The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Terrorists!
moniker
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
ter·ror·ism Audio Help /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
To what end does this definition apply beyond the obvious 'flying planes into buildings' metric. At which point does an act cross the threshold beyond being a mere act of violence or vandalism and become a terrorist action? Should terrorist groups be required to have appropriate names and not focus on the normal antipathy towards meterologists?
Discuss.
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
To what end does this definition apply beyond the obvious 'flying planes into buildings' metric. At which point does an act cross the threshold beyond being a mere act of violence or vandalism and become a terrorist action? Should terrorist groups be required to have appropriate names and not focus on the normal antipathy towards meterologists?
Discuss.
moniker on
0
Posts
Given how charged the word "terrorism" is these days, I'd hesitate to use it for anything but the last category. It may be more or less accurate for the third category, but the connotations are so far beyond the first two that it sounds ridiculous to use it in that way.
Really, it's the amount of destruction and the people it's aimed at.
I believe that is how Nelson Mandela famously divided separate levels of terrorism.
Not really. Also, Roosevelt, as he was in charge during Dresden. Except that we were the victors, so it becomes moot. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is who wins the war.
I'm cool with that.
Freedom fighters also wear really obviously fake native american disguises.
I'm so tired of this horribly overused quote. Doesn't make it any less true though.
And since you pretty much only hear about "Islamic terrorism" these days I recommend people to read the wikipedia page on Christian terrorism just to get some perspective.
Depends on whose painting you go by. One has them all dressed to the hilt in their sunday best with face paint and some feathers, others have them at least trying. Regardless, why take your frustration out on tea? What's it ever done to you that wasn't awesome and beneficial?
For instance, taxes are not theft.
That different catagory may insulate states from charges of terrorism, though not from charges that their actions are as bad as terrorism.
Well, rent isn't theft either. By living in a nation with taxes, you agree to pay any and all taxes owed.
Honestly, I look at who the target was. I consider military assets to be open season for attack (and that includes my freaking family), civilians are a no go.
Shooting at a military camp? Rebels.
Shooting at a civilian camp? Terrorists.
You could argue that nationalizing assets would be theft, though.
The IRS can garnish your wages and such if you're delinquient.
I recently had to talk about this because we were discussing John Brown in my history class, and it was infuriating how subjective everyone was trying to make it. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." But it's really simple: intentionally killing civilians is always wrong, and it really doesn't matter that he was right. But for some reason one of the founders of the NAACP thought so, and went so far as to call him a saint. But if Gore Vidal can call Timothy McVeigh a hero and still be taken seriously, I guess we've kind of gone to crazytown on this issue.
Well, they'd be war crimes. But it's a bit of a fuzzy differentiation there.
I thought that took a lawsuit to accomplish, hence the lists they publish of people who owe them a crapton of money.
At 3:40 am? I think it's reasonable to say that it's a mixed civilian/military target due to it's:
A) proximity to civilian buildings/location inside one, and
But I don't really consider that attack to be terrorism both in the "attempting to make anyone scared of a really minor explosion at 4am" sense or the sense that we even really understand what political message they'd have been trying to send with it.
A little quote for perspective:
I agree...sort of. I think we can agree that violence against civilians is not okay, while petty vandalism on city hall is probably not terrorism. Reckless violence and certain types of violence against enemy troops may or may not be classed as terrorism. I would argue that torturous execution of POWs on tape might classify.
I think that is a very poor comparison.
Hmm, probably.
Perhaps a membership fee to a club? That kicks you out if you don't pay? I dunno. I was just trying to say that a government isn't separate from law, nor people.
No, law is what makes government unique.