4 ms·

So in some other context, such activities are labeled "terrorism", now this becomes more neutral. This title is actually fine. But the other ones need to be m

So in some other context, such activities are labeled "terrorism", now this becomes more neutral. This title is actually fine. But the other ones need to be more objective.

burkaman 9y ago
If a government directly does it, it's not called terrorism. I don't think I've ever seen a headline that contradicts that.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > If a government directly does it, it's not called terrorism. Considering that the modern use of “terrorist” and “terrorism” traced back directly to description of actors and actions associated with the Terror in Revolutionary France, that would be erroneous. It's true that much of the modern focus is on international terrorism (which necessarily excludes internal state terrorism, which is a form of intranational terrorism), state terrorism remains a significant thing (both internationally and internally.)
  - burkaman 9y ago
    It's not erroneous, terms evolve. There's no formal definition of terrorism, so we're just talking about how it's used in common conversation and media. Maybe it's just me, but in modern usage I've only ever seen references to non-governmental terrorism and "state sponsored terrorism", which is different than a direct government action. When a government does it it's just modern warfare.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Maybe it's just me, but in modern usage I've only ever seen references to non-governmental terrorism and "state sponsored terrorism", which is different than a direct government action. State-sponsored terrorism is broader than, but includes, direct government action. Direct actions by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Quds Force are often described as “state sponsored terrorism”.
      - burkaman 9y ago
        Ok, that's a good example. I agree that an article like you're describe would be inconsistent, and further dilutes the modern meaning of terrorism.
      - theptip 9y ago
        I think the more nuanced point would be "If _our_ government directly does it, it's not called terrorism." The US government's support for anti-government organizations in the Middle East (e.g. in Syria, Libya, Sudan, etc) is characterized as terrorism by the Iranian government, and many others (Russia, etc). (I'm not passing any judgement on the moral equivalency of these positions, just pointing out the fuzziness of the linguistics).
- justicezyx 9y ago
  Wow. I just wanted the news outlets to be more objective. That is just some minor human bias which can be corrected. Let's not go into the unendable argument of accurate human language meaning.
smsm42 9y ago
Terrorism is untargeted violence against civil population, with the aim to instill fear and influence policy. Destruction of a military or military-related object by a warring country is not terrorism, it is an act of war. In war, objects that can have military significance - bridges, roads, factories, warehouses, etc. - are routinely attacked. This has nothing to do with terrorism. Note that Israel and Syria is in the state of war since 1948, when Syria was one of the states that tried to destroy the nascent Jewish state. Unlike some other Arab countries, Syria never made peace with Israel and never really wanted to.
- theptip 9y ago
  > Terrorism is untargeted violence against civil population That definition might have been true immediately after 2001-09-11, but now the term has been diluted and coopted to cover any anti-government military action. Arguably this is just double-speak; I consider this term to be borderline meaningless at this point. See for example Russia/Georgia [1], or more recently the "terrorists" opposing the Syrian government [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russo-Georgian_diplomatic_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russo-Georgian_diplomatic... [2]: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/who-is-a-terrorist-in-syr_b_9059926.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/who-is-a-terrorist...
  - adventured 9y ago
    When words get diluted like that, you can easily counter through elaboration and specificity, as the parent did. In doing so, you can retain the meaning as you see fit. All people are free to define their own definitions. In fact, we all do, without exception: no two people hold identical definitions for the same words. The only thing that matters is the ability to be understood, ideally to a high degree. Elaboration on what you mean provides for that even in the case of widespread dilution.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > but now the term has been diluted There's no good reason to participate in it and make matters worse. We virtually universally denounce terrorism exactly because it is indiscriminately harming innocent people just to scare others, which is considered immoral by the majority of modern moral systems. Destroying military objects in the course of war, while being, as any part of the war is, regrettable course of events - does not carry nearly the same moral stigma. Some people participating in Syria war are undoubtedly terrorists - ISIS and al-Qaeda make no secret of its adherence to the terrorist tactics, among other war crimes they commit - others are guerilla, or self-defence forces (e.g. Peshmerga). One should not confuse those if one wants to understand what is going on.
lambersley 9y ago
The root word is 'terror'. If terror (mass fear, intimidation, panic) was the intent, I would agree.

So in some other context, such activities are labeled "terrorism", now this becomes more neutral. This title is actually fine. But the other ones need to be more objective.

burkaman 9y ago

If a government directly does it, it's not called terrorism. I don't think I've ever seen a headline that contradicts that.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> If a government directly does it, it's not called terrorism. Considering that the modern use of “terrorist” and “terrorism” traced back directly to description of actors and actions associated with the Terror in Revolutionary France, that would be erroneous. It's true that much of the modern focus is on international terrorism (which necessarily excludes internal state terrorism, which is a form of intranational terrorism), state terrorism remains a significant thing (both internationally and internally.)
- burkaman 9y ago
  It's not erroneous, terms evolve. There's no formal definition of terrorism, so we're just talking about how it's used in common conversation and media. Maybe it's just me, but in modern usage I've only ever seen references to non-governmental terrorism and "state sponsored terrorism", which is different than a direct government action. When a government does it it's just modern warfare.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Maybe it's just me, but in modern usage I've only ever seen references to non-governmental terrorism and "state sponsored terrorism", which is different than a direct government action. State-sponsored terrorism is broader than, but includes, direct government action. Direct actions by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Quds Force are often described as “state sponsored terrorism”.
    - burkaman 9y ago
      Ok, that's a good example. I agree that an article like you're describe would be inconsistent, and further dilutes the modern meaning of terrorism.
    - theptip 9y ago
      I think the more nuanced point would be "If _our_ government directly does it, it's not called terrorism." The US government's support for anti-government organizations in the Middle East (e.g. in Syria, Libya, Sudan, etc) is characterized as terrorism by the Iranian government, and many others (Russia, etc). (I'm not passing any judgement on the moral equivalency of these positions, just pointing out the fuzziness of the linguistics).
justicezyx 9y ago
Wow. I just wanted the news outlets to be more objective. That is just some minor human bias which can be corrected. Let's not go into the unendable argument of accurate human language meaning.

smsm42 9y ago

Terrorism is untargeted violence against civil population, with the aim to instill fear and influence policy. Destruction of a military or military-related object by a warring country is not terrorism, it is an act of war. In war, objects that can have military significance - bridges, roads, factories, warehouses, etc. - are routinely attacked. This has nothing to do with terrorism. Note that Israel and Syria is in the state of war since 1948, when Syria was one of the states that tried to destroy the nascent Jewish state. Unlike some other Arab countries, Syria never made peace with Israel and never really wanted to.

theptip 9y ago
> Terrorism is untargeted violence against civil population That definition might have been true immediately after 2001-09-11, but now the term has been diluted and coopted to cover any anti-government military action. Arguably this is just double-speak; I consider this term to be borderline meaningless at this point. See for example Russia/Georgia [1], or more recently the "terrorists" opposing the Syrian government [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russo-Georgian_diplomatic_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russo-Georgian_diplomatic... [2]: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/who-is-a-terrorist-in-syr_b_9059926.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/who-is-a-terrorist...
- adventured 9y ago
  When words get diluted like that, you can easily counter through elaboration and specificity, as the parent did. In doing so, you can retain the meaning as you see fit. All people are free to define their own definitions. In fact, we all do, without exception: no two people hold identical definitions for the same words. The only thing that matters is the ability to be understood, ideally to a high degree. Elaboration on what you mean provides for that even in the case of widespread dilution.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > but now the term has been diluted There's no good reason to participate in it and make matters worse. We virtually universally denounce terrorism exactly because it is indiscriminately harming innocent people just to scare others, which is considered immoral by the majority of modern moral systems. Destroying military objects in the course of war, while being, as any part of the war is, regrettable course of events - does not carry nearly the same moral stigma. Some people participating in Syria war are undoubtedly terrorists - ISIS and al-Qaeda make no secret of its adherence to the terrorist tactics, among other war crimes they commit - others are guerilla, or self-defence forces (e.g. Peshmerga). One should not confuse those if one wants to understand what is going on.

lambersley 9y ago

The root word is 'terror'. If terror (mass fear, intimidation, panic) was the intent, I would agree.