Who does the word "terrorism" truly define?

[firedragon]

As usual, the word terrorism and terrorist is thrown around like no body's business. A common word. The question arises who this truly defines. Does it really define the user?

Back in the day when the Indian resistance against the British Raj was active they were called "Theewarawadhi" or Terrorists. If there is an Indian here maybe he can verify the following, "some people called themselves terrorists" after the British started using it on them. They were of course freedom fighters fighting for their land, their country which was a very strong economy prior to the British Raj, and in the 20th century it was reduced to the country that had the most number of human beings under the poverty line.

That was just an example. This was taking place all over the world. Country appointed kings were banished and called terrorists. It seems like the usage of this word defines the user more than the labeled, because it has become a cliche word used by hypocrites to easily begin propaganda.

Yet, there are some groups that are called terrorists who definitely should be called as such in my opinion. Although some of these groups like the LTTE garnered a lot of support from the west during a particular time, after 911 the tide changed when the world at large started to put stops to their official support, but yet did continue some support behind closed doors.

Nevertheless, this has become more of a dilemma in wondering who this word really defines. The user, or the labeled??

 

[Altfish]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

 

[Viker]

Someone who uses violence on others to further their agenda, usually political.

It is also a legal term.

But basically, what @Altfish said.

 

[Stevicus]

As usual, the word terrorism and terrorist is thrown around like no body's business. A common word. The question arises who this truly defines. Does it really define the user?

Back in the day when the Indian resistance against the British Raj was active they were called "Theewarawadhi" or Terrorists. If there is an Indian here maybe he can verify the following, "some people called themselves terrorists" after the British started using it on them. They were of course freedom fighters fighting for their land, their country which was a very strong economy prior to the British Raj, and in the 20th century it was reduced to the country that had the most number of human beings under the poverty line.

That was just an example. This was taking place all over the world. Country appointed kings were banished and called terrorists. It seems like the usage of this word defines the user more than the labeled, because it has become a cliche word used by hypocrites to easily begin propaganda.

Yet, there are some groups that are called terrorists who definitely should be called as such in my opinion. Although some of these groups like the LTTE garnered a lot of support from the west during a particular time, after 911 the tide changed when the world at large started to put stops to their official support, but yet did continue some support behind closed doors.

Nevertheless, this has become more of a dilemma in wondering who this word really defines. The user, or the labeled??

"Terrorist" is just another way of saying "Enemy of the People."

 

[sun rise]

To me, strictly speaking, a terrorist is one who seeks to cause the emotion of terror by committing certain acts that generate fear and terror in some people. Of course that's not common usage but sometimes I'm a linguistic fundamentalist.

For the US Government: For the purpose of the Order, “terrorism” is defined to be an activity that (1) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (2) appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

The US Government's definition would be a reasonable answer to the OP question.

 

[1213]

...Nevertheless, this has become more of a dilemma in wondering who this word really defines. The user, or the labeled??

Maybe it is nowadays more about the user. I think a terrorist is a person who is trying to cause terror. When for example US bombs randomly civils, it is to cause terror. When rulers claim someone is a terrorist, it can be to cause terror. People submit to the tyrants, because they don’t want to be called terrorists that could be then killed without any trial or justice.

It seems to me that there are many such labels that are used to rule people. Like for example a racist, a Nazi, nowadays can mean anyone who doesn’t agree with “liberal” doctrines. Such words are often used to make person look bad so that he can be ignored, or judged wrongly and the real problems ignored. It also can be seen as one way to cause terror to people not to think on their own and to submit to the tyrants.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." If you blow up bombs outside of airports to facilitate a political goal, or you storm a Capitol building threatening to kill in order to change the outcome of an election, you are a terrorist. If you blow up abortion clinics in support of a political agenda, you're a terrorist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." If you blow up bombs outside of airports to facilitate a political goal, or you storm a Capitol building threatening to kill in order to change the outcome of an election, you are a terrorist. If you blow up abortion clinics in support of a political agenda, you're a terrorist.

Don't forget taking over police stations, blocking roads, destroying public property, and looting and destroying stores as well. You are also a terrorist.

 

[Kooky]

Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." If you blow up bombs outside of airports to facilitate a political goal, or you storm a Capitol building threatening to kill in order to change the outcome of an election, you are a terrorist. If you blow up abortion clinics in support of a political agenda, you're a terrorist.

By that definition:
If you unleash the cops on protesters for the crime of protesting, you are a terrorist.
If you shut down independent press outlets and hurt journalists, you are a terrorist.
If you invade another country for whatever reason, you are a terrorist.
If your military causes civilian casualties of any kind, you are a terrorist.

In short, the governments, militaries, police or clandestine services of most major military powers, as well as the majority of authoritarian regimes, are to be counted as terrorist organizations.

(Also, why is this supposed to be a "religious debate"? There is nothing particularly religious about terrorism, it's a political tactic employed to achieve political goals.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." If you blow up bombs outside of airports to facilitate a political goal, or you storm a Capitol building threatening to kill in order to change the outcome of an election, you are a terrorist. If you blow up abortion clinics in support of a political agenda, you're a terrorist.

By that definition:
If you unleash the cops on protesters for the crime of protesting, you are a terrorist.
If you shut down independent press outlets and hurt journalists, you are a terrorist.
If you invade another country for whatever reason, you are a terrorist.
If your military causes civilian casualties of any kind, you are a terrorist.

In short, the governments, militaries, police or clandestine services of most major military powers, as well as the majority of authoritarian regimes, are to be counted as terrorist organizations.

Did you not see the word "unlawful" above? There are many forms of coercion that don't fit that definition if they are lawful or done for purposes other than ideological, such as to collect a ransom, including the lawful use of police and military.

 

[Kooky]

Did you not see the word "unlawful" above? There are many forms of coercion that don't fit that definition if they are lawful or done for purposes other than ideological, such as to collect a ransom, including the lawful use of police and military.

If we take the legalistic idea of lawfulness, where all laws are intrinsically lawful and the question of legitimacy is never touched upon - i.e. the legal theory under which the Holocaust would be counted as a lawful act of governance.

If we take government to be legitimat only if it manages to protect people's human rights, then that leaves none of the examples I cited above as the actions of a legitimate, and therefore lawful, government.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If we take the legalistic idea of lawfulness, where all laws are intrinsically lawful and the question of legitimacy is never touched upon - i.e. the legal theory under which the Holocaust would be counted as a lawful act of governance.

If we take government to be legitimat only if it manages to protect people's human rights, then that leaves none of the examples I cited above as the actions of a legitimate, and therefore lawful, government.

You seem to be moving the goalpost. My post said unlawful. You used examples of things that are legal and called them terrorism. I reminded you of the definition. Now you want to use illegitimate as your standard. Fine. Now your examples fit terrorism by that definition.

It's my opinion that people make these issues too difficult by not using clear definitions that one can easily decide whether an act should be called terrorism. It's merely semantics. Call it whatever you like as long as you are clear in your own mind what you mean. We see this continually in these discussions, where people have no clear definition for a god, faith, or for truth, leading to repeated circular discussions where there is no agreement about what a word means. It's only necessary that two people understand what what one another is means when he uses a word, not what words they say it with.

God - a sentient entity capable of creating universes. Truth - the quality facts possess, facts being sentences that map some aspect of reality as determined empirically. Faith - unjustified belief. Terrorism - unlawful acts of violence or implied violence to promote an ideology.

With definitions like these, I can tell you very quickly whether I should include Apollo as a capital-G God, or whether the Holocaust should be called terrorism. It's how we avoid discussions like this one that morph from one meaning of terrorism to another.

I really hate to see the kind of thing where people get so muddled in vague language that they make zero progress in discussion, never actually talking about the same thing, people saying, "What is truth? What is reality." Define it simply for the sake of discussion and proceed with both parties having a clear idea of what he and the other is actually saying. No, "Well, it's sort of truth, but not absolute truth" or "nothing can be known" or whatever one calls objective is actually subjective. This is avoided with clarity and consistency in definition. If a definition turns out to need modification to make it more useful, fine, do that, but then use that definition the same way. If you had accepted the definition offered, you probably would never have commented.

Or you could have said that you prefer a more inclusive definition, in which case I would agree with you that according to that definition, the acts you named could be called terrorism. Once again, just semantics. We are both in agreement that the Holocaust was immoral without disagreeing what to call it and getting caught up in ambiguity and sifting definition. Do you want to call that terrorism? Fine with me. But the thing itself doesn't become something different according to the words we choose.

In closing, I jst posted soemthing related elsewhere that went like this, also about definitions, and how they don't change reality:

I'd say that the ethical conclusions regarding abortion are unrelated to definitions and semantics. The act is either right or wrong whether you call the fetus a baby, a child, a person, a human being, or anything else. When does life begin? Irrelevant, unless it is assumed that calling it a life makes abortion unethical. References to science proving this or that are also irrelevant. Nothing from science can be used to decide right and wrong. Having a heartbeat also doesn't change the ethical calculus.​

I'd say that this is the same regarding terrorism. Whether one's definition of terrorism includes or excludes the acts you mentioned only modifies what you are calling an act, not its appropriateness. Why waste energy arguing about what to call it? Is looting terrorism? Another poster in this thread wanted to call it that, but in so doing, he dilutes the usefulness of the word, as when some call all worldviews religions. I find it useful to distinguish between politically motivated actions and just trying to take advantage of an easy opportunity to steal. If one wants to conflate them, then lets just call any act of violence terrorism, as with the retaliation against ISIS. I prefer to distinguish between a splinter group's violent attempt to impose a political agenda from a violent act intended to obtain some measure of justice. Calling them both terrorism muddies thought.

 

[Twilight Hue]

By that definition:
If you unleash the cops on protesters for the crime of protesting, you are a terrorist.
If you shut down independent press outlets and hurt journalists, you are a terrorist.
If you invade another country for whatever reason, you are a terrorist.
If your military causes civilian casualties of any kind, you are a terrorist.

In short, the governments, militaries, police or clandestine services of most major military powers, as well as the majority of authoritarian regimes, are to be counted as terrorist organizations.

(Also, why is this supposed to be a "religious debate"? There is nothing particularly religious about terrorism, it's a political tactic employed to achieve political goals.)

I'm pretty convinced now that politics is a religion.

 

[Aštra’el]

Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." If you blow up bombs outside of airports to facilitate a political goal, or you storm a Capitol building threatening to kill in order to change the outcome of an election, you are a terrorist. If you blow up abortion clinics in support of a political agenda, you're a terrorist.

I noticed how “looting and burning businesses, blowing up police cars, storming courthouses and police stations and setting fire to them, physically assaulting civilians who disagree with you, all in the pursuit of political aims”, was not in your description.

Hypocrisy-

1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Cognitive dissonance-

1. the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

 

[Stevicus]

You seem to be moving the goalpost. My post said unlawful. You used examples of things that are legal and called them terrorism. I reminded you of the definition. Now you want to use illegitimate as your standard. Fine. Now your examples fit terrorism by that definition.

It's my opinion that people make these issues too difficult by not using clear definitions that one can easily decide whether an act should be called terrorism. It's merely semantics.

...

Why waste energy arguing about what to call it? Is looting terrorism? Another poster in this thread wanted to call it that, but in so doing, he dilutes the usefulness of the word, as when some call all worldviews religions. I find it useful to distinguish between politically motivated actions and just trying to take advantage of an easy opportunity to steal. If one wants to conflate them, then lets just call any act of violence terrorism, as with the retaliation against ISIS. I prefer to distinguish between a splinter group's violent attempt to impose a political agenda from a violent act intended to obtain some measure of justice. Calling them both terrorism muddies thought.

I agree that it's pointless to waste energy arguing about what to call it, but why is it necessary to come up with a word like "terrorism" anyway? We already have words like "murder," "arson," "bomb," etc. The relevant, objective facts of an incident can be adequately described without using the word "terrorist." The facts can be related in court to satisfy the legal requirements and ensure that justice is done. Clearly, not labeling someone a terrorist should not in any way prevent or hinder any lawful investigation or prosecution of a criminal.

The word "terrorist" is, at best, superfluous. The only reason politicians create a special category like "terrorism" (which would account for the government's definition) is for political and propaganda reasons. Other than that, it appears to have no objective or practical purpose, other than to strike an emotional chord among the masses.

It also seems that it can be used as a matter of legal convenience, if law enforcement wants to find a way to work around the Constitution (such as declaring a suspect a "terrorist" and sending them to Gitmo, as opposed to giving them due process).

 

[Augustus]

They were of course freedom fighters fighting for their land,

I'd say the term 'freedom fighter' is as loaded as the term terrorist, and is probably less justifiable as a meaningful term.

While I agree that 'terrorist' can be used as a cheap rhetorical trick, at least it can be said that terrorism can refer to a tactical approach that may or may not be justified by the bigger picture. In this sense it can be used neutrally. So, in theory, you could say Nelson Mandela used terrorist tactics, but was morally justified in doing so.

'Freedom fighters' fight against the powers that be, but in support of their particular ideological vision for society which is generally one that benefits them more than the average person, and one which other members of society lose out from. People may fight for independence, but they don't fight for 'freedom', just their preferred political system..

 

[Kooky]

You seem to be moving the goalpost. My post said unlawful. You used examples of things that are legal and called them terrorism. I reminded you of the definition. Now you want to use illegitimate as your standard. Fine. Now your examples fit terrorism by that definition.

It's my opinion that people make these issues too difficult by not using clear definitions that one can easily decide whether an act should be called terrorism. It's merely semantics. Call it whatever you like as long as you are clear in your own mind what you mean. We see this continually in these discussions, where people have no clear definition for a god, faith, or for truth, leading to repeated circular discussions where there is no agreement about what a word means. It's only necessary that two people understand what what one another is means when he uses a word, not what words they say it with.

Do you believe that definitions are intrinsically neutral, unbiased, and objective?

It might come as a shock to you but they really are not; regardless of whether you like it or not, words have cultural connotations, and moral and emotional overtones that affect their use cases and their impact on speaker and audience in ways that no bloodless definition will be able to capture, which is one reason why I so intensely dislike the RF practice of throwing braindead dictionary quotes at another in lieu of actually trying to establish a common ground by, y'know, talking about these highly complex issues as complex issues, instead of semantic browbeating.

The word "terrorism" does not exist in a vacuum, and neither do its definitions. The term is a political instrument that was coined with a political intent, and just brushing that off because you can't neatly frame it with words is the height of sophistry.

 

[firedragon]

To me, strictly speaking, a terrorist is one who seeks to cause the emotion of terror by committing certain acts that generate fear and terror in some people. Of course that's not common usage but sometimes I'm a linguistic fundamentalist.

For the US Government: For the purpose of the Order, “terrorism” is defined to be an activity that (1) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (2) appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

The US Government's definition would be a reasonable answer to the OP question.

If you are a linguistic fundamentalist then terrorist means someone who practices terror. Like a zoologist.

Nevertheless, if government definitions are an account to hold, In a memo to Attorney General Edward Meese, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane provided the administration’s definition of terrorism:

Terrorism is the use or threatened use of violence for a political purpose to create a state of fear, which will aid in extorting, coerc- ing, intimidating or causing individuals and groups to alter their behavior. A terrorist group does not need a defined territorial base or specific organizational structure. Its goals need not relate to any one country. It does not require nor necessarily seek a popular base of support. Its operations, organization and movements are secret. Its activities do not conform to rules of law or warfare. Its targets are civilians, non-combatants, bystanders or symbolic persons and places. Its victims generally have no role in either causing or cor- recting the grievance of the terrorists. Its methods are hostage- taking, aircraft piracy or sabotage, assassination, threats, hoaxes, and indiscriminate bombings or shootings.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe it is nowadays more about the user. I think a terrorist is a person who is trying to cause terror. When for example US bombs randomly civils, it is to cause terror. When rulers claim someone is a terrorist, it can be to cause terror. People submit to the tyrants, because they don’t want to be called terrorists that could be then killed without any trial or justice.

It seems to me that there are many such labels that are used to rule people. Like for example a racist, a Nazi, nowadays can mean anyone who doesn’t agree with “liberal” doctrines. Such words are often used to make person look bad so that he can be ignored, or judged wrongly and the real problems ignored. It also can be seen as one way to cause terror to people not to think on their own and to submit to the tyrants.

Hmm. I must agree.

 

[firedragon]

I'd say the term 'freedom fighter' is as loaded as the term terrorist, and is probably less justifiable as a meaningful term.

Yeah. I just arbitrarily used that term to represent Indians who fought against the occupation. Yet I doubt that it is the same as the word terrorist, because they were actually fighting for their freedom. Its their own country after all.

While I agree that 'terrorist' can be used as a cheap rhetorical trick, at least it can be said that terrorism can refer to a tactical approach that may or may not be justified by the bigger picture. In this sense it can be used neutrally. So, in theory, you could say Nelson Mandela used terrorist tactics, but was morally justified in doing so.

'Freedom fighters' fight against the powers that be, but in support of their particular ideological vision for society which is generally one that benefits them more than the average person, and one which other members of society lose out from. People may fight for independence, but they don't fight for 'freedom', just their preferred political system..

You are right in some ways on these terms. What do you think are the terror tactics that you refer to with Mandela. I am not an expert on him and his tactics. Ive not studied it much at all. But I have not heard of serious murder of innocents if that counts as terror tactics of desperation or otherwise. Also in some cases, maybe the weaker occupied people might use some hide and bomb or shoot type of tactics which is common in history, if that is terror tactics.