Fair definitions of terrorist and terrorism

[Art]

Just for some factual clarification the soldiers in Afghanistan are NATO forces NOT UN forces.

As for definitions of terrorism - we've had that discussion here many times before. There can be no usable objective definition of terrorism because many of the blocks the definitions are built on are themselves subjective or the subject of controversy.

A recent example is the US invasion of Iraq; the US gov't believes it acted legally others including the then SG of the UN do not. The status of the death and destruction emanating from the invasion depends to a large degree on the righteousness of the invasion and as it's legality can not be objectively determined neither can the ensuing mayhem be objectively labelled.

In previous discussions on this I have taken the view that 'terrorist' is simply a pejorative word used to denounce one's enemies and if it is to be used it should be applied to specific acts which outrage moral decency.

Using the Irish example above. When the IRA planted bombs in pubs in England this was an act of terrorism however when they killed a couple of dozen soldiers in a battle at Warrenpoint this was not. Similarly when the British army gunned down peaceful protesters in Derry this was an act of terrorism but like the IRA this does not make the entire British Army a terrorist organisation.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

The reason you don't buy that is that you think I'm like you. I'm not like you.

No, it's because you actually can't write an objective definition of terrorism which can be applied by everyone to reach the same conclusions about who is a terrorist and who is not. Like I said way up in the [post=1624841]2nd post[/post] in this thread, you have to agree with someone over who the bad guys are to agree with them on who the terrorists are AKA it's a subjective definition. It has nothing to do with me not understanding you. The fact that different people have different points of view is exactly what I said.

I am not the one who has reading comprehension problems, it's you and Cyrus who do, as evidenced by the fact that you both have restated things I've previously said out of the belief that you're contradicting me.

What has happened in the recent part of the thread is that Cyrus has sloppily tried to pretend that a whole bunch of people thinking something is the same thing as objectivity (or he has effectively tried to make that argument without understanding what objectivity is and by making statements and citations that contradict himself.)

⚛​

 

[Yonoz]

Using the Irish example above. When the IRA planted bombs in pubs in England this was an act of terrorism however when they killed a couple of dozen soldiers in a battle at Warrenpoint this was not. Similarly when the British army gunned down peaceful protesters in Derry this was an act of terrorism but like the IRA this does not make the entire British Army a terrorist organisation.

I suppose that depends on how and where the decision to commit each of these acts was taken, and whether acts of terrorism are common practice in each of the organisation.

 

[Art]

I suppose that depends on how and where the decision to commit each of these acts was taken, and whether acts of terrorism are common practice in each of the organisation.

I'm not sure I know what you mean Do you mean for example if the British Army regularly targeted civilians or if the attacks were ordered by their leaders that would make them a terrorist organisation?

 

[Yonoz]

Do you mean for example if the British Army regularly targeted civilians or if the attacks were ordered by their leaders that would make them a terrorist organisation?

Pretty much. If the organization as a whole has a policy of terrorism then it is a terrorist organization.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Pretty much. If the organization as a whole has a policy of terrorism then it is a terrorist organization.

Yonoz, I don't know what you think about the War on Terror, but based upon your identification of the British Army as a terrorist organization, would you say that having Britain as the closest U.S. ally in the War on Terror is a bit incongruous?

⚛​

 

[Yonoz]

your identification of the British Army as a terrorist organization

When was that?

 

[rudinreader]

This thread is SOOOO long.. can someone please get me up to speed on it?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

When was that?

I apologize, I must have misunderstood. I thought that was what you were saying here:

Do you mean for example if the British Army regularly targeted civilians or if the attacks were ordered by their leaders that would make them a terrorist organisation?

Pretty much…

If you don't think that the British Army is a terrorist organization then my question is meaningless, certainly.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This thread is SOOOO long.. can someone please get me up to speed on it?

I think that anyone summarizing the thread wouldn't really be able to do so in an unbiased manner. All there really is to say is that at the beginning several definitions of “terrorist” were presented, then argument ensued over them. 70 posts really isn't that long, especially considering that much of it is quotation of previous posts - it's like a two or three page essay to skim through.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

(accidental duplicate post, mod please delete)

 

[Yonoz]

I apologize, I must have misunderstood.

That's alright, I'm still getting over agreeing with Art.