News Terrorism and terrorist are basically meaningless words

[madness]

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are basically meaningless words

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are basically meaningless words (there is no widely agreed definition) which are used to undermine and deligitimise a group or individual or state. I don't think these words are acceptable in any intelligent discussion or analysis of world events - they are clearly emotive words which have been engineered for propagandha purposes (now called "perception management" by the US government). To quote Hermann Goering:

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

To me this seems to accurately describe much of the political climate of recent years. From this point of view the use of the term "terrorism" becomes quite transparent.

Should we not strive to avoid such emotive and subjective language in order to make an objective analysis of a situation?

 

[Academic]

"Terrorism" is a euphemism. Its political correctness.

 

[Evo]

I disagree strongly, acts of violence towards innocent people, especially where war has not been declared, is terrorism.

 

[berkeman]

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are basically meaningless words (there is no widely agreed definition) which are used to undermine and deligitimise a group or individual or state. I don't think these words are acceptable in any intelligent discussion or analysis of world events - they are clearly emotive words which have been engineered for propagandha purposes (now called "perception management" by the US government). To quote Hermann Goering:

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

To me this seems to accurately describe much of the political climate of recent years. From this point of view the use of the term "terrorism" becomes quite transparent.

Should we not strive to avoid such emotive and subjective language in order to make an objective analysis of a situation?

The FBI definition is pretty widely accepted:

http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_6.htm

The FBI defines terrorism as:

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

And in my training, the definition pretty much holds true. As a First Responder (EMT), I'm especially cautious about "secondary devices".

There may be some value in trying to moderate the rhetoric, but again, from my training on terrorism and anti-terrorism, there are some very serious threats posed by these folks.

 

[berkeman]

BTW, did you see this interesting thread nearby here in P&WA about the RAND study?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=411961

There may be some good things that can come out of that, to help dismantle more of these organizations.

 

[disregardthat]

I would agree with OP. The terrorist label is not isolated to those who's main purpose is to harm civilians. A rebellious organization might unwillingly harm civilians in the process of fighting the state, even though their main purpose is not necessarily so. An example would be a bombing of a state-building where civilians incidentally were killed.

There are many examples of military organizations fighting for the rights of the minority they represent, but which are also labeled "terrorists" by the state, even though the state actually are suppressing the minority. These organizations lack the means to declare an official war and fight a "clean war", but are forced to fight in other means - and these means might have civilian casualties as a byproduct. Good examples are terrorist sabotage groups spontaneously formed in invaded states or overthrown states. The terrorist labels might be inverted the moment the state is overthrown.

The label is not justifiable in every case, but has an obvious psychological effect. Fighting "terrorists" is much more righteous than fighting "freedom fighters".

 

[CRGreathouse]

In principle, I think there's a real distinction in meaning. But I agree that there's been a tendency to overuse the term, especially recently.

As to the definition quoted above:
"The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
Its active part seems to be the last clause. An armed robbery is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or some segment thereof; it's only the last part of that definition that makes it not terrorism.

 

[madness]

I disagree strongly, acts of violence towards innocent people, especially where war has not been declared, is terrorism.

Of course I don't condone acts of violence towards innocent people, whether it is by Islamists or the US military. All I'm saying is that the word "terrorism" is emotionally charged and doesn't belong outside of tabloid media. I've seen (on many occasions and by people of authority) both Hamas and the state of Israel labelled as terrorists. Why not just give an objective account instead of dividing these conflicts into a good and evil side?

Edit: I'd also like to pick out your point "especially where war has not been declared". We have declared "war on terror". Should we take this to mean that terrorist attacks are now legitimate? If not then it can hardly be called a war since only one side can legitimately attack the other.

 

[mgb_phys]

The FBI defines terrorism as:

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

The tricky bit is unlawful.
Was Pearl Harbor unlawful because the Japanese declaration of war was late?
Was the resistance/underground unlawful after their government had surrended?

 

[drankin]

Universal definition: All violent enemies are terrorists.

Incorrect. Terrorism typically involves in-discriminate violent acts against civilians to promote a cause. If all these guys did were attack uniformed soldiers, it would be difficult to classify them as terrorists. I don't recall us ever calling the Germans, Japanese, N Vietnamese, or N Koreans "terrorists" when we were at war with those peeps.

 

[russ_watters]

Note to all: terrorism is a real issue that is treated seriously by the law and governments. If you don't take the issue seriously, don't post. Flippant comments are not acceptable.

 

[russ_watters]

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are basically meaningless words (there is no widely agreed definition)...

You are making a logical error: difficult to define and not defined are not the same thing.

...which are used to undermine and deligitimise a group or individual or state.

While I guess that could be true in some cases, it is not exclusively true and is not really relevant to whether or not "terrorism" is a real issue with an objective definition and application. Frankly, it appears to me that it is mostly opponents of the term and sympathizers with the so-labeled groups who don't treat the issue seriously. Governments and international agencies tend to have pretty clear definitions and lists that really are internally consistent, logical, and objective. It is your thesis that they are not, so you must provide such a definition and show why it is not internally consistent or objectively applied.

You have not provided any citations/analysis of definitions or critiques of lists of terrorist organizations (ie, pointing out that a certain group doesn't fit the government's own definition). I can only conclude based on this that you haven't actually done the legwork required to have an informed opinion on the subject: you're making it up as you go along because it sounds good to you and fits your bias. That is not accpetable here. Do your homework. Get the definitions and the lists and give us some analysis of them. They are not at all difficult to find.

This thread is thin on content and quality and will need to improve to remain open.

 

[russ_watters]

I would agree with OP. The terrorist label is not isolated to those who's main purpose is to harm civilians. A rebellious organization might unwillingly harm civilians in the process of fighting the state, even though their main purpose is not necessarily so. An example would be a bombing of a state-building where civilians incidentally were killed.

There are many examples of military organizations fighting for the rights of the minority they represent, but which are also labeled "terrorists" by the state, even though the state actually are suppressing the minority. These organizations lack the means to declare an official war and fight a "clean war", but are forced to fight in other means - and these means might have civilian casualties as a byproduct. Good examples are terrorist sabotage groups spontaneously formed in invaded states or overthrown states. The terrorist labels might be inverted the moment the state is overthrown.

The label is not justifiable in every case, but has an obvious psychological effect. Fighting "terrorists" is much more righteous than fighting "freedom fighters".

Please provide examples to support your claims. What are the names of such organizations that are improperly labeled "terrorists", against a country's own definition?

 

[russ_watters]

The tricky bit is unlawful.
Was Pearl Harbor unlawful because the Japanese declaration of war was late?
Was the resistance/underground unlawful after their government had surrended?

No. In both cases, the targets were military, not civilian. These cases are both clearly not examples of terrorism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No. In both cases, the targets were military, not civilian. These cases are both clearly not examples of terrorism.

The particular definition supplied does not specify civilian targets. I am fairly certain that most definitions do include that specification though.

The Wiki article on "Definitions of Terrorism" may be a good place to look for commonly used definitions, it appears fairly expansive. I haven't time to look through it right now though so I can not confirm my assumption.

 

[rootX]

Incorrect. Terrorism typically involves in-discriminate violent acts against civilians to promote a cause. If all these guys did were attack uniformed soldiers, it would be difficult to classify them as terrorists. I don't recall us ever calling the Germans, Japanese, N Vietnamese, or N Koreans "terrorists" when we were at war with those peeps.

That's the most easiest way to define it though. Otherwise, it changes by time and who is there to label whom.

If government is oppressive and group of violent individuals do harm to the government would those also be terrorists?
Russ,
If you continue to use current US government laws to define terrorists, you yourself are not addressing the issue sincerely.By no means, that's objective. By the FBI definition, many people who currently are treated as heroes/freedom fighters are also terrorists.

 

[russ_watters]

The particular definition supplied does not specify civilian targets. I am fairly certain that most definitions do include that specification though.

It is a little thin on who the "persons or property" are, but yes, you are correct: they are almost exclusively intended to mean civilians.

 

[cesiumfrog]

I disagree strongly, acts of violence towards innocent people, especially where war has not been declared, is terrorism.

Has the US officially declared war on Pakistan, etc? Did the Taliban not declare war on the west? (If the US had declared war before invading Afghanistan, wouldn't those of Guantanamo bay been protected from torture by Geneva convention?)

I doubt even Russ can find a non-US-centric definition for terrorism that excludes Nagasaki.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ,
If you continue to use current US government laws to define terrorists, you yourself are not addressing the issue sincerely. By no means, that's objective.

No. This thread is intended to be a criticism of US policy so only by actually reading and understanding US policy can it actually be criticized. Otherwise, you're simply criticizing a fantasy that only exists in your [and the OP's] own head!

If you are going to criticize a definition, you need to cite that definition so that we can all be sure that that definition is real and not just something you fabricated as a straw-man. Case in point:

By the FBI definition, many people who currently are treated as heroes/freedom fighters are also terrorists.

If you do not cite an example, then you are just making that up.

Let me help you: is the Taliban a terrorist organization? You'd better take the question seriously and do some real research because it is somewhat of a trick question - but it is a great example for this issue.

 

[russ_watters]

Has the US officially declared war on Pakistan, etc?

No. What does that have to do with anything?

Did the Taliban not declare war on the west?

Odd question/oddly worded. Formal declarations of war fell out of style decades ago and I don't think either declared war on the other.

(If the US had declared war before invading Afghanistan, wouldn't those of Guantanamo bay been protected from torture by Geneva convention?)

The declaration of war has no bearing on whether or not torture is legal.

I doubt even Russ can find a non-US-centric definition for terrorism that excludes Nagasaki.

As with the others, you are assuming the answers to questions no one has asked and not defending your thesis. It should be crystal clear by now that those who oppose the concept of a clear definition of terrorism are the ones playing fast-and-loose with the issue as none, including you, have yet provided a single citation of a definition or analysis of it.

You are what you are claiming others are - and they are not.

Your implication here is that you think Nakasaki fits the US's definition of terrorism. Explain! Defend!

 

[rootX]

If you do not cite an example, then you are just making that up.

Please identify whom you would treat as heroes and whom as terrorists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement
Particularly I am interested in your views on people who fought against Colonialism and who were killed by Chinese government in events like Tiananmen Square.Taliban is a terrorist organization but I am arguing that there's no definition for terrorists that can hold against time.

 

[russ_watters]

We were at war with Japan.

I was hoping cesium would explain, but since you jumped-in...

The Nagasaki bombing was quite different from modern-day terrorism. Importantly:

-International law has changed since then.
-We were in a state of war with Japan.
-Besides the written rules, the state of war included different unwritten rules, basically tit-for-tat conventions on acceptable conduct. A "you bomb my civilians, I bomb your civilians" type of give-and-take.

The US has shown no hypocrisy here: This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Allies did not prosecute the Axis powers for such actions that both sides took - such as indescriminate bombing of civilans.

So while it is true that with the letter of the law, Nagasaki would probably be considered terrorism under a modern definition(or just illegal under different terms, since it happened during war) , it wasn't then and that discussion is really just a diversionary tactic and a non-sequitur. Basically, cesium is hoping I'd fall into a trap in a blind defense of the US. Sorry to disappoint: again, that's your image in your mirror, not mine.

 

[russ_watters]

Please identify whom you would treat as heroes and whom as terrorists.

No. Your thesis, your responsibility to defend it.

Taliban is a terrorist organization...

Wrong!*

rootx, you need to stop making this stuff up as you go along and start actually dealing with the realities of these issues. Start looking at the definitions you are criticizing instead of criticizing what you think they say. Start looking at the lists of terrorist organizations instead of assuming you know the contents of them. This making-stuff-up-as-you-go-along-because-it-sounds-good-in-your-head debate tactic is not acceptable and needs to stop immediately.

*There is an interesting and important caveat to that, though, which you would know if you researched the issue like I told you to. Do it!

 

[rootX]

I was hoping cesium would explain, but since you jumped-in...

The Nagasaki bombing was vastly different from modern-day terrorism. Importantly:

-International law has changed since then.
-We were in a state of war with Japan.
-Besides the written rules, the state of war included different unwritten rules, basically tit-for-tat conventions on acceptable conduct. A "you bomb my civilians, I bomb your civilians" type of give-and-take.

The US has shown no hypocrisy here: This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Allies did not prosecute the Axis powers for such actions that both sides took - such as indescriminate bombing of civilans.

So while it is true that with the letter of the law, Nagasaki would probably be considered terrorism under a modern definition(or just illegal under different terms, since it happened during war) , it wasn't then and that discussion is really just a diversionary tactic and a non-sequitur. Basically, cesium is hoping I'd fall into a trap in a blind defense of the US. Sorry to disappoint: again, that's your image in your mirror, not mine.

So, I believe we agree then that acts of terrorism change as laws change over time?

 

[Evo]

I was hoping cesium would explain, but since you jumped-in...

The Nagasaki bombing was vastly different from modern-day terrorism. Importantly:

-International law has changed since then.
-We were in a state of war with Japan.
-Besides the written rules, the state of war included different unwritten rules, basically tit-for-tat conventions on acceptable conduct. A "you bomb my civilians, I bomb your civilians" type of give-and-take.

The US has shown no hypocrisy here: This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Allies did not prosecute the Axis powers for such actions that both sides took - such as indescriminate bombing of civilans.

So while it is true that with the letter of the law, Nagasaki would probably be considered terrorism under a modern definition(or just illegal under different terms, since it happened during war) , it wasn't then and that discussion is really just a diversionary tactic and a non-sequitur. Basically, cesium is hoping I'd fall into a trap in a blind defense of the US. Sorry to disappoint: again, that's your image in your mirror, not mine.

Excellent explanation.

 

[russ_watters]

...I am arguing that there's no definition for terrorists that can hold against time.

[separate post]

So, I believe we agree then that acts of terrorism change as laws change over time?

These exact statements are factually true and easily verified, but the implications attached to them(that it is a flaw in the definition/law/usage) are just as easily shown to be factually wrong and irrelevant. Quite obviously, definitions and laws change over time: they evolve to deal with new realities. If they didn't, there'd be no need for Congress as that is the entire point of Congress's existence.

Note: I am still waiting for you to deal with my demands: you have still not provided a single citation for a definition you are criticizing and you haven't dealt with your factually wrong assertion that the Taliban is considered by the US government and by government definition to be a terrorist organization.

 

[rootX]

you have still not provided a single citation for a definition you are criticizing

I was using different time period to criticize the definition and hoping that this should hold true in those time periods also and I used in particular China and Colonialism to make that argument. I don't believe I need to elaborate why this definition fails in those two cases. After some posts which we both agreed that even this definition cannot hold against time

you haven't dealt with your factually wrong assertion that the Taliban is considered by the US government and by government definition to be a terrorist organization

Yes I was wrong there. I was aware that Taliban is not on the list but during that moment I mistook it as Al Qaeda.

These exact statements are factually true and easily verified, but the implications attached to them(that it is a flaw in the definition/law/usage) are just as easily shown to be factually wrong and irrelevant. Quite obviously, definitions and laws change over time: they evolve to deal with new realities. If they didn't, there'd be no need for Congress as that is the entire point of Congress's existence.

However, in the context where you are trying to understand a conflict or what caused present challenges NOT how to deal with the present challenges, you cannot use current laws. Conflicts can go back many centuries (Israel) if not decades (Al Qaeda). In those circumstances, words like terrorists are meaningless.

 

[cesiumfrog]

No. What does that have to do with anything?[..]Explain! Defend!

I gave examples regarding formal declarations because I was responding to Evo's post that declarations are important to the classification. (Hence I tried to pick examples by which such a definition would lead to a conclusion some of you would seek to reject.)

I think the only definition of "terrorism" that makes any sense would have to be concerned with whether or not deliberately causing psychological terror (especially in the enemy's civilian support base) rather than just physical damage (to the enemy's military infrastructure) is a core part of the strategy. I must say, I'm very surprised that Russ conceded Nagasaki to have been terrorism (I don't really want to discuss whether the word meant something else in the past), if he doesn't blindly defend the state that represents most of the planet's military spending then there's actually a conversation to be had.

It bothers me to hear "war on terror". In part because invading a land whilst having little concern for civilian collateral damage (as exemplified in the helicopter video that became public recently) seems a poor way to dissuade new generations of fighters. In part because such posturing (like "war on drugs") seems to concentrate power and disaffect everybody else (imagine how much beneficial progress could have been made if the US military budget since 2001 had instead been redirected into constructive creative projects in the middle east). In part because (like Conroy mentioning pedophiles in the internet censorship debate) the emotive language is being used like a fiction to illegitimatise the opposition prior to debate (reminding me of how language has been manipulated so that the people in Guantanamo have been denied both the rights of accused criminals and of POWs).

 

[arildno]

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are basically meaningless words (there is no widely agreed definition) which are used to undermine and deligitimise a group or individual or state. I don't think these words are acceptable in any intelligent discussion or analysis of world events - they are clearly emotive words which have been engineered for propagandha purposes (now called "perception management" by the US government). To quote Hermann Goering:

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

To me this seems to accurately describe much of the political climate of recent years. From this point of view the use of the term "terrorism" becomes quite transparent.

Should we not strive to avoid such emotive and subjective language in order to make an objective analysis of a situation?

You really should learn a bit history.
The fact that terrorism has been declared illegal, does not make terrorism into a term we fling, rather arbitrarily, upon acts we regard as..illegal.

The techniques and effects of terrorism were perfectly well understood long before there was a moral ban upon it.

In short, terrorism is our day's terminology for what was previously called "breaking the spirit"/"cowing the enemy".

It was a tool within most states' pacification/war strategies, and the aim was, at least, two-fold:

i) Maximizing effective crushing of rebellious elements
To single out which particular elements within a population are ACTUALLY rebellious, is an extremely time-consuming and difficult process.
If, instead, you have the cold-bloodedness to kill off the whole population at some site, this can be done quickly, and will ALSO kill off the actual rebels, even without you knowing who they actually were.
Dispensing with moral concerns, massacres are highly cost-effective affairs.

To take a modern example:
Suppose a conference is to take place, with some politician you want to get rid of, and a lot of civilians and security personell besides.
Now, a sniper tactic to solely single out the politician is pretty much ruled out, due to security measures (they'll see the revealing bulk of your rifle), unless you are an exceptionally good long-range sniper. Most people are therefore ruled out to perform such actions.

It will be easier to mingle with the civilians, with a bomb belt strapped to your waist, and at an opportune moment, blow yourself, and the rest of the conference members into pieces (including, hopefully, that politician).

ii) The spreading of terror/fear
This is, perhaps, the defining characteristic of terrorism (whether state-made or not).
Characteristic i) is commonly associated with terrorism, but might also occur in other contexts where "terrorism" is inappropriate label, wheter or not such an action can be regarded as morally justified. (A case in point would be that you know you have to bomb a factory that produces war technology; and that you also know that you cannot avoid killing civilians in the process)

Let us see what this "spreading of terror" can entail:
IF dialectical reasoning had been a dominant psychological mode, then to murder innocents would have been counter-productive, since it would have galvanized resistance against you every time you did so.

But, what if "terror-spreading" acts typically do NOT generate its own rebellion?

a) What if the people thus hit will become apathetic out of shock, start cowering in fear, or trying to run away or hide themselves instead?

b)Or, if the "spread of terror" effects the well known process "sowing dissension among the enemy?"
(Curses against leaders who didn't protect the populace against such attacks, counter-curses about treason, calls for negotiation&dialogue with the enemy and so on).

If a) and b) are likely responses, then "terrorism" can be an extremely effective tool in furthering one's own political agenda.

That is, in my view, why most states in previous periods have not shied away from implementing terror when it suited them.

Read Machiavelli and others to get a further understanding of this mode of cold rationality.

 

[cesiumfrog]

IF dialectical reasoning had been a dominant psychological mode [then resistance is galvanised]

What do you mean by this?
Did Machiavelli discuss when terrorism is effective?

 

[russ_watters]

...this definition...

...this definition...

You have not provided "this definition" nor provided any direct analysis of it.

Guys, this is very simple and my patience is wearing thin. This thread will not be allowed to continue much longer unless proponents of the OP's thesis start doing the following:

1. Cite (quote, with citation of the source) a definition of terrorism and critcize it directly, explaining what is wrong with it. This shouldn't be hard as opponents of the OP's thesis have already posted several for you to work from.
2. Cite an official list of terrorist groups and show that the government's definition does not logically fit one of the groups on that list.

I have shown via the example of the Taliban, that what you made up in your head and assume to be true is not true. This shows the folly in the OP's thesis and why you guys need to start treating the issue seriously. When you do that - and fail to find the flaws you assume exist - you will show yourselves that your thesis is wrong.

If you don't start treating the issue seriously - with real intellectual analysis, the thread will be locked.

 

[madness]

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

This article seems to state unequivocally that there is no agreed definition of terrorism.


'Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament has stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[2] These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.'

'A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[5] Record continued "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls".

As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."[1] For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.'

 

[zomgwtf]

Soooo, the Taliban isn't a terrorist organization because they are at a state of war with America. Their declaration of war or intent of war was made in attacks against other nations. They just decided to kill innocents prior to fighting against soldier. If the tit-for-tat still applies then it makes sense why they feel justified in attacking America.

International laws mean nothing in my opinion really. It's funny that it would be brought up to show that American actions weren't terrorist in the past. That would mean that NOW they ARE considered as 'terrorist attacks', even if they were at war (just like how people say the Taliban/Al Qaeda are) The reason why I say that international laws don't matter really is because America breaks a lot of those laws itself. Breaking international 'law' doesn't have any bearing on whether something is terrorist or not.

Terrorism has to do, in my opinion, with intent in the actions. If the intentions of the attacks are merely to coerce the government/civilian population against their will through violence then it is considered terrorist. Does this include dropping a nuclear weapon on a civilian population? Yes. It most definitely does, I highly doubt that if instead Germany had dropped a nuke on America people would be defending it from the label of terrorist. However it could be argued that because it was a war time situation it's different.

 

[disregardthat]

Please provide examples to support your claims. What are the names of such organizations that are improperly labeled "terrorists", against a country's own definition?

I will give an example, but I think you have missed my point. This is an extract from wikipedia on Nelson Mandela:

"Up until July 2008, Mandela and ANC party members were barred from entering the United States — except the United Nations headquarters in Manhattan — without a special waiver from the US Secretary of State, because of their South African apartheid regime era designation as terrorists."

I take it as this organization was labeled terrorists by the state of South Africa. Now they are the state. Wouldn't both sides be "terrorists" if the former state was just another organization, and not the government?

The point is not that they have been improperly labeled terrorists according to the definition, not at all; rather, the opposite is the point! The point is that the definition or definitions are themselves elastic enough to contain almost any military organization opposing the state in which they are established, but which are not states themselves. I can not think of a war having no civilian casualties. However, civilian casualties are almost always enough to for an non-state military organization with ideological goals to be labeled a terrorist group. Together with the psychological effect, the label is nothing but a function of propaganda in some cases. The opposing group are not "fighting for rights", they are "terrorizing". Do you see the point?

 

[rootX]

You have not provided "this definition" nor provided any direct analysis of it.

Guys, this is very simple and my patience is wearing thin. This thread will not be allowed to continue much longer unless proponents of the OP's thesis start doing the following:

1. Cite (quote, with citation of the source) a definition of terrorism and critcize it directly, explaining what is wrong with it. This shouldn't be hard as opponents of the OP's thesis have already posted several for you to work from.
2. Cite an official list of terrorist groups and show that the government's definition does not logically fit one of the groups on that list.
If you don't start treating the issue seriously - with real intellectual analysis, the thread will be locked.

Russ, there is just one definition that we have been discussing:

Russ,
If you continue to use current US government laws to define terrorists, you yourself are not addressing the issue sincerely.By no means, that's objective. By the FBI definition, many people who currently are treated as heroes/freedom fighters are also terrorists.

and see post 4, where it was defined:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2773260&postcount=4

I would ask you to explain how well you can use that in situations like following:
"However, in the context where you are trying to understand a conflict or what caused present challenges NOT how to deal with the present challenges, you cannot use current laws. Conflicts can go back many centuries (Israel) if not decades (Al Qaeda). In those circumstances, words like terrorists are meaningless. "

I have shown via the example of the Taliban, that what you made up in your head and assume to be true is not true. This shows the folly in the OP's thesis and why you guys need to start treating the issue seriously.
you do that - and fail to find the flaws you assume exist - you will show yourselves that your thesis is wrong.

:zzz:
Redundant. I have already addressed that it was on typo on my part.

 

[arildno]

What do you mean by this?
Did Machiavelli discuss when terrorism is effective?

As how to to use terror as a means to retain power, sure, that is discussed in "The Prince".

 

[cesiumfrog]

As how to to use terror as a means to retain power, sure, that is discussed in "The Prince".

Does it explain under which circumstances is terrorism effective?

Particularly, if the enemy is thinking rationally, why should terrorising them strengthen their resolve? Shouldn't it disrupt their rationality? Or (by changing the input data) alter the output of the equation that is determining their behaviour? And if the enemy is thinking irrationally (emotively?) then why shouldn't terrorising them still strengthen their (emotive/vengeful?) resolve? (I think this last one is relevant to islamic extremists: I agree with Christopher Hitchens that they should be opposed, but cannot agree that so callously hurting their civilian population base was among the better ways of doing so).

By the way, I like the word "terrorising", it hasn't been sullied yet.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Cesiumfrog, you should really just read the book -- it's short and quite readable.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Guys, this is very simple and my patience is wearing thin. This thread will not be allowed to continue much longer unless proponents of the OP's thesis start doing the following:

1. Cite (quote, with citation of the source) a definition of terrorism and critcize it directly, explaining what is wrong with it. This shouldn't be hard as opponents of the OP's thesis have already posted several for you to work from.
2. Cite an official list of terrorist groups and show that the government's definition does not logically fit one of the groups on that list.

I did #1 (though I used an existing citation for the definition I criticized) but I'm not a proponent of the OP's thesis.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The point is not that they have been improperly labeled terrorists according to the definition, not at all; rather, the opposite is the point! The point is that the definition or definitions are themselves elastic enough to contain almost any military organization opposing the state in which they are established, but which are not states themselves. I can not think of a war having no civilian casualties. However, civilian casualties are almost always enough to for an non-state military organization with ideological goals to be labeled a terrorist group. Together with the psychological effect, the label is nothing but a function of propaganda in some cases. The opposing group are not "fighting for rights", they are "terrorizing". Do you see the point?

Would you further explain your thesis that South African apartheid regime era could be correctly considered a terrorist organization (toward the end of showing the broadness of that definition of terrorism)?

 

[disregardthat]

Would you further explain your thesis that South African apartheid regime era could be correctly considered a terrorist organization (toward the end of showing the broadness of that definition of terrorism)?

I don't understand your question. How can an era be an organization? Also, if I understand your question correctly I was posing this "thesis" as a rhetorical question in my post, and I consider it irrelevant to my point - so I do not wish to pursue it further.

I am also astounded how this thread became a strict question of correct or incorrect use of terrorist according to the modern definition, and about not the traditional and current use of the word.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't understand your question. How can an era be an organization?

I copied that part, word for word, from your post. You tell me!

Also, if I understand your question correctly I was posing this "thesis" as a rhetorical question in my post, and I consider it irrelevant to my point - so I do not wish to pursue it further.

Care to make any clarifications about post #34, then? In the absence of such claim ("the opposite is the point") it makes no sense to me.

 

[disregardthat]

I copied that part, word for word, from your post. You tell me!

I don't think you did. I think it is pretty clear in my quotation that they had held their designation as terrorists from the apartheid era.

Care to make any clarifications about post #34, then? In the absence of such claim ("the opposite is the point") it makes no sense to me.

I said "rather; the opposite", in the sense that the opposite is closer to my point. I am not focused on the modern definition, but on the use. If your definition of "proper use" is equivalent to "according to the modern definition", then I don't agree. I am concerned with the traditional use of the word. Definitions is a function of the use, and when they're not - well, I don't think they are a relevant part of the discussion in that case.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I said "rather; the opposite", in the sense that the opposite is closer to my point.

Precisely. So rather than saying that it is an inappropriate designation, you say that it's an appropriate designation and use that as an example of how the label "terrorism"/"terrorist" is overly flexible, to the point of being useless.

So my question was why you think it was an appropriate label (in that era) rather than just a mislabeling.

 

[madness]

Precisely. So rather than saying that it is an inappropriate designation, you say that it's an appropriate designation and use that as an example of how the label "terrorism"/"terrorist" is overly flexible, to the point of being useless.

So my question was why you think it was an appropriate label (in that era) rather than just a mislabeling.

Because there are no definitions of terrorism which manage to cover all the people who we don't like and would like to call terrorists and manage to avoid misfiring and classifying either ourselves or groups we support as terrorists. The designation is only appropriate with respect to a particular definition of terrorism, and we would like to find a definition which groups all of the people we think are bad as terrorists and all the people we think are good as not being terrorists. Unfortunately it won't work.

 

[disregardthat]

So my question was why you think it was an appropriate label (in that era) rather than just a mislabeling.

What is in question here is the use. It is naive to render all inappropriate use (according to some particular definition) as wrong and therefore irrelevant. The whole point is that, without regard to any definition, the term is too widely used to make any definitive sense. At least not objective sense (It almost always makes sense to call the enemy terrorists). Even "inappropriate" use is relevant use. No (artificial or not) definition changes that. As I previously said, a definition is a function of use.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Jale, I still don't understand your post #34. Your responses seem almost evasive. Could you make it any more clear?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Because there are no definitions of terrorism which manage to cover all the people who we don't like and would like to call terrorists and manage to avoid misfiring and classifying either ourselves or groups we support as terrorists.

That looks like a strawman. I don't think anyone here is advocating that standard for the definition of terrorism.

 

[disregardthat]

Jale, I still don't understand your post #34. Your responses seem almost evasive. Could you make it any more clear?

I don't exactly understand what to make clearer. Could you make a direct quote? Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned "definition or definitions", because I don't think this discussion should be dependent of any particular definition, and it is not my intention to base myself on any such definition.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't exactly understand what to make clearer. Could you make a direct quote?

"The point is not that they have been improperly labeled terrorists according to the definition, not at all; rather, the opposite is the point!"

I feel that you have a sensible and interesting point to make, but I can't grasp it. This may be due to my inability to understand, the inadequacies of this medium, or any number of other factors.