Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Should the term Terrorism be re-defined?

Page 2 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,654
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

14 Dec 2023, 7:32 am

I have always understood terrorism to be attacks on civilian targets having no military or strategic value. Although in some cases, the attacker might perceive their targets as enemies, i.e. in an ethnic dispute, the attacker might even consider babies belonging to the opposing group as enemies, so they might not think of themselves as terrorists.


_________________
My WP story


belijojo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2023
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,437

14 Dec 2023, 7:57 am

My understanding is this: people kill each other based on some virtual concepts, such as religion, ideology, and country. In each of these cases, babies are the ones to be fought for, uneducated, and do not belong to either party.
I don't quite understand why you assume a baby's political leanings or reasons why it should be exterminated.


_________________
Friendly, Ignorant, Pessimistic, Cynical, Gibberish


ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,534

14 Dec 2023, 10:16 am

MaxE wrote:
I have always understood terrorism to be attacks on civilian targets having no military or strategic value. Although in some cases, the attacker might perceive their targets as enemies, i.e. in an ethnic dispute, the attacker might even consider babies belonging to the opposing group as enemies, so they might not think of themselves as terrorists.

I've heard that the strategic value can be to draw strong attention to the cause (which otherwise would be ignored), to cause the people it represents to be persecuted (the end is presumed to justify the means), and of course to scare the other side and show that its government can't protect it as completely as its supporters think it can, and to destabilise the system. The innocent are selected to suffer for what's seen as the greater good. I sometimes wonder if it's all that different qualitatively to some of the things official governments have done.



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,045

14 Dec 2023, 10:32 am

Terrorism can be committed by individuals or groups and the motive is irrelevant as a qualifier for meeting the definition of terrorism. The consequent effect of a terrorist action is to terrorize people.

Killing a bunch of people mindlessly, or doing it with the backing of a complex ideology, will still terrorise individuals or groups of people who witness that.

Terrorism is terrorism.


_________________
“I was ashamed of myself when I realized life was a costume party and I attended with my real face” - Franz Kafka


MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,654
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

14 Dec 2023, 11:11 am

belijojo wrote:
My understanding is this: people kill each other based on some virtual concepts, such as religion, ideology, and country. In each of these cases, babies are the ones to be fought for, uneducated, and do not belong to either party.
I don't quite understand why you assume a baby's political leanings or reasons why it should be exterminated.

What I meant is that where intense ethnic hatred exists, they won't care who among the "enemy" they kill. If a Quadling believes all Gillikins to be evil, then he will not hesitate to set off a bomb in the middle of a Gillikin city, despite knowing that women and children will die.


_________________
My WP story


belijojo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2023
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,437

14 Dec 2023, 11:19 am

MaxE wrote:
What I meant is that where intense ethnic hatred exists, they won't care who among the "enemy" they kill. If a Quadling believes all Gillikins to be evil, then he will not hesitate to set off a bomb in the middle of a Gillikin city, despite knowing that women and children will die.

Completely got it, this is a sad situation, it is difficult to say who is the winner and who is righteous.


_________________
Friendly, Ignorant, Pessimistic, Cynical, Gibberish


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

14 Dec 2023, 8:38 pm

DanielW wrote:
Then you have a different definition or terrorism than most. The use of, or threats to use violence for political gain is the definition of terrorism.


There is political terrorism as well. For example the KKK in post-civil war USA to scare black people from voting or far right parties in Europe who do not hold political office but engage in hunting migrants to beat up on the streets to scare them to leave.

Another example is ethno-terrorism like radicalised white nationalists like Dylan Root who planned to kill black people to start a race war.



RedDeathFlower13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Nov 2023
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,709

14 Dec 2023, 8:42 pm

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned eco-terrorism. :nerdy:


_________________
A flower's life is wilting...


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

14 Dec 2023, 8:43 pm

Terrorism is "stateless actors commiting violent acts to intimidate a population for political ends".

Pretty much covers it.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

14 Dec 2023, 9:20 pm

RedDeathFlower13 wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned eco-terrorism. :nerdy:


That has a number of offshoots including climate terrorism where activists disrupt highways or sports events but the best example is animal rights activists who attack diners in restaurants eating steak or liberate caged animals and destroy the facilities



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,534

15 Dec 2023, 11:23 am

cyberdad wrote:
RedDeathFlower13 wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned eco-terrorism. :nerdy:


That has a number of offshoots including climate terrorism where activists disrupt highways or sports events but the best example is animal rights activists who attack diners in restaurants eating steak or liberate caged animals and destroy the facilities

But I thought terrorism was supposed to be attempts to terrify people, that it involves violence. The above examples are just inconvenience, and no more an act of terrorism than a rail strike. Peaceful protest is to some extent a legal right. Though I seem to remember somebody in the UK legal system tried to brand some peaceful activists as terrorists (so they could give them harsher punishments) for fastening themselves to the wheels of a deportation plane. The establishment failed to do that.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

15 Dec 2023, 8:37 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
But I thought terrorism was supposed to be attempts to terrify people, that it involves violence. The above examples are just inconvenience, and no more an act of terrorism than a rail strike. Peaceful protest is to some extent a legal right. Though I seem to remember somebody in the UK legal system tried to brand some peaceful activists as terrorists (so they could give them harsher punishments) for fastening themselves to the wheels of a deportation plane. The establishment failed to do that.


Yes, In that respect BLM damaged public property but not actually terrorising people (although if you listen to Fox news they label them everything).

Animal activists also make things inconvenient rather than terrorise. So yes, eco-terrorism is not really terrorism



RedDeathFlower13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Nov 2023
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,709

15 Dec 2023, 8:55 pm

cyberdad wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
But I thought terrorism was supposed to be attempts to terrify people, that it involves violence. The above examples are just inconvenience, and no more an act of terrorism than a rail strike. Peaceful protest is to some extent a legal right. Though I seem to remember somebody in the UK legal system tried to brand some peaceful activists as terrorists (so they could give them harsher punishments) for fastening themselves to the wheels of a deportation plane. The establishment failed to do that.


Yes, In that respect BLM damaged public property but not actually terrorising people (although if you listen to Fox news they label them everything).

Animal activists also make things inconvenient rather than terrorise. So yes, eco-terrorism is not really terrorism



I'm sure there's been actual eco-terrorists out there who took things to the extreme with threats to kill polluters.


_________________
A flower's life is wilting...


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,230
Location: Right over your left shoulder

15 Dec 2023, 9:43 pm

RedDeathFlower13 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
But I thought terrorism was supposed to be attempts to terrify people, that it involves violence. The above examples are just inconvenience, and no more an act of terrorism than a rail strike. Peaceful protest is to some extent a legal right. Though I seem to remember somebody in the UK legal system tried to brand some peaceful activists as terrorists (so they could give them harsher punishments) for fastening themselves to the wheels of a deportation plane. The establishment failed to do that.


Yes, In that respect BLM damaged public property but not actually terrorising people (although if you listen to Fox news they label them everything).

Animal activists also make things inconvenient rather than terrorise. So yes, eco-terrorism is not really terrorism



I'm sure there's been actual eco-terrorists out there who took things to the extreme with threats to kill polluters.


I'm sure it's hypothetically possible, but I can't recall a specific case.

In practice eco-terrorists do things like record and make public video of animal abuse at feedlots, or sit on the road and annoy people.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


RedDeathFlower13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Nov 2023
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,709

15 Dec 2023, 9:59 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
RedDeathFlower13 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
But I thought terrorism was supposed to be attempts to terrify people, that it involves violence. The above examples are just inconvenience, and no more an act of terrorism than a rail strike. Peaceful protest is to some extent a legal right. Though I seem to remember somebody in the UK legal system tried to brand some peaceful activists as terrorists (so they could give them harsher punishments) for fastening themselves to the wheels of a deportation plane. The establishment failed to do that.


Yes, In that respect BLM damaged public property but not actually terrorising people (although if you listen to Fox news they label them everything).

Animal activists also make things inconvenient rather than terrorise. So yes, eco-terrorism is not really terrorism



I'm sure there's been actual eco-terrorists out there who took things to the extreme with threats to kill polluters.


I'm sure it's hypothetically possible, but I can't recall a specific case.

In practice eco-terrorists do things like record and make public video of animal abuse at feedlots, or sit on the road and annoy people.


Ah, kinda like those well-meaning young adults in the intro to "28 Days Later" who broke into a science research facility to free the chimps that were being used as test subjects, not knowing that they were infected with a deadly zombie virus that would get loose on the world.

That would be a prime example of the road to Hell being paved with good intentions had such a thing actually happened in real life. :lol:


_________________
A flower's life is wilting...


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,230
Location: Right over your left shoulder

15 Dec 2023, 10:02 pm

RedDeathFlower13 wrote:
Ah, kinda like those well-meaning young adults in the intro to "28 Days Later" who broke into a science research facility to free the chimps that were being used as test subjects, not knowing that they were infected with a deadly zombie virus that would get loose on the world.

That would be a prime example of the road to Hell being paved with good intentions had such a thing actually happened in real life. :lol:


Definitely. Except for the zombie element, that's a pretty realistic scenario.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.