3 ms·

The term is useless then. Every state military action is terrorism by that definition.

by dttze 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago
That is the consensus definition from the start. What did you think it was? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism >Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.[1] >Modern terrorism, evolving from earlier iterations, employs various tactics to pursue political goals, often leveraging fear as a strategic tool to influence decision makers. There is some debate on the fringes of the definition, but not all state actions are terrorism. For example, if a state military goal is simply to kill or disable your enemy by force, that isnt terrorism. Wars of extermination aren't terrorism either. That said, targeting non-combatants to hurt morale is a pretty common terrorism tactic. You could make a strong case that the bombing the civilians of London, Dresden, or Tokyo were acts of terrorism. Outside of state militaries, it is pretty hard to imagine a principal that separates Luigi from abortion clinic bombers, The Weather Underground, or other domestic terrorists.
- dttze 2y ago
  I’ll disagree and say all war is indeed terrorism. But I do actually think the term is meaningless and just made up so people can say their violence is righteous while others is bad. This has become painfully obvious when groups like Hamas are labeled terrorists, but the guys slaughtering civilians with 1000lb bombs aren’t. Or when Luigi offs a CEO it’s terrorism but when corporate policies cause the death of thousands or millions, it’s just capitalism baby.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    It has a meaning and isnt just a synonym for ++BAD. Terrorism is crime of intent. It describes the purpose of the violence, specifically to instill fear and terror. Nazis ushering jews into gas chambers wasn't terrorism. They didnt care what the jews thought. Does the fact that it wasnt terrorism mean it wasn't bad? Of course not. Similarly, if you kill millions to make a buck, that isnt terrorism either, just because it is bad. Of course the matter who gets officially designated a terrorist is political. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is true. This is a basic fact of life. Just because you disagree with usage doesn't mean that the entire concept and definition is meaningless.
    - dttze 2y ago
      Huh? I was using your definition posted: >Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. Killing the Jews was an ideological aim. So that was terrorism. The profit motive is also ideological. So that’d be terrorism too. In fact, pretty much everything we do is ideological. This is a basic fact of life. Just because you choose to ignore that doesn’t mean the word is meaningful.
asacrowflies 2y ago
Every protest. Every dissent. Every unauthorized breath must be terrorism. If everything is terrorism nothing is.... I mean terrorism got us civil rights and more no?

The term is useless then. Every state military action is terrorism by that definition.

by dttze 2y ago

The term is useless then. Every state military action is terrorism by that definition.

That is the consensus definition from the start. What did you think it was? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism >Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.[1] >Modern terrorism, evolving from earlier iterations, employs various tactics to pursue political goals, often leveraging fear as a strategic tool to influence decision makers. There is some debate on the fringes of the definition, but not all state actions are terrorism. For example, if a state military goal is simply to kill or disable your enemy by force, that isnt terrorism. Wars of extermination aren't terrorism either. That said, targeting non-combatants to hurt morale is a pretty common terrorism tactic. You could make a strong case that the bombing the civilians of London, Dresden, or Tokyo were acts of terrorism. Outside of state militaries, it is pretty hard to imagine a principal that separates Luigi from abortion clinic bombers, The Weather Underground, or other domestic terrorists.

dttze 2y ago
I’ll disagree and say all war is indeed terrorism. But I do actually think the term is meaningless and just made up so people can say their violence is righteous while others is bad. This has become painfully obvious when groups like Hamas are labeled terrorists, but the guys slaughtering civilians with 1000lb bombs aren’t. Or when Luigi offs a CEO it’s terrorism but when corporate policies cause the death of thousands or millions, it’s just capitalism baby.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  It has a meaning and isnt just a synonym for ++BAD. Terrorism is crime of intent. It describes the purpose of the violence, specifically to instill fear and terror. Nazis ushering jews into gas chambers wasn't terrorism. They didnt care what the jews thought. Does the fact that it wasnt terrorism mean it wasn't bad? Of course not. Similarly, if you kill millions to make a buck, that isnt terrorism either, just because it is bad. Of course the matter who gets officially designated a terrorist is political. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is true. This is a basic fact of life. Just because you disagree with usage doesn't mean that the entire concept and definition is meaningless.
  - dttze 2y ago
    Huh? I was using your definition posted: >Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. Killing the Jews was an ideological aim. So that was terrorism. The profit motive is also ideological. So that’d be terrorism too. In fact, pretty much everything we do is ideological. This is a basic fact of life. Just because you choose to ignore that doesn’t mean the word is meaningful.

asacrowflies 2y ago

Every protest. Every dissent. Every unauthorized breath must be terrorism. If everything is terrorism nothing is.... I mean terrorism got us civil rights and more no?