Some people are jerkfaces.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:10 pm

Skuzzo, terrorist can be used as an adjective to describe a group or an action. And you're missing the entire concept of context and connotation when you paint a very broad, vague definition of a word and then try to foist it upon disconnected situations.

Skuzzo · Post by **Skuzzo** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:46 pm

Absolutely - terrorist as an adjective. I was more discussing it's use as a noun though. Still, you think that "terrorist nation" is a valid use then?

As for me painting a "broad, vague definition" - I've been working mostly with your definition as posted. That was the point of the discussion on ideology and politics.

I wonder what the collective noun for terrorists is...

A Slaughter of Terrorists?

Arc Orion · Post by **Arc Orion** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:59 am

Skuzzo, those are the words of a man trying to drum up support for the actions he is taking. Not only that, but in his speaches he tends to grossly oversimplify any analysis of prior events in order to appeal to the greatest number of citizens.

Skuzzo · Post by **Skuzzo** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:27 am

You mean his speech is delivered, to quote Deacon's definition, "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature"

Okay, yes, I'm stirring now

Arc Orion · Post by **Arc Orion** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:15 am

Are you trying to call Bush a terrorist?

I doubt you're serious.

Skuzzo · Post by **Skuzzo** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:28 am

He's not my president. I could give two hoots about the bloke. I'm just askin' the questions.

Personally I think Bush is a loony-tune, but that speech is the work of his advisers, not him. There's far too many big words in it.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:53 am

[quote="Skuzzo";p="519964"]You mean his speech is delivered, to quote Deacon's definition, "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature"[/quote]

[quote="Deacon";p="519405"]terrorism can be defined as "The calculated unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against civilians or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

These persons or groups are almost never official standing armies of any particular country, and as such, strikes against governmental buildings (embassies, police stations, etc) are usually considered terrorist acts--even against military installations--as compared to acts of war.[/quote]

Skuzzo · Post by **Skuzzo** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:11 am

Ahh - more description to work with. Doesn't change much.

"almost never" - meaning sometimes they ARE official standing armies of a particular country. Which frees us up for...

...the extended, bolded, and underlined part - the logic still stands. He's a "person or an organized group" making "threatened use of force or violence" against "civilians or property".

Unless we've decided that the terrorists in question are not civilians, but part of an army? Because, you know, they are either civilians or military.

Isn't this fun?

Arc Orion · Post by **Arc Orion** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:03 am

unlawful use

Considering it is nations which define law, this nullifies any military action by opposing military nations as being terrorism, by its definition.

In fact, I had intended to use this argument, but the Oxford English Dictionary (at least, my edition) defines terrorism differently, which would make this argument useless. This, of course, assumes that you recognize the Oxford English Dictionary as the definitive dictionary of the English language, which it is generally regarded as such.

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:50 pm

[quote="Arc Orion";p="520063"]

unlawful use

Considering it is nations which define law, this nullifies any military action by opposing military nations as being terrorism, by its definition.

In fact, I had intended to use this argument, but the Oxford English Dictionary (at least, my edition) defines terrorism differently, which would make this argument useless. This, of course, assumes that you recognize the Oxford English Dictionary as the definitive dictionary of the English language, which it is generally regarded as such.[/quote]

*cough* Warcrimes?

DarkWolfe · Post by **DarkWolfe** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:05 pm

[quote="SunTzu";p="520101"][quote="Arc Orion";p="520063"]

unlawful use

Considering it is nations which define law, this nullifies any military action by opposing military nations as being terrorism, by its definition.

In fact, I had intended to use this argument, but the Oxford English Dictionary (at least, my edition) defines terrorism differently, which would make this argument useless. This, of course, assumes that you recognize the Oxford English Dictionary as the definitive dictionary of the English language, which it is generally regarded as such.[/quote]

*cough* Warcrimes?[/quote]

*cough* Only recognized if a governing body or group of nations (i.e. ICJ, NATO, some random nation) recognizes them as warcrimes.

Jamie Bond · Post by **Jamie Bond** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:05 pm

Skuzzo, just stop. You are wrong... but not in the way you think you are. YES, many tactics in war are the SAME as terrorism, but it is NOT terrorism. Why? Not because of the situation, but because of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

I respect, and even agree, that many acts in war are tantamount to terrorism. So just say they are, as you said "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature"

That's not terrorism. These acts, durring war, can instead be described as "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature". Terrorism is a more specific title given to that same action. Yes, I agree, the SAME THING, ideologically, can have different TERMS, depending on circumstance.

I appologise if I am taking your viewpoint wrongfully, but please allow me to explain to everyone what your viewpoint is, without the contradiction of terms which causes so many disagreements.

This is me trying to play your role, except using the english language properly:
"Some acts of war, such as the Hiroshima bombing, are idealogically equal to terrorism. The legality involving acts of war vs a group without political backing in terrorism is irrelevent in my opinion."

Is that correct? Can we move on from the endless debate over terms now? =p

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:05 pm

The thing about saying that it's "ideologically equal to terrorism" is that to most people that translates as "it's just as bad" or that the connotation of squirrelly, underhanded, unscrupulous, surprise-stab-in-the-back attacks intended specifically to harm civilians is carried right along to acts of war such as the bombing of the military nerve center of Hiroshima. The Hiroshima bombing was a strike by one nation involved in a defensive war against another agressor nation. To me the only similarity is that "civilians" were killed, which was an unfortunate (though perhaps grimly effective) consequence, not the whole point of it.

Skuzzo · Post by **Skuzzo** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:01 pm

Even leaving Hiroshima alone, there are other examples in the history of warfare where a strike is has been made with the primary purpose of intimidation or slaughter of a civilian population in order to coerce a government. There are many that would fit your definition perfectly, but let's speak about the bigger picture, rather than dispute a single example.

It's the problem with the word terrorism. It automatically brings about all those nasty connatations of 'evil-doing'. I've seen that in the last couple of days the BBC started leaning towards calling them 'bombers' rather than 'terrorists' - to remove the emotional attachment. I still believe that terrorist acts are a legitimate military tactic, such as used by the French Resistance during WWII, but I'll bow out of this debate due to the fact that we've now split the hairs so many times, I'm going bald!

So, the consensus seems to be:
Even when the reason for the act seems to be identical:
Nation=Act of War
Non-Nation=Terrorism
(Nation defined as recognised by international bodies such as UN, NATO. Does not include groups based on religious or racial or other non-land based lines e.g. Nation of Islam.).

Under this logic, I wonder what the governments of the world would call a strike by Taiwan against China? I mean apart from 'suicide'.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:58 pm

[quote="Skuzzo";p="520251"]I still believe that terrorist acts are a legitimate military tactic, such as used by the French Resistance during WWII[/quote]
Out of curiosity, what are you talking about?

Under this logic, I wonder what the governments of the world would call a strike by Taiwan against China? I mean apart from 'suicide'.

There are such things as civil wars and such.

Real Life Forums

Some people are jerkfaces.

Who is online