News Terrorism and terrorist are basically meaningless words

[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.