News Terrorism and terrorist are basically meaningless words

[disregardthat]

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.

I meant that the designation had been, without any doubt, proper.

"The ANC was classified as a terrorist organisation by the South African government and by some Western countries including the United States of America and the United Kingdom."

- wiki on history of ANC

And this is the key issue. The definition, as any definition, is altered to fit the context or situation. The elasticity of the definitions makes them unstable, and not stationary points. The use of the word is what is important - and the use is what must be analyzed. As I said, any military organization opposing the state in which they are established can arguably be considered terrorist organizations. Civilian casualties can in many cases be considered (improperly or not) as terrorist attacks. In my example they were.

 

[pallidin]

Terrorism is an event, action or purpose to incite fear with the direct intent of propagating the ideals of the "terrorists" such that "if you do not believe "this" you are worthy of death"

 

[vertices]

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.

Right on. It's a pointless exercise to precisely define something as abstract as 'terrorism' (or anything else, outside mathematics and if we are charitable, physics).

The only thing that matters is whether nation states apply to themselves the same definitions or standards they apply to others - in many cases they do not. Since most users on PF are American, take for example the DOD definition of terrorism - the US by their own definition have committed numerous acts of terrorism (only, they call it "counterinsurgency"). , and also one act of aggression (the "Supreme Crime") in recent history.

 

[russ_watters]

Before replying to posts after my last, I'll lay out my case now against the thesis of the OP:

"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)...[separate post] All I'm saying is that the word "terrorism" is emotionally charged and doesn't belong outside of tabloid media.

"Terrorism" is a euphemism...

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.

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

Ok...

The point of all this is that the term is not a serious term. It is a flippant, propaganda term with no objective legal or academic basis. An example of a term that would, to me, fit that criticism:

"Axis of Evil". That's a term invented by GW Bush (or one of his writers) that has no objective definition. It's a word invented for the purpose of being a talking point in a speech. As such, it carries no real weight and is never invoked in serious international or legal discourse.

I gave an example that deals directly with the misconceptions about terrorism in these opinions - the Taliban. And I got confirmation that the Taliban was incorrectly thought to be considered a terrorist organization by the US. So the logic of the OP, et al, is sound: if someone is going to use the term as a loosely defined word for propaganda purposes, it would be natural to label all unconventional geurilla type enemies as terrorists.

But the premise of the argument is wrong. The premise is that the definition of the term is not given serious academic and legal treatment. This premise is an assumption based on bias (shown by the fact that not a single post in the first two pages by the proponents of the OP's thesis utilized a referenced source as the basis for their opinions). Here's the direct evidence to contradict the premise and prove that the US government does treat the issue seriously and takes great pains to construct legitimate definitions and apply those definitions objectively/fairly:

30 April 2008

United States Identifies 42 Foreign Terrorist Organizations
Annual terrorism report released April 30

Washington -- The U.S. State Department identifies 42 Foreign Terrorist Organizations in its 2007 Country Reports on Terrorism, released April 30.

http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2008/April/20080429115651dmslahrellek0.9584772.html

That's a list of the organizations officially recognized as terrorist organizations by the US government. Note that the Taliban is not on it.

Now the Taliban is an interesting case as I hinted at earlier (hoping someone would try to figure out why I said it was interesting by researching it...). When the US invaded Afghanistan 8 years ago, the Taliban was a run-of-the-mill oppressive dictatorship government. Then the US overthrew the Taliban. But the Taliban retained support and since its overthrow has fought an insurgent-style war against the US. Many of the tactics, such as roadside bombs, are considered distasteful, but since the targets are virtually 100% military, no objective analysis could consider them terrorism. And so the fact that the US didn't flippantly add the Taliban to that list based on distasteful tactics shows that the US does objectively apply its definition of terrorism.

But something has changed:

The State Department intends to designate the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) as a "foreign terrorist organization" after the suspect charged in the failed Times Square bombing admitted to being trained by the group, two senior officials tell CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/22/pakistani.taliban.designation/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

The failed Times Square bomber was trained and partly financed by a Pakistani faction of the Taliban. The attack was pure/textbook act of terrorism. That makes it (in the words of the article) a no-brainer. The organization is a terrorist organization. So why does the article say the State Department "intends to designate" instead of "has designated"? The answer is obvious: the US treats the issue of terrorism seriously and in order to add them to the list, it requires them to study the issue and justify it with a legally defensible argument to fit the group to the definition:

"The weight of evidence, particularly in light of yesterday's court proceeding in New York, would suggest that a designation is inevitable," one senior official said. "It's a no-brainer. There is no doubt where this will end up, but there is a process that has to be done to gather all the needed evidence ... under law, and that process is not done yet."

In short, it echoes exactly what I said before: the US government takes the issue seriously and treats it with the appropriate academic/legal seriousness. It is not a flippant term like "axis of evil". It is a real, serious, legally relevant term.

Even if opponents of the term don't take it seriously and try to undermine it.

 

[rootX]

I gave an example that deals directly with the misconceptions about terrorism in these opinions - the Taliban. And I got confirmation that the Taliban was incorrectly thought to be considered a terrorist organization by the US. So the logic of the OP, et al, is sound: if someone is going to use the term as a loosely defined word for propaganda purposes, it would be natural to label all unconventional geurilla type enemies as terrorists.

You seem to be infatuated by that example . When I said Taliban is a terrorist organization I believed that it is on the terrorist list. I was relying on legal definition of terrorism based on which terrorist list is developed in defining Taliban as terrorists. Mistake was that I confused it with Al Qeada. I am stating this for third time now.

The premise is that the definition of the term is not given serious academic and legal treatment.

The premise is that the definition of the term is used for proganda purposes also beyond legal purposes. Second is that a world event consists of a cause, effect, and consequences. OP stated that terrorism definition is irrelevant in the analysis of a world event. I agree with him that in understanding cause of an event which is also part of analysis, definition terrorism has no place. In determining the consequences I full agree with you that legal definition is required.

This premise is an assumption based on bias (shown by the fact that not a single post in the first two pages by the proponents of the OP's thesis utilized a referenced source as the basis for their opinions).

If you are also including me in this, I referred to the definition in my second post in this thread which was on the first page. I did not feel the need to reference it directly because everyone was talking about the same FBI definition above me. (Edit: but yes, I did not use any referenced source in my defense, I thought you are again talking about not referencing definition being critcized)

 

[vertices]

It is a real, serious, legally relevant term

It is not a real, serious, legally relevant term, if it is only applied to enemies. (when states commit acts of terrorism against enemies they call it "low-intensity conflict" or "counter terror")

In the case of the US, it uncontroversial that it has committed acts of terrorism (using the DOD definition of the word) against nations like Vietnam, Cuba and Nicaragua.

 

[Spring Board]

"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).

...

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

Indeed we should - but if we succeed then the government might actually begin representing its citizens rather than the other way round. Sounds good to me.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is not a real, serious, legally relevant term, if it is only applied to enemies. (when states commit acts of terrorism against enemies they call it "low-intensity conflict" or "counter terror")

And I suppose "criminal" is not a real, serious, and legally relevant term if we only apply it to those whom we feel have wronged us?

In the case of the US, it uncontroversial that it has committed acts of terrorism (using the DOD definition of the word) against nations like Vietnam, Cuba and Nicaragua.

I would like to echo Russ's request for specific examples. It would make it easier to make any sort of case one way or the other.

The point of all this is that the term is not a serious term. It is a flippant, propaganda term with no objective legal or academic basis.

This seems to be the crux of the issue here, the manner of political rhetoric. Funny enough I had though of posting using the same example, "Axis of Evil", myself.

This reminds me of a person who suggested no longer calling the theory of evolution a theory because of the manner in which the term "theory" appears in certain political rhetoric.

 

[rootX]

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/7/7/4/p17749_index.html

I found an interesting paper but it requires membership to it. Summary as follows:

Throughout the American political realm post 9/11, contradictions in rhetoric about terrorism arise. While some statements inculcate a fear of terrorist attack, within the same speech government officials also reiterate that they will protect the American population. Why do these contradictions exist and what political purpose do they serve?
This paper explores political responses to and uses of the fear resulting from 9/11. Using examples from criminological literature and research on the topic of the politicization of fear of crime, fear of terrorism will be discussed as it relates to the “war on crime.” Previous research indicates that fear of crime is used for political gain and that various manipulations of data and facts can augment political advantage.
An analysis of public speeches from government officials was conducted during three periods of heightened fear and awareness of terrorist threats. During three different weeks when the Orange Alert System was elevated political leaders made numerous speeches and comments regarding terrorism, the “war on terror,” and the American response.

While I appreciate usuage of terrorism definition in the context of law but I am against the abuse of it for purposes like in the bold above. Kidnapping innocent people without any sufficient evidence, excessive use of torture, wiretapping are few instances where terrorism definition (e.g. use of "War on Terrorism " in their speeches) was abused by the US government.

 

[vertices]

I would like to echo Russ's request for specific examples. It would make it easier to make any sort of case one way or the other.

Well, take Cuba then.

The "376. Memorandum for the Record" (a directive to destabilise the country, providing a pretext to justify US military intervention in Cuba) is particularly telling: http://www.jfklancer.com/cuba/11-12-63.html

A question was asked as to what decisions remain to be made. Mr. FitzGerald replied that we were looking for a reaffirmation of the program as presented, including sabotage and harassment. When asked what was planned in sabotage for the immediate future, he said that destruction operations should be carried out against a large oil refinery and storage facilities, a large electric plant, sugar refineries, railroad bridges, harbor facilities, and underwater demolition of docks and ships. The question was also raised as to whether an air strike would be effective on some of these principal targets. The consensus was that CIA should proceed with its planning for this type of activity looking toward January.

And I suppose "criminal" is not a real, serious, and legally relevant term if we only apply it to those whom we feel have wronged us?

Facts matter; not what people "feel".

This 'terrorism' was totally unprovoked - the Cubans had the audacity to overthrow the Bastista tyranny whom the US supported. The Castro government posed no military threat to the US therefore the wanton terrorism and economic warfare unleashed on it was criminal. Predictably, a consequence of this terrorism was the Cuban missile crisis...

 

[Spring Board]

I may be over- (or under-) simplifying matters but here goes.

I believe that in U.S. courts one is allowed to plead guilty with an explanation - "mitigating circumstance". Sound complicated? No more than in my country where one is allowed to defend oneself "not exeeding the agression recieved". Perhaps "terrorism" (the taking of innocent-civilian lives, which I think lies at the core of the definition) can also be taken apart and put into categories of severness.

The Palmach bombed the King David Hotel in order to reach their target. It took the lives of many of their own countrymen as well. Terrorism? Fair game?

The Norwegian partisans sank a local ferry in order to destroy the occupying Nazi forces' transporting of "heavy water". It also took the lives of many civilian Norwegians. Terrorism? Worth it?

Does the fact that these acts themselves were not meant for the express purpose of killing the civilians as apposed to bombing market places, highly poplualted non-military target cities, or towers of World Trade affect the outcome of the deed?

Poland made a futile attempt at defending their country by sending horse-mounted calvery against the German tanks. Suicide.That's all they had.

Is it possible that Al Queida have an ounce of justification in bombing WTC in New York in retaliation for what the U.S. has meted out all over the globe since the end of WWII? Suicide bombers. That's all they have. Are they guilty of terrorism "with mitigating circumstance"?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Does the fact that these acts themselves were not meant for the express purpose of killing the civilians as apposed to bombing market places, highly poplualted non-military target cities, or towers of World Trade affect the outcome of the deed?

Of course it does (although my understanding is that most people classify the hotel bombing as an act of terrorism)

Poland made a futile attempt at defending their country by sending horse-mounted calvery against the German tanks. Suicide.That's all they had.

They made a suicide run at destroying a military target

Is it possible that Al Queida have an ounce of justification in bombing WTC in New York in retaliation for what the U.S. has meted out all over the globe since the end of WWII? Suicide bombers. That's all they have. Are they guilty of terrorism "with mitigating circumstance"?

It doesn't matter what the justification is, it wasn't a military target. The complaint isn't that they killed themselves in an attack, the complaint is that they killed themselves attacking civilians. The fact that the only way they had to strike at America is by killing themselves means that, if they didn't want to be terrorists, they should have tried to blow up a military base or something

 

[Spring Board]

Of course it does (although my understanding is that most people classify the hotel bombing as an act of terrorism)

Well, the Palmach didn't consider it "terrorism". Ben Gurion said so much himself and said if the bombing of the King David Hotel is terrorism then he is proud to be a "terrorist".

EDIT: Pardon me. I meant to write Yitzhak Shamir - NOT Ben Gurion.

They made a suicide run at destroying a military target

I'm guessing that Al Qeida have learned a lesson or two from such footnotes in history. The Poles attacked the Germans "head on" and perished without achieving anything. 9/11, on the other hand achieved a great deal, as did dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It doesn't matter what the justification is, it wasn't a military target. The complaint isn't that they killed themselves in an attack, the complaint is that they killed themselves attacking civilians. The fact that the only way they had to strike at America is by killing themselves means that, if they didn't want to be terrorists, they should have tried to blow up a military base or something

I think the justification does matter. Much of the third world has been given a rough shake by the U.S. Let's not go into all the examples - unless you want to. The only way to strike back is in the way you describe. Al Queda have taken the "devil may care" attitude of the Poles and the "no choice/necessity" of taking civilian lives and put them together. So "the complaint" and "the act" need to find a compromise, if we're going to create peace.

 

[Evo]

I'm guessing that Al Qeida have learned a lesson or two from such footnotes in history. The Poles attacked the Germans "head on" and perished without achieving anything. 9/11, on the other hand achieved a great deal, as did dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Germans invaded Poland. Don't make nonsensical comparisons. Personal opinions must still adhere to the guidelines and not be overly speculative. Do not state opinion as fact.

Please read the guidelines.

 

[rootX]

The Germans invaded Poland. Don't make nonsensical comparisons. Personal opinions must still adhere to the guidelines and not be overly speculative. Do not state opinion as fact.

Please read the guidelines.

I don't know where he is getting with it but I believe he was referring to:

Poland made a futile attempt at defending their country by sending horse-mounted calvery against the German tanks. Suicide.That's all they had.

 

[Spring Board]

The Germans invaded Poland. Don't make nonsensical comparisons. Personal opinions must still adhere to the guidelines and not be overly speculative. Do not state opinion as fact.

Please read the guidelines.

Neither opinion nor speculation have anything to do with it. Perhaps you are not aware of the definitions of these two words: "Invade" and "attack". The Poles did attack the Germans. The "nonsensical" segment here is second guessing what you have assumed - rather than reading what I actually wrote.

 

[arildno]

Does it explain under which circumstances is terrorism effective?

Are you saying it is NOT effective today?

It seems very effective to me.

 

[Evo]

Neither opinion nor speculation have anything to do with it. Perhaps you are not aware of the definitions of these two words: "Invade" and "attack". The Poles did attack the Germans. The "nonsensical" segment here is second guessing what you have assumed - rather than reading what I actually wrote.

Again, the Germans invaded Poland. The Poles did not invade Germany and attack civilians. See the difference?

 

[arildno]

The Norwegian partisans sank a local ferry in order to destroy the occupying Nazi forces' transporting of "heavy water". It also took the lives of many civilian Norwegians. Terrorism? Worth it?

Terrorism? No.
Worth it? Yes.

Is it possible that Al Queida have an ounce of justification in bombing WTC in New York in retaliation for what the U.S. has meted out all over the globe since the end of WWII?

1. What would that be?
2. What legitimacy has al-Qaeda to arrogate to itself the power to retaliate against whatever you are referring to in a military manner?
3. In particular, what prevented Osama bin Laden from initiating peaceful demonstrations against these phantasmogorial abuses the US supposedly have staged all across the world??

Suicide bombers. That's all they have.

What about writing furious letters to American newspapers?
Was that option closed to them?

Are they guilty of terrorism "with mitigating circumstance"?

Guilty of terrorism? Yes.
Mitigating circumstances? None whatsoever.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Well, the Palmach didn't consider it "terrorism". Ben Gurion said so much himself and said if the bombing of the King David Hotel is terrorism then he is proud to be a "terrorist".

EDIT: Pardon me. I meant to write Yitzhak Shamir - NOT Ben Gurion.

Of course you did, because Ben Gurion roundly criticized the attack. Shamir was wrong, that was easy. Is the point here to prove that there exists a person who has a different definition of terrorism than the people on this forum? Your goal should be to provide evidence of us applying the definition hypocritically in order to save face for events that we favored (which has failed for this situation already)

I'm guessing that Al Qeida have learned a lesson or two from such footnotes in history. The Poles attacked the Germans "head on" and perished without achieving anything. 9/11, on the other hand achieved a great deal, as did dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nobody said it has to be a head on attack, but it has to be against a military target. If the Polish flew a plane into the German command center that would have been a legitimate military strike (in fact, this was a common Japanese tactic as I'm sure you're aware). Notice nobody decries Japanese kamikazes as terrorism, because they were attacking military targets, not civilians

I think the justification does matter. Much of the third world has been given a rough shake by the U.S. Let's not go into all the examples - unless you want to. The only way to strike back is in the way you describe. Al Queda have taken the "devil may care" attitude of the Poles and the "no choice/necessity" of taking civilian lives and put them together. So "the complaint" and "the act" need to find a compromise, if we're going to create peace.

You say that the Polish method was unsuccessful. Ok, I guess you're taking a pragmatic approach here. What goals has Al-Qaeda accomplished by hitting the WTC. Don't list off the damages to the US, you have to demonstrate positive accomplishment in the fight against the US to get their part of the world less of a rough shake. Arguing the ends justify the means is worthless when the ends suck (which it certainly seems like it does for Al Qaeda)

 

[Spring Board]

There are 3 posts above, all addressed to me. I've already replied to the first one but it was removed. Can anyone think of any reason that I might want to waste my earnest time and in-depth research replying to the remaining 2? I can't. Clearly the board isn't interested in hearing any other information than "the official one" - be the patriotic line misinformation or otherwise.

 

[russ_watters]

The premise is that the definition of the term is used for proganda purposes also beyond legal purposes. [emphasis added]

The word "also" does not appear in the OP. The OP is clearly exclusionary, saying that the word is only meaningless. Others may include a mixuture, but in any case, this is a red herring argument because the use of a word for propaganda by a politician in a speech does not in any way affect the use of the word for a legitimate legal purpose. That's splitting a hair that doesn't exist.

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. "

So...the conflict goes back centuries so we can't apply modern laws and logic? Well that's just absurd! I suppose based on your logic I could go get myself some slaves because my ancestors came to this country when slavery was legal!?

 

[russ_watters]

It is not a real, serious, legally relevant term, if it is only applied to enemies. (when states commit acts of terrorism against enemies they call it "low-intensity conflict" or "counter terror")

In the case of the US, it uncontroversial that it has committed acts of terrorism (using the DOD definition of the word) against nations like Vietnam, Cuba and Nicaragua.

Assume for a moment I agree with the premise in your second sentence. Connect it logically to the claim in the first. I don't agree that there is a connection.

I'll give a straightforward counterexample: police brutality. Police occasionally violate the law while at the same time they are charged with enforcing it. The fact that police brutality happens does not mean assault is not a crime treated seriously by the law.

 

[russ_watters]

Soooo, the Taliban isn't a terrorist organization because they are at a state of war with America.

No, that's not the key to the distinction. The key is in the tactics themselves. The declaration of war part is only really relevant in situations where there is an agreement (whether written or implicit) between the combatants about the conduct of the war.

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.

Right: only breaking international law with respect to terrorism has an impact on whether actions are terrorism. That seems too obvious to have to say it, but ok.

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.

That is precisely what I explained previously. Germany and even the allies did, in fact, commit many acts that could today be considered terrorism but they were not prosecuted because they were not part of the laws of warfare agreed upon by the combatants at the time.

Though it wasn't perfect, there are some good examples of the symmetry. One is chemical weapons. Though used extensively in WWI, they were outlawed after the war and thus barely used in WWII and mostly by Japan and not against the larger allies.

 

[KalamMekhar]

The Taliban is not a terrorist organization. They are more along the lines of a militant group. Should a word change the way our operators deal with them? Not at all. Terrorist organization or not, the rules of war still apply.

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

Of course, but that is not what the thesis of your OP was about:

"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

As I said before, the three claims are very different from each other:

1. There is no universal definition - this is obvious and trivial.
2. The word is meaningless - this is just as trivially false: it has many meanings.
3. It was created for and is used primarily for propaganda purposes. This is the only argument of any substance but is is also easily demonstrated to be wrong, as I have.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Interesting. I didn't know that about Mandella.

Wouldn't both sides be "terrorists" if the former state was just another organization, and not the government?

I'm not sure and I don't see why that is relevant.

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.

Well, in this case, the classification by the US government probably has more to do with treaties and international relations than it does with the US definition of terrorism. This is not fundamentally different than other crimes being defined differently in different countries, but rather is about the US respecting another country's definition - and they don't always do that. This is true of most countries. But just because France didn't extradite Roman Polianski for his rape conviction, that doesn't mean France doesn't have its own definition of rape which it applies in its own, mostly internally consistent way. It doesn't make the word "rape", "meaningless", as the OP's logic would demand.

 

[russ_watters]

The Taliban is not a terrorist organization. They are more along the lines of a militant group. Should a word change the way our operators deal with them? Not at all. Terrorist organization or not, the rules of war still apply.

I used the example because the categorization is changing to reflect a change in tactics by the Taliban. And with that change in tactics and definition comes a change in how we deal with them. It's all very logical.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2776082&postcount=54

 

[KalamMekhar]

I used the example because the categorization is changing to reflect a change in tactics by the Taliban. And with that change in tactics and definition comes a change in how we deal with them. It's all very logical.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2776082&postcount=54

I wasn't quoting you specifically, just in general, seeing that the public views the Taliban as a terrorist organization.

 

[Spring Board]

What I said, in very broad terms, was this :

... The Poles attacked the Germans "head on" and perished without achieving anything. 9/11, on the other hand achieved a great deal, as did dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
... Al Queda have taken the "devil may care" attitude of the Poles and the "no choice/necessity" of taking civilian lives and put them together. So "the complaint" and "the act" need to find a compromise, if we're going to create peace.

More specifically, think of Al Queida 9/11 terrorism ("The Act") as an overstatement based upon a legitimate complaint. Think also of using the term "terrorism" as an over-used, inaccurate term ("The Complaint") against what is perceived as the bad guys.

If the west would listen to the complaints made by the third world, and "terrorist" factions would listen to the "commom people" of the west, then a comprimise might be achievable wherein western citizens (sympathetic to the plight of third world population) might gain an ear in their respective governments. As it is, western governments fill our ears with fabricated horror stories of uncivilized "terrorists" bent on overthrowing the world and converting us to Islam at the point of a sword in the very way that Christianity conducted itself during The Crusades. It is, in fact, these same governments that are manipulating the Third World and its' people, yet blaming dissatisifaction on "terrorism" as a sort of Red Herring.

The word "terrorism", as has already been said, is a mis-used word and the consequences of its mis-use are far more deadly than seen on the surface.

 

[arildno]

What I said, in very broad terms, was this :


More specifically, think of Al Queida 9/11 terrorism ("The Act") as an overstatement based upon a legitimate complaint

Why?

Whenever did a bomb thrown into the face of a child become a verbal action?

 

[KalamMekhar]

What I said, in very broad terms, was this :


More specifically, think of Al Queida 9/11 terrorism ("The Act") as an overstatement based upon a legitimate complaint. Think also of using the term "terrorism" as an over-used, inaccurate term ("The Complaint") against what is perceived as the bad guys.
A "legitimate" complaint? I didn't know wanting to kill every American citizen was a legitimate complaint. Get a grip.

If the west would listen to the complaints made by the third world, and "terrorist" factions would listen to the "commom people" of the west, then a comprimise might be achievable wherein western citizens (sympathetic to the plight of third world population) might gain an ear in their respective governments.
We made ourselves civilized, why can't they?
As it is, western governments fill our ears with fabricated horror stories of uncivilized "terrorists" bent on overthrowing the world and converting us to Islam at the point of a sword
It isn't horror stories, Any terrorist organization has said it multiple times, and has also claimed to be righteous in its deeds.
in the very way that Christianity conducted itself during The Crusades.
1104 =/= 2001
It is, in fact, these same governments that are manipulating the Third World and its' people, yet blaming dissatisifaction on "terrorism" as a sort of Red Herring.
I didn't know aid and money was manipulation. Don't blame the civilized world for the uncivilized worlds problems. Most of the problems that have been recent, are from the acts of colonialism, and not what has happened today.

The word "terrorism", as has already been said, is a mis-used word and the consequences of its mis-use are far more deadly than seen on the surface.

See bolded.

 

[Spring Board]

Whenever did a bomb thrown into the face of a child become a verbal action?

"Bomb"? "Child's face"? "Verbal action"? I don't understand your question or how such a question got wedged in at the end of my last post. Which one of these is supposed to have become verbal action? Can you explain, please?

 

[arildno]

"overstatement" and "complaint" are verbal actions.

 

[Spring Board]

Huh? Are you joking?

 

[Spring Board]

Making a statement:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/idioms/make-a-statement

 

[arildno]

Huh? Are you joking?

No.

Are you?

For example:
What are these "legitimate complaints" that al-Qaeda somehow has the right to state, or defend, in a violent manner?

 

[Spring Board]

... What are these "legitimate complaints" that al-Qaeda somehow has the right to state, or defend, in a violent manner?

The overthrow of other goverments (even democratic ones) by the U.S. - the setting up of puppet corrpt leaders who bend to U.S. wishes against the population of that country - invading other countries on false pretentions by the U.S. and occupying that country in order to reap the natural resources while the people of that country remain destitute. Would you like more examples or can we get back to the real topic: The usage of the word "terrorsim"?

 

[arildno]

1.

The overthrow of other goverments (even democratic ones) by the U.S. -

a) What countries would that be?
b) In what manner does al-Qaeda have the right to set itself up as the avenger of that?
c) In what manner would al-Qaeda's goals be a redress of such wrongs?

Once you have given satisfactory answers to these, we might continue.

 

[Spring Board]

a) What countries would that be?
b) In what manner does al-Qaeda have the right to set itself up as the avenger of that?
c) In what manner would al-Qaeda's goals be a redress of such wrongs?

Once you have given satisfactory answers to these, we might continue.

The fact that we are now way "off topic" makes me hesitant to go very much further than we already have and there's a great risk that it will all be deleted. But to take your challenge of the possiblity that "we might continue" let me tell you that a). Iran was once a democratic nation and it was destroyed by the U.S. who then put the Shah in power allowing the U.S. and the UK to rape the oil fields and so letting the Iranian population suffer terribly becasue of it, b). Al Queda sees itself as the protector of the Isamic world in the same way that the U.S. sees itself as the protector of the western world and c). I don't believe that Al Queda's "goals would be a redress of such wrongs" - but they certainly think so.

 

[arildno]

a). Iran was once a democratic nation

No, it never was. Mossadegh was no democrat.

Shah in power allowing the U.S. and the UK to rape the oil fields and so letting the Iranian population suffer terribly becasue of it

No.
The period under the Shah was one of uninterrupted economic growth.
Furthermore, what Iranian population are you talking about that "suffered" under the Shah?
The Jews? The Christians? The Parsee, perhaps?

 

[Spring Board]

Sorry if the facts disturb you but everything I've said is true. Here are 2 (of many) sources:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

 

[arildno]

Sorry if the facts disturb you but everything I've said is true. Here are 2 (of many) sources:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

a) Sure there was a coup.
b) I haven't disputed that.
c) Nor have I disputed CIA involvement in that coup.
d) Nor did I dispute that the US has been involved in the overthrow of governments
e) What I did dispute here was that Prime minister Mossadegh could be called a democrat, or that the Persia of his day could be called a democracy. Elections to the Majlis doesn't make a democracy on its own.

 

[mheslep]

It is nonsense to suggest that a fundamentalist Sunni organization like Al-Qaeda has any grievances about what may have or not been done to the overwhelmingly Shia based Iran. It is more likely Al-Qaeda would destroy all the Shia peoples in Iran given the means. Nor for that matter has Bin-Laden ever expressed any common cause with the Palestinian people, another cause celeb, though he does want control of the significant mosques in Jerusalem.

 

[Spring Board]

a) Sure there was a coup.
b) I haven't disputed that.
c) Nor have I disputed CIA involvement in that coup.
d) Nor did I dispute that the US has been involved in the overthrow of governments
e) What I did dispute here was that Prime minister Mossadegh could be called a democrat, or that the Persia of his day could be called a democracy. Elections to the Majlis doesn't make a democracy on its own.

But Iran WAS a democracy. This is not a mere opinion. Did you not read the links I sent you?

Can you proivde reliable sources to prove that holding "fair" elections are not one sign of democratic process?

Is it your intention to show that the U.S. (which was responsible for the coup and overthrowing other governments) is displaying or setting the example of what a democracy is all about? Or indeed conducting itself as a democratic country at all.

Do you disagree that such incidents might make the Moslem World (in this case) sceptable of U.S. intentions when in similar circumstances?

Are you aware that Moslem groups (such as Al Queda) have legitimate grievances with the "west" (the U.S. in particular) or are you of the mind that all they want is to rule the world and convert everyone to Islam?

Do you believe that Al Queda is the only Molsem group in the world that is opposed to U.S. manipulation or perhaps that all Moslem groups employ "terrorist" tactiques rather than debate and diplomacy?

 

[arildno]

But Iran WAS a democracy. This is not a mere opinion. Did you not read the links I sent you?

In what time period did it qualify as a democracy?
Under the Timurids?
Under the Safavids?
Under Nazeer Khan?
Under the Qajar dynasty, perhaps?
Under the first Pahlavi Shah, perhaps?

 

[Spring Board]

And the answers to my questions?

 

[arildno]

Can you proivde reliable sources to prove that holding "fair" elections are not one sign of democratic process?

Is getting 99.9% of the votes a sign of democracy, as Mossadegh got in the 1953 "election"?

 

[arildno]

And the answers to my questions?

They will come forth, once questioning your numerous premises, set forth as evident truths, has come to an end.

 

[Spring Board]

Is it? And what about my questions?