What makes an attack a Terrorist attack?

[Formaldehyde]

I certainly don't want to get into the middle of this "discussion", but I thought I should mention that nearly all of the American leaders who took part in the American Revolution were branded by the British as terrorists:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

It is a completely arbitrary term which is typically defined so that it cannot be used against the person who is making the allegations.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Unknown

 

[Traitorfish]

Note to onlookers: If you can't use terms like "de facto" correctly, don't use them at all, lest you look that foolish.

And if you'd rather issue petty insults than engaging in debate, then just don't bother posting at all.

I certainly don't want to get into the middle of this discussion, but I thought I should mention that nearly all of the American leaders who took part in the American Revolution were branded by the British as terrorists:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

It is an arbitrary term. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

That link doesn't make a single reference to that effect.

 

[mariogreymist]

Terrorism is simply a means used by those who hold legal power to vilify people who don't, and who have no recourse but violence to gain political change. In today's terms, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin would be considered terrorists. Nelson Mandela was jailed as a terrorist. Their crimes were the perpetration of violence as a last resort, when political enfranchisement had been denied them.

Here I make the comparison based on the relationship between the political powers and the revolutionaries. I make no claims regarding the actions of the people involved in the revolution, but only the perception and portrayal of revolutionaries by parties in power.

I dont recall George Washington ever being a suicide bomber or killing the civilian populace purposefully.

So, needless to say, I disagree with you in your allegation. Nelson Mandela was jailed as a terrorist because his group was responsible for bombing public buildings like Post Offices and such resulting in civilian death.

Can you point me to an instance where Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin did any such thing?

Here you begin the Red Herrings, discussing the particular actions. To your credit, you did at least mention Nelson Mandela, but your mention only proves my central claim (revolutionaries will be called terrorists in the modern world).

1 - Terrorism doesn't need to target civilians. The attack on the USS Cole has been called terrorism.
2 - The Revolutionaries in the US targeted all kinds of public buildings/institutions held by the British.
3 - Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were leaders who encouraged the behavior with their speeches and their writings.
AND
4 - You're missing the point - the politically disenfranchised will always take steps the politically empowered will dislike. "Revolutionaries" and "Revolution" have ceased having the negative connotation they had in the 18th century, and hence "terrorist" and "terrorism." The goal is the same, the tactics only differ based on technological availability.

Here I make the mistake of offering some analysis on your Red Herring, but do notice #4. That's my polite way of saying "you are engaging in flawed rhetoric" for people who obviously don't understand what constitutes flawed rhetoric.

And so your questionable rhetoric is rendered very comfortably safe from closer examination. How very neat.

The threat, remember, is about what terrorism actually is, not about econstructing more rhetorical usage. That has it's place, certainly, but is is secondary. If your posts to that effect cloud the heart of the discussion, as your American Revolution analogies do, then they are not what I would consider productive.

Here you prove that I was right to offer my dumbed-down version of "you're using flawed rhetoric."

My failure to respond to a Red Herring is "questionable rhetoric"? You're an idiot.

Moderator Action: That's flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I will not waste more time on you.

Here I specifically identify the fallacy and lose my temper.

By "questionable rhetoric", I was referring to your claims in reference to the American Revolution. My own questions were the "closer examination" to which I referred. To suggest that such bold claims as the former be held up to the latter is not, I think, unreasonable, however pedantic it may suit you to perceive it as.

But, then, what do I know? I'm an idiot, or so I'm told.

Here you specify the point of your questions (at last, something worth responding to!)

When I say "X is like Y in regards to the perceptions of A" and my opponent says "But conditions P,Q,R and S make them totally different" then it is my opponent, not I who is engaging in bad discourse. I worked for years as a (successful) debate coach. I know good argumentation from bad.

When I suggest that revolutionaries are branded terrorists, and that the American revolutionaries would be so considered today, it wasn't to get into a nit-picking fight about specific actions but a comment about how revolution is perceived and portrayed by the powerful in broader culture. It was clearly stated as such. Arguing about whether the specific actions were terrorism by today's standards is a very winnable argument from my side, but totally irrelevant from the standpoint of upholding the claim, and I won't engage in Red Herrings.

Edit: And let's just gloss over the fact that the comparison came within the same sentence where I identified a modern, successful, democratic revolutionary who spent over 30 years of his life in prison for...drum roll please....TERRORISM.

Here I specify exactly how your deeper examination is of a matter extraneous to the claim at hand (modern revolutionaries are considered terrorists by people in power). This very specifically explains why in depth discussions of specific acts committed by the American revolutionaries need no analog in modern "terror" to uphold/disprove the claim. Your deeper clarification then, can only serve to take the debate away from the proving or disproving of the claim in question. Hence, it is a red herring.

I'm not convinced that forcing you to clarify your shoddy rhetoric qualifies as a "red herring". Or are we simply to take any proclamation you choose to make as inarguably correct, so as not to worry about distracting your grand crusade?

You, as I said, brought the issue up. If you find yourself unable to satisfactorily defend it, then you are merely arguing poorly. But, then, you engage in argument-from-authority fallacies used to be a debate coach, so perhaps sure you know best.

I mentioned the relationship between revolutionaries and the people in power. I did not say the acts committed by the American revolutionaries are comparable to those of Al Qaeda, the ANC or any other modern "terror" group. You brought that in.

I hope that clarifies it.

And while I may have made an argument from authority, I can at least back up the underlying claim.

AND: Sorry for calling you an idiot. You're clearly not. Other people will remain unnamed in that category.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That link doesn't make a single reference to that effect.

That is only because the term was apparently coined in 1798 to describe the French reign of terror. Instead, the British called them traitors, murderers and common criminals. But I don't have much doubt the word "terrorist" would have certainly been used to describe the willful destruction of property and the armed insurrection of a handful of civilians against the legitimate and sovereign authorithy at the time. Do you?

http://www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more.

 

[Traitorfish]

I mentioned the relationship between revolutionaries and the people in power. I did not say the acts committed by the American revolutionaries are comparable to those of Al Qaeda, the ANC or any other modern "terror" group. You brought that in.

I hope that clarifies it.

But you did make such comparisons, in the post to which I initially responded...

I dont recall George Washington ever being a suicide bomber or killing the civilian populace purposefully.

So, needless to say, I disagree with you in your allegation. Nelson Mandela was jailed as a terrorist because his group was responsible for bombing public buildings like Post Offices and such resulting in civilian death.

Can you point me to an instance where Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin did any such thing?

1 - Terrorism doesn't need to target civilians. The attack on the USS Cole has been called terrorism.
2 - The Revolutionaries in the US targeted all kinds of public buildings/institutions held by the British.
3 - Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were leaders who encouraged the behavior with their speeches and their writings.

What am I to understand these points as but comparisons between the actions of the American revolutionaries and contemporary terrorists? That you qualified this by questioning the label of "terrorist" in the contemporary sense does not change this. You certainly failed to validate your assertions that actions such as those undertaken by the American revolutionaries would be considered "terrorism" today- noting that merely explaining the comparison does not constitute the validation of it- and so I felt legitimate in bringing that assertion into question.

And it would only have constituted a "red herring" fallacy if I actually attempted to de-rail your argument, which I made no attempt to do. I merely brought a particular item into question. Pedantry it may be, but that, in itself, is not a crime. A simple retraction or more precise qualification of the analogy would have been quite enough to dismiss me entirely.

That is only because the term was apparently coined in 1798 to describe the French reign of terror. Instead, the British called them traitors, murderers and common criminals. But I don't have much doubt the word "terrorist" would have certainly been used to describe the armed insurrection of a handful of civilians against the legitimate and sovereign authorithy at the time. Do you?

Well, my point was that the claim made in your posts was objectively and exactly false. I do not contest the argument you intended to make, mere;y the manner in which you chose to make it.

 

[mariogreymist]

And that's why it's bad to engage Red Herrings at all. Because I made some response to it for Mobboss, you started in on my responses, which were irrelevant to the claim they were not needed to defend. That I stopped going in that direction was just to keep the discussion on the subject of whether the term "terrorism" is a useful or a pejorative one.

And you did make an attempt to derail my argument - you never once discussed the perception or portrayal of revolutionaries, only their actions.

 

[Traitorfish]

And that's why it's bad to engage Red Herrings at all. Because I made some response to it for Mobboss, you started in on my responses, which were irrelevant to the claim they were not needed to defend. That I stopped going in that direction was just to keep the discussion on the subject of whether the term "terrorism" is a useful or a pejorative one.

And you did make an attempt to derail my argument - you never once discussed the perception or portrayal of revolutionaries, only their actions.

Asking you to elaborate on a particular element of your argument hardly constitutes "derailment". There's more than enough opportunity to make the rest of your argument, I merely asked that you make one bit of a little clearer. Do remember that I only made one post to that effect, my second being something to the effect of "well, fine then"; this is not something which I pursued at great length.

Spoiler :

2 - The Revolutionaries in the US targeted all kinds of public buildings/institutions held by the British.
3 - Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were leaders who encouraged the behavior with their speeches and their writings.

Do you have any examples of this occurring in an organised or institutional fashion? As far as I can remember, such things where almost always at the hands of independently-operating irregular formations. Noting, of course, that guerrilla tactics do not constitute "terrorism"; they are a legitimate way of waging war, even if the contemporary establishment considered them unsporting.

They were non-state actors who perpetrated violent acts against the legally recognized government.

Incorrect- each of the Thirteen Colonies comprised a sovereign state in it's own right, and was recognised as such by several other states, including the far from irrelevant Kingdoms of France and Spain.

Huh? The British were incensed by the tactics of the Revolutionaries, who often wore no colors and operated in loosely organized militias. (not all, but many)

Irregulars actually comprised a minority of the Continental Army, and, while there legality was questionable by both the contemporary and modern rules of war, they were guerrillas, rather than terrorists, at least the vast majority of the time. "Militias" were an entirely distinct and entirely legal formation, which had no direct connection to the Continental Army. Neither were an exclusively Rebel phenomenon, either, British irregulars have simply been written out of popular history- both the American characterisation of Irregulars and militias as the people risen, and the British characterisation as illegitimate "cheaters" demanded it be the case.

I don't think an in-depth analysis of what happened during the American Revolution is necessary or particularly relevant. Not that each of your points can't be adequately refuted, but that doing so will divert the question far afield of the real topic: are the acts commonly labelled "terrorism" simply the mechanics of modern revolutionaries? The world has changed enough that a 1:1 comparison with a revolution which occured over 200 years ago is more or less irrelevant, except for the perception of the acts of the revolutionaries on the part of the legal authority (the British Crown).

You brought it up..

...And so on.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, my point was that the claim made in your posts was objectively and exactly false. I do not contest the argument you intended to make, mere;y the manner in which you chose to make it.

Wow. Things certainly have gotten friendly and civil in this discussion. I commend you for only addressing the issues instead of engaging in absurd personal attacks over nitpicky details.

 

[Traitorfish]

Wow. Things certainly have gotten friendly and civil in this discussion. I commend you for only addressing the issues instead of engaging in absurd personal attacks.

To what are you referring, exactly?

 

[MobBoss]

I certainly don't want to get into the middle of this "discussion", but I thought I should mention that nearly all of the American leaders who took part in the American Revolution were branded by the British as terrorists:

No, since the term terrorist didnt exist back then, nor are the acts described in your article (which isnt an offer of proof btw, but one of opinion) comparative to what we consider 'terrorism' today. Also please bear in mind that what the American leaders engaged in would rightfully be labeled as 'treason', but also realize that 'treason' and 'terrorism' arent exclusive to one another, in that one can certainly be a traitor, but not engage in terrorist acts.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Unknown

The reason its unknown is no one wants credit for that stupid and unsupportable quote.

 

[mariogreymist]

Asking you to elaborate on a particular element of your argument hardly constitutes "derailment". There's more than enough opportunity to make the rest of your argument, I merely asked that you make one bit of a little clearer. Do remember that I only made one post to that effect, my second being something to the effect of "well, fine then"; this is not something which I pursued at great length.

I made a claim about the relationship between the party in power and revolutionaries. You set out to discuss the particulars of the revolutionary war. That's derailment. I get that you want to discuss those particulars, and if this thread were about the Revolutionary war, or had my post anything to do with what you were saying, I wouldn't call what you were doing fallacious. But in the context of the claim I was warranting when I mentioned the US revolution, and within the context of this thread, further examination was clearly a Red Herring. I don't think you meant to derail me - but the discussion was not relevant to the claim at hand. So while your intent may not have been to engage in a fallacious attack (and I really don't think it was at this point), your methodology fits within the definition of a Red Herring fallacy.

 

[MobBoss]

Here I make the comparison based on the relationship between the political powers and the revolutionaries. I make no claims regarding the actions of the people involved in the revolution, but only the perception and portrayal of revolutionaries by parties in power.


Here you begin the Red Herrings, discussing the particular actions. To your credit, you did at least mention Nelson Mandela, but your mention only proves my central claim (revolutionaries will be called terrorists in the modern world).

As I pointed out, there are distinct differences between Mandela and the american revolutionaries. However, since you are loath to actually discuss details that prove this (aka nitpicking), of course you claim it proves your point. I consider that a misrepresentation of my point, since I meant no such thing.

Are you sure you cant think of any modern revolutionaries that arent labeled as terrorists?

 

[Traitorfish]

I made a claim about the relationship between the party in power and revolutionaries. You set out to discuss the particulars of the revolutionary war. That's derailment.

How on earth is that so? We aren't limited to a single thread of discussion, you realise, we can entertain multiple subjects at once. It would only be derailment if I sought to turn you from your intended argument to an irrelevant subject, which I at no point attempted to do. I made a single post, prompting you to elaborate in a particular item of rhetoric, with no implication that this should be anything other than supplementary to your argument.
Red Herrings only apply to the disruption of a linear debate, in which we were not involved; the term does not, in context, make very much sense.

 

[mariogreymist]

Ask yourself the following two questions:
Was there a possible response regarding the actions of the American Revolutionaries that could prove or disprove the argument I made? (modern revolutionaries are branded terrorists) Was there a possible response which could illuminate the larger subject at hand? (What kinds of attacks are terrorism?) The answer to the first question is a definite "no." The answer to the second is a very highly restrictive "maybe." Only if you assume that everything they did was okay, and therefore not "terrorism" does it offer probative value.

Because I don't make that assumption, I see no value to the line of reasoning regarding particular acts constituted "terrorism" by modern standards or whether countries other than England had recognized the Colonies' independence. Hence, a line of discussion examining those areas seems a red herring to me. It's not that it's not an interesting subject, but that I found it had no bearing on the comment I had originally made - which is where the discussion of the American revolutionaries began.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The reason its unknown is no one wants credit for that stupid and unsupportable quote.

No, the reason it is "unknown" is because the author is ... not known. And I think the opposite view is "stupid and unsupportable".

See the Chomsky video posted earlier for further details.

 

[MobBoss]

No, the reason it is "unknown" is because the author is ... not known. And I think the opposite view is "stupid and unsupportable".

See the Chomsky video posted earlier for further details.

Who the hell cares about Chomsky?

I certainly don't want to get into the middle of this "discussion"

So much for that....

 

[Formaldehyde]

Who the hell cares about Chomsky?

Anybody who cares in the least about linguistics where he is known as an acknowledged authority in the field, unlike you?

So much for that....

I was obviously referring to getting involved in the pissing contest above, not this thread.

What supposedly isn't "terrorism"? An apparent Christian goes beserk on an airline flight stating that "I'm going to blow this up, you're all going to hell with me", while shouting "get behind me, Satan"?

Spoiler :

On a red-eye flight from Los Angeles to Tampa, Kevin Kennedy awoke to a man shouting about Satan.

"I was in 2C, so I was in first class, probably 4 feet from him," said Kennedy, a color commentator for the Tampa Bay Rays and a former Major League Baseball manager. "He kind of stared me down, that's when he said, 'I'm going to blow this up, you're all going to hell with me.' He threw water at me.

"Within five seconds, we charged him and took him out."

In a scuffle in the first-class cabin on the Thursday-into-Friday flight, the TV broadcaster and seven others tackled passenger Stanley Dwayne Sheffield, 46, of Largo, and tied him up with seat straps until the jet made an emergency landing in Albuquerque, N.M.

Sheffield was taken into federal custody after Delta Flight 2184 landed at 1:30 a.m. Friday. The jet continued on to Tampa International Airport at 4 a.m., about three hours later than scheduled.

FBI Supervisory Special Agent Darrin Jones said authorities do not believe the incident was terrorism.

Sheffield, who grew up in Clearwater and lives in Largo, was returning home after visiting his ill mother in California, said Mary Sheffield, 46, his former wife.

She said the father of two teens was not involved in any terrorist groups, and the incident stems from Sheffield's mental health problems.

"He doesn't deal well with stress," she said. "And with his mother being sick, it was a stressful time for him."

Authorities charged him with interference with flight crew members and destruction of an aircraft. Sheffield appeared Friday before U.S. Magistrate Richard Puglisi, who scheduled preliminary and detention hearings for Monday.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Chuck Barth said Sheffield remained jailed in Albuquerque.

The incident began 90 minutes after the cross-country flight took off.

A flight attendant noticed that Sheffield was awake and asked if he could bring him anything, a federal complaint says. Sheffield did not respond. The flight attendant asked again 15 minutes later — again, no response.

Sheffield then went to a lavatory and, while returning, grabbed a 2-liter water bottle from a drink cart and sprayed passengers.

"Get behind me, Satan," Sheffield told the flight attendant.

He shouted, "You need to land this plane or I'm going to blow it up," the complaint says. He then approached the cockpit door, again shouting, "Get behind me, Satan."

Kennedy said he was on the overnight flight to rejoin the baseball team.

"I was wide awake immediately because I saw this guy — he was crossing himself, had a big bottle and was flipping water around, talking about Satan and 'follow us,' " he recalled. "The guy next to me, when we got on the plane … we actually talked about being aware of this kind of stuff, that's what's eerie about it."

Sheffield paced nervously, then rushed the cabin doors, Kennedy said. That's when eight passengers sprang into action.

"It was a bull rush," Kennedy said.

One passenger flashed something that looked official and told Sheffield, "On your belly right now, get on your hands and knees," Kennedy recalled.

Under a pile of passengers, Sheffield managed to break a belt being used to bind his hands. Kennedy said the man bucked as passengers used seat belts from the flight attendant demonstrations to tie his legs.

"Every one of those guys were great," he said. "Everybody reacted differently, but everybody reacted great."

Susan Elliott, a spokeswoman at Delta's headquarters in Atlanta, said the aircraft, an Airbus A320, and its 100 passengers and seven crew members never were in jeopardy.

"It is impossible to open a cabin door during flight because of the pressurization of the aircraft," she said.

Mary Sheffield said her former husband was in road construction until mental health issues hindered his ability to work.

"He is in a very bad place mentally," she said. "For the sake of his kids, I want him better. He's a good dad."