7 ms·
Maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but what is the issue with that definition? Lack of an explicit political goal?
by gsk22 6y ago
Maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but what is the issue with that definition? Lack of an explicit political goal?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- keiferski 6y agoIt’s a problem because it bases the definition on the feelings of the recipients and not on the actions of the perpetrators.
- ukj 6y agoBoth terrorists and freedom fighters act the same way. In the battlefield of narratives perspective matters.
- keiferski 6y agoSure, but I think this meme is actually not so clearly true in practice. Freedom fighters may engage in terrorist acts (see Algeria for example) but that doesn’t seem like a quality of “fighting for freedom”, merely a correlative practice.
- ukj 6y agoOK, but that's how language is broken. You can't define 'terrorism' in such a way so as to include all terrorists, and exclude all non-terrorists. This is the essentialist dream.
- keiferski 6y agoI’m not a linguist, but the main issue here seems to be the desire to make adjectives into nouns, as it’s easier for humans to conceptually understand. Instead of X is [noun], we could say X is Person who engaged in X [acts.]
- ukj 6y agoAnd you'll get no further than 'A terrorist is a person who engages in terrorism'. And then the debate is still exactly where we left off. Was that person engaging in X, or was he engaging in Y? X = Terrorism, Y = Freedom fighting The main issue is that your attitude towards the activity/person is encoded in the language you are using to describe it.
- keiferski 6y agoI don’t think this is accurate or a charitable interpretation of what I said. I am making a distinction between actions and nouns. I hold that it is not controversial to say certain actions are considered terroristic actions and certain actions are considered freedom fighting actions. Often, the same people engage in both, and combined with our tendency to want to assign people in noun classes (He is an X), this results in the perceived equivalence you are speaking about.
- ukj 6y agoWhy? Exactly as you proposed: An X is somebody who engages in X. If you are engaging in terrorism then you are a terrorist. If you are engaging in freedom fighting then you are a freedom fighter. You say you are engaging in freedom fighting. I say you are engaging in terrorism. The distinction is merely your description of your behavior vs my description of your behavior. Perspective.
- keiferski 6y agoI just added more to my comment. But again, you seem to be misunderstanding my point entirely.
- ukj 6y agoI understand what you are saying. You are not seeing that it doesn't work. Instead of calling you a 'terrorist' (noun). I can simply describe your actions/behaviour as 'terrorising' (verb). Whether I classify you into a noun-class or a verb-class is moot. I am still classifying your behaviour as terrorism, not freedom fighting.
- zajio1am 6y agoWhy not? 'terrorists' are by definition people committing terrorism. Any definition of 'terrorismu' whould define a set of terrorists, bud different definitions would lead to different people considered terrorists. Defining terrorism is not hard - public violence on civilians for ideological (political, religious) reasons. Or more narrow definition that would replace 'civilians' with 'general public' (t exclude attack on state structures). What you cannot is to hope that any definition of 'terrorism' would include all 'evil' acts and exclude all 'good' acts, because distinction between these is complex.
- ukj 6y agoAnd freedom fighters are by definition people committing freedom fighting. >What you cannot is to hope that any definition of 'terrorism' would include all 'evil' acts and exclude all 'good' acts, because distinction between these is complex. Precisely the problem. Ceteris paribus, it's 'terrorism' when you think it's 'evil', and it's freedom fighting' when you think it's 'good'. Two different descriptions of exactly the same facts.
- skissane 6y ago> Ceteris paribus, it's 'terrorism' when you think it's 'evil', and it's freedom fighting' when you think it’s 'good' Is “good terrorism” impossible? What if the year is 1942 and you are trying to blow up a Nazi party meeting?
- JohnStrangeII 6y agoYou can, see my definition above. The crucial feature is whether civilians are intentionally targeted or not. You can add all kinds of clauses (e.g. to conveniently exclude military forces of nation states), but that's the morally relevant criterion. A group that is intentionally targeting civilians for political reasons is a terrorist organization.
- 082349872349872 6y agoIsn't it an irregular conjugation? I am a freedom fighter. You are conducting asymmetric warfare. They are terrorists. By the author of I, Claudius: Truth-loving Persians do not dwell upon The trivial skirmish fought near Marathon. As for the Greek theatrical tradition Which represents that summer's expedition Not as a mere reconnaisance in force By three brigades of foot and one of horse (Their left flank covered by some obsolete Light craft detached from the main Persian fleet) But as a grandiose, ill-starred attempt To conquer Greece - they treat it with contempt; And only incidentally refute Major Greek claims, by stressing what repute The Persian monarch and the Persian nation Won by this salutary demonstration: Despite a strong defence and adverse weather All arms combined magnificently together.
- JohnStrangeII 6y agoNo, not according to a reasonable definition of terrorism. It's terrorism if a group is intentionally attacking civilians (non-combatants) for political goals. Freedom fighters may or may not be terrorists, depending on whether they intentionally attack civilians or only hit military targets. What it means to intentionally attack someone is regulated by the Doctrine of Double Effect, is based on distinguishing between side effects and intentional goals of an action. It's a tricky topic and there is leeway for interpretation, but It's not as if a definition in this area could or should never lead to controversies. Unfortunately, this definition is rarely used, because it doesn't match the political goals of states. First, it follows from the definition that there is widespread state terrorism. Second, countries that send military occupation forces to other countries have a vested interest to brand asymmetric warfare against their military as terrorism, but this is not covered by the definition.
- ukj 6y agoObviously you would think your definition is the “reasonable” one. Until you find yourself having to engage in terro^H^H^H^H^H freedom fighting to achieve your own political goals.
- JohnStrangeII 6y agoI agree, what you describe is what terrorists think. Obviously, at some point in their life they persuade themselves that their political goals justify the intentional killing of innocent civilians. They go at great lengths with these justifications precisely because they are so obviously flawed. Attempts to justify their actions involve a mix of denying the Doctrine of Double Effects, speaking of necessary sacrifices, and of portraying innocent victims as guilty collaborators.
- ukj 6y agoIt's exactly what you are doing right now. Denying the Doctrine of Double Effects. Attempting to justify your definition. Portraying freedom fighters as terrorists. Ultimately insisting that your perspective/definition is the 'correct' one. You've gone to great lengths with these justifications perhaps because they are so obviously flawed?
- yakshaving_jgt 6y agoThe issue is that terrorism is about advancing an ideology. That's the important part. It's not about how terrifying the act was, nor is it about the attacker's skin colour (as is rather depressingly hinted at in US discourse). Ted Bundy terrorised his community, but there was no political aim. He was a sociopath, but not a terrorist. Anders Behring Breivik terrorised his community, and he had an explicit and clear ideological aim. He's a sociopath, and a terrorist.
- gsk22 6y agoSo in other words, it's an antonym to "senseless violence": as long as the perpetrator has a known agenda (whether implicitly or explicitly stated), it's terrorism? Doesn't that also make things like war and police brutality terrorism? Growing up in the US post-9/11, the word terrorism itself was very political. It was weaponized by successive presidential administrations as a catch-all term for "any person or group the government doesn't like" and repeated endlessly on news broadcasts and in other popular media. Terrorism is our only "justification" for holding people like Ramzi bin al-Shibh without trial for nearly 20 years. The original meaning of the word was lost long ago in popular American discourse, and the state prefers it that way. We still see that today, as prominent American political figures label peaceful protesters terrorists. Anyways, thanks for helping me chew through this. I'd never considered the meaning of the word closely before.
- skissane 6y agoYes, “terrorism” has a political objective. Randomly killing people for non-political reasons, such as done by some mass shooters or serial killers, is not terrorism, even if in some cases it kills more people than many acts of terrorism do.
- darksaints 6y agoI suppose the word political could encompass this, but it should also be pointed out it is political in the sense of having an intended purpose for societal change. That goes beyond what most people consider politics. It could be religious, ethnocentric, ideological, philosophical, etc. Even the actions of the luddites could fall under terrorism.
- skissane 6y ago> it should also be pointed out it is political in the sense of having an intended purpose for societal change The Christchurch mosque shooting was very consciously political - the perpetrator published a manifesto, he pre-announced and live streamed his crime to an online political discussion community dominated by the far right, he was hoping to inspire copycats through which to change society (he hoped to trigger the genocide of the Muslim minority in Western societies). Compare that to the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting - in the later case, the perpetrator didn’t prepare a manifesto. His motivations appeared to be primarily personal. Like everyone, he had some political views which investigators pieced together from writings and communications he left behind, but he made no attempt to communicate a clear political justification for his monstrous act. Both shootings were horrific acts of evil. But only one was clearly intended as political. Only one was a clear case of terrorism
- darksaints 6y agoI'm in full agreement. I'm just saying that a lot of people have a very narrow definition of political, and can easily fall into the trap of seeing that definition being a left vs right thing, or whatever political lense they tend to bias towards. For example, while the Sandy Hook shooting was distinctly personal in motivation, the 2014 Isla Vista shooting looked very similar but was very political, and thus terroristic. It just happens that the political motivation was one not commonly viewed as being political.
- tech2 6y agoI think the difference is the intent. If the intent of the act is the death (or other outcome) of a group of individuals then the act would be mass murder. If however the intent of the act is to use these acts to cause terror (the deaths are merely a means to that end) then the act is terrorism. Terror has been a tool of a number of political groups over the years. An easy example would be when the IRA bombing campaign moved outside of London after the ring of steel was constructed. The destruction of property, or the deaths of individuals themselves in London weren't the aims, it was the threat/fear/terror that anyone could become a victim. The terror was a lever to force government response.
- dgb23 6y agoI like this definition very much. However, would you for example include propaganda, which is specifically designed to spread fear? I always associated terrorism with physical violence.
- webmaven 6y ago> However, would you for example include propaganda, which is specifically designed to spread fear? I always associated terrorism with physical violence. Propaganda in the form of "$OUTGROUP are all murderers and rapists" is just fearmongering rather than terrorism, propaganda that threatens violence directly (eg. "Kill all $OUTGROUP") might be considered such, esp. if there is any reason to think that the propaganda is at all likely to be acted upon (so, if $OUTGROUP is "clowns" I don't think it would currently qualify, but "banksters" might).
- tech2 6y agoI think it's an interesting line, and depends on the propaganda. I imagine at some point lawyers would need to get involved to argue the minutiae. I can't say for sure and would really need decent examples.