What Defines Terrorism?

[egslim]

The British bombed in self-defense. The Germans bombed in aggression. To put it in a Kantian framework, the German actions implicitly accepted that bombing civilians needed no justification, while the British ones accepted bombing in retaliation for unjustified bombing.

That depends on your definition of self-defense.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/about-blitz.htm

The first German attack on London actually occurred by accident. On the night of August 24, 1940, Luftwaffe bombers aiming for military targets on the outskirts of London drifted off course and instead dropped their bombs on the center of London destroying several homes and killing civilians. Amid the public outrage that followed, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, believing it was a deliberate attack, ordered Berlin to be bombed the next evening.

The British resorted first to deliberate bombing of civilians, because it worked in their advantage. One, it gave much appreciated respite to Fighter Command. Two, the expected Luftwaffe answer provoked similarly appreciated sympathy in the US for Britains cause.

 

[Tricky]

The British bombed in self-defense. The Germans bombed in aggression. To put it in a Kantian framework, the German actions implicitly accepted that bombing civilians needed no justification, while the British ones accepted bombing in retaliation for unjustified bombing.

And the US bombed first in Iraq, so any retaliatory roadside bombing is "self defense" by your standards. Face it, Art. Any example you give of terrorism can be matched by an example of how the US has done it. As much as I love America, I will not be so hypocritical as to say that terrorism is "when other people attack us".

 

[zenith-nadir]

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I personally define terrorism as the act of terrorizing non-combatants with malice aforethought. The key words are "non-combatants" and "with malice aforethought".

 

[Cleon]

Ah, yes. Good old moral relativism.

...

Yes, we are.

...

No, it's not.

...

Only to terrorist apologists.

There's nothing worth responding to here, really.

 

[brodski]

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I personally define terrorism as the act of terrorizing non-combatants with malice aforethought. The key words are "non-combatants" and "with malice aforethought".

That would put the bombing raids on Berlin, Dresden, Coventry and London firmly into the "terrorist" camp then. It would also raise questions over the "shock and awe" tactics of OIF.

 

[Art Vandelay]

That would put the bombing raids on Berlin, Dresden, Coventry and London firmly into the "terrorist" camp then. It would also raise questions over the "shock and awe" tactics of OIF.

Arguably, the primary motive was not malicious.

There's plenty to be said on the atomic bombs - but suffice to say the decision to bomb Nagasaki was an action that acknowledged that tens of thousands of civilian deaths were an acceptable consequence for the greater good.

Arguably, it was an action that recognized that tens of thousands of deaths were inevitable, and America had the right to ensure that as few of those deaths as possible were American.

but again - your reasoning could be used by anyone to target anyone who has a dispute with a second party. Ie. they brought civilians into this conflict as a result of their <fill in the blank> policy. Therefore they are responsible if civilians are killed.

As I said, the mere fact that someone can claim that my reasoning applies doesn't mean that it does.

That depends on your definition of self-defense.

Usually, self-defense is defined in terms of the actor's state of mind, not the actual facts of the case. That is why police officers who shoot someone who had no weapon, but who the officer thought had a weapon, can claim self-defense. Furthermore, some sort of retaliation was necessary, regardless of whether the bombing was intentional. Otherwise, the Germans would have no deterrant to simply bombing civilians, then claiming that it was an accident.

And the US bombed first in Iraq, so any retaliatory roadside bombing is "self defense" by your standards.

No, it's not.

Any example you give of terrorism can be matched by an example of how the US has done it.

When has America deliberately flown a plane into a building filled with civilians?

As much as I love America, I will not be so hypocritical as to say that terrorism is "when other people attack us".

And I will not be so morally blind to say that there is no difference between our actions and Al Qaeda's.

There's nothing worth responding to here, really.

Ah, just ignore people that disagree with you. Or, rather, post disparaging comments while pretending to ignore them. You claimed that the US is not following the GC. I guess you're not even going to try to back that claim up, are you?

 

[Cleon]

Ah, just ignore people that disagree with you. Or, rather, post disparaging comments while pretending to ignore them.

OK, I'll bite. You implied I'm a "terrorist apologist." If you can give good, logical reasons why A) that's not a "disparaging comment" and B) I should even bother with you after that, I'll be happy to respond to the rest of your post.

 

[wastepanel]

If you are placing "terror" in another by even threatening destroying property, you are a terrorist. Jeez, I feel a bad Jeff Foxworthy joke coming...

"Civil disobediance" is actively not following a protacal. Think Bartleby the Scrivenger.

 

[Art Vandelay]

OK, I'll bite. You implied I'm a "terrorist apologist." If you can give good, logical reasons why A) that's not a "disparaging comment" and B) I should even bother with you after that, I'll be happy to respond to the rest of your post.

So.. you post a claim, and when asked to justify it, you first ignore that request, then you not only demand that I support some random claim, but actually demand that I explain why you should deign to respond to me. Any excuse to avoid supporting your claims, eh?

You really aren't giving me any reason why I should bother with you.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So.. you post a claim, and when asked to justify it, you first ignore that request, then you not only demand that I support some random claim...

"Random claim"? You told Cleon that his views could "only" be supported by "terrorist apologists". Unless you are prepared to back up that filthy lie with anything other than more filthy lies, Cleon should no more bother responding to you than to the dirt he wipes off his boots.

 

[Art Vandelay]

And yet again you confuse "something with which I disagree" with "lie". Cleon made a claim. Rather than actually back it up, he's simply making excuses.

""Random claim"? You told Cleon that his views could "only" be supported by "terrorist apologists". " That's not quite what I said, and it's not what Cleon asked me to support, either. Perhaps if you weren't so completely unconcerned with reality, you would have noticed that the claim that Cleon asked me to support is completely different from the one I made.

And considering all the dishonesty you've engaged in, you're certainly being quite hypocritical.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And yet again you confuse "something with which I disagree" with "lie".

No. You are lying. What you have said about Cleon is a stupid filthy lie. This is why you can produce no evidence for it.

Cleon made a claim. Rather than actually back it up, he's simply making excuses.

It is not an "excuse". What is the point of debating with someone whose method of debate is to puke out stupid filthy lies about the person debating him?

""Random claim"? You told Cleon that his views could "only" be supported by "terrorist apologists". " That's not quite what I said, and it's not what Cleon asked me to support, either. Perhaps if you weren't so completely unconcerned with reality, you would have noticed that the claim that Cleon asked me to support is completely different from the one I made.

And considering all the dishonesty you've engaged in, you're certainly being quite hypocritical.

Listen: everyone reading this thread can read what you wrote about Cleon, and everyone can read what Cleon wrote, and everyone can read what I wrote --- and so everyone reading this thread can see that you're droning out stupid filthy lies.

As for your stupid filthy lies about "all the dishonesty you've engaged in" and "hypocrisy" you are once more resorting to stupid filthy lies --- about me, this time --- to mask the fact that you cannot justify the stupid filthy lie you told about Cleon.

As I am supposed to debate the post and not the poster, this post does not contain the phrase "stupid filthy liar".

 

[Art Vandelay]

You have no argument but insults. I've already shown how you're wrong, and you refuse to admit it. Just like you didn't acknowlede it in that thread about the falling chain, where you misinterpreted the question, then insulted me because my response was to the actual question, rather than your misreading. Cleon asked me to defend a position that I never wrote, and you are calling me a liar over a matter of opinion. As you said, everyone can read the thread and see that this is so. And if anyone wants to see examples of your dishonesty, I have plenty of examples of that in other threads. Tell you what: you agree to be banned if I can find an example, and I'll go to the trouble of finding one. Willing to put your money where your mouth is? Or is all this just empty rhetoric?

And your last line is yet another example of hypocrisy, as your clear intent is to insult me, while the statement that I said was about Cleon's statement and only indirectly about Cleon.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You have no argument but insults. I've already shown how you're wrong, and you refuse to admit it. Just like you didn't acknowlede it in that thread about the falling chain, where you misinterpreted the question, then insulted me because my response was to the actual question, rather than your misreading. Cleon asked me to defend a position that I never wrote, and you are calling me a liar over a matter of opinion. As you said, everyone can read the thread and see that this is so. And if anyone wants to see examples of your dishonesty, I have plenty of examples of that in other threads. Tell you what: you agree to be banned if I can find an example, and I'll go to the trouble of finding one. Willing to put your money where your mouth is? Or is all this just empty rhetoric?

And your last line is yet another example of hypocrisy, as your clear intent is to insult me, while the statement that I said was about Cleon's statement and only indirectly about Cleon.

Even before reading your ravings, I knew what I would have to write in answer to your puke.

As follows:

So, you have no evidence for your stupid filthy lies, have you? That would be because they are stupid filthy lies for which there is no evidence.

You may hear that phrase again and again in the near future. That would depend on how stupid you are.

 

[Art Vandelay]

As you yourself said, "What is the point of debating with someone whose method of debate is to puke out stupid filthy lies about the person debating him?"

Considering how dishonest you are, there would be little point in trying to explain my claim. And I notice you've run away from my challenge.

 

[demonologist]

I define terrorism as attacks on civilian populations in an attempt to induce political action.

edit: also, the attack on civilian populations has to be the point. They can not be mere "collateral damage".

 

[CapelDodger]

The modern idea of terrorism derives from the bomb-throwing anarchists of the 19thCE. Their philosophy (?!) was that society is unreformable, it must be brought crashing down and from the rubble would sprout a truly free fairy-land of reason and guilt-free sex. The basic foundation of society is security, we exchange some of our freedom for protection. Bomb-throwers calculated that modern societies were too fragile to provide that security, and with that foundation undermined they would collapse. Recent examples of this thinking can be found in the Baader-Meinhof/RAF and Red Brigades era, for all their Marxist pretensions. (Terrorism is ideological anathema to Marxism-Leninism.)

Naturally the term was used to demonise any politically-motivated violence, even when it had a more rational strategy. The IRA (IRB at the time) London bombing campaign of the late 19thCE didn't have millennialist conceits, it was expected to force a change in Britain's Irish policy but it was still labelled terrorist. The Nazis labelled the French Resistance as terrorists. The British called Begin a terrorist (as did Ben Gurion).

Where do OBL and his pack of imps fit in this analysis? I would say quite definitely that they are terrorist. They seek to bring modern society crashing down (to the level it did in Afghanistan) and see it as fragile. They have an enormous self-regard, they really think their sporadic and opportunistic attacks - which are terribly important to them - can really make a difference in the world. And they will fade away, because normal people like society, they like security, they have chosen to evolve social systems to live in. They will respond to random violence by surrendering even more of their freedom to the social system, if it's that freedom which is being exploited by the terrorists. Or even if that's just what they're told. The end result is that society becomes more robust

 

[CapelDodger]

If George Washington and et al had lost the American Revolution, they might have been considered terrorists in the history books.

Rebels, we calls 'em.

"Rebel" was the word back in the day, invoking the Jacobites. Funnily enough, it was the North's word in the First American Civil War. (By then it was "democrat" in the Old World.) You have to think this had something to do with the Jacobite diaspora in the South. If you're inclined to waste time thinking about it at all.

 

[andyandy]

I define terrorism as attacks on civilian populations in an attempt to induce political action.

edit: also, the attack on civilian populations has to be the point. They can not be mere "collateral damage".

so the bombing of nagasaki was a terrorist attack?

 

[fuelair]

The modern idea of terrorism derives from the bomb-throwing anarchists of the 19thCE. Their philosophy (?!) was that society is unreformable, it must be brought crashing down and from the rubble would sprout a truly free fairy-land of reason and guilt-free sex. The basic foundation of society is security, we exchange some of our freedom for protection. Bomb-throwers calculated that modern societies were too fragile to provide that security, and with that foundation undermined they would collapse. Recent examples of this thinking can be found in the Baader-Meinhof/RAF and Red Brigades era, for all their Marxist pretensions. (Terrorism is ideological anathema to Marxism-Leninism.)

Naturally the term was used to demonise any politically-motivated violence, even when it had a more rational strategy. The IRA (IRB at the time) London bombing campaign of the late 19thCE didn't have millennialist conceits, it was expected to force a change in Britain's Irish policy but it was still labelled terrorist. The Nazis labelled the French Resistance as terrorists. The British called Begin a terrorist (as did Ben Gurion).

Where do OBL and his pack of imps fit in this analysis? I would say quite definitely that they are terrorist. They seek to bring modern society crashing down (to the level it did in Afghanistan) and see it as fragile. They have an enormous self-regard, they really think their sporadic and opportunistic attacks - which are terribly important to them - can really make a difference in the world. And they will fade away, because normal people like society, they like security, they have chosen to evolve social systems to live in. They will respond to random violence by surrendering even more of their freedom to the social system, if it's that freedom which is being exploited by the terrorists. Or even if that's just what they're told. The end result is that society becomes more robust

Violence purposefully aimed at a civilian / civilian group unless directed at specific civilians who are known to have commited a specific major crime against you, your family or your friends (or by police or military against those known to have committed such crime) is terrorism. (By my definition) By my belief system, terrorists should be killed when necessary to stop immediate harm but otherwise should be invited to provide information (details not appropriate for site) and then used to help the environment. (I feel pretty much the same re: any mafia, gangs ,active fundies etc.) I could be wrong but I suspect most people in the world would just like to do their job, enjoy life and die of simple old age and I would prefer they be able to do that.