quote:

For example, if we have a group of people that are oppressed by a state, those people would call their representitive 'terrorist' group "freedom fighters". They would call them that even if they did kill civilians and if you think about it, the citizens of that state (the unoppressed ones) usually support the actions of the government, and therefore, it could be argued that they become a legitimate target in the eyes of the oppressed as they would see them as supporters of the oppression.

With the new ammendment introduced, people who kill civilians would be called terrorists. HOWEVER, one might wish to say that in such a case, the terrorism was justified. Simply because it is COMMONLY assumed that terrorism is "bad" does not mean that it is not justified in ALL situations. So, in other words, if they kill civilians (as in the above case), they are terrorists, and then you might present a case as to why you believe this terrorism is justified. The purpose of defining terrorism was simply to categorize certain acts according to certain criteria.

Furthermore, I never really liked the argument (or similees of that argument) that you gave above:
Since people support the government, they are legitimate targets.

What about the people who don't support the government (who, for instance, didnt vote for that government). They shouldn't be legitimate targets according to what you say, but the terrorists don't know who does and doesn't support the government. Furthermore, what if I support a government and vote for it, and then an event occurs during their rule which causes them to take action that I would have opposed (and thus NOT vote for them if I knew a priori that they were going to take that stance). I can protest against it but the government might still go ahead with it. I again should not be a target but the terrorists don't know that (I'm obviously thinking of the spanish example here).

quote:

At the same time, it is extremely easy to say that anyone who attacks innocent people is a terrorist. However, that is in our eyes. How do we know that the terrorists view the people they kill as innocent?

They might not but that's not the point. If it can be shown that they are "objectively" innocent, then it doesn't really matter what the terrorists think now does it. Otherwise, this line of defence can be used by anyone to commit any crime (ex: I believe that this guy stole my car because God told me so I am going to kill him. I don't believe he's innocent because I believe in God's word. So i kill him). Obviously, something is wrong.

So you see, the problem is as follows:

You start with the assumption that terrorism is bad, and freedom fighting is not. You then realize that coming up with criteria to seperate the two based on "badness" is impossible since one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. In other words, you see certain acts that involve killing civilians, for instance, that you believe could be justified, and thus, refuse to give those organizations the "bad" label of terrorist.

I go the opposite route. I start with criteria to define both terms, and then categorize certain groups as terrorists and others as freedom fighters. Now I might believe that certain acts (such as killing of civilians under certain circumstances) are justified but I would be forced to call it terrorism and present my arguments for justifying such action.

The positive element in your approach is that you introduce the moral component into your definition as people understand the word because in common context, it's used that way. The downside is that you have no objective definition.

As for my approach, i get my objective definition but am not sitting pretty when I have to defend certain terroristic acts that I believe could be justified because of the negative stigma associated with that word. Furthermore, the word loses some of it's moral bite when I can attempt to justify it.

The entire CRUX of the argument between you and Digi, in my opinion, rests on whether you should be allowed to introduce the moral component into your definition a priori (i.e. allowed to associate it with bad). If you can, you're right, if you can't he's right. The more I think about it, the more I'm unsure as to whether that should be allowed or not, based on how definitions are created...

Yes I've confused myself I'll get back to you on that...

I said the same thing in the Yassin thread, which then lead to this thread.

I think everyone would agree that terrorism is: the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve a political or ideological objective. The term also has a negative connotation.

I don't think we can agree on a narrow definition. The real argument is over the application of the word. I doubt all of us will ever agree on who or where terrorism can be applied. The most important thing I've realized from this discussion is that definitions are creations of man to better describe the world he lives in. In reality the world and the people who inhabit it do not fit into the clean, neat boxes, that man has created.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

Epicurus, in my previous post I didn't actually say "this is my definition of a freedom fighter", all I gave was merely a comment on the concept of freedom fighters, giving some arguements or points that you would have to consider when debating the issue. I cant give a definition of 'freedom fighter' as opposed to 'terrorist' because I dont think it is possible except from a personal perspective (but by its very nature, that definition would be rejected by many)

All I said about freedom fighters is that it is a positive buzz word that people use when they try to justify the actions of a certain group. It is just like 'terrorism' when people use it against groups they do not agree with.

If I supported Palestinian hostilities against the Israelis, I would call them freedom fighters. If I thought they were wrong, or ther methods were wrong (which I do incidently) I would label them terrorists. But my point is, whatever you call them, they have still committed the same acts...

quote:

The most important thing I've realized from this discussion is that definitions are creations of man to better describe the world he lives in. In reality the world and the people who inhabit it do not fit into the clean, neat boxes, that man has created.

I like I like

quote:

Epicurus, in my previous post I didn't actually say "this is my definition of a freedom fighter", all I gave was merely a comment on the concept of freedom fighters, giving some arguements or points that you would have to consider when debating the issue.

'

George, I know...and I never claimed that you did...I was simply illustrating why those arguments aren't very good (in my opinion of course)...but the main point you raise is still valid.

George, I'm just going to ignore most of the ad hominem you posted, and try to get this discussion back on track without all the subjectivity and moralizing:

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley 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...

That is simply not correct. I never claimed this. I said it is not logical to assume that an entity is included in the definition because it isn't specifically excluded. That is nothing more than argumentum ad ignorantiam (i.e. argument from ignorance in the form of "it is true because you cannot prove that it is false"). But in your case, not only is this argument fallacious in nature, but even the fallacious part is false because it can be proven false! By twisting this argument into the form you've described it as, you are denying the antecedent, another very common fallacy I see from you.

Does it bother you that I identify so many fallacies in your logic? Then stop using them, please.

Simply stated, we cannot make any judgments from the definition alone on whether or not a government can commit terrorism on its own citizens (and again, you are consistently ignoring that against its own citizens component). What we can do, however - and all that we can do - is to come up with a hypothetical example of a government committing terrorism and show that it is logically impossible for it to fit the definition.

Thus, if you wish to define a state terrorism, that is fine, but it must be wholly separate from terrorism itself, and not using terrorism as any kind of "umbrella term."

So far, almost none of your posts to me have been absent an ad hominem attack - frustrated or not, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you aren't capable of a proper logical debate. Everything must be subjective for you. Unfortunately, a proper debate must make use of logical arguments, not a shred of which exists in any of your posts in this thread.

Parts of this definition do not support my "side" of the argument with respect to IP debates in any way or form whatsoever. If anything, they indicate that terrorism might not always be immoral in some instances, which only serves to weaken my position in many of these debates. However, it is an objective definition and that is ultimately what we need in order to have a useful debate.

So thus it would be premature if not patently false to say that my "standing by my convictions" is the problem with this thread - rather, the problem is that you refuse to back down even after your logic has been proven to be, at best, riddled with fallacies. You simply won't accept any definition which even slightly disagrees with your personal moral view of world affairs, because apparently you believe that by virtue of your political degree, you are the supreme authority on this topic.

But with all your vast knowledge of politics and world affairs, you seem to be lacking even an elementary-school-level education in logic. I continually identify fallacies in your reasoning and you continually shrug it off as if it were meaningless. Once again, this proves nothing other than the fact that debating with you is a colossal waste of time.

Now please try to spend a little more time thinking things through and a little less time ranting and raving.

___________________
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

Epicurus: while I understand and appreciate your point about moral vs. objective definitions, I think it is safe to say that in a debate, we need the objective definition if we are to keep the debate in "good order." And on that same note, we can't simply pull an objective definition out of thin air, we need to work with the material we already have (i.e. the dictionary/dictionaries).

While I respect everybody's personal beliefs in a personal way, I don't think it does anyone any good to have people run off at the mouth with their own definitions in a debate. If you want to say, a state which violently oppresses its citizens is immoral, then okay, you're entitled to that opinion and I agree! But if you want to say a state which violently oppresses its citizens is terrorist, that is NOT an opinion but rather a patently false deduction that ignores the real meaning of the word in question.

___________________
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...

What is state-terrorism? Is there such a concept?

By the way, you never told me where your idea that terrorism had to be for political change came from...care to explain?

quote:

Epicurus: while I understand and appreciate your point about moral vs. objective definitions, I think it is safe to say that in a debate, we need the objective definition if we are to keep the debate in "good order."

I understand where you're coming from...as I said, I need to think about it...As you can tell by my thread, I need to think a couple of things through...

quote:

But if you want to say a state which violently oppresses its citizens is terrorist, that is NOT an opinion but rather a patently false deduction that ignores the real meaning of the word in question.

I don't know if I speak only on my behalf or also on George's here (as I am too lazy right now to go and see George's specific opinion here), but the word for a state oppressing their own citizenry is "oppression". HOWEVER, a state can "terrorize" OTHER people or populations (not the state's own people), which is the way I uderstand state terrorism. Now I don't know where George falls exactly, but perhaps that might be his point of contention.

Oh, and the only reason I went through those definitions and proved to you that they do not exclude governments was because you kept on saying that by definition, governments cannot commit acts of terrorism.

However, nobody is arguing that because they are not excluded, this is the reason why they can commit terrorism.

The reason people believe states can commit terrorism is because WE CAN PROVIDE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS COMMITTED BY STATES/GOVERNMENTS THAT CAN FIT INTO THE DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM WE HAVE SEEN IN THIS THREAD

(I do not expect you to answer any of the points I have raised, or if you do you will twist what you have read, as per usual, into your own little views, but if you do respond to anything, please respond to the capitals please...)