Fair definitions of terrorist and terrorism

[wolram]

How do you define (terrorist), i have tried to but i am stuck, the only definition i can come up with is, one that kills indiscriminately.

 

[Google_Spider]

Why do you think I work so hard crawling the web ?? For you. Use me.

http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=define:terrorist&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I think that the reason you're stuck is that you're thinking about this perceptively.

I would say that you're basically right. A terrorist is someone who uses violence upon non-military targets usually in pursuit of a political goal, IMHO.

The problem is two fold: 1) Almost no one would call themselves a terrorist - it's a name applied to other people and 2) The tactic described above is frequently used by established governments and in many cases was used by the antecedents of governments; the revolutionaries were “terrorists” until the revolution succeeded, then they crossed that out in the history books and proclaimed themselves revolutionaries.

So really, it's someone who employs the violence upon non-military targets tactic, plus they're a bad guy. If you can agree with someone on who the bad guys are you can probably agree with them on who the terrorists are. But if the two of you don't agree on who the bad guys are you'll probably end up arguing about who the terrorists are too.

⚛​

 

[Gib Z]

A person that intentionally sets out to induce terror on other people. Note, as different people find different things to be "terrifying", "terrorist" is a subjective term.

 

[wolram]

I think that the reason you're stuck is that you're thinking about this perceptively.

I would say that you're basically right. A terrorist is someone who uses violence upon non-military targets usually in pursuit of a political goal, IMHO.

The problem is two fold: 1) Almost no one would call themselves a terrorist - it's a name applied to other people and 2) The tactic described above is frequently used by established governments and in many cases was used by the antecedents of governments; the revolutionaries were “terrorists” until the revolution succeeded, then they crossed that out in the history books and proclaimed themselves revolutionaries.

So really, it's someone who employs the violence upon non-military targets tactic, plus they're a bad guy. If you can agree with someone on who the bad guys are you can probably agree with them on who the terrorists are. But if the two of you don't agree on who the bad guys are you'll probably end up arguing about who the terrorists are too.

⚛​

A very good answer Captain, but ultimately does it come down to where the terrorist gets his/her funds from, i know the person has to be evil to plant the bomb, but could that person practice his/her evilness without a paymaster?

 

[russ_watters]

How do you define (terrorist), i have tried to but i am stuck, the only definition i can come up with is, one that kills indiscriminately.

That's woefully inadequate. What you are describing is a broad definition of a large fraction of murders.

There are good definitions online, just look at a few:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem is two fold: 1) Almost no one would call themselves a terrorist - it's a name applied to other people and 2) The tactic described above is frequently used by established governments and in many cases was used by the antecedents of governments; the revolutionaries were “terrorists” until the revolution succeeded, then they crossed that out in the history books and proclaimed themselves revolutionaries.

I don't see either of those as legitimate problems. The fact that the victors write history is an issue with all history and is not unique to the definition of terrorism. The definition itself is clear and objective enough that to a 3rd party willing to apply the definition objectively, there should be no confusion about what/who is/isn't.

 

[russ_watters]

BTW, insofar as goverments control state sponsored education, it will always be literally true that "the victor writes the history books", but in the modern world, this is largely irrelevant. The combination of history being treated as a science and the information age mean that there is little real controversy about the facts of most modern events.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

BTW, insofar as goverments control state sponsored education, it will always be literally true that "the victor writes the history books", but in the modern world, this is largely irrelevant. The combination of history being treated as a science and the information age mean that there is little real controversy about the facts of most modern events.

LOL! Who killed JFK? We have video of that. Are you saying that you can scientifically prove that someone's a terrorist? With a blood test or something?

You seriously don't think there's any disagreement about who is a terrorist? Here's a good question for you: in the various revolutions that freed parts of Ireland from British rule during the last couple of centuries, were the Irish freedom fighters or the British security forces the terrorists? They both killed quite a few civilians.

The same example applies to your question about paymasters, Wolram. Does the fact that the beginnings of the Irish Republic were funded by “Catholic subversives” make Ireland a terrorist state?

I would say yes, but mostly from the point of view of British people who have had loved ones die or been harmed by the actions of those Irish freedom fighters. And similarly, the British are a bunch of oppressive terrorists from the point of view of the Irish who have been harmed or had loved ones die in British policing and counter-revolutionary actions in Ireland. If anyone wants to tell either of those parties that they're wrong, go ahead, but I'm not getting involved.

⚛​

 

[wolram]

I would say yes, but mostly from the point of view of British people who have had loved ones die or been harmed by the actions of those Irish freedom fighters. And similarly, the British are a bunch of oppressive terrorists from the point of view of the Irish who have been harmed or had loved ones die in British policing and counter-revolutionary actions in Ireland. If anyone wants to tell either of those parties that they're wrong, go ahead, but I'm not getting involved.

⚛​

I will not argue with this, it justifies my original uncertainty.

 

[Cyrus]

a person that does 65 mph in a roundabout.

 

[DaveC426913]

The tactic described above is frequently used by established governments and in many cases was used by the antecedents of governments; the revolutionaries were “terrorists” until the revolution succeeded, then they crossed that out in the history books and proclaimed themselves revolutionaries.

Perhaps any definition of terrorists would be further enhanced by appending "and has not achieved their objective yet."

 

[russ_watters]

LOL! Who killed JFK? We have video of that.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting there. What I said is that there is little real controversy about the facts of most modern events. If you are suggesting you believe in the conspiracy theory, so be it, but I did say real controversy. Conspiracy theory does not apply.

I also said most. There are, of course, some events where the facts are unclear.

Are you saying that you can scientifically prove that someone's a terrorist? With a blood test or something?

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. A blood test? That's just plain dumb.

You seriously don't think there's any disagreement about who is a terrorist? Here's a good question for you: in the various revolutions that freed parts of Ireland from British rule during the last couple of centuries, were the Irish freedom fighters or the British security forces the terrorists? They both killed quite a few civilians.

Please reread what I said. You aren't saying anything that is really responding to it. A terrorist will not say they are a terrorist just like a murderer will not say they are a murderer. This is irrelevant: what I said was to a 3rd party willing to apply the definition objectively, there should be no confusion about what/who is/isn't.

It just sounds to me like you are arguing against the existence of an objective definition of terrorism. That's tough to do since the definition is right there in black and white.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps any definition of terrorists would be further enhanced by appending "and has not achieved their objective yet."

No, no, no, no, no. The definition is black and white simple. What you are suggesting adds ambiguity, it doesn't help make the definition more objective.

All it takes is a little simple logic. Look at the definition, identify some key criteria, and see if the criteria apply to a given situation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

That covers just about any war or military action.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

Circular logic. Terrorists commit acts of terror? That would certainly include Bush - shock and awe and the preceding threats.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Again, circular logic. Terroristic acts are committed by terrorists? That reminds me of the meaning of "is". .

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting there. What I said is that there is little real controversy about the facts of most modern events.

I'm suggesting that the facts of the JFK assassination are very much under controversy despite the fact that we have it on video. Come on, it wasn't exactly a cryptic comment.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense.

You talked about scientific determination of historical facts. Why did you bring that up unless you think that determining who is a terrorist is a matter of historical fact or scientific determination?

Please reread what I said. You aren't saying anything that is really responding to it. A terrorist will not say they are a terrorist just like a murderer will not say they are a murderer. This is irrelevant: what I said was to a 3rd party willing to apply the definition objectively, there should be no confusion about what/who is/isn't.

It just sounds to me like you are arguing against the existence of an objective definition of terrorism. That's tough to do since the definition is right there in black and white.

Yeah, there isn't an objective definition of who is a terrorist and who isn't. Okay, if it's such an objective matter then answer my question: which side was the terrorists in the Irish revolution? That's basically the point where the word “terrorist” was invented, during the Dynamite War.

You're a 3rd party to that. If it's such a simple matter I don't see why you avoided answering that question.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

How is shock and awe an act of terror Ivan?

I think that comment was in poor taste, no offense.

 

[russ_watters]

That covers just about any war or military action.

No, it really doesn't.

Circular logic. Terrorists commit acts of terror? That would certainly include Bush - shock and awe and the preceding threats.

Again, circular logic. Terroristic acts are committed by terrorists.

Have you ever opened a dictionary before? Most definitions include a circular component referencing the other forms of the word.

Besides - I just got up and picked an easy one to get. It's not that descriptive, but it is a very good start.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have to agree Captain Q: For all practical purposes, "terrorist" is an Orwellian word. One man's freedom fighters are another man's terrorists.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How is shock and awe an act of terror Ivan?

I think that comment was in poor taste, no offense.

I was using the definition given. The shock and awe were specifically intended to strike terror in the enemy. You only think it was in poor taste because you are using your own definition.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, it really doesn't. Have you ever opened a dictionary before? Most definitions include a circular component referencing the other forms of the word.

Besides - I just got up and picked an easy one to get. It's not that descriptive, but it is a very good start.

So you are saying that we have a clear definition because we can't have a clear definition.

I can define President, soldier, civilian, citizen, evangelist, pianist, physician... hmmm, it seems that not all words are so difficult to define.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Actually, though it's frequently used in an Orwellian fashion especially in the War on Terror, I actually wouldn't say that the word itself is Orwellian, just subjective. “Freedom fighter” is subjective too in sort of the opposite spin: it's often used by revolutionaries to justify anything they do no matter how bloody or despicable.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

I was using the definition given. The shock and awe were specifically intended to strike terror in the enemy. You only think it was in poor taste because you are using your own definition.

No, I think it was poor taste because it was to bring freedom to millions of Iraqis under the dictatorship of Sadam. Thats not my own definition, that's simply a fact. How can you possibly lump that with terrorism?

We did not go over there to kill innocent people, and they are not defined as the enemy. So I don't follow your logic at all.

It just seems like a cheap shot at GW Bush.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm suggesting that the facts of the JFK assassination are very much under controversy despite the fact that we have it on video. Come on, it wasn't exactly a cryptic comment.

I didn't want to put words in your mouth. I didn't want to assume crackpottery coming from you. Thank you for making it clear.

You talked about scientific determination of historical facts.

Yes...

Why did you bring that up unless you think that determining who is a terrorist is a matter of historical fact or scientific determination?

Jeez, I don't know how to make this any simpler. If the facts are clear, the implication of those facts should be easy to someone willing to apply logic. The problem with history prior to the modern age is that the facts are often not clear. Now that most of the time the facts are clear, the logical implications of those facts are also clear.

It's just like a murer. Police collect evidence in a scientific way, then objective people (though in the case of crime, ignorant people) make a determination if that evidence fits the definition. It is logic based on scientific evidence. There is no blood test for murder.

Yeah, there isn't an objective definition of who is a terrorist and who isn't.

That's not what a definition is. A definition is a description of a word, not a specific list of all who that word applies to.

There is an objective definition of the word. What's left is applying the definition objectively to a person/act to determine if the word applies. People do this a hundred times a minute when they speak. Humans started learning how language works tens of thousands of years ago - funny how when people don't like a label, they forget how spoken language works.

Okay, if it's such an objective matter then answer my question: which side was the terrorists in the Irish revolution? You're a 3rd party to that. If it's such a simple matter I don't see why you avoided answering that question.

⚛​

First of all, I don't know enough about the history to answer the question. Second, the question is so loaded as to be unanswerable. (not the least of the problems is that you already applied a contrary label in asking the question). I need to explain a couple of other words to you:

Tactics/tactical: On-the-ground actions of an individual or unit.
Strategic: Larger political/military objectives of a war.

Terrorism is a tactic, so using the label needs to start on the tactical level. To call an entire side of a war terrorists is basically just a way of saying their primary tactic is terrorism.

 

[russ_watters]

I have to agree Captain Q: For all practical purposes, "terrorist" is an Orwellian word. One man's freedom fighters are another man's terrorists.

The problem, Ivan (and CQ), is that an objective definition exists. If you choose to ignore, it, then you are essentially saying you refuse to be objective about the subject.

 

[russ_watters]

So you are saying that we have a clear definition because we can't have a clear definition.

Huh? You're not making any sense.

I can define President, soldier, civilian, citizen, evangelist, pianist, physician... hmmm, it seems that not all words are so difficult to define.

Agreed. And people choose not to define this particular word because it suits their political position to refuse to. Cyrus picked-up on your purpose here: Refusal to be objective enables easy cheap-shots at Bush.

 

[russ_watters]

Just for the record here, if you want to find in me the type of refusal to be objective that you guys are displaying, you'll be sorely disappointed. I'm willing to discuss tough cases such as "Shock and Awe" (actually, that one isn't very difficult) and the atom bombings of Japan. But you'll be handcuffed by your own refusal to be objective: You can't claim "Shock and Awe" was terrorism unless you accept an objective definition of terrorism. If you want to claim that terrorism is whatever anyone says it is, then there really isn't anything to discuss.

 

[russ_watters]

Btw, the UN is handcuffed by this same kind of illogic for the same political reasons, nevertheless, they do have an "academic consensus definition" and other uses of the word:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought (Schmid, 1988).

UN short legal definition, also proposed by Alex P. Schmid: an act of terrorism is the "peacetime equivalent of a war crime."[8]
On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."[9]
The General Assembly resolution 49/60,[10], titled "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism," adopted on December 9, 1994, contains a provision describing terrorism:
“ Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[11] ”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

The one about it being in part, a peacetime equivalent of a war crime is key because it avoids the need to use the word while criminalizing the acts. That's nice since the refusers (as we're seeing here) generally don't argue the facts of the event, only the label. So whether you use the label or not, the acts are still illegal. Ie, things like regular military hiding amongst civilians (as Saddam had his troops do) might be considered acts of terrorism, but as these acts are already covered under their own international laws, there is no need to apply the word. We can just say "war crimes".

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I didn't want to put words in your mouth. I didn't want to assume crackpottery coming from you. Thank you for making it clear.

Crackpottery? You're seriously going to call me a crackpot for acknowledging that the JFK assassination is controversial?

Okay, what political group had JFK killed, Mr. Smartypants? Or were you just stretching for any way whatsoever you could think of to call me a crackpot, perhaps? Very objective of you.

Jeez, I don't know how to make this any simpler. If the facts are clear, the implication of those facts should be easy to someone willing to apply logic. The problem with history prior to the modern age is that the facts are often not clear. Now that most of the time the facts are clear, the logical implications of those facts are also clear.

It's just like a murer. Police collect evidence in a scientific way, then objective people (though in the case of crime, ignorant people) make a determination if that evidence fits the definition. It is logic based on scientific evidence. There is no blood test for murder. That's not what a definition is. A definition is a description of a word, not a specific list of all who that word applies to.

Oh, well the facts are always clear in a murder. And even when someone has admitted to a killing there's never any difficulty in deciding between murder and manslaughter. Fabulous example.

There is an objective definition of the word. What's left is applying the definition objectively to a person/act to determine if the word applies.

So you have a definition for “terrorist” and you objectively apply it to every individual who fits it? That would be pretty impressive if it was true.

You cut and pasted a definition in up above. If I start naming people who fit the definition and who don't, you'll really just accept all the ones who fit it as terrorists and all the ones who don't as non-terrorists? Without displaying any political or nationalist subjectivity? And then I can quote you in future conversations about who you say is a terrorist and who is not?

Why do I not buy that?

First of all, I don't know enough about the history to answer the question. Second, the question is so loaded as to be unanswerable. (not the least of the problems is that you already applied a contrary label in asking the question).

What do you mean, I applied a contrary label? I called both sides of the conflict terrorists.

The question is loaded? I just asked whether a certain group of people were terrorists. Isn't your position that that applying the label “terrorist” is a straightforward processing of facts?

Begging off that you don't know enough history is pretty weak. There's no reason why you can't just skim the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence" . It's got lots of facts, you'll love it.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Heck, I'll play nicer, I'll tie one hand behind my back. You're right, the Irish revolution thing is clearly out of your league. I ought to give you something where you've got a fighting chance.

Give us a definition of terrorism by which objectively, without influence of one's personal political opinions, Osama bin Laden can clearly and unambiguously be labeled as a terrorist and George Bush clearly and unambiguously can be labeled as not a terrorist. Props to Ivan for proposing the idea via his “shock and awe” comment.

Note that via the UN definition you quoted George Bush would be a terrorist for, among other things, bombing Afghanistan to compel that nation to give up Osama rather than put him to trial themselves, which would be a “Criminal act intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.” Unless you would say it was legal by Afghani law for the U.S. to bomb Kandahar.

⚛​

 

[wolram]

If i take this to the extreme, would war of the worlds,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio )

Be considered a terrorist act, (if it had been a malicious), people (could) have died through
heart attach or other panic related acts.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

You can't claim "Shock and Awe" was terrorism unless you accept an objective definition of terrorism.

Oh, we can't, eh? We couldn't, say, claim it was just terrorism from the viewpoint of Iraqis and not for ourselves or anyone else? I think the word “can't” also does not mean what you think it means.

If you want to claim that terrorism is whatever anyone says it is, then there really isn't anything to discuss.

It must be nice to live in a world where you have a magic wand that makes the contradictions other people have pointed out in your reasoning disappear.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

If i take this to the extreme, would war of the worlds,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio )

Be considered a terrorist act, (if it had been a malicious), people (could) have died through
heart attach or other panic related acts.

Heh, at first I thought you were talking about whether an actual invasion by Martians would be terrorism rather than just the radio broadcast.

I think the distinction in this case is that those deaths would not be said to have occurred through a form of violence, nor would any such deaths have been intentional. I wouldn't say that the word is totally subjective and can take on any meaning at all; it definitely involves intentional violence. It's just that one person's “policing action” or war or revolution is another person's terrorism.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

a “Criminal act intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.” Unless you would say it was legal by Afghani law for the U.S. to bomb Kandahar.

⚛​

Notice how it first says a criminal act followed by cases where said criminal act is not allowed. Also notice how we had wolrd support to enter into Afghanistan? Also notice how we did not provoke a state of terror in the general public, it was the taliban that was doing that. You last sentence is silly, you know better than to write something like that. No country has a law allowing another country to bomb any of its cities.

Its not russ that said it was legal, it was the United Nations that said it was legal.

Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism, in keeping with the
Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12
September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement

 

[Math Jeans]

Apparently there is a guy named 'Terrorists' that spams the Starcraft 2 forums .

 

[turbo]

Sadly, the definition of terrorism is co-opted by the groups that employ it, and by the media that report on its use. If Hamas fires a rocket into Israeli territory, that act will unambiguously be called terrorism by the US media, while if an Israeli helicopter gunship blows up an apartment building to kill a Palestinian leader and "accidentally" kills a dozen innocent people in the act, that will be called a "surgical strike" with "unfortunate collateral damage", as if killing innocent people can be swept aside as mere "damage".

There are governments (including the US) that have employed terrorism and continue to do so, directly and by proxy. The acts of violence perpetrated on civilians by central American death squads trained at the School of the Americas are certainly terroristic; however, if the perpetrators are wearing uniforms (as is often the case with state-sponsored terrorism) they often get the benefit of the doubt in the news media.

 

[Yonoz]

If Hamas fires a rocket into Israeli territory, that act will unambiguously be called terrorism by the US media, while if an Israeli helicopter gunship blows up an apartment building to kill a Palestinian leader and "accidentally" kills a dozen innocent people in the act, that will be called a "surgical strike" with "unfortunate collateral damage", as if killing innocent people can be swept aside as mere "damage".

The difference being the intent behind the 2 acts. Hamas' rockets are fired with the intent of terrorizing the Israeli population. A strike on a militant is intended to prevent future bloodshed.
By your logic, someone causing death by negligence is a terrorist.

 

[turbo]

The difference being the intent behind the 2 acts. Hamas' rockets are fired with the intent of terrorizing the Israeli population. A strike on a militant is intended to prevent future bloodshed.
By your logic, someone causing death by negligence is a terrorist.

No, you take my example out of context. Blowing up an occupied apartment building because you think a "terrorist" might be in it is itself an act of terrorism, since innocent human lives will be lost.

I can see the value in causing people to fear offering shelter to their leaders so you can isolate them, but not at the cost of killing innocents. Every leader of every militant group, be they in the organized state-sponsored military forces, militia groups, insurgents, etc is replaceable. For every one that is killed, another will step into carry on the fight. The willing acceptance of civilian casualties in such a futile war of attrition is illogical and inhuman.

 

[Yonoz]

No, you take my example out of context. Blowing up an occupied apartment building because you think a "terrorist" might be in it is itself an act of terrorism, since innocent human lives will be lost.

So that only narrows it down to every government that's engaged in warfare.

I can see the value in causing people to fear offering shelter to their leaders so you can isolate them, but not at the cost of killing innocents. Every leader of every militant group, be they in the organized state-sponsored military forces, militia groups, insurgents, etc is replaceable. For every one that is killed, another will step into carry on the fight. The willing acceptance of civilian casualties in such a futile war of attrition is illogical and inhuman.

That is not the intent; the intent is to prevent a terrorist from carrying out a planned or partially executed act of terrorism. To authorize such a strike, senior brass and their legal advisers must be presented with evidence that executing it will remove a clear and present danger. It is illogical to kill a leader for the sake of killing them - as you mentioned, they are replaceable and such a strike has counter-productive aspects to it.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Notice how it first says a criminal act followed by cases where said criminal act is not allowed. Also notice how we had wolrd support to enter into Afghanistan? Also notice how we did not provoke a state of terror in the general public, it was the taliban that was doing that. You last sentence is silly, you know better than to write something like that. No country has a law allowing another country to bomb any of its cities.

Its not russ that said it was legal, it was the United Nations that said it was legal.

Ah, you consider anything from the U.N. to be from a completely objective point of view, Cyrus? I'll remember to quote you on that at some point in the future.

This means that you'll accept any U.N. condemnation of U.S. actions being unlawful as completely objective and you'll say the U.S. is behaving illegally in that case, right?

Wow, this is like Christmas in February. But note that I didn't say that I think the action in Afghanistan was terrorism - I just pointed out that by the U.N.'s definition as quoted by Russ, the Afghans could as easily label it terrorism as many of them label the Soviet invasion terrorism rather than the actions of the Mujahideen. Again, who is a terrorist and who is not is always something arrived at in a subjective manner.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

Ah, you consider anything from the U.N. to be from a completely objective point of view, Cyrus? I'll remember to quote you on that at some point in the future.

This means that you'll accept any U.N. condemnation of U.S. actions being unlawful as completely objective and you'll say the U.S. is behaving illegally in that case, right?

Wow, this is like Christmas in February. But note that I didn't say that I think the action in Afghanistan was terrorism - I just pointed out that by the U.N.'s definition as quoted by Russ, the Afghans could as easily label it terrorism as many of them label the Soviet invasion terrorism rather than the actions of the Mujahideen. Again, who is a terrorist and who is not is always something arrived at in a subjective manner.

⚛​

I think I already addressed this point in my previous post.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I think I already addressed this point in my previous post.

Ah, so you consider world opinion to be an objective indicator of what is criminal and what isn't, as well as the U.N.'s opinion, eh? That's even better.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

When you voilate the rules you agreed to as part of your membership to the UN, its not an opinion.

But note that I didn't say that I think the action in Afghanistan was terrorism - I just pointed out that by the U.N.'s definition as quoted by Russ, the Afghans could as easily label it terrorism as many of them label the Soviet invasion terrorism rather than the actions of the Mujahideen. Again, who is a terrorist and who is not is always something arrived at in a subjective manner.

No, the afghans can't label it as terrorism. Also, its not subjective that the soviets were terrorists when making hostile attacks on afghanistan. The soviets were invading another country. How on Earth is this not painfully obvious to you?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

When you voilate the rules you agreed to as part of your membership to the UN, its not an opinion.

So whether or not Afghanistan had the right as a sovereign nation to try bin Laden themselves isn't a matter of opinion, evidently. I don't suppose that the U.S. has to turn over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Accusations_of_war_crimes_and_legal_difficulties" for trial on the war crimes (fitting the definition of terrorism, perhaps?) that he's been accused of - that one wouldn't be a matter of opinion, would it?

No, the afghans can't label it as terrorism. Also, its not subjective that the soviets were terrorists when making hostile attacks on afghanistan. The soviets were invading another country. How on Earth is this not painfully obvious to you?

So invading another country is objectively to be considered terrorism! This just keeps getting better.

BTW - Saying “Why won't you just say I'm right? Why do you keep bringing up logical objections to the objectivity of my opinions?!?” doesn't exactly demonstrate that you have a firm grasp of what objectivity is.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

So whether or not Afghanistan had the right as a sovereign nation to try bin Laden themselves isn't a matter of opinion, evidently. I don't suppose that the U.S. has to turn over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Accusations_of_war_crimes_and_legal_difficulties" for trial on the war crimes (fitting the definition of terrorism, perhaps?) that he's been accused of - that one wouldn't be a matter of opinion, would it?

The fact that the taliban was committing acts of abuse on its own people, in combination with harboring Bin Laden, forfeits that right. If you really think they were going to hand over Bin Laden and have a trial when time was critical in finding him, I have a bridge to sell you.

So invading another country is objectively to be considered terrorism! This just keeps getting better.

Was it a criminal act on the part of the soviets? Yes, it was. There is a difference between a war by invation, and a war by liberation.

BTW - Saying “Why won't you just say I'm right? Why do you keep bringing up logical objections to the objectivity of my opinions?!?” doesn't exactly demonstrate that you have a firm grasp of what objectivity is.

I never said that, your just acting like a fool again. Are you going to suggest I play with dolls again? Let's get serious, and spare me the temper tantrum every time you post.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

You're right Cyrus, how foolish of me. You're demonstrating a Supreme-Court-Justice-like command of what objectivity is and is not. Claiming that I'm not being serious as a way to try to dismiss disagreement your point is an especially adroit way of demonstrating that.

Who is right or wrong in wars and violent action against civilians is never subject to individual opinion. “Liberation” is such an excellent example of an objective term.

[/sarcasm]

I [post=1624760]gave you a chance[/post], man, and by ignoring it you demonstrated that your protestations of innocence are so much chaff. I'm not going to pretend that you aren't a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29" . You're trying to drag a conversation about terminology and objectivity into a political discussion about Afghanistan.

I avoided any mention of current political events until Russ refused to respond to any situation we're actually all 3rd parties to. If you really want to discuss Afghanistan, start a thread and provide a link and I'll tell you what I actually think about that situation. Otherwise, start actually talking about objectivity instead of talking about liberation and making up U.N. mandates for invading Afghanistan, or pretending that worldwide opinion is the same thing as objectivity.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This is the definition you piled on with Russ to disagree with:

A terrorist is someone who uses violence upon non-military targets usually in pursuit of a political goal, IMHO.

The problem is two fold: 1) Almost no one would call themselves a terrorist - it's a name applied to other people and 2) The tactic described above is frequently used by established governments and in many cases was used by the antecedents of governments; the revolutionaries were “terrorists” until the revolution succeeded, then they crossed that out in the history books and proclaimed themselves revolutionaries.

So really, it's someone who employs the violence upon non-military targets tactic, plus they're a bad guy. If you can agree with someone on who the bad guys are you can probably agree with them on who the terrorists are. But if the two of you don't agree on who the bad guys are you'll probably end up arguing about who the terrorists are too.

Show me how that is not true if you want to say that “terrorist” is a purely objective term. Will you at least admit that “bad guys” is a subjective term?

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

You're right Cyrus, how foolish of me. You're demonstrating a Supreme-Court-Justice-like command of what objectivity is and is not. Claiming that I'm not being serious as a way to try to dismiss disagreement your point is an especially adroit way of demonstrating that.

Who is right or wrong in wars and violent action against civilians is never subject to individual opinion. “Liberation” is such an excellent example of an objective term.

[/sarcasm]

I am not talking about objectivity. You brought that up with Russ, talk to Russ about it. Dont argue with me about your conversation with Russ. Violent actions against civilans is a definition of terrorism based on the link we are talking about. Why are you playing the whos side are you on argument? We can go into depth on what I mean by liberation if you would like.

I [post=1624760]gave you a chance[/post], man, and by ignoring it you demonstrated that your protestations of innocence are so much chaff. I'm not going to pretend that you aren't a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29" . You're trying to drag a conversation about terminology and objectivity into a political discussion about Afghanistan.

Stay on topic, or get lost.

I avoided any mention of current political events until Russ refused to respond to any situation we're actually all 3rd parties to. If you really want to discuss Afghanistan, start a thread and provide a link and I'll tell you what I actually think about that situation. Otherwise, start actually talking about objectivity instead of talking about liberation and making up U.N. mandates for invading Afghanistan, or pretending that worldwide opinion is the same thing as objectivity.

⚛​

I was talking about what was mentioned, namely, Afghanistan and Iraq. Please learn how to read, and post in response to what I have said, not what you want me to have said.

 

[Cyrus]

This is the definition you piled on with Russ to disagree with:



Show me how that is not true if you want to say that “terrorist” is a purely objective term. Will you at least admit that “bad guys” is a subjective term?

⚛​

Did I even say I disagree with your definition anywhere? Reading comprehension, anyone?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Okay, if the problem is just that you misunderstood my example of objectivity as an assertion that I think the invasion of Afghanistan was terrorism - and somehow continued in that misunderstanding even after I clearly stated that I do not think it was - and you aren't saying anything about “terrorist” being an objective term even though you're claiming that it's somehow impossible or incomprehensible for Afghanis to refer to the U.S. action to terrorize their country into turning over bin Laden via bombings that killed a great many civilians as “terrorism” - well then I guess you really aren't saying anything at all, so yeah, I certainly can't disagree with you.

And “Learn to read” is just brilliant, a really spectacular way of responding to someone pointing out that you're a troll. You couldn't have done more to prove my point for me. It's like “Troll sez what?” “What?”

⚛​