4 ms·

I agree that unfortunately the official definitions of terrorism are whacky and often colored by political or geostrategical evaluations, but there is one that

I agree that unfortunately the official definitions of terrorism are whacky and often colored by political or geostrategical evaluations, but there is one that works: Terrorists are persons who directly and intentionally target noncombatant civilians as a means to achieve political goals. IMHO, this is the best definition and captures what we ordinarily mean by 'terrorist'. It does make certain acts that are classified as terrorist non-terrorist, e.g. Taleban attacking a military base are not terrorists by that definition, and it also classifies other acts as terrorist that have previously not been regarded as such, e.g. maybe drone strikes with consistently more civilian deaths than enemy combatants are acts of state-terrorism according to that definition. (The latter depends on ones interpretation of the so-called 'doctrine of double effect' and definition of intentional actions.) So there is a good definition FB could use. That being said, I can't figure out why companies ought to fulfill the role of judges, especially not proactively. It's not their business and they have no expertise in it, and there are conflicts of interests. If some content or website is illegal, then it should be investigated by the police and closed down under judicial oversight. If it's not illegal, then it should be left alone.

random123456 9y ago
> Terrorists are persons who directly and intentionally target noncombatant civilians as a means to achieve political goals. by this definition, lots of US soldiers are terrorists, they kill (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, sometimes forcedly) civilians in Libya, Iraq (where nuclear weapon not found), Syria, Vietnam in old days and in many more countries > Taleban attacking a military base are not terrorists by that definition Of course, they are defending their own place, what the hell is military base of different country is doing something in totally different country, maybe occupation? which means using terroristic acts
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- JohnStrange 9y ago
  > by this definition, lots of US soldiers are terrorists, they kill (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, sometimes forcedly) It's this kind of sloppy thinking that makes a rational discussion of this topic (and many other controversial topics) so hard. I wrote "intentionally target noncombatant civilians" and you essentially ignored this. There is a huge difference whether you kill someone intentionally or non-intentionally as a side effect, or at least that's what the majority of people who seriously think about this topic agree upon. Intentional killings of noncombatant civilians by US army members are considered crimes or war crime, depending on the circumstances. They are often prosecuted. But I've already mentioned legal grey zones such as drone strikes in which the killing of innocent bystanders is not intended but taken into account. > Of course, they [the Taleban] are defending their own place, But they are often classified as terrorists, hence the example. Just to make this clear as well, the example is a bit ill-conceived in retrospective, since there is no doubt that Taleban as an organization are terrorists - they bomb cilivians in cities all the time. Of course, the definition of a terrorist organization is more complicated than just "they always intentionally kill civilians".

random123456 9y ago

> Terrorists are persons who directly and intentionally target noncombatant civilians as a means to achieve political goals. by this definition, lots of US soldiers are terrorists, they kill (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, sometimes forcedly) civilians in Libya, Iraq (where nuclear weapon not found), Syria, Vietnam in old days and in many more countries > Taleban attacking a military base are not terrorists by that definition Of course, they are defending their own place, what the hell is military base of different country is doing something in totally different country, maybe occupation? which means using terroristic acts

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JohnStrange 9y ago
> by this definition, lots of US soldiers are terrorists, they kill (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, sometimes forcedly) It's this kind of sloppy thinking that makes a rational discussion of this topic (and many other controversial topics) so hard. I wrote "intentionally target noncombatant civilians" and you essentially ignored this. There is a huge difference whether you kill someone intentionally or non-intentionally as a side effect, or at least that's what the majority of people who seriously think about this topic agree upon. Intentional killings of noncombatant civilians by US army members are considered crimes or war crime, depending on the circumstances. They are often prosecuted. But I've already mentioned legal grey zones such as drone strikes in which the killing of innocent bystanders is not intended but taken into account. > Of course, they [the Taleban] are defending their own place, But they are often classified as terrorists, hence the example. Just to make this clear as well, the example is a bit ill-conceived in retrospective, since there is no doubt that Taleban as an organization are terrorists - they bomb cilivians in cities all the time. Of course, the definition of a terrorist organization is more complicated than just "they always intentionally kill civilians".