what is terrorism?

[RidonKs]

https://menso.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/terrorism-ndaa.jpg
my image, not the author's


tell us professor

The Reign of Terror by Tomis Kapitan (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/the-reign-of-terror/)

(i can't quote the whole essay unfortunately but here are a few key passages)


This is merely the latest example of a powerful rhetoric centered on the word "terrorism" that has shaped -- and continues to shape -- popular conceptions about contemporary political conflicts, making it difficult to speak intelligently about their real sources.

If individuals and groups are portrayed as irrational, barbaric, and beyond the pale of negotiation and compromise, as this rhetoric would have it, then asking why they resort to terrorism is viewed as pointless, needlessly accommodating, or, at best, mere pathological curiosity. Those normally inclined to ask "Why?" are in danger of being labeled "soft" on terrorism, while the militant use the "terrorist" label to blur the distinction between critical examination and appeasement.
[QUOTE]

[MavsSuperFan]

To me its an attack meant to cause fear in order to promote the cause of a non-state actor.

Its very similar to an act of war, which to me is the same thing by a state actor.

[RidonKs]

To me its an attack meant to cause fear in order to promote the cause of a non-state actor.

Its very similar to an act of war, which to me is the same thing by a state actor.
i agree except i see no reason for the distinction you are making. if we are being perfectly honest with ourselves, we know that 'terrorism' is a much dirtier word than 'war'. thats why there is a 'just war theory' but no 'just terrorism theory'. there is a reason for the popular conception that terrorism can only apply to non-state actors... it's because the state actors responsible for most of the terror in world history do not want such a dirty word associated with their crimes.


here are a few official definitions we can probably agree on


“the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

The use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public, or a section of the public; made for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; and it involves or causes

both of these are more or less agreeable definitions in my opinion.

yet have a quick look at the wikipedia page for "Definitions of Terrorism". the definition that the article quotes -- and that you agree with since it uses your same state/nonstate distinction -- comes from the US State Department.

now why the hell is so much thought being poured into defining this term?

most likely because in order to make the official definition of a widely used and widely (mis)understood term like terrorism apply only to your al-qaeda's and pkk's and muslim brotherhoods, and not to your reagan administrations (mid 80s) and your begin israeli governments (early 80s), you need to tweak and refine and 'sophisticate' it to the point where it no longer makes any sense. which is exactly what happens and exactly why the public is so confused about what terrorism actually is... even though they know what it is on pure intuition because its not a particularly complicated concept.

all of this also helps to explain why somebody like saaaay nelson mandela was on the us terrorist list up until i think only a few years ago.

[MavsSuperFan]

i agree except i see no reason for the distinction you are making. if we are being perfectly honest with ourselves, we know that 'terrorism' is a much dirtier word than 'war'. thats why there is a 'just war theory' but no 'just terrorism theory'. there is a reason for the popular conception that terrorism can only apply to non-state actors... it's because the state actors responsible for most of the terror in world history do not want such a dirty word associated with their crimes.


here are a few official definitions we can probably agree on




both of these are more or less agreeable definitions in my opinion.

yet have a quick look at the wikipedia page for "Definitions of Terrorism". the definition that the article quotes -- and that you agree with since it uses your same state/nonstate distinction -- comes from the US State Department.

now why the hell is so much thought being poured into defining this term?

most likely because in order to make the official definition of a widely used and widely (mis)understood term like terrorism apply only to your al-qaeda's and pkk's and muslim brotherhoods, and not to your reagan administrations (mid 80s) and your begin israeli governments (early 80s), you need to tweak and refine and 'sophisticate' it to the point where it no longer makes any sense. which is exactly what happens and exactly why the public is so confused about what terrorism actually is... even though they know what it is on pure intuition because its not a particularly complicated concept.

all of this also helps to explain why somebody like saaaay nelson mandela was on the us terrorist list up until i think only a few years ago.
State actors are usually more legitimate with a wider base of support. Also they are easier to hold responsible for their actions in the sense that they cant hide.

War is a very dirty word


'just terrorism theory'
We disagree I think just terrorism could potentially exists. And if my biases were different might even be common.

Eg. Arguably our founding fathers were terrorists.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I am somewhat sympathetic to the Kurdish PkK and the former IRA

many people (not me) are sympathetic towards hamas

What one considers a just war/terrorism is entirely based on one's biases.

Eg. probably there were many germans that thought hitler was fighting a just war. Many japanese that felt conqueroring china was just, many russians that think moving troops into eastern ukraine is just, etc.

[RidonKs]

Eg. probably there were many germans that thought hitler was fighting a just war
funny you should bring that up. know what the nazis called the resistors in paris and italy and across the rest of europe? why terrorists of course. the word has a very long history.


you misunderstood me. i invoked the hypothetical "just terrorism theory" not to suggest it can't exist, but to point out that it doesn't exist and to demonstrate that the reason it doesn't exist is because 'terrorism' is too dirty of a word. you can't put it next to something like 'justice', people will be too confused. of course 'war' is a dirty word too... especially compared to 'cottage cheese'. but academics and pundits and politicians and analysts and average joes all accept wholeheartedly that there can be such a thing as 'just war' and that such a compound concept is perfectly reasonable. none of them would say the same thing about 'just terror'. because between the two, terrorism carries with it far more emotional baggage. that is all of course merely in my opinion and i have no evidence to bank on but my own experience. disagree if you would like and disregard the next paragraph if u do.

if it is the case that terrorism and war are two sides of the exact same coin divided solely into whether the actor carrying out the violence has status or nonstate status, it seems oddly troubling that one should carry more baggage than the other. compiled with the fact that most of the violence throughout history and certainly in the past century has been wrought by state actors makes these observations even more unsettling.



What one considers a just war/terrorism is entirely based on one's biases.
that's just another way of saying everybody has an opinion and nobody can be wrong. i really hate that fking word "bias". it is used solely to excuse opinionated argumentation with no substantial basis or empirical evidence.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/opinionated.gif

[shlver]

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/154/26773.html


Last month, Scott McConnell caught up with Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice. Pape has found that the most common American perceptions about who the terrorists are and what motivates them are off by a wide margin. In his office is the world's largest database of information about suicide terrorists, rows and rows of manila folders containing articles and biographical snippets in dozens of languages compiled by Pape and teams of graduate students, a trove of data that has been sorted and analyzed and which underscores the great need for reappraising the Bush administration's current strategy. Below are excerpts from a conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American.


Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.


TAC: Does al-Qaeda have the capacity to launch attacks on the United States, or are they too tied down in Iraq? Or have they made a strategic decision not to attack the United States, and if so, why?

RP: Al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the United States in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence. The document says that al-Qaeda should not try to attack the continent of the United States in the short term but instead should focus its energies on hitting America's allies in order to try to split the coalition.

What the document then goes on to do is analyze whether they should hit Britain, Poland, or Spain. It concludes that they should hit Spain just before the March 2004 elections because, and I am quoting almost verbatim: Spain could not withstand two, maximum three, blows before withdrawing from the coalition, and then others would fall like dominoes.

That is exactly what happened. Six months after the document was produced, al-Qaeda attacked Spain in Madrid. That caused Spain to withdraw from the coalition. Others have followed. So al-Qaeda certainly has demonstrated the capacity to attack and in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. Al-Qaeda is not weaker now. Al-Qaeda is stronger.


TAC: What do you think the chances are of a weapon of mass destruction being used in an American city?

RP: I think it depends not exclusively, but heavily, on how long our combat forces remain in the Persian Gulf. The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack


Very interesting interview I found on google.

[Patrick Chewing]

According to President Barack Hussein Obama, nothing is terrorism.


Just some rambunctious youths.

[MavsSuperFan]

funny you should bring that up. know what the nazis called the resistors in paris and italy and across the rest of europe? why terrorists of course. the word has a very long history.


you misunderstood me. i invoked the hypothetical "just terrorism theory" not to suggest it can't exist, but to point out that it doesn't exist and to demonstrate that the reason it doesn't exist is because 'terrorism' is too dirty of a word. you can't put it next to something like 'justice', people will be too confused. of course 'war' is a dirty word too... especially compared to 'cottage cheese'. but academics and pundits and politicians and analysts and average joes all accept wholeheartedly that there can be such a thing as 'just war' and that such a compound concept is perfectly reasonable. none of them would say the same thing about 'just terror'. because between the two, terrorism carries with it far more emotional baggage. that is all of course merely in my opinion and i have no evidence to bank on but my own experience. disagree if you would like and disregard the next paragraph if u do.

if it is the case that terrorism and war are two sides of the exact same coin divided solely into whether the actor carrying out the violence has status or nonstate status, it seems oddly troubling that one should carry more baggage than the other. compiled with the fact that most of the violence throughout history and certainly in the past century has been wrought by state actors makes these observations even more unsettling.

that's just another way of saying everybody has an opinion and nobody can be wrong. i really hate that fking word "bias". it is used solely to excuse opinionated argumentation with no substantial basis or empirical evidence.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/opinionated.gif

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


funny you should bring that up. know what the nazis called the resistors in paris and italy and across the rest of europe? why terrorists of course. the word has a very long history.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Terrorism is not that much dirtier to me than war. I know it is to most people.


if it is the case that terrorism and war are two sides of the exact same coin divided solely into whether the actor carrying out the violence has status or nonstate status, it seems oddly troubling that one should carry more baggage than the other. compiled with the fact that most of the violence throughout history and certainly in the past century has been wrought by state actors makes these observations even more unsettling.

The difference between a state and a non-state is significant imo. State actors often have much more legitimacy and almost always have a wide base of support. Non-state actors can easily hide and are sometimes a single person or a small group. Eg. the Boston bombers. States cannot hide and are easier to hold responsible for their actions.

After 9/11 al-qaeda hid and it was very hard for the united states to exact retribution/what we consider justice.

After pearl harbor imperial japan did not hide. The United states was fully aware the leadership of the empire of japan was located in Tokyo

Germany committed many atrocious acts of war. Their leadership's location was known to everyone.

[Nanners]

I always find it strange when people say the terrorists want to "take our freedom".

In response to terrorism we came up with things like the TSA, the Patriot Act, our massive NSA spy programs... we have given up our freedom willingly due to terrorism.

Does that mean the terrorists are winning?

[MavsSuperFan]

I always find it strange when people say the terrorists want to "take our freedom".

In response to terrorism we came up with things like the TSA, the Patriot Act, our massive NSA spy programs... we have given up our freedom willingly due to terrorism.

Does that mean the terrorists are winning?
Its an idiotic talking point no serious politician actually believes. islamic radicals primarily want us to abandon our interests (supporting pro american dictators and israel) in the middle east and as a secondary goal for islam to dominate the world.

[Nanners]

Its an idiotic talking point no serious politician actually believes. islamic radicals primarily want us to abandon our interests (supporting pro american dictators and israel) in the middle east and as a secondary goal for islam to dominate the world.

isnt that taking away freedom?

[MavsSuperFan]

isnt that taking away freedom?
Not in the way we are currently doing so, we are being very secular in how we are violating the civil rights of citizens :pimp:

[Nanners]

Not in the way we are currently doing so, we are being very secular in how we are violating the civil rights of citizens :pimp:

lol, well said.

[SCdac]

Good examples: OKC Bombing, Boston Marathon bombing, 9/11, bombings at abortion clinics, the suicide-bombings we see in various parts of the middle east. ISIS burying women and children alive in radical jihad, Hamas kidnapping and murder of 3 teenagers in Israel, or farther back the Munich massacre by a different radical palestinian organization. Just in general, kidnapping civilians for some kind of ideological/nationalistic/political reason I consider terrorism. Westgate Mall terrorism in Kenya was quite clearly terrorism. Many countries all over the world have harbored, bred,or experienced terrorism in some way, could go down the list and it's alot...(thinking America or Israel are the sole root to global terrorism is so myopic and farcical I'm not gonna even address it). Can't discount how brainwashed and/or psychotic and/or devoted to violence these folks or organizations really are and that's not exclusive to any nationality or religion.... wide-scale continuous or semi-continuous killing, conquering or invasion of land in wars, ethnic cleansing, murderous dictatorship, etc, I'm hesitant to plainly call "terrorism". Hesitant to call the Iraq or Afghanistan war "terrorism" even though a fringe amount of our troops raped and consciously killed civilians. The word loses it's meaning if you chose to apply it to everything.... How a governing body responds to terrorism on a macro or micro level, and militarily, is almost a completely different topic/thread imo. I'm as angered about NSA, TSA, etc, as the next person but shit i've been debating about proper balance of security and freedom for over a decade with my family and friends and will probably continue to my whole life. Countless discussions about adverse effects of drone strikes and civilian casualties in war... Meaning, I don't think perpetually keeping our government in check automatically equates to "terrorism doesn't exist".

[RidonKs]

(thinking America or Israel are the sole root to global terrorism is so myopic and farcical I'm not gonna even address it)

Meaning, I don't think perpetually keeping our government in check automatically equates to "terrorism doesn't exist"
neither the other nor i said anything of the sort

your post is all well and good tho, besides those two misrepresentations of what i said. i disagree with some of it -- not the fact that mcveigh was a terrorist but the fact that the war in afghanistan wasn't terrorism. i can go into that in a bit of depth if you'd like.

but mostly i was hoping posters exactly like yourself and mavssuperfan, well-read well-meaning posters who i happen to disagree with, would read the essay and respond. it's a very thorough piece.

[Nick Young]

Terrorist apologists doe
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LQVziqloJHY/S-Xn1GihKVI/AAAAAAAAA0A/4nGEj42S1O4/s1600/keffiyeh2.jpg
:bowdown: :bowdown:

[russwest0]

its what the brown ppl do tht make us go take their oil

[Nick Young]

its what the brown ppl do tht make us go take their oil
Dawg, arabs and persians aren't a different race. They are just white people with dark tans. Real talk, look it up.

[russwest0]

Dawg, arabs and persians aren't a different race. They are just white people with dark tans. Real talk, look it up.

huh they look like brown ppl to me

[RidonKs]

Its an idiotic talking point no serious politician actually believes. islamic radicals primarily want us to abandon our interests (supporting pro american dictators and israel) in the middle east and as a secondary goal for islam to dominate the world.
i gotta be honest man it kinda boggles my mind that you can say something like this, believe it (because its not the first time you've said it), and your response to this blatant neo-colonialism is to shrug your shoulders and not just say "this is what america does, theres nothing i can do" but actually "this is what america should do and i support it"



here's another tidbit worth reading. below i quote the Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld in 2001 immediately after the 9/11 attacks (http://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/commun.pdf). in plain speak, this was an intensive study that came out of the Pentagon into how American communications policy should respond to the worst terrorist attack on american home soil in the country's history. inevitably, the study veers into reasons, causes, and explanations. it says nothing about justification. nobody but the terrorists themselves every speak of justification, and confusing explanation with justification is at the core of the problem with discourse on the subject.

if the explanation was really that they're all just genocidal fundamentalist warriors, that's what this study would probably indicate. that is not what the study indicates. it is not dense reading, i suggest people have a look at the report itself or read the following quotes carefully.


Anti-American attitudes. Opinion surveys conducted by Zogby International, the Pew Research Center, Gallup (CNN/USA Today), and the Department of State (INR) reveal widespread animosity toward the United States and its policies. A year and a half after 15 going to war in Iraq, Arab/Muslim anger has intensified. Data from Zogby International in July 2004, for example, show that the U.S. is viewed unfavorably by overwhelming majorities in Egypt (98 percent), Saudi Arabia (94 percent), Morocco (88 percent), and Jordan (78 percent). In a State Department (INR) survey of editorials and op-eds in 72 countries, 82.5 % of commentaries were negative, 17.5% positive.
well no surprise there. we all know egyptians and saudis hate america. how much more they might have hated america in 2004 (time of the poll) compared to 2000 would be interesting to find out. the fact that over 80% of a random survey of foreign political commentaries were found to be negative is also unsurprising. i hope we all agree however they "they are just jealous" cannot possibly be the reason for these anti-american attitudes.

let's examine the reasons... or just let the task force do it for us.


Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America’s national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities. Terrorism, thin coalitions, harmful effects on business, restrictions on travel, declines in cross border tourism and education flows, and damaging consequences for other elements of U.S. soft power are tactical manifestations of a pervasive atmosphere of hostility.

Although many observers correlate anti-Americanism with deficiencies in U.S. public diplomacy (its content, tone, and competence), the effectiveness of the means used to influence public opinion is only one metric. Policies, conflicts of interest, cultural differences, memories, time, dependence on mediated information, and other factors shape perceptions and limit the effectiveness of strategic communication.
often you hear the argument that at least one source of increased radicalization is weak foreign policy posturing. this is a bill o'reilly favourite if you ever tune into his program. if obama was more hawkish in what he said and more stern in how he said it and less accommodating to the rest of the world, he could have prevented the embassy bombings and the ambassador assassination in benghazi.

but as the authors of the study write, this is only one metric we can use to weigh one source of the violence. the others listed can be weighed just as heavily and in my eyes, since in life what you actually do is always way more important than how you go about doing it stylistically, ought to be given much more weight.

but let's move on to the meat of the study's argument.


The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

1) Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

2) Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

3) Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.

4)Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

5) What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam


i could not elucidate the issue any better than do these five consecutive reinforcing points. read them and let me know what you think.

finally


Thus the critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim World is not one of “dissemination of information,” or even one of crafting and delivering the “right” message. Rather, it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none — the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam. Inevitably therefore, whatever Americans do and say only serves the party that has both the message and the “loud and clear” channel: the enemy.
yes. the issue is credibility. for any superpower throughout world history, THE ISSUE HAS ALWAYS BEEN CREDIBILITY. we have the force and we are going to show you we are not afraid to use it, no matter the catastrophic consequences.



now all of this is more or less what the progressive left has been saying about the war on terror since it began in 2001.... or i should actually say since it began in 1982 when the Reagan Administration first announced ITS "war on terror" with about the same splash and rhetoric as the Bush 2 Administration.

except my source for these quotations IS THE FKING PENTAGON.

[Nick Young]

huh they look like brown ppl to me
No dawg, they are Caucasians, they just have dark skin because living in the hot sun all their lives and being super tanned. They are white people.

[StephHamann]

Terrorist apologists doe
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LQVziqloJHY/S-Xn1GihKVI/AAAAAAAAA0A/4nGEj42S1O4/s1600/keffiyeh2.jpg
:bowdown: :bowdown:

:roll:

[SCdac]

lmao @ terrorist apologist

"that terrorism. so hot right now. I hate America!"

*goes back to eating hotpocket in mom's basement in cushy suburb*

[RidonKs]

lmao @ terrorist apologist

"that terrorism. so hot right now. I hate America!"

*goes back to eating hotpocket in mom's basement in cushy suburb*
are u laughing at the name terrorist apologist or the fact that people are apologizing for terrorists? because nobody in this thread has made any apologies for terrorists, i wholeheartedly believe they belong in prison for most of the rest of their lives,

i'm interested in discussing issues. i've raised many interesting points in this thread, not least of which is the essay itself which, as i said, is a very worthwhile read if you absorb it with an open mind (and after which you're free to disagree with). only mavssuperfan has shown any willingness to explore the issues with me, which is a shame but i suppose not totally unexpected.



regarding your post which i just re-read, i see the surveillance issue as totally distinct from the military intervention issue. on both topics, state governments claim its actions are necessary to protect its population against international terrorism. but they are different only in the sense of foreign (intervention) vs domestic (surveillance) policies. with some overlap but you get that all the time.


wide-scale continuous or semi-continuous killing, conquering or invasion of land in wars, ethnic cleansing, murderous dictatorship, etc, I'm hesitant to plainly call "terrorism"
this i agree with. i used two definitions of terrorism in a post earlier, one from the british terrorism act and the other from the fbi code of regulations. neither of them are as sweeping or encompassing as what you just described... which i think is correct. a proper definition of terrorism should not be so broad.

[SCdac]

Ridonks, don't take this the wrong way but I think you're less interested in "discussing issues" and more interested in hearing what you want to hear and discussing things only from your angle. You claim to have a deep conviction against terrorism in your last post ("jail for life"), but it seems hollow and forced based on everything you post on this issue. But whatever, idc. You're asking me to read the article in the OP, ok. The article claims attacks by by Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, etc, are only on "uniformed military", which is a laughable and false claim that takes little research to debunk. Bombing a night club, for instance, is not against uniformed officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

For obvious reasons it shoots down any credibility to that article. Simply saying "terrorists aren't actually terrorists" is not enough, there needs to be a concise explanation of why attacking, say, a shopping mall full of civilians is a justified action of war or political activism. Palestinian terrorists have in the recent past bombed busses, cafes, shopping malls, and super markets. Same for other extremist groups/individuals in other regions of the world which is not in any way, shape, or form related to the Israel-Palestine conflict (Just using that as an example, in other words).

[GimmeThat]

the lack of negotiation in which to obtain ones goal through excess force


the varying degrees of it has been subjected objectively by the advancement of humanity/civilization

[Nick Young]

Ridonks, don't take this the wrong way but I think you're less interested in "discussing issues" and more interested in hearing what you want to hear and discussing things only from your angle. You claim to have a deep conviction against terrorism in your last post ("jail for life"), but it seems hollow and forced based on everything you post on this issue. But whatever, idc. You're asking me to read the article in the OP, ok. The article claims attacks by by Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, etc, are only on "uniformed military", which is a laughable and false claim that takes little research to debunk. Bombing a night club, for instance, is not against uniformed officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

For obvious reasons it shoots down any credibility to that article. Simply saying "terrorists aren't actually terrorists" is not enough, there needs to be a concise explanation of why attacking, say, a shopping mall full of civilians is a justified action of war or political activism. Palestinian terrorists have in the recent past bombed busses, cafes, shopping malls, and super markets. Same for other extremist groups/individuals in other regions of the world which is not in any way, shape, or form related to the Israel-Palestine conflict (Just using that as an example, in other words).
It's the trendy cool and progressive thing to be a terrorist apologist these days. Pretty sad what universities are teaching to the latest generation of sheep like Ridonks.

[nathanjizzle]

terrorism is when you are ****ing your girl from the back, and just as you are about to *** you jam your thumb into her asshole and as she turns around and gives you a dirty look you bust all over her eyelids.

[RidonKs]

Ridonks, don't take this the wrong way but I think you're less interested in "discussing issues" and more interested in hearing what you want to hear and discussing things only from your angle. You claim to have a deep conviction against terrorism in your last post ("jail for life"), but it seems hollow and forced based on everything you post on this issue. But whatever, idc. You're asking me to read the article in the OP, ok. The article claims attacks by by Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, etc, are only on "uniformed military", which is a laughable and false claim that takes little research to debunk. Bombing a night club, for instance, is not against uniformed officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

For obvious reasons it shoots down any credibility to that article. Simply saying "terrorists aren't actually terrorists" is not enough, there needs to be a concise explanation of why attacking, say, a shopping mall full of civilians is a justified action of war or political activism. Palestinian terrorists have in the recent past bombed busses, cafes, shopping malls, and super markets. Same for other extremist groups/individuals in other regions of the world which is not in any way, shape, or form related to the Israel-Palestine conflict (Just using that as an example, in other words).
well i guess i am interested in hearing what i want to hear and discussing things from my angle... but no more than anybody else on ish yourself included. in fact those two things pretty much describe not just everybody on ish but everybody in the world. so no shame there man :) no offense taken either, i just toss the neutral remarks right back at you. maybe i do seem hollow and forced when i say terrorists should go to jail... its up to you to decide for yourself if im genuine or playing devils advocate or totally uneducated on the matter or trying to be 'fair and balanced'. all i can do is tell you what i think.


but i have to say my friend, you just aren't reading carefully.

the article does not state that hamas/hezballah attacks are only against uniformed officers. the author very clearly states that "some actions that do not qualify as terrorist attacks are labeled as such"; examples being attacks on uniformed on-duty idf soldiers. this fact reinforces the entire thesis which is that people don't understand what terrorism is.

that was not a big mistake you made, misreading the author's views. certainly not enough for me to altogether shoot down your personal credibility (as in, i'll still read your posts, both of us being spurs fans)... but as soon as you thought you saw an easy empirical error, you went so far as to say that single mistake shoots down all credibility of the author.

you see where i'm headed with this i hope. read carefully, interpret charitably.



two more sentences you wrote which i don't think qualify as valid extrapolations of the essay


Simply saying "terrorists aren't actually terrorists" is not enough; there needs to be a concise explanation of why attacking, say, a shopping mall full of civilians is a justified action of war or political activism.
you'll have to point me in the direction of where he makes the first claim or even implies it. the entire thing is about defining terrorism or terrorist... unless you're retarded, you don't define a word by saying it isn't actually the same as that word (ie. the definition of terrorists is that terrorists aren't really terrorists). so i don't know what you mean here.

as for the second part, nowhere does he reject the notion that attacking a shopping mall full of civilians is an act of terrorism, not does he suggest it could be a justified action of war or a form of political activism.** again if you would like to quote the section of the article from which you inferred this, i'd be interested.


**technically it could be a form of political activism which covers just about anything you do with intended political consequences, including blowing up a mall

[RidonKs]

blrrmp

[shlver]

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


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Terrorism is not that much dirtier to me than war. I know it is to most people.
This is the kind of thinking that plays right into the hands of propagandizing by accepting different definitions in different contexts. You can't have it both ways; terrorism has an objective definition or it doesn't. Ridonks has provided acceptable definitions.