6 ms·

OK, 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

• keiferski 6y ago
  I’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 ago
    And 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        Why? 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 ago
          I just added more to my comment. But again, you seem to be misunderstanding my point entirely.
          • ukj 6y ago
            I 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 ago
              At 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
                • keiferski 6y ago
                  I mean, you can define words however you want, but as I just said, I have a hard time believing that anyone would categorize "blowing up a bus filled with civilians" as a freedom-fighting act. Are you arguing that some people are justified in saying it is?
• zajio1am 6y ago
  Why 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 ago
    And 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?
      • ukj 6y ago
        Sounds like freedom fighting to me (given my biases).
        • skissane 6y ago
          Why can’t it be both at the same time? I realise in some people’s usage the two terms are mutually exclusive, but not everyone agrees with that usage.
• JohnStrangeII 6y ago
  You 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.