quote:

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.

The Eskimos have hundreds of different words for snow!

There are many words to describe the same thing, in this case, we are looking at terrorism. I se no reason why DigiNut feels he has the righ to dictate to us that we can only use one word for each action or event (for example, war, oppression, genocide, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, violence). But many people will overlap many of those terms.

A state that oppresses its citizens may be called oppressive, but it can also be called authoritarian or totalitarian, in fact, it can, and is, called a great deal more, and for millions of people all over the world, one of those words is "terrorist"

quote:

A state that oppresses its citizens may be called oppressive, but it can also be called authoritarian or totalitarian, in fact, it can, and is, called a great deal more, and for millions of people all over the world, one of those words is "terrorist"

The fact that people might use different words from their vocabulary to refer to specific events/things doesn't mean they are right in using these different words. Unless two words are exact synonyms, then they are wrong.

The point is you have to show that they are synonyms. That's actually the point of contention! Otherwise, you're simply begging the question so to speak.

Fair enough...

Oppression means subjugate by cruelty or force (Collins)

The key word there I am picking up on is force

One of the key factors of 'terrorism', as stated by DigiNut in his original post is coercion

Coercion means to compel or force (Collins)

Therefore, if force is a defining characteristic of 'oppression' AND 'coercion', then oppression can be the same as coercion, and therefore, oppression can be a factor of terrorism if coercion is a factor of terrorism....

Therefore, if states can be oppressive, and if oppression is a characteristic of terrorism, then states can commit acts of terrorism...there...simple!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus 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.

Yes, I made this point in the beginning and I still stand by it.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley DigiNut... What is state-terrorism? Is there such a concept?

It's not in the dictionary, no. We could define one, if we wanted, and if we were able to get everyone to agree upon it - I guess it would be a type of particularly violent oppression, perhaps? But we have to keep in mind, still, that state terrorism, if we choose to define it, is not the same as conventional terrorism. And besides, if we're using the term to mean something synonymous with violent state oppression, then why not just use the term violent state oppression? The only reason I can see for calling it "state terrorism" is to attempt to equate (or equivocate) the term with conventional terrorism and have them considered as moral equivalents.

However, even if you believe that state oppression and conventional terrorism are morally equivalent, that does not make it sensible to define them as equivalents, since objective definitions should be free of morality. Rather, it should be up to the individual to determine whether he or she thinks that state oppression is morally equivalent to conventional terrorism. Referring to state oppression as state terrorism solely on the basis of a belief that oppression is morally equivalent to terrorism is, well, a classic case of equivocation.

quote:

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.

I did not say by the definition alone, I said as a logical consequence of that definition, because otherwise we arrive at a logical paradox.

quote:

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

No, the specific examples fit into *your* *subjective* definition, not the definition here, for reasons I have already explained. If we can't even come up with a hypothetical example of a government committing terrorism against its own people, how could we hope to come up with a real one? Use a hypothetical example, and show that it meets all the criteria specified in the original definition.

quote:

Fair enough... Oppression means subjugate by cruelty or force (Collins) The key word there I am picking up on is force One of the key factors of 'terrorism', as stated by DigiNut in his original post is coercion Coercion means to compel or force (Collins) Therefore, if force is a defining characteristic of 'oppression' AND 'coercion', then oppression can be the same as coercion, and therefore, oppression can be a factor of terrorism if coercion is a factor of terrorism.... Therefore, if states can be oppressive, and if oppression is a characteristic of terrorism, then states can commit acts of terrorism...there...simple!!!

Oh my god, I'm sorry but that's TERRIBLE logic!!!

You have picked one word out of each definition (force), taken it completely out of context, and stated that because both oppression and coercion involve force, they are therefore synonyms!

This is a textbook case of the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.

Try again!

___________________
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

Last edited by DigiNut on Apr-05-2004 at 23:48

Not so fast George

The main characteristic of coercion is the "extraction of a set of demands" by use of force. Oppression does not specifically have that characteristic. So your train of thought is not incorrect, simply incomplete I'd say.

In order to show that governments terrorize their own citizenry, you'd have to imagine the government coercing their own citizenry into meeting a set of specific demands. In other words, the government would want to extract certain demands from it's citizenry (or continue to threaten it with more violence). The only way I see this possible is if an oppressive government comes into power and wants to extract certain demands from it's citizenry by threatening force if they didn't meet their demands. For example, the Taleban are in power and threaten to use force on the local population if the women don't cover up. Here, the government has a set of demands it would like a certain portion of it's citizenry to meet and threatens the use of force if those demands are not met.

Let's check the definition:

1) Violent and Unlawful (check)
2) Against a population (check)
3) Intended to coerce (check)
4) Systematic (check)
5) Related to a specific set of demands (check)

That would be considered terrorizing your population. Hmmmmm...I guess I've just shown myself that states could, in certain situations, terrorize their populace. However, oppression is still not the same as terrorism, but ya...

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus In order to show that governments terrorize their own citizenry, you'd have to imagine the government coercing their own citizenry into meeting a set of specific demands. In other words, the government would want to extract certain demands from it's citizenry (or continue to threaten it with more violence). The only way I see this possible is if an oppressive government comes into power and wants to extract certain demands from it's citizenry by threatening force if they didn't meet their demands. For example, the Taleban are in power and threaten to use force on the local population if the women don't cover up. Here, the government has a set of demands it would like a certain portion of it's citizenry to meet and threatens the use of force if those demands are not met. Let's check the definition: 1) Violent and Unlawful (check) 2) Against a population (check) 3) Intended to coerce (check) 4) Systematic (check) 5) Related to a specific set of demands (check) That would be considered terrorizing your population. Hmmmmm...I guess I've just shown myself that states could, in certain situations, terrorize their populace. However, oppression is still not the same as terrorism, but ya...

Edit: forget this post, a much better argument is posted below.

___________________
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

Last edited by DigiNut on Apr-06-2004 at 00:13

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus 1) Violent and Unlawful (check)

No Unlawful doesn't fit. I voiced my objection earlier. (uncheck)

quote:

2) Against a population (check)

terrorist can target anyone including the government or the military (uncheck)
do i need to site specific examples?

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

Last edited by igottaknow on Apr-06-2004 at 00:18

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow No Unlawful doesn't fit. I voiced my objection earlier. (uncheck)

Duh, how could I miss that, lol. Thanks!

If a state has a law requiring people to cover up (however unjust that law may be), then enforcing that law cannot in itself be unlawful.

Even if the law itself is said to violate some international standard of human rights, it's still not technically correct to say that their enforcement of it is illegal - it's just that the law is not just (which would fall under the category of state oppression).

And you don't need to remind me that unlawful is an ambiguous part of the definition, but as we have seen, the very fact that it is open to some logical interpretation is the critical point that enables us to move law enforcement out of the realm of terrorism. Man, why did I not think of this earlier, I wasted a lot of time in this thread coming up with other arguments...

___________________
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:

Ah, but are these demands political in nature? I think we missed a small part there.

Fair enough, but examples can still be easily provided.
Let's imagine a certain part of the population demonstrates peacefully against it's oppressive government for the purpose of, for instance, self-autonomy for a specific region in this state. The government retaliates by threat of force if that certain part of the population does not stop demonstrating. Let's check the definiton shall we:

The acts of the government are:

1) Violent and unlawful (check)
2) Against a population (check) (in this case, part of it's own)
3) Intended to coerce (check)
4) Systematic (check)
5) Related to a set of specific demands that are POLITICAL in nature (check)

The demands of the government are political in nature here since these demonstrations for self-autonomy threaten their political grip on the country. I think we here have a case of a state terrorising it's own populace (or at least a portion of it).

/Edit: Furthermore, these demonstrations are legal let's assume since they are peaceful. Also, the government hasn't YET passed a law banning demonstrations when they were threatening to use force, so yes they are "unlawful".

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Fair enough, but examples can still be easily provided. Let's imagine a certain part of the population demonstrates peacefully against it's oppressive government for the purpose of, for instance, self-autonomy for a specific region in this state. The government retaliates by threat of force if that certain part of the population does not stop demonstrating. Let's check the definiton shall we: The acts of the government are: 1) Violent and unlawful (check) 2) Against a population (check) (in this case, part of it's own) 3) Intended to coerce (check) 4) Systematic (check) 5) Related to a set of specific demands that are POLITICAL in nature (check) The demands of the government are political in nature here since these demonstrations for self-autonomy threaten their political grip on the country. I think we here have a case of a state terrorising it's own populace (or at least a portion of it).

Yeah I know, that was kind of a crappy argument so just ignore it, hence my editing the post.

I could probably elaborate on it more, but I'd have to think about it, and the "unlawful" part is what's much more important here.

Edit to your edit: hmm, well I think we're getting into technicalities here - yes I suppose your hypothetical example is a possibility and it would be terrorism, but a more likely real-world scenario would be for that government to issue a "cease and desist" order (which intrinsically becomes law even if it is not written directly into the state law) before actually using force.

So you've found a hypothetical example, but I think it's obscure enough not to upset the definitions too much. Besides, if the populace is committing no act of violence - just demonstrating peacefully - I don't really have objections to that being called terrorism.

But you're right, I guess in very very limited instances, a state could commit terrorism. I'll have to think about this more to see if I can find any contradiction...

___________________
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

Last edited by DigiNut on Apr-06-2004 at 00:30

quote:

I could probably elaborate on it more, but I'd have to think about it, and the "unlawful" part is what's much more important here.

I know, that's why I added the edit in my previous post...
My point is that the government can violate it's own laws in circumstances where, for instance, certain things such as I mentioned in my previous post are happening quickly, and the only way to "make it stop" so to speak is to threaten use of force (presumably until, if they can, ban "legally" that thing that is happening).
Yes far fetched, but still possible

quote:

quote: 2) Against a population (check) terrorist can target anyone including the government or the military (uncheck)

Ya I know, but they can also attack a population, thus my check. Please uncheck your uncheck back to a check
Good point though on the unlawful.