- #1
wolram
Gold Member
- 4,267
- 557
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.
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?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.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.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.
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?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.
I will not argue with this, it justifies my original uncertainty.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.
Perhaps any definition of terrorists would be further enhanced by appending "and has not achieved their objective yet."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.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.Perhaps any definition of terrorists would be further enhanced by appending "and has not achieved their objective yet."
That covers just about any war or military action.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Circular logic. Terrorists commit acts of terror? That would certainly include Bush - shock and awe and the preceding threats.2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
Again, circular logic. Terroristic acts are committed by terrorists? That reminds me of the meaning of "is". .3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
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'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.
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?Huh? That doesn't make any sense.
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.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.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.
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.How is shock and awe an act of terror Ivan?
I think that comment was in poor taste, no offense.
So you are saying that we have a clear definition because we can't have a clear definition.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.
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, thats simply a fact. How can you possibly lump that with terrorism?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.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.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.