|
what's a terrorist? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I also disagree that terrorism is a tactic. The actual term is geurilla warfare. And again, those who use geurilla tactics are described as either "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" despite the fact they use the same guerilla tactics... |
No, guerilla warfare is something else entirely. Are you being intentionally dense or do you just not have the most basic grasp of what these terms mean? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
No, guerilla warfare is something else entirely. Are you being intentionally dense or do you just not have the most basic grasp of what these terms mean? |
Geurilla warfare will be described as terrorism by the targets of the geurillas, do you not agree? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
Geurilla warfare and terror can be tactical in nature, and are not mutually exclusive either.
in order for there to be any Geurilla warfare there must first be...warfare or at the very least conflict. terrorism, almost by definition, doesn't require any conflict in a violent sense. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Geurilla warfare will be described as terrorism by the targets of the geurillas, do you not agree? |
It often will be, but just because someone describes it as such does not make the description accurate.
Many actions are mischaracterized as terrorism in an attempt to exploit the negative connotation associated with the word and foster hate or distrust towards the supposed terrorists, or as part of a rhetorical strategy aiming to either condemn particular non-terrorist acts by equivocating them with terrorist acts generally (and the associated connotation) or alternately to make particular terrorist acts appear less contemptible by equivocating them with non-terrorist acts that are likely to appear more morally ambiguous to the target audience.
However, these attempts to hijack the term and apply it inappropriately to manipulative ends should not be allowed to guide how we perceive terrorism. There are certainly some acts which are at least somewhat ambiguous as to whether they are terrorism or not, and disagreement upon such issues is perfectly reasonble, however, the idea that all the tactics and actions which can rightfully be called guerilla warfare can also rightfully be called terrorism strikes me as woefully misguided. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
It often will be, but just because someone describes it as such does not make the description accurate. |
The fact is, guerilla warfare will ALWAYS be described as terrorism by certain quarters. Therefore, even tho I agree completely with you that there are actions that can be categorised as guerilla and actions that can be categorised as terrorist, you won't get everybody to agree and therefore the definition will only hold with certain people, not everyone (and therefore not actually a definition at all!)
Going further tho, even if we can both say an action is guerilla or terrorist, the line is blurred. Most groups that we would define as either guerilla or terrorist will use tactics associated with both phenomenons, so are those groups "terrorist" or "guerilla"?
For the sake of an example, lets assume that the planes used to attack America on 9/11 contained no passengers but just the attackers. We would then describe those that flew into the Twin Towers as terrorists but those that flew into the Pentagon would be described as guerillas. However, they were all members of the same group, so would we describe that group as terrorist or guerilla? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
George, I understand where you're coming from. When you get down to it, language is a totally subjective thing, and for words that tend to carry emotional and political baggage like "terrorist" does, the whole world is probably never going to be in complete agreement about what they mean.
That said, I don't think that obligates us to regard everyone's opinion about the definition of a word equally. I mean, to bring a little bit of an absurd hypothetical into it, suppose a friend of mine gave me permission enter his home while he was away and take a lamp of my choice because he had too many. Suppose then I went to his home and took his television, and when he quite reasonably complained that he did not give me permission to take his television, I replied "well, I don't agree with your definition of 'lamp' -- I define a lamp as anything that is capable of emitting light."
I assume you would agree that the entire world does not need to collectively change their ideas about what can be considered lamps in response to my decision to disagree with conventional definitions. Just because I choose to obstinately disagree about the definition doesn't mean we should give up on the idea of the word "lamp" even having a defintion at all. Most people would just consider me an idiot, and frankly I think they'd be pretty justified! Now, because of the 'baggage' the word "terrorist" carries around with it, I'm inclined to give people a little more wiggle room before I put my foot down and say: "no, that definition is just plain wrong." But at some point, I do think it's proper to do that.
As for the guerilla who is also a terrorist, I don't see any problem with that. I don't consider the two things as mutually exclusive. You can be both, you can be either one but not the other, and you can be neither. So if a group partakes in both kinds of actions, I think it would be fair to call them both. When people try to oversimplify the motives and behaviors of various groups into one word that labels that group either "entirely good" or "entirely bad" it's a big problem and it contributes to all sorts of social and political problems. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Regardless of what would be considered terrorism, or who would be labelled such, at the end of the day it only helps the state assert mroe authoritarian control, escalate attrocities and implement a more agressive militaristic stance with respect to foreign policy. I can't think of many counter examples to that, if any. It's a fairly useless and loaded term that's rarely ever applied with a single standard, not to mention obfuscates the issue where the generous usage of it just 'happens to pop up' all the time. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
George, I understand where you're coming from. When you get down to it, language is a totally subjective thing, and for words that tend to carry emotional and political baggage like "terrorist" does, the whole world is probably never going to be in complete agreement about what they mean. |
No but usually there will be a consensus on whatever definitions. However, all countries have a definition of terrorism but those definitions vary. Even in academic circles they struggle to come up with an agreed upon definition of terrorism and the reason is simple: because they all have different ideas of who they want to label as terrorist (or more likely, who they don't want to label as terrorist).
So I still stand by my original comments, that the definition of terrorism is down to the person who is using it, and you use "terrorist" to describe a group/person undertaking certain actions for a cause you do not agree with
| quote: | | That said, I don't think that obligates us to regard everyone's opinion about the definition of a word equally. I mean, to bring a little bit of an absurd hypothetical into it, suppose a friend of mine gave me permission enter his home while he was away and take a lamp of my choice because he had too many. Suppose then I went to his home and took his television, and when he quite reasonably complained that he did not give me permission to take his television, I replied "well, I don't agree with your definition of 'lamp' -- I define a lamp as anything that is capable of emitting light." |
No. The definition of "lamp" will remain the same because you'll be the only one who wants to describe the word "lamp" differently! However, if every country had a different definition of "lamp" then your argument might be more relevent!
| quote: | | As for the guerilla who is also a terrorist, I don't see any problem with that. I don't consider the two things as mutually exclusive. You can be both, you can be either one but not the other, and you can be neither. So if a group partakes in both kinds of actions, I think it would be fair to call them both. When people try to oversimplify the motives and behaviors of various groups into one word that labels that group either "entirely good" or "entirely bad" it's a big problem and it contributes to all sorts of social and political problems. |
Nobody has ever described a group as a terrorist-guerilla group!
It's always one or t'other! |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
No but usually there will be a consensus on whatever definitions. However, all countries have a definition of terrorism but those definitions vary. Even in academic circles they struggle to come up with an agreed upon definition of terrorism and the reason is simple: because they all have different ideas of who they want to label as terrorist (or more likely, who they don't want to label as terrorist).
So I still stand by my original comments, that the definition of terrorism is down to the person who is using it, and you use "terrorist" to describe a group/person undertaking certain actions for a cause you do not agree with |
I don't agree with your definition at all. I, for one, do not consider the cause for which an acts are committed to be a factor in whether or not the actors are terrorists. I hardly can imagine I am the only one. And even if it were a factor, it would hardly be the distinguishing element of the act (which is, after all, what a definition requires of us.) Unless you consider everyone who undertakes any action for any cause you do not agree with a terrorist, it isn't "your definition" either.
As for the lack of consensus, yes, it's obviously a problem. But it's a problem we should strive to resolve with a concrete definition rather than merely throwing our hands into the air and abandoning any hope of objectivity.
| quote: | | No. The definition of "lamp" will remain the same because you'll be the only one who wants to describe the word "lamp" differently! However, if every country had a different definition of "lamp" then your argument might be more relevent! |
So exactly how much disagreement does there need to be regarding a definition before we ought to start permitting any idiot with a suspect agenda to invent his/her own?
| quote: | Nobody has ever described a group as a terrorist-guerilla group!
It's always one or t'other! |
I'm sorry to see that you're willing to resign yourself to such a small-minded paradigm. Maybe it's time to stop being part of the problem. :) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| I'm not having another one of these threads! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
haha good! :p |
Altho it would be fun!
Ok, all I'll say is that I have my own definition of terrorism, you have your definition of terrorism, and everybody else has their own definitions of terrorism. However, if national governments and acedemics can't agree on a single definition how are we mere mortals on TA supposed to?!
People's definitions tend to conflict because they either include, or exclude, actors who people wish to either define, or not to define, as being terrorist - and that is because to label something as "terrorist" is to attach a negative conotation to that thing, because "terrorism" ascribes negative aspects to what is being described.
As you can imagine, in each conflict where a "terrorist" organisation crops up, the world is usually split in two over support or opposition. Those opposing this group will be quick to label it as terrorist because it helps oppose it. Supporters will use positive words to describe the group because again, it helps their aims.
Those on the right will have different views on whether or not to support or oppose certain groups to those on the left, depending on the ideology of that group.
I honestly do believe that "terrorism" is a pretty meaningless word and altho I have my own stringent definition of what I consider to be "terrorist", I have learned that a load of people would disagree with that definition (because of who would be included by my definition) - it seems the only constant factor in "terrorism" is the negative conotations it attaches to a group by the people labelling it as "terrorist" |
|
|
|
|
