|
The meaning of terrorism (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Psy-T |
| diginut, why do you claim terrorism has to be systematic? |
|
|
| biznology |
umm Diginut, I dont mean to demean your argument or overtly attract your focus, but all of this seems to be enacting a discussion on *your terms* with *your sources*...
I am sure you will disagree, but you seem to be attempting to put difficult issues into an easily definable situation, in accordance to your beliefs...which i believe to be a risky proposition| |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by biznology
umm Diginut, I dont mean to demean your argument or overtly attract your focus, but all of this seems to be enacting a discussion on *your terms* with *your sources*...
I am sure you will disagree, but you seem to be attempting to put difficult issues into an easily definable situation, in accordance to your beliefs...which i believe to be a risky proposition| |
What does any of this have to do with my beliefs? I used two dictionary sources to be as objective as possible, and put the definitions together into a logical bulleted list.
I don't even have an "argument", so I just don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Once again, if anyone else here has objective sources they wish to present, I'd be more than happy to discuss it! |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
diginut, why do you claim terrorism has to be systematic? |
One definition literally uses the word systematic. Other definitions do too, for example Princeton WordNet: the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments.
I'm just trying to put it all together into a comprehensive definition. Do you think this is incorrect according to the dictionary definitions? |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
My definition of a terrorist would be anyone of a particular group, large or small that sets out explicitly to bring harm to innocent civilians in as catastrophic a manner as they possibly can, without having any compunction or remorse about said actions.
The key here is that the main purpose is to bring death to civilians because they cannot defend themselves instead of fighting mainly against an opponent who can such as an army. The aim thus of terrorism is to instill fear in the minds and hearts of people while hoping they can attain their objectives. Obviously it gets more complex than this but that's my definition for now. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
DigiNut for s sake!
You've given us some dictionary definitions, then gave your own interpretations of them. YOUR OPINION
Everyone has there own definition of terrorism and we will never agree!
And just who the do you think you are anyway to assume that you are right?
I'm sorry but I've read many of your posts and I would have thought you'd be the last person on here to start a brand new thread dedicated to proving to everbody else how right you are, and that everyone should agree.
Give it a rest why dont ya? |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| i do agree with you, i just prolly missed the word systematic on the defenition earlier |
|
|
| Flotser |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
DigiNut for s sake!
You've given us some dictionary definitions, then gave your own interpretations of them. YOUR OPINION
Everyone has there own definition of terrorism and we will never agree!
And just who the do you think you are anyway to assume that you are right?
I'm sorry but I've read many of your posts and I would have thought you'd be the last person on here to start a brand new thread dedicated to proving to everbody else how right you are, and that everyone should agree.
Give it a rest why dont ya? |
i think you have just realy realy pissed DigNut :p |
|
|
| DigiNut |
George, I am being very deliberately cool-headed about this issue and I would appreciate it if you'd do the same, without resorting to curses.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You've given us some dictionary definitions, then gave your own interpretations of them. YOUR OPINION |
If you consider this thread to be my "personal" interpretation of those dictionary definitions, then please provide evidence relating to:
1) Specifically what parts of my definitions you think are subject to interpretation.
2a) How those parts diverge from the dictionary definitions, OR
2b) Another established, authoritative, objective definition that a different interpretation could be derived from; and
3) How you would re-interpret those parts based on the given objective information.
Without all three of these things, I cannot take any of your objections seriously.
| quote: | | Everyone has there own definition of terrorism and we will never agree! |
Does everyone have their own definition of "pants"? The only reason I can see for refusing to agree on an objective definition is that it might prevent you from continuing to use equivocation, a clearly-established fallacy, as a mode of argument.
| quote: | | And just who the do you think you are anyway to assume that you are right? |
I have provided logical evidence in support of my "conclusions" (if you can call them that, since I really have no "argument" to speak of in this thread). You, on the other hand, wish to contest that without providing any evidence or logic against it. If you are going to plead for relativism, I will not hear of it; again, you wish for words to mean whatever you want them to mean in order to make your opinion true under any circumstances, but this is simply not the way logic works, nor is it the way a formal debate is conducted.
| quote: | | I'm sorry but I've read many of your posts and I would have thought you'd be the last person on here to start a brand new thread dedicated to proving to everbody else how right you are, and that everyone should agree. |
How right I am about what? What argument/opinion/conclusion/generalization have I made in this thread that would indicate that I am trying to prove anything, other than the fact that I wish to continue the existing debates with logic and not subjective fallacies?
| quote: | | Give it a rest why dont ya? |
Please, don't ever enter into politics or a formal debate. This thread, regardless of how it may subjectively make you feel, is nothing more than an attempt to follow the standard procedures of any real-world debate. I saw that there were ambiguous terms and that equivocal language was being used, and I've made an attempt to clarify.
If you refuse to cooperate - by which I don't necessarily mean agreeing with my definitions, but at least providing something concrete for us to work with that might support your "version" of it - then you are the one in error, not I. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
okay, lets assume that you are right, terrorism is a single group fighting against something bigger and war is a nation/state fighting for something (bigger or smaller). To me this ones should be about equally bad, or perhaps even terrorism should be better. BUT in the media / by you 'terrorism' sounds sooo bad compared to everything else, yes they behave really bad and they kill innocent on purpose. But they are fighting for something as much as a state/nation using regular war methods. they (terrorists) just don't have the money/possibilities to do it in a fair way.
so what i'm trying to say is that your definition of terrorism is wrong too, you see it as something plain evil without any purpose or reason. with your logic, you could use the word "state terrorism" to define a war that is not fair (due to human rights etc).
for example all those fits into isreal as well, more or less:
| quote: | 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. |
and i also just have to say that, a word is what you use it for not what the dictionary says... |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| St Andrew makes a good point. I sometimes I get tired of listening to ppl bicker over the legal definition of a word. In the frontline Rwanda special last night they had clips of Whitehouse spokes women refusing to agree what was occurring in Rwanda was genocide because it didn't fit their narrow, legal interpretation of the word. It's like when Clinton argued the definition of sex. You pretty much can tell when someone doesn't have a leg to stand on, they fall back upon the technicalities of word definition. |
|
|
| Itso |
| St. Andrew and igottaknow, there are three of us now, I fully agree with both of you. Terrorism as a form of desparation! |
|
|
|
|
