Defining Terrorism: Is There an Objective Definition?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Yaqout
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of terrorism, exploring various interpretations and implications of the term. Participants engage in a theoretical examination of what constitutes terrorism, including its distinction from guerrilla warfare and the legal ramifications of different actions in conflict situations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that terrorism is defined by the killing of random civilians, while others argue that it involves violence for a cause that disrupts a nation.
  • A distinction is made between terrorism and guerrilla warfare, with some asserting that attacks on military personnel in non-combat situations complicate the definition.
  • There is a discussion about the term "innocent," with some agreeing that it refers to non-combatants, while others question the clarity of this definition.
  • Some participants express that the decision to commit acts of terrorism may be rational under certain circumstances, particularly when conventional warfare is not an option.
  • Others challenge the notion that rationality can be applied to terrorist actions, suggesting that the decision-making process is inherently flawed.
  • There is acknowledgment of the subjective nature of the term "terrorism," with references to how different groups may be labeled differently based on perspective.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on a single definition of terrorism. Multiple competing views remain, with ongoing debate about the criteria that distinguish terrorism from other forms of violence.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying interpretations of key terms such as "innocent" and "random," as well as the implications of context in defining actions as terrorism. The discussion reflects the complexity and subjectivity involved in the definition of terrorism.

  • #31
Originally posted by Evo
(SNIP)[/color] But I can't agree with the unecesssary taking of lives. (SNoP)[/color]
Neither do 'they'...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by master_coda
What if they only struck at the Pentagon?
With a missile or a civilian airliner? Missile no, civilian airliner yes.
I think the World Trade Center towers are perfectly logical millitary targets.
How do you figure?

It is bizarre to see people on a science board arguing against the existence of an objective definition of something. With all the threads here on the Geneva Convention and the actions of the US military being under such a microscope, I have a hard time accepting that this thread even exists. Its such a contradiction.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Originally posted by russ_watters
With a missile or a civilian airliner? Missile no, civilian airliner yes.
How do you figure?

It is bizarre to see people on a science board arguing against the existence of an objective definition of something. With all the threads here on the Geneva Convention and the actions of the US military being under such a microscope, I have a hard time accepting that this thread even exists. Its such a contradiction.
I guess you'll just have to learn to live with it, won't you?
 

Similar threads

News Iraqi insurgence Guerrillas or Terrorists?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
News Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism
  • · Replies 110 ·
4
Replies
110
Views
15K