7 ms·
Both terrorists and freedom fighters act the same way. In the battlefield of narratives perspective matters.
by ukj 6y ago
Both 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.
- keiferski 6y agoAt some point, you still have to define what the actions are, which is my argument. By actions I mean specific things, not the broad amorphous label of "terrorizing." As I said, if you narrow it down to specific actions (shooting, bombing, protest, etc.) the distinction between the two seems far more clear. I don't think anyone would claim that killing a crowd of civilians is somehow a freedom-fighting act, even if it is done by someone who mostly engages in freedom-fighting actions.
- ukj 6y ago>At some point, you still have to define what the actions are, which is my argument. Person A defines the EXACT SAME precise sets of actions as 'terrorism'. Person B defines the EXACT SAME precise sets of actions as 'freedom fighting'. They do it ostensively. THAT (points finger) is X. Language doesn't work the way you think it works. What you are trying to achieve is called Essentialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism
- 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?