- #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 4,446
- 558
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.
CaptainQuasar said: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.⚛
That's woefully inadequate. What you are describing is a broad definition of a large fraction of murders.wolram said: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.
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.
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.CaptainQuasar said: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.
russ_watters said: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 said: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.⚛
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'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.CaptainQuasar said:LOL! Who killed JFK? We have video of that.
Huh? That doesn't make any sense. A blood test? That's just plain dumb.Are you saying that you can scientifically prove that someone's a terrorist? With a blood test or something?
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.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.
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.DaveC426913 said:Perhaps any definition of terrorists would be further enhanced by appending "and has not achieved their objective yet."
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 said: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.
russ_watters said:Huh? That doesn't make any sense.
russ_watters said: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.
No, it really doesn't.Ivan Seeking said:That covers just about any war or military action.
Have you ever opened a dictionary before? Most definitions include a circular component referencing the other forms of the word.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.
Cyrus said:How is shock and awe an act of terror Ivan?
I think that comment was in poor taste, no offense.
russ_watters said: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.
Ivan Seeking said: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.
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.CaptainQuasar said: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.
Yes...You talked about scientific determination of historical facts.
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.Why did you bring that up unless you think that determining who is a terrorist is a matter of historical fact or scientific determination?
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.Yeah, there isn't an objective definition of who is a terrorist and who isn't.
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: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.⚛
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.Ivan Seeking said: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.
Huh? You're not making any sense.Ivan Seeking said:So you are saying that we have a clear definition because we can't have a clear definition.
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.I can define President, soldier, civilian, citizen, evangelist, pianist, physician... hmmm, it seems that not all words are so difficult to define.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorismTerrorism 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] ”
russ_watters said: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.
russ_watters said: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.
russ_watters said: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.
russ_watters said: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).
russ_watters said:You can't claim "Shock and Awe" was terrorism unless you accept an objective definition of terrorism.
russ_watters said:If you want to claim that terrorism is whatever anyone says it is, then there really isn't anything to discuss.
wolram said:If i take this to the extreme, would war of the worlds,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio [Broken])
Be considered a terrorist act, (if it had been a malicious), people (could) have died through
heart attach or other panic related acts.
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.⚛
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
The definition of terrorism varies depending on the context and perspective. Generally, it is defined as the use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a population or government for political or ideological purposes.
The distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter or revolutionary is often subjective and can depend on one's perspective. However, some key differences may include the use of violence against civilians and non-combatants, targeting innocent individuals, and lack of a clear political goal or ideology in terrorist acts.
No, there is currently no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Different countries and organizations may have their own definitions, which can lead to discrepancies and debates over what constitutes terrorism.
Governments may use a variety of methods to determine if an individual or group is a terrorist, including intelligence gathering, surveillance, and monitoring of activities and communications. They may also use legal definitions and criteria to classify certain actions as terrorist acts.
This is a highly debated and complex question with no clear answer. Some argue that the use of violence for political or ideological purposes can never be justified, while others believe that in certain circumstances, such as fighting against oppression or injustice, terrorism may be seen as a legitimate form of resistance.