considered terrorists. Let's get back to reality here!)

___________________
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 George Smiley The word "state-terorism" does not in anyway imply that the word "terrorism" cannot be applied, nor does it imply something 'different'. Its like the word 'socialism' and 'communism'. Socialism is the umberella term for a number of leftist ideologies, one of which is 'communism'. If there is a word to describe terrorism committed by a state then it would mean that the word 'terrorism' is an umberella term under which fall a number of different forms of terrorism (like a number of different forms of socialism, like communism, anarchism or social-democracy, fall under the umberella term 'socialism') Maybe it would be useful to seperate all forms of terrorism for our definition exersize? Just as it is useful to seperate all forms of socialism as they are not all the same...

very well said.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

George, you are totally right when you quote:

quote:

The word "state-terorism" does not in anyway imply that the word "terrorism" cannot be applied, nor does it imply something 'different'.

That was my mistake...in my haste, i failed to note that it obviously makes more sense that a word COULD indeed contain a concept that is explicitly being "brought out" by the use of a "prefix", such as state, to denote that specific concept (amongst many it is assumed) contained within that word. In fact, if terrorism did refer to small groups attacking large ones ONLY, then the addition of state in front of it to make this new word/expressopm would be in effect paradoxal. So valid point and well-said.

On a different note, and perhaps off topic here, I don't agree with your analogy (at all). Socialism does NOT include communism and does NOT refer to the umbrella of left wing ideologies. Although this term "socialism" has many different connotations, I understand it as the third stage of "human progress" in Marx's Manifesto, as opposed to his last or fourth state: communism. As you probably know, Marx's political theory was based on Hegelian philosophy, which was based on the concept of "progress". Socialism was merely the stage to be attained by human society before they reached the last stage, communism. They are completely distinct and most definitely, socialism does NOT include communism. I'm sure you already know all this so I won't go into detail as to what each one refers to specifically. If on the other hand, you wish to point out that in today's vernacular, socialism is used as the subsuming label of all left wing ideologies, then the vernacular is wrong

quote:

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.

Exactly my point, in a much more succint way.

quote:

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.

It is implicit in the definitions upon the addition of the new clause. My intentions were not to make it explicit, simply HIGHLIGHT that this now becomes the main distinction (by deduction from the definition, thus it is implicit) between freedom fighting and terrorising, as opposed to what you originally postulated (coercing versus fighting). So as long as the new clause is included, I have no issues with it's implicit nature.

quote:

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.

Totally agreed with, and never claimed the contrary.

So yes, in conclusion, we are on the same page.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I probably could if you weren't so bloody frustrating! 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) This definition does not exclude states/goverments does it? This definition certainly does not! In fact, according to this definition, most terrorists would be terrorists! This does not exclude governments/states This does not exclude governments/states 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) Few! Back to definitions that do not, by definition, exclude governments or states Another definition that would mean most terrorist acts would be carried out by governments/states 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! 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) 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? 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)

Alright, I'll give a real response to avoid this turning into a flame war, but I'm not going to waste a lot of time on it.


George, your logic is that unless an entity is specifically excluded from a given definition, then ipso facto that entity is capable of fulfilling that definition.

That logic is patently false, as there is no dictionary ever written that makes such explicit exclusions. When specific situations are encountered, common sense must be used in order to determine whether or not an entity fits the definition. My logic, which you have failed to provide a rational flaw in, clearly outlines this common sense. For the sake of convenience, I'll repeat it again.

Terrorism, by definition, aims to have demands granted by a political authority with the power to do so. If we reverse the roles, we arrive at a logical impossibility: since the government has a higher level of political authority than its own citizens, it cannot possibly coerce those citizens for a political reason. It does not matter whether the coercion would be for change or for "non-change" - in either instance, it is solely the governing body and not its citizens that are capable of providing that change or preserving that status quo.

Try to visualize this role reversal and you will understand what I am referring to. Imagine you are the terrorist, and want to have your demands granted by some specific authority. Now imagine that you are innocent and they are making these demands from you. Does this make sense? Are you capable of granting these demands?

A government may be fully capable of committing terrorism against other governments or governing bodies, but ipso facto cannot do so against its own citizens. Failing to accept this logic would make the definitions of terrorism and coercion so broad as to include traditional means of law enforcement and court proceedings.

You are looking for something specific in the definitions, but the definitions are just "first principles" - it is perfectly acceptable to use logic, as long as that logic is sound and free of fallacies, in order to make valid extensions of the definition that might exclude certain entities not excluded by the definition itself.

The word for violent and/or totalitarian governments is oppressive. NOT terrorist.

I'd imagine that the reason this is "frustrating" to you is that I am using objective logic to construct my arguments, which do not support your subjective opinions. Unfortunately, frustration doesn't make your point any more valid.

___________________
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

DigiNut, the reason you frustrate me so much is due to your very annoying habit of making things up to suit your argument, or, when you have realised that your back is up against the wall, totally change the rules of the game.

In the last thread you attempted o prove your worth, when me and Cyrus King totally debunked everything you had said in your post, you never replied to are arguments and facts. Then, after we had carried on the debate with other members, you mysteriously reappear! Still, you refuse to answer any of mine or Cyrus Kings arguments after your previous post, instead opting to carry on where we had taken the debate.

You never acknowledge anything anyone has said if it contradicts whats in your head, and you will never ever come to any kind of agreement with anyone (in this thread you want us to come to some kind of agreement over the definition of terrorism, but you dont, you want everybody else to agree with your definition of terrorism)

When I write a perfectly well thought out post, your (predictabally obvious) reply was this...

quote:

Okay Georgie, we've been paying lots of attention to you, but now it's time to be quiet and let the Grown-Ups talk, okay? Now be a dear and go get us some more coffee

Well bravo. What a way to win the argument and show to everyone how wonderful you are at arguing against opposing view points.

quote:

Alright, I'll give a real response to avoid this turning into a flame war, but I'm not going to waste a lot of time on it.

I might as well have stopped reading there hadn't I? It was pretty obvious you were gonna stick to your guns but I must admit I found your argument amusing.

The very amusing argument is that you claim that because the vast majority of definitions do not exclude governments, it is logical for us to exclude governments from those definitions ourselves...

And then you have the cheek to end your post with this marvelous statement...

quote:

I'd imagine that the reason this is "frustrating" to you is that I am using objective logic to construct my arguments

I was going to use a pissing-my-self-laughing smiley, but I decided it was not needed...!

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus George, you are totally right when you quote: That was my mistake...in my haste, i failed to note that it obviously makes more sense that a word COULD indeed contain a concept that is explicitly being "brought out" by the use of a "prefix", such as state, to denote that specific concept (amongst many it is assumed) contained within that word. In fact, if terrorism did refer to small groups attacking large ones ONLY, then the addition of state in front of it to make this new word/expressopm would be in effect paradoxal. So valid point and well-said. On a different note, and perhaps off topic here, I don't agree with your analogy (at all). Socialism does NOT include communism and does NOT refer to the umbrella of left wing ideologies. Although this term "socialism" has many different connotations, I understand it as the third stage of "human progress" in Marx's Manifesto, as opposed to his last or fourth state: communism. As you probably know, Marx's political theory was based on Hegelian philosophy, which was based on the concept of "progress". Socialism was merely the stage to be attained by human society before they reached the last stage, communism. They are completely distinct and most definitely, socialism does NOT include communism. I'm sure you already know all this so I won't go into detail as to what each one refers to specifically. If on the other hand, you wish to point out that in today's vernacular, socialism is used as the subsuming label of all left wing ideologies, then the vernacular is wrong

Socialism is actually the term for any ideology that advocates public ownership of property(the Labour Party in the UK, for example, are (were) socialist, but are not communist!)

This is the opening paragraphs of the definition of socialism in the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics...

quote:

A political and economic theory or system of social organisation based on collective or state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange - although, like capitalism, it takes many diverse forms, and is a continually developing concept. The actual term 'socialism' was first used in the early 1830s by the followers of Owen in Britain and those of Saint-Simon in France. By the mid-nineteenth century the word was used to denote a vast range of reformist and revolutionary ideas in Britain, Europe and the United States.

Now you can accept that, or you can reject it, but either way, it does show you what an umberella term would look like, and what I was trying to say about terrorism?

George,
I agree with your concept of an umbrella term and have already stated that. Again, regarding what you were saying about terrorism, I again agree that it could encompass both state and other elements in it (as I stated in my previous post).

Now regarding our off-topic, as I stated, socialism these days have SO many different connotations that it would not be wise to use it as an analogy to your exmaple for terrorism since it can legitimately be construed as mutually exclusive from communism.

Here's a link that reinforces your point that it was Owen and the Saint Simonites that "created" the word, but similarly points that it can be construed legitimately in the Marxist sense of the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Here's another link that gives the Marxist perspective:

http://www.artpolitic.org/infopedia/so/SocialisM.html

Having said all of this, your point would have been much better made if you referred to the umbrella term of left-wing idelogies as left wing rather than socialist, and pointed out that many different ideolgies (insert here) would fall within this umbrella term.

I know exactly where you are coming from, as it is a debate I have had many times with people who call themselves 'socislist'.

Now I would consider myself socialist as I believe in social democracy (a blend of socialist ideas with capitalist ones). However, anarchists and communists tell me that I am not socialist, as they argue that their respective ideologies are the only true form of socialism.

Socialism, like terrorism, is a buzz word that is argued and contested over. While people fight over who to label terrorists (as it is a negative buzz word), people fight over the right to call themselves socialist (and not others) as to them, socialism is a positive buzz word.

To those on the outside however, in education for example, when I studied ideology at uni, socialism was the topic that covered the ideologies I have mentioned above.

But this is quite a way off topic and it doesn't really matter as all I intended to do is give an example of an umberella term for a number of different but related terms (and I am sure that there are plenty more examples that we could agree on, like 'dog' being an umberella term for a number of related animals!)

So, back onto topic (!) would you consider the term 'terrorism' as being an umberella term for a number of different, yet related, acts?

quote:

So, back onto topic (!) would you consider the term 'terrorism' as being an umberella term for a number of different, yet related, acts?

Yes I do. Having said that, it is not a bad idea to attempt to describe what those acts would be/look like. I don't think it is impossible as such as we simply have to make sure to include certain "obvious" acts and situations as part of this umbrella term in order to get a "healthy" definition that we can agree to. Furthermore, we have to make sure to distinctly seperate it from freedom fighting (which is what most interests me, and I therefore spent considerable amounts of time debating this until it was agreed to include an ammendment in Diginut's definition to make that distinction clear). In my opinion, the final definition that Diginut has come up with is pretty good as it is wide enough to include many forms of violence we understand as terrorism, including "state terrorism". For instance, I've taken Israel as an example and applied the definition to it, and low and behold, they are a terrorist state at best or a state intent on ethnically cleansing a population at worst Of course, we're not supposed to give live examples here, so I'll give my justification in another thread

The only problem is, that altho I have had no objections to the vast majority of definitions I have seen, including the one's DigiNut has posted (and we both seem perfectly able to see that those definitions could quite easily be applied to the actions of a state) there is no chance whatsoever, even tho actions of a state can (and have, as you pointed out) be applied to any of those definitions, that DigiNut will ever accept that there is such a concept as "state-terrorism" that actually is a form of terrorism.

(And I dont see what right DigiNut has to order us not to use examples as it is a perfectly reasonable way for any of us to back up our views and apply them to real life actions)