K. A. Pital wrote:Terrorism has been redefined to non-state actions by the state itself.
My view is that this isn't actually a problem, because we already have plenty of terms that have been defined by popular culture to refer to comparable state actions.
"Tyrant" and "tyranny" are words that only apply to the state. "Police state" and "secret police," likewise. Calling the oppressive agents of the state "Gestapo" is pretty good too. "Ethnic cleansing" isn't strictly a state-only activity, but the state is involved in the vast majority of such cases and it's usually an accurate description in situations where large numbers of people are being terrorized by the state. The entire category of "fascist" is basically a term for "people who want the state to do their terrorism for them."
So to have a word that applies only to
non-state practitioners of wicked violence isn't a problem.
As to early 20th century "terrorists" who fought a 'clean' fight with minimal civilian casualties... that really isn't a thing you see anymore. The word 'terrorist' has evolved so that it no longer carries a connotation that fits what such 'terrorists' did... But then, almost no one actually does what such 'terrorists' did anymore. Nowadays we don't have to worry about secretive bands of guerillas who hide from the Czar's secret police and strike only at him and his ministers. We have to worry about people who blow up pizzerias and dance clubs.
Patroklos wrote:Thats ridiculously stupid TRR. Pimps can terrorize their slaves and its all about money. Gangs can terrorize their neighborhoods and its all about money. When Escobar was terrorizing Columbia it was all about money. Now whether terrorizing rises to leveling the label terrorist or terrorism is more a deliniation of scale and context (terror as a toolbox tactic vs your overall strategy) but ideology isn't going to change that unless your ideology is terrorism.
Anybody can use terrorism in the name of any goal.Terrorism is about the means, not the ends.
Patroklos, the problem is that "terrorism" contains two separate parts. One is "terror" and the other is "ism."
The "terror" part implies that whatever a terrorist does, it must involve creating terror- extreme, widespread fear.
But the "ism" part is important too. It implies that "terrorism" is a political movement, or an ideology, or part of some organized group action. The pimp or gang terrorizing a localized group of people isn't part of a movement. Drug lords terrorizing whole countries
might be terrorism, or might not- but that's on a much larger scale and is different in many ways other than just "this one person is causing terror."
"Causes terror" is not the same as "is a terrorist."
Just as not all communes are communist, and not all societies are socialist, and not all isolated people are isolationists, and not all merchants are mercantilist...
Not all terror-creators are terrorists.
The Romulan Republic wrote:Obviously different legal codes have different definitions.
For a broader, more general definition of terrorism, though, their's a lot of room for argument, but I tend to favour something along the lines of "The use or threat of violence in pursuit of an ideological agenda."
The problem is that this makes it terrorism to fire artillery at an invading tank column. Plus, any act of violence committed by law enforcement can be labeled as 'terrorism' by someone who argues that whatever legal system the state presently enforces is an ideological agenda.
We have plenty of dirty words for evils committed by the state, and evils committed during wartime. There is no need to broaden the definition of 'terrorism' to include the set of all evils. Especially when that results in 'terrorism' becoming so broad that it also includes many actions which are obviously not wrong.
Note that this does not prohibit states from committing acts of terrorism, but it does draw a distinction (which is probably the most important one) between violence to impose an ideology and violence for other ends, i.e. profit (which keeps a lot of traditional crime from inadvertently falling under the label of terrorism) or defence of oneself or others (which would potentially be a legitimate use of force).
Ah, but the idea of nation-states is
by definition an ideology. The idea that the country of SImonia should continue to exist, rather than being divided up into provinces under the control of a foreign occupier, is ideology.
Remember, if the people of Simonia do not resist conquest, it is entirely possible that they won't be in any particular danger of being harmed! Losing political independence doesn't automatically equate to dying or losing your property. By the normal peacetime standards of "self defense," it is questionable whether fighting an invading army even qualifies, unless you already have special reason to believe that the invaders will commit atrocities or plunder your nation.
So to say that all "ideologically motivated" violence is terrorism is basically to say that any violent pursuit of national independence or self-government is terrorism.
Of course, what constitutes an ideological motive is itself subject to debate, so it is not a perfect definition by any means.
This is a bigger problem than I think you fully appreciate.
):
