How do you define a terrorist?
- Thread starter Gogf
- Start date
bobgote
Trousers
i think you're getting the idea.
Well, the technician just pulls the levers without so much as a cackle. But if the ride is called "Tracks of Terror" then it's safe to assume you'll be terrified, or such is the intent, and the agent of your terror would logically be the terrorist. The ride architect? I would say "terror-ride engineer" to be more precise.
You're confusing terror films with horror films. Those producers aim to horrify. I think "horror" includes gore as well as fear. We could accurately say those suicide-belt bombers employ "horror", but then we'd have to call them "horrorist bombers" and their method "horrorism".
But sure, if a movie producer makes a living by sating people's desire to feel terrified, then he's a kind of terrorist. A terror-film producer to be precise.
He might be able to terrify some people during the sermon, but I really doubt that could be his main shtick. If there's a preacher in this world who instils true terror in his flock, and does this not inadvertently, I'd be curious to see him. I would call that monster a terrorist. A "terror preacher" perhaps.
EDIT: Typo.
allhailIndia
Deity
Violence cannot be divorced from any definition of terrorism. It is as simple as that.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
"Cleaner lens"? English is not a philosphical language. Etymology is not definition, and your definition is no less arbitrary than the usual ones. Claiming that people would perceive the world more clearly with your definition is preposterous.
I you can't see how giving a very wide definition to a word used in everyday language with a fairly specific meaning, I can't help you.
I cannot avoid the impression that you're trying to redefine a emotionally laden term for political/ideological purposes. Now, you would not exactly alone in that, but that would be no excuse.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I thought I'd already said that? Anyway:
Someone, archetypically not acting as an agent of the state, who uses deadly violence to cause societal fear in the hope that this fear will achieve some political goal.
With "societal" fear I mean it's not confined to those immediately affected by the violence (this to exclude someone who uses violence to threaten a politician privately). "Political" is to be understood in a wide sense.
Someone, archetypically not acting as an agent of the state, who uses deadly violence to cause societal fear in the hope that this fear will achieve some political goal.
With "societal" fear I mean it's not confined to those immediately affected by the violence (this to exclude someone who uses violence to threaten a politician privately). "Political" is to be understood in a wide sense.
Just how widely do you define "political" in this context? For example would the Aumi cult's subway gassing be "political"?
Not an agent of the state - that means if Saddam hired them they're not terrorists?
Someone using deadly violence - that obviously means they have to actually kill people for it to count as terror, and so I guess that means only those actually doing the killing are labelled "terrorist". What about failed attempts to kill, or kidnappings, hijackings, arson, etc? These don't meet your criteria.
Lots to pick at, you know. Tweak your definition anytime.
***
Also, related to my definition, what would you call one who causes terror?
Not an agent of the state - that means if Saddam hired them they're not terrorists?
Someone using deadly violence - that obviously means they have to actually kill people for it to count as terror, and so I guess that means only those actually doing the killing are labelled "terrorist". What about failed attempts to kill, or kidnappings, hijackings, arson, etc? These don't meet your criteria.
Lots to pick at, you know. Tweak your definition anytime.
***
Also, related to my definition, what would you call one who causes terror?
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Since Aum Shinrikyo wanted to transform themselves into a theocratic government, I'd say they had political goals even with a very narrow definition of "political".
Basically, if you want to change the sociopolitical order, you've got a political goal. You might want the change the government, chase out an occupier, terrify people into follow some social code or some such.
I said archetypically not an agent of the state, which was no doubt an unhappy juxtaposition of denotation and connotation. What I mean is that a terrorist can be an agent of the state, but the archetypical terrorist, the kind we think of immediately when hearing the word, is not.
By "deadly violence" I meant to imply violence that is, well, violent enough to kill. This might be a mis-use of the phrase - I'm not a native English speaker.
Whether an attempt to kill someone succeeds or not is, as such, not a factor in whether it's terrorism. Kidnappings, arson and hijacking all can be terrorism, but aren't necessarily - it would depend on the presence of a political motive (unusual with arson and kidnapping), and whether there's an intend to cause fear.
Well, if I felt a need for a single word for that, I'd probably use "terrorizer", but it does not seem to be a concept I frequently have need of.
What's wrong with the dictionary definition? "A person or group who seeks to achieve political goals through violence or the threat of violence."
Note, nothing about civilians, governments, etc., simply reference to the act and the generic purpose. The purpose is to destabilise through fear to achieve a political goal.
All the rest of the arguments are about the reasons WHY a terrorist act is being carried out. Terrorism can appear to have a very strong moral justification - only conscientious objectors would be against ALL terrorist actions in ALL circumstances.
This is why it is such an emotive term, and why people seek to change the definition to fit their purposes. Defenders of government action seek to limit the label to non-government actions, defenders of death caused accidentally seek to bring in intent to kill, defenders of certain groups using terrorist tactics seek to apply justification through need.
All of this is obfuscation - if you use force or the threat of force to achieve a political goal, you are a terrorist. Whether you are Sharon, Yassin, or whoever.
Note, nothing about civilians, governments, etc., simply reference to the act and the generic purpose. The purpose is to destabilise through fear to achieve a political goal.
All the rest of the arguments are about the reasons WHY a terrorist act is being carried out. Terrorism can appear to have a very strong moral justification - only conscientious objectors would be against ALL terrorist actions in ALL circumstances.
This is why it is such an emotive term, and why people seek to change the definition to fit their purposes. Defenders of government action seek to limit the label to non-government actions, defenders of death caused accidentally seek to bring in intent to kill, defenders of certain groups using terrorist tactics seek to apply justification through need.
All of this is obfuscation - if you use force or the threat of force to achieve a political goal, you are a terrorist. Whether you are Sharon, Yassin, or whoever.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
That definition seems unhelpfully wide to me. It would include just about any use of military force, and arguably a mayor putting more police on the streets to deter crime in a bid to secure re-election.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Wow.
Again, this has slipped on the "all theory" side. With the use of extremes and stretched examples.
Come on, guys, let's back on common sense, will you ?
If you employ wide-scale terror on population to advance your goals, you're a terrorist. It's as simple as that.
It can be a government with "if anyone peep a word against us, he might disappear at night, so you should shut up and do as you told or else you could be one of these vanishing people".
It can be a revolutionnary with "we'll put bomb anywhere, which will randomly kill people. Do as we tell, or you could be one of these randomly killed people".
It can be a criminal organisation with "give us this amount of money, or we will spill cyanure on water, and you could be the one drinking it".
Etc., etc.
Again, this has slipped on the "all theory" side. With the use of extremes and stretched examples.
Come on, guys, let's back on common sense, will you ?
If you employ wide-scale terror on population to advance your goals, you're a terrorist. It's as simple as that.
It can be a government with "if anyone peep a word against us, he might disappear at night, so you should shut up and do as you told or else you could be one of these vanishing people".
It can be a revolutionnary with "we'll put bomb anywhere, which will randomly kill people. Do as we tell, or you could be one of these randomly killed people".
It can be a criminal organisation with "give us this amount of money, or we will spill cyanure on water, and you could be the one drinking it".
Etc., etc.
Similar threads
