What Defines Terrorism?

brodski said:
That would put the bombing raids on Berlin, Dresden, Coventry and London firmly into the "terrorist" camp then.
Click to expand...
To my mind, WW2 is best considered in terms of Total War, the dominant philosophy of its time. Perhaps still of our time. War being regarded as a contest of nation against nation, and the nation is not just a king or an army but an economy. War not just as battles but also as erosion of the infrastructure required to fight them. The British blockade in the Great War killed far more children than the pre-invasion sanctions on Iraq, and it was the privations imposed on the German home-front that ended the war, not military defeat.

Total War was the foundation of Mutually Assured Destruction. An unfortunate acronym.
 
CapelDodger said:
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
Click to expand...

whilst i quite like your definition, it does beg the question as to whether "terrorist" is even worth using as a term of description, being as it is such a politically loaded and subjective term. Groups like the IRA, ETA or the Chechyen rebels whilst popularly classed as "terrorists" would not in your definition be regarded as such seeing as how their aim is not the anarchic philosophical overthrow of society, but the nationalistic reform of land ownership....

<godwin> It's similar to how people use the term "fascist" to group together the Nazis, Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain.....which is quite neat and tidy seeing as they were all pretty nasty regimes....but in fact their differences are such that it undermines the whole usage of the term. </godwin>

The dictionary defines terrorism as :

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

The interesting point here is the implication that terrorism is something that happens to governments - and is not therefore something which can be carried out by governments. Any use of force against a government would be (by definition of that country's laws one presumes) illegal. The negative connertations of the term therefore castigate any violent resistance to a government - regardless of the nature of that government's rule.
 
fuelair said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is the bold section....
what is the degree of culpability? Is a civilian who votes for a government against which you have a grievence an acceptable target?

Once again wouldn't your definition include the bombing of nagasaki? - or is there a distinction during a time of war - and who defines when "war" is being waged?
 
fuelair said:
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.
Click to expand...
I entirely agree with your last sentiment. The vast majority of people would like to see out their lives without major trauma, having been well-regarded by their peers as decent sorts, and having seen their children and grandchildren set up in life at least as well as they were. People do not demand change except at the margins, humans are conservative. Revolutions have to be forced upon them by real crises. The defining human myth is the Golden Age that's passed, not the one that's to come.

By my definition, terrorists are not worth worrying about. Kill them, set psychiatrists and sociologists on them, whatever. Underneath the terrorist you'll find a social inadequate.

Underneath a mafiosi you'll find something else.
 
andyandy said:
whilst i quite like your definition, it does beg the question as to whether "terrorist" is even worth using as a term of description, being as it is such a politically loaded and subjective term.
Click to expand...
It probably isn't in general conversation. I've tried to define it objectively, as I understand "objectively". :)

Groups like the IRA, ETA or the Chechyen rebels whilst popularly classed as "terrorists" would not in your definition be regarded as such seeing as how their aim is not the anarchic philosophical overthrow of society, but the nationalistic reform of land ownership....
Click to expand...
I wouldn't refer to them as terrorists, nationalists or wannabe gardeners. I would refer to them as "insurrectionists". Or rebels.

<godwin> It's similar to how people use the term "fascist" to group together the Nazis, Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain.....which is quite neat and tidy seeing as they were all pretty nasty regimes....but in fact their differences are such that it undermines the whole usage of the term. </godwin>
Click to expand...
"Fascist" is just a catch-all term to describe the anti-democratic but also anti-socialist movements that emerged in the Western world during the Great Depression. It was invented by socioligists so that they could appear to understand it. Which they didn't. And still don't, because it's a silly word.
 
Explanations

andyandy said:
The problem is the bold section....
what is the degree of culpability? Is a civilian who votes for a government against which you have a grievence an acceptable target?

Once again wouldn't your definition include the bombing of nagasaki? - or is there a distinction during a time of war - and who defines when "war" is being waged?
Click to expand...
actually, I thought specific major crime would have covered it but (and this won't be complete, so, no offense to anyone, I'm not going to respond to "well what about" type questions). Remembering the group of people for whom I stated the circumstance, I would include for any or a part: rape, murder, purposeful damage/dismemberment, major theft/successful identity theft (only because we are in the computer age and this can do major damage now), getting them started on drugs, damaging their health with fake remedies, etc. Would not include at that level yelling at them (though in my presence that could be inadvisible), basic insults, small thefts or proven accidents). I do not regard Nagasaki as terrorism - as I use the term - because, although I would not do that to a purely civilian city, taking out areas that have military signifance (manufacturing, transport hubs, military communication centers/headquarters) is militarily necessary and following a rule I agree firmly with (don't want you to die for your country - make the other poor bastard die for his country) destroy what you need to in whatever gives the least possible to your troops.
 
andyandy said:
whilst i quite like your definition, it does beg the question as to whether "terrorist" is even worth using as a term of description, being as it is such a politically loaded and subjective term.
Click to expand...
The word "worth" is itself a politically loaded and subjective term. Does something need a precise definition to be meaningful?

<godwin> It's similar to how people use the term "fascist" to group together the Nazis, Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain.....which is quite neat and tidy seeing as they were all pretty nasty regimes....but in fact their differences are such that it undermines the whole usage of the term. </godwin>
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about the others, but in the case of Italy, the term "fascist" was applied by Mussolini himself. It's not like historians have retroactively invented the term.

PS There's no "r" in "connotation".
 
The word "worth" is itself a politically loaded and subjective term. Does something need a precise definition to be meaningful?
Click to expand...

well, not always of course - but in this case it is important to have a precise definition because of the US "war on terrorism." If you start out on a war, it's normally a good idea to know what you're fighting......

I'm not sure about the others, but in the case of Italy, the term "fascist" was applied by Mussolini himself. It's not like historians have retroactively invented the term.
Click to expand...

Sure, "fascist" originated in Mussolini's Italy. But it is applied to both Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain - two other widely different regimes. So "fascist" as a term may only be pertinent to truly describing Italy. If the "war on terror" is fundamentally about al-queda then the term "terrorism" is too loose and il-defined. A "war against al queda" would be much more appropriate.
 
andyandy said:
well, not always of course - but in this case it is important to have a precise definition because of the US "war on terrorism." If you start out on a war, it's normally a good idea to know what you're fighting......
...
Click to expand...
Perhaps it would be better to find a more precise description of what we are doing than to debate the meaning of a word. How about "Management of Violent Islam?"
 
Art Vandelay said:
I'm not sure about the others, but in the case of Italy, the term "fascist" was applied by Mussolini himself. It's not like historians have retroactively invented the term.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the term was extended to include subsequent anti-democratic inter-war regimes, not so much by historians as by sociologists and political theorists. That's what makes it pretty useless. Like "terrorist", it becomes simply pejorative.
 
Seems to me the real expansion of the term is by socialists, who apparently consider any country that isn't socialist/communist/Marxist to be "fascist".
 
The problems with defining terrorism are the same as defining any non-formal term. Try (to use Wittgenstein's example) defining "chair". For every definition you could use, I could give you some "chairs" which do not fit it. Obviously this is far more true in the case of "terrorism", a much more complicated and nuanced word.

But that hardly means chairs do not exist, or that terrorism does not exist, or that terrorists are morally indistinguishable from lawful combatants or from civilans, or that one should not fight terrorism, as some here seem to suggest.

By the same token, one could argue, "rape" is a vague term--it depends on the society, the situation, the persons, one person's rape is another person's fulfilled fantasy, and so on.

Use any definition you want: rape is painful? So is consensual sex to some, in fact some people enjoy painful sex. Unplanned? Much consensual sex occurs "on the fly". With a stranger? Look at singles' bars. Forced? What about a man who "forces" his wife to have sex when she's not really in the mood, or emotionally forcing someone into sex? Without consent? How about foreign societies where young brides are married at their parents' decision without much consent--this might indeed be rape by western standards, but do we really want to say that, in effect, all married men in such societies are rapists, on par with, say, Ted Bundy? Outside the home? Much consexual sex occurs there...

Etc., etc., etc.

Does this mean rape does not exist, or that there is no moral difference between a rapist and a non-rapist? Does this mean all sex is rape? Of course not.

Similarly, the whole discussion about the definition of "terrorism" misses the point. It is of little importance that it cannot be exactly defined; that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that terorrists are the same as non-terrorists.
 
The problems with defining terrorism are the same as defining any non-formal term. Try (to use Wittgenstein's example) defining "chair". For every definition you could use, I could give you some "chairs" which do not fit it. Obviously this is far more true in the case of "terrorism", a much more complicated and nuanced word.

But that hardly means chairs do not exist, or that terrorism does not exist, or that terrorists are morally indistinguishable from lawful combatants or from civilans, or that one should not fight terrorism, as some here seem to suggest.


Similarly, the whole discussion about the definition of "terrorism" misses the point. It is of little importance that it cannot be exactly defined; that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that terorrists are the same as non-terrorists.
Click to expand...


5 years into a "war on terror" that forms the cornerstone of US foreign policy, and no one can even define what "terrorism" means. How can that be of little importance? :confused:
 
andyandy said:
5 years into a "war on terror" that forms the cornerstone of US foreign policy, and no one can even define what "terrorism" means. How can that be of little importance? :confused:
Click to expand...

In the same way that humanity has been making chairs for thousands of years yet you won't be able to find an exact definition of what "chair" means, or that rape had been a crime for thousands of years yet we still don't agree what "rape" means.

Shocking, isn't it? Surely, we should at least stop making chairs, or prosecuting rapists, until we are COMPLETELY CLEAR on what we mean by "chair" and "rape".

Right? Of course not. Why? Because trying to find an absolutely precise definition for "chair" and "rape" that covers all possible eventualities is impossible, and that the lack of such a definition is of little relevance, if any, to the making of chairs or prosecution of rapists?

...exactly. Same way, it's no requirement at all to the "war on terror", whatever its merits or demerits, to have some absolutely precise definition of "terrorism" before doing anything.
 
Skeptic said:
In the same way that humanity has been making chairs for thousands of years yet you won't be able to find an exact definition of what "chair" means, or that rape had been a crime for thousands of years yet we still don't agree what "rape" means.

Shocking, isn't it? Surely, we should at least stop making chairs, or prosecuting rapists, until we are COMPLETELY CLEAR on what we mean by "chair" and "rape".

Right? Of course not. Why? Because trying to find an absolutely precise definition for "chair" and "rape" that covers all possible eventualities is impossible, and that the lack of such a definition is of little relevance, if any, to the making of chairs or prosecution of rapists?

...exactly. Same way, it's no requirement at all to the "war on terror", whatever its merits or demerits, to have some absolutely precise definition of "terrorism" before doing anything.
Click to expand...

you can make spurious posts all you like, :D
chairs don't dictate US foreign policy, but "terrorisim" does. Of course there are plenty of words on which we can have semantic discussions on - but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid exercise to try and define what "terrorism" means. The US has declared a war on terrorism - how can anyone know when that war is won if no-one can fully define what that term means?
Last time I checked, there wasn't a "war against chairs" being waged.....maybe i missed it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom