Terrorism and terrorist are basically meaningless words

  • News
  • Thread starter madness
  • Start date
In summary, the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" are highly subjective and emotionally charged words that lack a widely agreed upon definition. They are often used as propaganda tools to undermine and delegitimize certain groups or individuals. While it may be useful to moderate the use of these words, there are serious threats posed by violent individuals and organizations that cannot be ignored. It is important to strive for an objective analysis of situations rather than relying on emotive language. The FBI definition of terrorism includes the unlawful use of force or violence to intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population for political or social objectives, but this definition can be debated and may not apply to all situations. Overall, it is important to carefully consider the context and actions of individuals or
  • #71


There are 3 posts above, all addressed to me. I've already replied to the first one but it was removed. Can anyone think of any reason that I might want to waste my earnest time and in-depth research replying to the remaining 2? I can't. Clearly the board isn't interested in hearing any other information than "the official one" - be the patriotic line misinformation or otherwise.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72


rootX said:
The premise is that the definition of the term is used for proganda purposes also beyond legal purposes. [emphasis added]
The word "also" does not appear in the OP. The OP is clearly exclusionary, saying that the word is only meaningless. Others may include a mixuture, but in any case, this is a red herring argument because the use of a word for propaganda by a politician in a speech does not in any way affect the use of the word for a legitimate legal purpose. That's splitting a hair that doesn't exist.
I would ask you to explain how well you can use that in situations like following:
"However, in the context where you are trying to understand a conflict or what caused present challenges NOT how to deal with the present challenges, you cannot use current laws. Conflicts can go back many centuries (Israel) if not decades (Al Qaeda). In those circumstances, words like terrorists are meaningless. "
So...the conflict goes back centuries so we can't apply modern laws and logic? Well that's just absurd! I suppose based on your logic I could go get myself some slaves because my ancestors came to this country when slavery was legal!? :rolleyes: :confused:
 
Last edited:
  • #73


vertices said:
It is not a real, serious, legally relevant term, if it is only applied to enemies. (when states commit acts of terrorism against enemies they call it "low-intensity conflict" or "counter terror")

In the case of the US, it uncontroversial that it has committed acts of terrorism (using the DOD definition of the word) against nations like Vietnam, Cuba and Nicaragua.
Assume for a moment I agree with the premise in your second sentence. Connect it logically to the claim in the first. I don't agree that there is a connection.

I'll give a straightforward counterexample: police brutality. Police occasionally violate the law while at the same time they are charged with enforcing it. The fact that police brutality happens does not mean assault is not a crime treated seriously by the law.
 
  • #74


zomgwtf said:
Soooo, the Taliban isn't a terrorist organization because they are at a state of war with America.
No, that's not the key to the distinction. The key is in the tactics themselves. The declaration of war part is only really relevant in situations where there is an agreement (whether written or implicit) between the combatants about the conduct of the war.

International laws mean nothing in my opinion really. It's funny that it would be brought up to show that American actions weren't terrorist in the past. That would mean that NOW they ARE considered as 'terrorist attacks', even if they were at war (just like how people say the Taliban/Al Qaeda are) The reason why I say that international laws don't matter really is because America breaks a lot of those laws itself. Breaking international 'law' doesn't have any bearing on whether something is terrorist or not.
Right: only breaking international law with respect to terrorism has an impact on whether actions are terrorism. That seems too obvious to have to say it, but ok.
Terrorism has to do, in my opinion, with intent in the actions. If the intentions of the attacks are merely to coerce the government/civilian population against their will through violence then it is considered terrorist. Does this include dropping a nuclear weapon on a civilian population? Yes. It most definitely does, I highly doubt that if instead Germany had dropped a nuke on America people would be defending it from the label of terrorist. However it could be argued that because it was a war time situation it's different.
That is precisely what I explained previously. Germany and even the allies did, in fact, commit many acts that could today be considered terrorism but they were not prosecuted because they were not part of the laws of warfare agreed upon by the combatants at the time.

Though it wasn't perfect, there are some good examples of the symmetry. One is chemical weapons. Though used extensively in WWI, they were outlawed after the war and thus barely used in WWII and mostly by Japan and not against the larger allies.
 
  • #75


The Taliban is not a terrorist organization. They are more along the lines of a militant group. Should a word change the way our operators deal with them? Not at all. Terrorist organization or not, the rules of war still apply.
 
  • #76


madness said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

This article seems to state unequivocally that there is no agreed definition of terrorism.
Of course, but that is not what the thesis of your OP was about:
"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are basically meaningless words (there is no widely agreed definition) which are used to undermine and deligitimise a group or individual or state. I don't think these words are acceptable in any intelligent discussion or analysis of world events - they are clearly emotive words which have been engineered for propagandha purposes
As I said before, the three claims are very different from each other:

1. There is no universal definition - this is obvious and trivial.
2. The word is meaningless - this is just as trivially false: it has many meanings.
3. It was created for and is used primarily for propaganda purposes. This is the only argument of any substance but is is also easily demonstrated to be wrong, as I have.
 
  • #77


Jarle said:
I will give an example, but I think you have missed my point. This is an extract from wikipedia on Nelson Mandela:

"Up until July 2008, Mandela and ANC party members were barred from entering the United States — except the United Nations headquarters in Manhattan — without a special waiver from the US Secretary of State, because of their South African apartheid regime era designation as terrorists."

I take it as this organization was labeled terrorists by the state of South Africa. Now they are the state.
Interesting. I didn't know that about Mandella.
Wouldn't both sides be "terrorists" if the former state was just another organization, and not the government?
I'm not sure and I don't see why that is relevant.
The point is not that they have been improperly labeled terrorists according to the definition, not at all; rather, the opposite is the point! The point is that the definition or definitions are themselves elastic enough to contain almost any military organization opposing the state in which they are established, but which are not states themselves.
Well, in this case, the classification by the US government probably has more to do with treaties and international relations than it does with the US definition of terrorism. This is not fundamentally different than other crimes being defined differently in different countries, but rather is about the US respecting another country's definition - and they don't always do that. This is true of most countries. But just because France didn't extradite Roman Polianski for his rape conviction, that doesn't mean France doesn't have its own definition of rape which it applies in its own, mostly internally consistent way. It doesn't make the word "rape", "meaningless", as the OP's logic would demand.
 
  • #78


KalamMekhar said:
The Taliban is not a terrorist organization. They are more along the lines of a militant group. Should a word change the way our operators deal with them? Not at all. Terrorist organization or not, the rules of war still apply.
I used the example because the categorization is changing to reflect a change in tactics by the Taliban. And with that change in tactics and definition comes a change in how we deal with them. It's all very logical.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2776082&postcount=54
 
  • #79


russ_watters said:
I used the example because the categorization is changing to reflect a change in tactics by the Taliban. And with that change in tactics and definition comes a change in how we deal with them. It's all very logical.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2776082&postcount=54

I wasn't quoting you specifically, just in general, seeing that the public views the Taliban as a terrorist organization.
 
  • #80


What I said, in very broad terms, was this :
Spring Board said:
... The Poles attacked the Germans "head on" and perished without achieving anything. 9/11, on the other hand achieved a great deal, as did dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
... Al Queda have taken the "devil may care" attitude of the Poles and the "no choice/necessity" of taking civilian lives and put them together. So "the complaint" and "the act" need to find a compromise, if we're going to create peace.

More specifically, think of Al Queida 9/11 terrorism ("The Act") as an overstatement based upon a legitimate complaint. Think also of using the term "terrorism" as an over-used, inaccurate term ("The Complaint") against what is perceived as the bad guys.

If the west would listen to the complaints made by the third world, and "terrorist" factions would listen to the "commom people" of the west, then a comprimise might be achievable wherein western citizens (sympathetic to the plight of third world population) might gain an ear in their respective governments. As it is, western governments fill our ears with fabricated horror stories of uncivilized "terrorists" bent on overthrowing the world and converting us to Islam at the point of a sword in the very way that Christianity conducted itself during The Crusades. It is, in fact, these same governments that are manipulating the Third World and its' people, yet blaming dissatisifaction on "terrorism" as a sort of Red Herring.

The word "terrorism", as has already been said, is a mis-used word and the consequences of its mis-use are far more deadly than seen on the surface.
 
  • #81


Spring Board said:
What I said, in very broad terms, was this :


More specifically, think of Al Queida 9/11 terrorism ("The Act") as an overstatement based upon a legitimate complaint
Why?

Whenever did a bomb thrown into the face of a child become a verbal action?
 
  • #82


Spring Board said:
What I said, in very broad terms, was this :


More specifically, think of Al Queida 9/11 terrorism ("The Act") as an overstatement based upon a legitimate complaint. Think also of using the term "terrorism" as an over-used, inaccurate term ("The Complaint") against what is perceived as the bad guys.
A "legitimate" complaint? I didn't know wanting to kill every American citizen was a legitimate complaint. Get a grip.

If the west would listen to the complaints made by the third world, and "terrorist" factions would listen to the "commom people" of the west, then a comprimise might be achievable wherein western citizens (sympathetic to the plight of third world population) might gain an ear in their respective governments.
We made ourselves civilized, why can't they?
As it is, western governments fill our ears with fabricated horror stories of uncivilized "terrorists" bent on overthrowing the world and converting us to Islam at the point of a sword
It isn't horror stories, Any terrorist organization has said it multiple times, and has also claimed to be righteous in its deeds.
in the very way that Christianity conducted itself during The Crusades.
1104 =/= 2001
It is, in fact, these same governments that are manipulating the Third World and its' people, yet blaming dissatisifaction on "terrorism" as a sort of Red Herring.
I didn't know aid and money was manipulation. Don't blame the civilized world for the uncivilized worlds problems. Most of the problems that have been recent, are from the acts of colonialism, and not what has happened today.

The word "terrorism", as has already been said, is a mis-used word and the consequences of its mis-use are far more deadly than seen on the surface.



See bolded.
 
  • #83


arildno said:
Whenever did a bomb thrown into the face of a child become a verbal action?

"Bomb"? "Child's face"? "Verbal action"? I don't understand your question or how such a question got wedged in at the end of my last post. Which one of these is supposed to have become verbal action? Can you explain, please?
 
  • #84


"overstatement" and "complaint" are verbal actions.
 
  • #85


Huh? Are you joking?
 
  • #86


Making a statement:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/idioms/make-a-statement
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87


Spring Board said:
Huh? Are you joking?

No.

Are you?

For example:
What are these "legitimate complaints" that al-Qaeda somehow has the right to state, or defend, in a violent manner?
 
  • #88


arildno said:
... What are these "legitimate complaints" that al-Qaeda somehow has the right to state, or defend, in a violent manner?

The overthrow of other goverments (even democratic ones) by the U.S. - the setting up of puppet corrpt leaders who bend to U.S. wishes against the population of that country - invading other countries on false pretentions by the U.S. and occupying that country in order to reap the natural resources while the people of that country remain destitute. Would you like more examples or can we get back to the real topic: The usage of the word "terrorsim"?
 
  • #89


1.
Spring Board said:
The overthrow of other goverments (even democratic ones) by the U.S. -
a) What countries would that be?
b) In what manner does al-Qaeda have the right to set itself up as the avenger of that?
c) In what manner would al-Qaeda's goals be a redress of such wrongs?

Once you have given satisfactory answers to these, we might continue.
 
  • #90


arildno said:
a) What countries would that be?
b) In what manner does al-Qaeda have the right to set itself up as the avenger of that?
c) In what manner would al-Qaeda's goals be a redress of such wrongs?

Once you have given satisfactory answers to these, we might continue.

The fact that we are now way "off topic" makes me hesitant to go very much further than we already have and there's a great risk that it will all be deleted. But to take your challenge of the possiblity that "we might continue" let me tell you that a). Iran was once a democratic nation and it was destroyed by the U.S. who then put the Shah in power allowing the U.S. and the UK to rape the oil fields and so letting the Iranian population suffer terribly becasue of it, b). Al Queda sees itself as the protector of the Isamic world in the same way that the U.S. sees itself as the protector of the western world and c). I don't believe that Al Queda's "goals would be a redress of such wrongs" - but they certainly think so.
 
  • #91


a). Iran was once a democratic nation
No, it never was. Mossadegh was no democrat.
Shah in power allowing the U.S. and the UK to rape the oil fields and so letting the Iranian population suffer terribly becasue of it
No.
The period under the Shah was one of uninterrupted economic growth.
Furthermore, what Iranian population are you talking about that "suffered" under the Shah?
The Jews? The Christians? The Parsee, perhaps?
 
  • #93


Spring Board said:
Sorry if the facts disturb you but everything I've said is true. Here are 2 (of many) sources:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

a) Sure there was a coup.
b) I haven't disputed that.
c) Nor have I disputed CIA involvement in that coup.
d) Nor did I dispute that the US has been involved in the overthrow of governments
e) What I did dispute here was that Prime minister Mossadegh could be called a democrat, or that the Persia of his day could be called a democracy. Elections to the Majlis doesn't make a democracy on its own.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94


It is nonsense to suggest that a fundamentalist Sunni organization like Al-Qaeda has any grievances about what may have or not been done to the overwhelmingly Shia based Iran. It is more likely Al-Qaeda would destroy all the Shia peoples in Iran given the means. Nor for that matter has Bin-Laden ever expressed any common cause with the Palestinian people, another cause celeb, though he does want control of the significant mosques in Jerusalem.
 
  • #95


arildno said:
a) Sure there was a coup.
b) I haven't disputed that.
c) Nor have I disputed CIA involvement in that coup.
d) Nor did I dispute that the US has been involved in the overthrow of governments
e) What I did dispute here was that Prime minister Mossadegh could be called a democrat, or that the Persia of his day could be called a democracy. Elections to the Majlis doesn't make a democracy on its own.

But Iran WAS a democracy. This is not a mere opinion. Did you not read the links I sent you?

Can you proivde reliable sources to prove that holding "fair" elections are not one sign of democratic process?

Is it your intention to show that the U.S. (which was responsible for the coup and overthrowing other governments) is displaying or setting the example of what a democracy is all about? Or indeed conducting itself as a democratic country at all.

Do you disagree that such incidents might make the Moslem World (in this case) sceptable of U.S. intentions when in similar circumstances?

Are you aware that Moslem groups (such as Al Queda) have legitimate grievances with the "west" (the U.S. in particular) or are you of the mind that all they want is to rule the world and convert everyone to Islam?

Do you believe that Al Queda is the only Molsem group in the world that is opposed to U.S. manipulation or perhaps that all Moslem groups employ "terrorist" tactiques rather than debate and diplomacy?
 
  • #96


Spring Board said:
But Iran WAS a democracy. This is not a mere opinion. Did you not read the links I sent you?
In what time period did it qualify as a democracy?
Under the Timurids?
Under the Safavids?
Under Nazeer Khan?
Under the Qajar dynasty, perhaps?
Under the first Pahlavi Shah, perhaps?
 
  • #97


And the answers to my questions?
 
  • #98


Spring Board said:
Can you proivde reliable sources to prove that holding "fair" elections are not one sign of democratic process?
Is getting 99.9% of the votes a sign of democracy, as Mossadegh got in the 1953 "election"?
 
  • #99


Spring Board said:
And the answers to my questions?
They will come forth, once questioning your numerous premises, set forth as evident truths, has come to an end.
 
  • #100


Is it? And what about my questions?
 
  • #101


arildno said:
They will come forth, once questioning your numerous premises, set forth as evident truths, has come to an end.

Which means that you won't be answering them?
 
  • #102


Spring Board said:
Is it? And what about my questions?

Those are to be deferred until we have achieved a common basis of premises.

a) At the moment, we have agreed upon that CIA was involved in the 1953 coup against PM Mossadegh.
b) You have not shown when, and in what manner Persia could be called a democracy. I guess you think it ended in 1953, when did it begin?
c) You have, of course, not provided any sources that show that al-Qaeda is having the toppling of the Mossadegh regime as its primary grievance against the US.
d) Nor have you provided any sources that suggest al-Qaeda is fighting for the establishment of democracies.
e) Nor have you presented any sort of logical argument as to why al-Qaeda is entitled to regard itself as an organization with the right to commit acts of violence/rebellion.

And so on and so forth.

We have a loong way to go yet.
 
  • #103


Spring Board said:
But Iran WAS a democracy. This is not a mere opinion. Did you not read the links I sent you?
Please show where in a mainstream source, that Iran was a democracy? Don't just post links and say 'go find it'. You need to show it. It's not Arildno that needs to answers questions, it is you.

Thank you.
 
  • #104


For one thing, Spring Board:
It is well known fact that Mossadegh was relying heavily upon the Tudeh (Communist) Party of Persia.

Were they democrats?

For example, who did the Tudeh party join forces with around, say, 1979?
 
  • #105


Furthermore, Spring Board:
You ask the interesting question:
What should count as a democracy?

Clearly, we need to distinguish between an oclocracy and a democracy.

The crucial difference between those two forms is the democracy's commitment to uphold individual human rights against any group's willingness to infringe upon that, whether or not that group happens to be a majority group or a minority group.
The oclocracy is basically always to sanction the will of the majority, irrespective of it's commitment to uphold individual human rights.

Furthermore:
If the majority happens to be anti-democratic, whether they are at loggerheads with each other or in unison, then elections are not at all a sign of it being a democratic country, and we have a deeply unstable country, like, for example, the Weimar Republic.

Thus, in order to have a properly functioning democracy, undemocratic elements in the country have to be only insignificantly supported within the population at large.

Lastly:
Note that non-elected governments may, in principle, do far better at upholding indiviual rights than any oclocracy does.
 

Similar threads

News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
    • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
News Is a Standing Army Necessary for a Peaceful Future?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
News Can someone normal become a terrorist?
    • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
12K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
    • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
News Downing Street - New memos released
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top