I have a problem with that label too, see the OP. Anyway, your first point is debatable to say the least.
What makes an attack a Terrorist attack?
- Thread starter The Imp
- Start date
I have a problem with that label too, see the OP. Anyway, your first point is debatable to say the least.
Annex
Tyranny and Mutation
Terrorism is a method of achieving political change.
The ultimate goal of attacks against Israeli civilians is to scare them into leaving so that Palestine can be made whole again. This fear is created by making the Israeli citizens believe that they will be next.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I disagree. The goal of anti-Israeli terrorist groups has always been to drive the Israelis out of the region and reclaim it for the Palestinians; merely killing a relative handful is a strategically valueless goal. Doubtless they achieve some satisfaction from it- terrorists are hardly above petty spite- but they would not poor the energy that they do into something which would not contribute to their overall campaign. These are not the Columbine Shooters, after all, these are people driven by an ideology, by a quest for what they see as a greater end, and it is an end far grander, in their mind, than a dozen dead Jews.
No, I think that you're right in this case. That's just them cheating, so as not to invalidate their own beloved "shock and awe" tactics.
mariogreymist
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,201
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
TheImp said:
Yep
Who really knows what is on the mind of the suicide bomber when he goes into a crowded marketplace with a bomb on? You are probably right, but I just wouldn't be surprised if some of them were driven by pure hate. Maybe their bosses have the larger picture in mind, but at least some terrorism in the region must be mainly motivated by hatred.
Do they really believe that what they are doing might bring political change? Maybe? Who knows how people like that think..
Traitorfish said:
You are probably right.. but read above.
Terrorism is when Muslim's commit acts of violence (military or otherwise) against non-Muslims. Any other self consistent definition will result be in direct conflict with the prevailing usage and understanding of the word in this century.
plarq
Crazy forever
1995 Oklahoma bombing...
I'm siding with Wilkinson, Sorel and Higgins there there is no single definition, that it probably isn't worth the effort of attempting to define terrorism and that most people when confronted with terrorism can generally differentiate it from say: guerrilla warfare. You can see that uncertainty embodied in the OPs definition: it's so broad that it covers just about everything imaginable and yet it won't be used for every act of war but it will be used against those percieved to be using terrorism.
Here's a quick roundup of some leading scholars definitions of terrorism with some quick criticisms:
Gurr: the use of unexpected violence to intimidate or coerce people in the pursuit of political or social objectives
Criticism: Well, I can say that any act of violence perpetrated in war is meant to be expected and that all force is in reality (well, according to the relevant legal theory) coercive by nature. Thus, things like the invasion of Iraq with the use of 'Shock and Awe' would subject to that definition, I should think, be counted as terrorism.
*
Gibbs: illegal violence or threatened violence against human or non-human objects
Criticism: who decides what illegal violence is? Usually states and in doing that it implicitly assumes that States cannot commit terrorism and that all acts committed against a state by non-state actors are by definition illegal which simply isn't the case.
*
Laquer: Contributes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.
Criticism: The question of illegal violence is something Laquer has struggled over for years. But the same general criticism as above applies. This is however I believe an earlier definition of his. Later definitions are somewhat more complex.
*
Reich: A strategy of violence designed to promote desired outcomes by instilling fear in the public at large.
Criticism: 'Shock and Awe' anyone?
*
Jenkins: The use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.
Criticism: Terrorism isn't always about political change. The Taliban are usually accounted to be a terrorist organization and while they undoubtedly had political aspirations, it was probably easier to understand them as an agent of social change rather than solely political change.
*
All of these are also dependent upon the act and not the intent which still other definitions believe is the operative trigger for terrorism. You now only need to intend to commit terrorism and you can be prosecuted as such. That's the most popular means of defining terrorism now simply because its so much easier to prove in court and because it allows you to arrest people long before they've begun even acquiring the materials. Talking is usually sufficient, now.
Here's a quick roundup of some leading scholars definitions of terrorism with some quick criticisms:
Gurr: the use of unexpected violence to intimidate or coerce people in the pursuit of political or social objectives
Criticism: Well, I can say that any act of violence perpetrated in war is meant to be expected and that all force is in reality (well, according to the relevant legal theory) coercive by nature. Thus, things like the invasion of Iraq with the use of 'Shock and Awe' would subject to that definition, I should think, be counted as terrorism.
*
Gibbs: illegal violence or threatened violence against human or non-human objects
Criticism: who decides what illegal violence is? Usually states and in doing that it implicitly assumes that States cannot commit terrorism and that all acts committed against a state by non-state actors are by definition illegal which simply isn't the case.
*
Laquer: Contributes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.
Criticism: The question of illegal violence is something Laquer has struggled over for years. But the same general criticism as above applies. This is however I believe an earlier definition of his. Later definitions are somewhat more complex.
*
Reich: A strategy of violence designed to promote desired outcomes by instilling fear in the public at large.
Criticism: 'Shock and Awe' anyone?
*
Jenkins: The use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.
Criticism: Terrorism isn't always about political change. The Taliban are usually accounted to be a terrorist organization and while they undoubtedly had political aspirations, it was probably easier to understand them as an agent of social change rather than solely political change.
*
All of these are also dependent upon the act and not the intent which still other definitions believe is the operative trigger for terrorism. You now only need to intend to commit terrorism and you can be prosecuted as such. That's the most popular means of defining terrorism now simply because its so much easier to prove in court and because it allows you to arrest people long before they've begun even acquiring the materials. Talking is usually sufficient, now.
azzaman333
meh
When terrorists attack something, it's a terrorist attack.
mariogreymist
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,201
Okay...so you don't like Chomsky. He is the most respected linguist in the history of the field, so his analysis of the word "terrorism" should be considered with some weight. The distinctions he makes between literal and doctrinal definitions of terrorism are right on the money.
There simply is not a definition which includes all the acts we call "terrorism" but excludes much US foreign and military policy which does not rely on excessive and artificial qualifiers like "non-state actor." As if the people being terrorized care whether a government or a crazed Saudi paid for the explosives which tear their family into bloody bits.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Quite possibly so, but it is the larger scheme to which the "bosses" turn such bombings which defines them as terrorism, rather than murder alone. Whether or not the bomber themselves truly believe in their grander cause, or entertain any conscious quest for political change, the acts are organised and facilitated by those who most certainly do.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Not necessarily.
Bottom line there is no agreed upon definition of what makes up a terrorist attack. However, the following are all considered to different extents:
1. Method.
2. Target.
3. Political goal.
mariogreymist
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,201
Terrorism is just a word that's used to describe what they do to us, when the they is not a recognized nation. It really is that simple. It's part of a methodology used to vilify people who have legitimate complaints, (they don't hate your freedom) and are willing to die to rectify what they see as tyranny. Once you manage to label an ideology/group/leader as "terrorist" you have succeeded in undermining the value of their political position (like "No US troops near Mecca/Medina").
They label people as terrorists not because of the acts they commit, which are often horrific, and do indeed inspire terror, but because an open examination of their complaint would probably find a pretty sympathetic ear among the people who elect the leaders in developed, democratic countries.
And it really is that simple.
They label people as terrorists not because of the acts they commit, which are often horrific, and do indeed inspire terror, but because an open examination of their complaint would probably find a pretty sympathetic ear among the people who elect the leaders in developed, democratic countries.
And it really is that simple.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Military and police targets are not automatically combatants. Attacking a platoon on foot patrol is attacking combatants, attacking the same group of people when at a movie theater on liberty is attacking non combatants.
In the case of insurgents no attacks are legal as they are not an entity entitled to act in a belligerent manor, but that doesn't mean all their attacks are also terrorism.
Agreed.
Similar threads
