3 ms·

Violence, or the threat of violence, against a civilian population with the intended aim of effecting political change is the actual definition of terrorism, sp

Violence, or the threat of violence, against a civilian population with the intended aim of effecting political change is the actual definition of terrorism, special or not.

teachrdan 5y ago
I think what you may be missing is that this paper juxtaposes "Just Riots" with "Just Wars."[0] In modern warfare, massive numbers of civilians are often killed -- for example, the most deadly bomb attack of World War II was the Allied firebombing of Tokyo, which killed over 100,000 people, almost all of whom were civilians.[1] Surely this is "violence, against a civilian population, with the intended aim of effecting political change". Indeed, harming morale was an explicit goal of attacks like those against Tokyo and Dresden during WWII.[2] The idea was that the population would be cowed by these attacks and (somehow) get their governments to surrender to the Allies. So the question is: If we have a theory of "Just War," that includes wars where the "just" side can claim to morally kill tens of thousands of civilians at once, then should there also be a theory of "Just Riots," even if riots can scare civilians sometimes hurt or kill them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa...
- josephcsible 5y ago
  There's a really big difference between civilian targets being collateral damage, and civilian targets being attacked intentionally. It's not like the rioters thought they were looting a police station but accidentally ended up in Target; they intentionally chose to loot Target.
  - teachrdan 5y ago
    The mass killing of civilians in Tokyo and Dresden was absolutely deliberate. Same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the atom bombs used in those attacks were dropped on the center of those cities, even though the factories we were ostensibly targeting were located on the outskirts. Having said that: If indeed the Allies targeted civilians intentionally in World War II, would you say that the war was unjust? Or that the Allies committed war crimes? If not, then you might consider that there is such a thing as just riots.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  This is why every definition of terrorism mentions non state actors, precisely because states use violence themselves.
posterboy 5y ago
Terror is historically the name of a form of draconic government. Your definition is prescriptive and the way I understand it you changed a perceived thread into an intended thread. I'd argue that an act of desperation is rather aimless, frustation rather apolitical and anger not even well defined and well unintentional. You'd have to assume that a riot is concerted or agitated and that rioters were used, by a government against civilians. That's a real possibility, but it would also include kinda civil wars. The current understanding as formed by extensive definitions does not capture mass hysteria though. It's simply terrible, a real riot.

Violence, or the threat of violence, against a civilian population with the intended aim of effecting political change is the actual definition of terrorism, special or not.

teachrdan 5y ago

I think what you may be missing is that this paper juxtaposes "Just Riots" with "Just Wars."[0] In modern warfare, massive numbers of civilians are often killed -- for example, the most deadly bomb attack of World War II was the Allied firebombing of Tokyo, which killed over 100,000 people, almost all of whom were civilians.[1] Surely this is "violence, against a civilian population, with the intended aim of effecting political change". Indeed, harming morale was an explicit goal of attacks like those against Tokyo and Dresden during WWII.[2] The idea was that the population would be cowed by these attacks and (somehow) get their governments to surrender to the Allies. So the question is: If we have a theory of "Just War," that includes wars where the "just" side can claim to morally kill tens of thousands of civilians at once, then should there also be a theory of "Just Riots," even if riots can scare civilians sometimes hurt or kill them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa...

josephcsible 5y ago
There's a really big difference between civilian targets being collateral damage, and civilian targets being attacked intentionally. It's not like the rioters thought they were looting a police station but accidentally ended up in Target; they intentionally chose to loot Target.
- teachrdan 5y ago
  The mass killing of civilians in Tokyo and Dresden was absolutely deliberate. Same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the atom bombs used in those attacks were dropped on the center of those cities, even though the factories we were ostensibly targeting were located on the outskirts. Having said that: If indeed the Allies targeted civilians intentionally in World War II, would you say that the war was unjust? Or that the Allies committed war crimes? If not, then you might consider that there is such a thing as just riots.
HWR_14 5y ago
This is why every definition of terrorism mentions non state actors, precisely because states use violence themselves.

posterboy 5y ago

Terror is historically the name of a form of draconic government. Your definition is prescriptive and the way I understand it you changed a perceived thread into an intended thread. I'd argue that an act of desperation is rather aimless, frustation rather apolitical and anger not even well defined and well unintentional. You'd have to assume that a riot is concerted or agitated and that rioters were used, by a government against civilians. That's a real possibility, but it would also include kinda civil wars. The current understanding as formed by extensive definitions does not capture mass hysteria though. It's simply terrible, a real riot.