bmt Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 I wrote my dissertation on defining terrorism. For me the problem is that so many counterexamples fit most of the definitions of terrorism, and if you have a more restrictive definition it becomes pretty useless. I'm not sure it matters, and to be honest I think we should move away from using the word itself just for the fact people believe it is unfairly attributed by the media.
Jattdogg Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 I think everyone has their own opinion as the exact definition. Never let media dictate to you what is or isnt considered terror. Either way terrorism, mass murderer, you name it one thing we can all agree on is that they are cvnts.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 2 hours ago, Webbo said: Without wanting to go into specific cases (although I'm sure we will) how do we define terrorism? The dictionary definition is this; the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Some people seem desperate to claim any act of violence is terrorism, why does it matter? Do you think it makes any difference to the victims? I was wondering the same thing when I first heard that ISIS had claimed it. In the past we've been all too ready to believe their claims because, in general, they were perpetrated by people of an ethnic background. This one seems unlikely (though of course, still possible - white, middle-aged Muslims do exist) but it makes you wonder if some of the previously claimed one, just how much of a direct hand ISIS had. I suspect in many cases, very little beyond being an inspiration (not quite the right word maybe, but I guess that inspiration in itself is a neutral word and can be termed either bad or good). At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. People died, people were terrified, people ARE terrified. I guess that makes it terrorism, if you have created terror, whatever your objective for doing so; be you misguided freedom fighter or nut-job with a very large axe to grind. The world gets scarier and scarier to live in. Not for Stephan Paddock though... he's dead. Just hope he's left something behind to explain all this.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 17 minutes ago, bmt said: I wrote my dissertation on defining terrorism. For me the problem is that so many counterexamples fit most of the definitions of terrorism, and if you have a more restrictive definition it becomes pretty useless. I'm not sure it matters, and to be honest I think we should move away from using the word itself just for the fact people believe it is unfairly attributed by the media. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?
Wymsey Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 El Empty would have been well into this thread had he remained a regular poster.
bmt Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 4 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Precisely
Mike Oxlong Posted 3 October 2017 Posted 3 October 2017 Does breaking wind in a packed tube carriage count ?
Wymsey Posted 3 October 2017 Posted 3 October 2017 Was the Las Vegas music festival shooter a terrorist? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41483943
Benguin Posted 3 October 2017 Posted 3 October 2017 Murders are generally for sexual infidelity or in the pursuit of other crimes. Terrorism is where the victim is unknown to the perpetrator and done so to send a message. Usually a religious or political message.
Alf Bentley Posted 4 October 2017 Posted 4 October 2017 I think the clue is in the word itself - "terror". The defining feature of terrorism is that it seeks not just to murder people for political reasons or to commit mass murder - but to spread terror among millions of people not directly affected by the particular attack. Thus: - JFK: probably a political assassination, not terrorism (nobody expected that they would be shot in their cars) - Vegas massacre: just a mass murder, presumably by a bloke who was a psychopath, became deranged or was simply so bitter and arrogant he thought he could satisfy himself by killing strangers (not terrorism, though, as nobody expects him to kill others) - Recent ISIS-motivated attacks in London, Manchester & France WAS terrorism, as it was when the IRA, ETA or Middle East groups bombed civilians. The aim was to achieve some sort of political influence by spreading terror among the public. (That's another defining feature, I think - terrorism has to be directed at the public. When the IRA did the Birmingham/Guildford pub bombings, those were terrorist acts. When they blew up Airey Neave (Minister), that was a heinous political assassination, certainly an outrageous attempt at political intimidation, but not terrorism - nobody else (apart from other senior public figures) would have expected to have a bomb attached to their car.
bmt Posted 9 October 2017 Posted 9 October 2017 On 04/10/2017 at 18:04, Alf Bentley said: I think the clue is in the word itself - "terror". The defining feature of terrorism is that it seeks not just to murder people for political reasons or to commit mass murder - but to spread terror among millions of people not directly affected by the particular attack. Thus: - JFK: probably a political assassination, not terrorism (nobody expected that they would be shot in their cars) - Vegas massacre: just a mass murder, presumably by a bloke who was a psychopath, became deranged or was simply so bitter and arrogant he thought he could satisfy himself by killing strangers (not terrorism, though, as nobody expects him to kill others) - Recent ISIS-motivated attacks in London, Manchester & France WAS terrorism, as it was when the IRA, ETA or Middle East groups bombed civilians. The aim was to achieve some sort of political influence by spreading terror among the public. (That's another defining feature, I think - terrorism has to be directed at the public. When the IRA did the Birmingham/Guildford pub bombings, those were terrorist acts. When they blew up Airey Neave (Minister), that was a heinous political assassination, certainly an outrageous attempt at political intimidation, but not terrorism - nobody else (apart from other senior public figures) would have expected to have a bomb attached to their car. Terrorism certainly should spread terror, but there are so many other actions which cause terror which we wouldn't want to call terrorism. When I wrote my dissertation I looked at examples where people (politicians) purposefully used terror to convince their people into agreeing with some policy (eg going to war).
Alf Bentley Posted 9 October 2017 Posted 9 October 2017 1 minute ago, bmt said: Terrorism certainly should spread terror, but there are so many other actions which cause terror which we wouldn't want to call terrorism. When I wrote my dissertation I looked at examples where people (politicians) purposefully used terror to convince their people into agreeing with some policy (eg going to war). Sounds reasonable. I suppose you could categorise that as "state terrorism".
fuchsntf Posted 10 October 2017 Posted 10 October 2017 When you buy all the birthday and christmas presents....then your kids take their mothers side, what games to play, then take the pss out of you the times you lost your temper, laugh when your trying to be serious, but then pull faces at your jokes.....Now thats how I define terrorism..
ozleicester Posted 11 October 2017 Posted 11 October 2017 On 10/02/2017 at 22:44, Kitchandro said: If we're delving into that sort of logic, if a body is never found, is it still a murder? What's best is people know facts. If it spreads fear, fine. If it spreads hate, fine. If it brings people together, fine. What we want is facts and then everyone can make their own interpretation of the world. Problem is. What are facts. There is never just one truth.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.