|
Author
|
Topic: What is terrorism?
|
bananatt
Self-Made User
|
posted October 01, 2001 09:20 PM
 
Here's what dictionary.com says:
"ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
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."I don't think this definition is quite right.
Does a state count as an "organised group"? "Unlawful" according to whose laws? Just physical force or violence? From what I've seen, seems like anyone not in uniform bombing something is called a terrorist. But then there's the question of "freedom-fighter" vs terrorist... The differences between the Sept. 11 attacks and a normal military attack are:
1-unconventional weapons
2-in peacetime
3-not directly provoked ie. by military attack
4-aimed to kill as many civilians as possible
5-not carried out by a state
Can you think of more? IP: Logged |
Angel Fish
Self-Made User
|
posted October 02, 2001 01:40 AM
No answers, more questions.
If an animal rights group places a bomb in a furriers, is that an act of terrorism?
How about physical and verbal abuse by pro-life protesters?These two situations certainly fall into the dictionary definition, and they fullfil 4 out of 5 of bananatt's qualifiers. The only obvious difference is in the scale of the damage caused.
IP: Logged |
Rockwell
Self-Made User
|
posted October 02, 2001 02:00 AM
Bananatt, I think you pretty well covered how to define ‘terrorism’, but I think that angel has a good point. The distinction between ‘terrorist’ and ‘freedom-fighter’ is ill defined. For example, if you define state sponsored terrorism as what has transpired with the S11 attack (Ie If the Taliban govt. provided intelligence, funds and a sanctuary for OBL’s war) do you also consider the support of the ‘Real’ IRA by US nationals to be USA sponsored (if not by state then by members of that state)? Or the proxy support for the Cuban exiles by US agencies in their propaganda and economic war against the ‘rightful’ government of Cuba? Or the ‘lip-service’ support of the western Islamic rebels of China by western nations, or the moral and political support of ‘terrorist’ organisations killing people in Grozny by European nations? I guess what I’m trying to say is The old adage of ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter’ seems to be as true as ever, and the waters are as muddy today as prior to S11. Edited to edit,,,,,,,as per usual [This message has been edited by Rockwell (edited October 02, 2001).] IP: Logged |
McDuff
Self-Made User
|
posted October 02, 2001 03:12 AM
Also, the dictionary definiton was as close as you can get to the way I perceive "War" to be defined. Government sponsored terrorism, acts of war, privately sponsored terrorism, acts of war....In all seriousness, aren't all these just distinctions in name only, to try and justify the killing of someone you don't like? I know that's pretty blunt, and there's all sorts of reasons like "democratic freedom," and "national security" to bandy about, but, really, doesn't it boil down to "what do we call it when X kills Y?" ------------------
Ack, bec's geometry homework wants to sell me a Tiny Wireless Camera! - Cropherb, via IRC Barbies are melting TODAY. - Jesse Dangerously IP: Logged |
Jesse Dangerously
Self-Made User
|
posted October 02, 2001 07:38 AM
Exactly.Bananatt, you're better off admitting that war and terrorism are the same thing than trying to find ways to distinguish. IP: Logged |
farwell3d
Self-Made User
|
posted October 02, 2001 09:34 AM
The line between terrorism and heroism isn't very thick. Was it terrorism to dump the tea at the boston tea party? What about to fight against the Brittish in the Revolutionary war. That at least basically fits the definition.------------------
"You won't find me gone
Raised Hands Surrond Us
3 Nails to Protect Us
I'll find my way back home
Raised Hands Surround Us
3 Nails to Protect Us"
-Project 86 "Open Hand" IP: Logged |
Owlet
Self-Made User
|
posted October 02, 2001 10:01 AM
Wait a minute: how can you say that terrorism and war are the same thing, having gone all bonkers when Bush referred to the 11 Sept attacks as an act of war?IP: Logged |
farwell3d
Self-Made User
|
posted October 02, 2001 02:50 PM
Well, if we have on ground battles with Al Queda or even Taliban soldiers, I'll call it war. If we start dropping bombs on the people of Afghanistan (something that, luckily, doesn't seem very likely now) I would have to call that terrorism or murder.------------------
"You won't find me gone
Raised Hands Surrond Us
3 Nails to Protect Us
I'll find my way back home
Raised Hands Surround Us
3 Nails to Protect Us"
-Project 86 "Open Hand" IP: Logged |
Paranoid Android
Self-Made User
|
posted October 02, 2001 03:32 PM
quote:
"We were lucky enough at Pearl Harbor to be the victim of a craven sneak attack from an aggressor with the decency to attack military targets, use their own damn planes, and clearly mark those planes with their national insignia so that we knew who they were," Rumsfeld said. "Since the 21st-century breed of coward is not affording us any such luxury, we are forced to fritter away time searching hither and yon for him in the manner of a global easter-egg hunt."
--The Onion
IP: Logged |
Roup
Self-Made User
|
posted October 02, 2001 03:48 PM
I think trying to define war vs. terrorism is like trying to define "pornography." Some things are clearly identifiable as such; September 11th was clearly terrorism, "Debbie Does Dallas" is clearly pornography. When you try to draw a bright, clear line, however, it doesn't exist.Countless events that happened during wartime (Dresden and Hiroshima leap to mind, but are in no way unique) would meet many people's definitions of terrorism, but not others. Just like Tropic of Capricorn meets some people's definitions of pornography and not others. But that doesn't mean that the concepts of "terrorism" (or "pornography") are useless, or we shouldn't use them. Some events are debatable whether they are A or B, but others are clearly one or the other. IP: Logged |
Morat
Self-Made User
|
posted October 02, 2001 06:04 PM
Personally, I've never seen Debbie Does Dallas. Debbie Does Dishes, however, isn't so much porn as rib-achingly amusing. I've never seen it either, but I got a synopsis from a friend: "Well, Debbie tries to do the dishes, because they're piling up. But, with constant interruptions, she never really gets around to it. Oh, and the sex, of course." Sorry, just felt I had to share. This has been your moment of Zen.
------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics! --Homer Simpson IP: Logged |
Roup
Self-Made User
|
posted October 03, 2001 02:35 PM
"My cable is out. I don't know what's wrong with it.""Ja, that's why they call me, I am einen expert." IP: Logged |
McDuff
Self-Made User
|
posted October 03, 2001 06:17 PM
"I've come to fix your fridge""It's over here... It's just toooo hot!" Anyway. There's a difference between an "Act of War," which is a clearly defined legal term which had no relevance apart from the door-slamming drama, and "war," which is a horrible, messy business in which people die in nasty ways because other people want them to. Once you move out of the media and the stateroom, and onto the battlefield, all distinctions, whether they exist or not, become meaningless. That person over there wants to kill you. What mitigating circumstances make that easy to countenance? You want to kill that person over there. Ditto. ------------------
Ack, bec's geometry homework wants to sell me a Tiny Wireless Camera! - Cropherb, via IRC Barbies are melting TODAY. - Jesse Dangerously IP: Logged | |
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
Brunching UBB
