4 ms·

> the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in order to effect political change Literally the only differences between your definition and the ones p

> the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in order to effect political change Literally the only differences between your definition and the ones provided above are: 1. They specifically mention illegal violence so that e.g. police forces aren't considered terrorist organizations. Fair distinction, IMO. 2. The part about stealth. (Because flying planes into buildings or blowing up cars is... stealthy?) 3. The part about civilians (the parent's definition is more accurate -- terrorist attacks usually but not always involve civilians). IMO yours is a worse definition. It means IED attacks in Iraq weren't terrorism. So confusingly, on the front lines of the global war on terrorism, few if any Americans died at the hands of terrorists. > Hate crime? Sure. Sure. Why the hell not? What makes a hate crime not terrorism? Terrorists attacks can be not hate crimes (e.g. if they target indiscriminately), but usually terrorist attacks are also hate crimes. > Drunken armed fool on his way to jail and a couple of guys just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Absolutely. How does this fit the "political change" aspect that's included in your parent's definitions? Wanting to not go to jail is only political in the most superficial of ways. > The western world is not in a war to stop armed stupid drunken men So who and what are we at war with, exactly? I've been trying to figure that out for close to two decades now. And the prevailing answer has changed at least three times while the name of the war hasn't. So maybe you're the one with a terrible working definition of "terror".

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
I think the "war on terror" is an idiotic phrase, so please don't ask me to defend it. The best I have is that some countries have decided to act against people who use terrorism. The reason why is that terrorism is a form of politics. You can either spend a lot of money and try to persuade a population to agree with your position or you can convince them to live in fear of your power and to do your will out of that fear. This, also, is why terrorism is such an existential threat. It's not because of the body count. It's because a very small number of terrorists can effectively hold hostage millions of voters. That breaks democratic forms of governance in bad ways. For what it's worth, I view the "war on terror" in much the same way as I view the "war on landmines", or the "war on poverty". "War" is so overloaded as to be meaningless. I think with terrorism you can at least offer a working definition and drive analysis further. With "war", it's such a mess that I think as a word it's useless now.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  Fair enough. Maybe calculated or coordinated is better than stealth. Which would perhaps exclude this attack (maybe, maybe not) but include e.g. organized and intentional white nationalists.
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    There's an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further -- and that you are deliberately planning to further that effort. The KKK were terrorists. White bigots in the south were not. They were just bigots. Every stupid, angry, bigoted and violent person is not a terrorist. To me an almost classic example is that couple out in California that shot up those folks. They had planned for weeks, bought gear, posted online. They were even shooting video in order to publish of the attacks as they occurred. That's terrorism.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      > There's an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further -- and that you are deliberately planning to further that effort. In that case, I would argue that this attack fits your definition of terrorism. The political ideology is white nationalism clothed in Islamophobic garb. The immediate political desire is, in the attacker's own words, "get out of my country!" It's hard to argue that killing someone (and by extension making people like them fear for their safety) is not a deliberate and planned way of getting "them" -- both the individual and the group that individual supposedly represents -- out of your country.
      - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
        I find this a very difficult argument to accept, but I appreciate your sharing it. I believe you are conflating "having a political desire" with "...an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further.." If a man loved Nazis in 1938 and blew himself up in Times Square? Not terrorism. There's no use of stealth in a pre-meditated way to instill fear to enact some political change. It's just some Nazi schmuck blowing himself up. Apologies if I'm responding to what I think you are saying instead of what you are, but fuck me. There's a huge difference in talking about what people feel and what they do, right? I feel a bunch of damned fool things, Never thought that this was some sort of topic for political debate.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
The part about stealth is there to exclude uniformed irregular fighters/people fighting for an organization not officially recognized as a state. As such one can engage in normal war with them, and can fire weapons at them while NOT firing at civilians. For instance, uniformed ISIS members are not terrorists - they are an army, albeit the army of a non-recognized state.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  That's a reasonable thing to exclude. But I'd argue we should just write the definition to caveat out of uniformed fighters fighting in war zones directly. The reason is that stealth is necessary for planning a terrorist attack (and therefore redundant -- any violent attack on a civilian target is going to be stealthily planned almost by definition), and also not a pre-requisite in the after-math of a terrorist attack. In fact, most terrorist organizations brag about their attacks pretty openly. Even in some cases when they weren't actually responsible.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    As I understand it, the distinction goes back to the Geneva convention and similar rules of "just war" that aim to minimize harm to civilians. Specifically, if you openly declare war, wear uniforms, carry weapons openly and follow other rules of war, your opponents can blow you up while leaving civilians alone (and you can do the same to them). Then you've just got a regular war going on.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

I think the "war on terror" is an idiotic phrase, so please don't ask me to defend it. The best I have is that some countries have decided to act against people who use terrorism. The reason why is that terrorism is a form of politics. You can either spend a lot of money and try to persuade a population to agree with your position or you can convince them to live in fear of your power and to do your will out of that fear. This, also, is why terrorism is such an existential threat. It's not because of the body count. It's because a very small number of terrorists can effectively hold hostage millions of voters. That breaks democratic forms of governance in bad ways. For what it's worth, I view the "war on terror" in much the same way as I view the "war on landmines", or the "war on poverty". "War" is so overloaded as to be meaningless. I think with terrorism you can at least offer a working definition and drive analysis further. With "war", it's such a mess that I think as a word it's useless now.

throwaway729 10y ago
Fair enough. Maybe calculated or coordinated is better than stealth. Which would perhaps exclude this attack (maybe, maybe not) but include e.g. organized and intentional white nationalists.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  There's an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further -- and that you are deliberately planning to further that effort. The KKK were terrorists. White bigots in the south were not. They were just bigots. Every stupid, angry, bigoted and violent person is not a terrorist. To me an almost classic example is that couple out in California that shot up those folks. They had planned for weeks, bought gear, posted online. They were even shooting video in order to publish of the attacks as they occurred. That's terrorism.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    > There's an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further -- and that you are deliberately planning to further that effort. In that case, I would argue that this attack fits your definition of terrorism. The political ideology is white nationalism clothed in Islamophobic garb. The immediate political desire is, in the attacker's own words, "get out of my country!" It's hard to argue that killing someone (and by extension making people like them fear for their safety) is not a deliberate and planned way of getting "them" -- both the individual and the group that individual supposedly represents -- out of your country.
    - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
      I find this a very difficult argument to accept, but I appreciate your sharing it. I believe you are conflating "having a political desire" with "...an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further.." If a man loved Nazis in 1938 and blew himself up in Times Square? Not terrorism. There's no use of stealth in a pre-meditated way to instill fear to enact some political change. It's just some Nazi schmuck blowing himself up. Apologies if I'm responding to what I think you are saying instead of what you are, but fuck me. There's a huge difference in talking about what people feel and what they do, right? I feel a bunch of damned fool things, Never thought that this was some sort of topic for political debate.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

The part about stealth is there to exclude uniformed irregular fighters/people fighting for an organization not officially recognized as a state. As such one can engage in normal war with them, and can fire weapons at them while NOT firing at civilians. For instance, uniformed ISIS members are not terrorists - they are an army, albeit the army of a non-recognized state.

throwaway729 10y ago
That's a reasonable thing to exclude. But I'd argue we should just write the definition to caveat out of uniformed fighters fighting in war zones directly. The reason is that stealth is necessary for planning a terrorist attack (and therefore redundant -- any violent attack on a civilian target is going to be stealthily planned almost by definition), and also not a pre-requisite in the after-math of a terrorist attack. In fact, most terrorist organizations brag about their attacks pretty openly. Even in some cases when they weren't actually responsible.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  As I understand it, the distinction goes back to the Geneva convention and similar rules of "just war" that aim to minimize harm to civilians. Specifically, if you openly declare war, wear uniforms, carry weapons openly and follow other rules of war, your opponents can blow you up while leaving civilians alone (and you can do the same to them). Then you've just got a regular war going on.