The term "terrorism" is statist

[HemlockGrey]

Incidentally, I believe Suzuki credited the A-bombs with saving millions of Japanese lives.

[Patrick Degan]

Only a fool would assume that there has ever been 100% consensus on anything.

However, there still could have been a majority.

Not even a sizeable minority. The coup attempt led by Maj. Keni Hatanaka consisted of only a tiny handful of officers and men. Eastern Army command refused to obey any orders which could not be verified, and when forged orders ostensibly issued from the murdered Gen. Hatakashi Mori were circulated, the jig was up. The army moved in and quickly arrested the conspirators, with Hatanaka and his closest associates commiting suicide to avoid capture. An even smaller coup attempt was swiftly put down by the Emperor's brother, while the conspirator in that effort ended up in a straitjacket. Remaining officers who would not accept the nation's surrender committed seppuku.

[HemlockGrey]

Working from memory here.

Does any of this nitpicking matter? The point was that the Emperor and much of the government DID want to surrender; they were just hoping to get more favourable terms.

Japan had been warned to surrender or be completely destroyed by late July, and yet they still refused. After the second bomb, Japan's ruling council was still split 3-3 on the issue of whether to surrender.

[Kynes]

Terrorism was defined; it's a politically correct cover-term for a specific category of irregular military operations. You could say that a lot of politically correct words are backwards signifiers.

OK. So why use the term?

[Howedar]

Because most populations wouldn't understand something more complicated.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

OK. So why use the term?

I suspect it came into being when irregular actions in the 70s became commonplace, to give them a name without calling them military actions. This was important in the cold war context, obviously, so many relatively stupid things seem today that had a reason then; couldn't offend the other side when strategic paralysis was in play. Now, however, it is simply a combination of ingrained long usage, and a new desire to avoid offending potential Muslim allies.

It might be more proper to say "We're at war with Salafist Islam and certain allies of convenience it has." But is the rest of the Muslim world going to accept the idea that we're only targeting Salafis, or cling to the fact that we used War and Islam in the same sentence? It's a deceptive word, I fully grant, but its usage can perhaps be partially excused.

[HemlockGrey]

OK. So why use the term?

Same reason why it's called the 'Patriot' act instead of the 'Gestapo' act, I suppose.

[Stuart Mackey]

So I take it that no one is going to be able to provide a definition of "terrorism" that means anything any time soon?

Here's why you can't:

Terrorism is a sort of backwards signifier. Instead of telling you about what's being described, it tells you about who's doing the describing. Depending on what it is you call terrorism, I know a great deal about you, but almost nothing about the acts themselves.

Terrorism is a very subjective term. How one veiws it depends on culture, religion and who is doing the terrorising to whom. How it is ultimatly defined is conditioned by who wins, and you will never get a solid definition as a result.

[Stuart Mackey]

So I take it that no one is going to be able to provide a definition of "terrorism" that means anything any time soon?

Here's why you can't:

Terrorism is a sort of backwards signifier. Instead of telling you about what's being described, it tells you about who's doing the describing. Depending on what it is you call terrorism, I know a great deal about you, but almost nothing about the acts themselves.

Actually, I think a rough and ready definition can be extorted from the idea of a group of pissed of people doing nasty things to civvies of their own nation and others, for a political end that suits that group.
Such a group would not have state support and operate alone with whatever resources that can be obtained off the shelf in its area of operation.

I submit that when a state becomes involved with such a group that such support is tantamount to war, as it is then one state effectivly conducting milliatary operations against another, and the usual 'laws of war' should apply.

I do not claim this as a exhustive definition and is something I just randomly came up with as I think about getting something to eat.

[PrinceofLowLight]

*Pokes head up from ashes*Uhm, I've got a definition.

Non-uniformed irregulars(I'm not sure if that's the right word) attacking civilians. Going back to the whole partisan groups must have uniforms thing, I don't really think that's crazy. If an occupying army knows what the militias look like, they're more likely to be less harsh on the regular civvies. It's all a matter of whether the partisans care more about the people or their cause.

In this case, it's doubly worse because instead of using the anonymity to strike at valid military targets (albeit in an invalid way), you're killing civilians. You can defend yourself from bombers by shooting them down and you can defend yourself from missiles by blowing up the launch sites, but there's not much you can do about a guy who pulls a weapon out of nowhere and decides to kill as many civilians as possible.


As for the a-bomb thing, you can't really know one way or the other how the Japanese government would have responded to us simply wiping out a small town. There's a difference, a very large and non-dismissable one especially in the case of people who tend not to have completely rational natures (IE, politicians), between knowing of a capability and a willingness to do something, and actually seeing it done.

[Kynes]

OK. So why use the term?

I suspect it came into being when irregular actions in the 70s became commonplace, to give them a name without calling them military actions. This was important in the cold war context, obviously, so many relatively stupid things seem today that had a reason then; couldn't offend the other side when strategic paralysis was in play. Now, however, it is simply a combination of ingrained long usage, and a new desire to avoid offending potential Muslim allies.

Do you really think the usage of "terrorism" has bought us any friends on the Arab Street? Would it really be so hard to say, "We're fighting a war against Afghanistan/Iraq/name it?"

I think the broad term is used precisely so the war can continue expanding and morphing even when individual countries are defeated. "Terrorism" is a foe that can never be defeated because it can never be defined, so you can keep fighting forever.

To the others: those are fine definitions. But they don't apply to things like rocket attacks, etc, which are necessarily non-uniformed.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Do you really think the usage of "terrorism" has bought us any friends on the Arab Street? Would it really be so hard to say, "We're fighting a war against Afghanistan/Iraq/name it?"

I think the broad term is used precisely so the war can continue expanding and morphing even when individual countries are defeated. "Terrorism" is a foe that can never be defeated because it can never be defined, so you can keep fighting forever.

Well, terrorism can obviously be limited; you know what terrorism is not. I think the problem with outright naming who we were fighting from the start would be, quite simply, the list would have been far to large for us to handle at once. The rot has spread rather deep over there. The nebulous definition may have been something chosen as more palpatable to the modern public than a series of justifications of each declaration and respective conflict. This is hardly ideal, but perhaps realistic in the context of modern outlook.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps it would be more realistic to skip this nonsense about playing word-games. Much as ridiculous terms like "homicide bombing" were obviously designed for propaganda purposes (note that it is actually less descriptive than the term "suicide bombing" which it replaced), so too was the term "terrorist".

Any usage of the term "terrorist" could have been easily covered by simply describing cowardly or unlawful military actions. However, that would be even more easily turned against people whose own militaries have committed disturbing actions in the past, so it's more convenient for rhetorical purposes to invent a nice shiny label.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I thought we called it "Tourism" over here in Yosemite....

[kojikun]

I still say terrorism means sadism taken to its extremes. Purposeless violence without any valid justification. Terrorism is meant to terrorize a population, not to bring about a specific goal.

[Stuart Mackey]

I still say terrorism means sadism taken to its extremes. Purposeless violence without any valid justification. Terrorism is meant to terrorize a population, not to bring about a specific goal.

No no, thats a TGod

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well if you are not a recognized state and you use fear to effect people through brutal actions against civilians you are a "Terrorist"

If you are represenative for a state and you do this you are a "War Criminal"

So what's the differnec between The Dresden Fire Bomb and the truck bomb that ravaged the US embassy in Lebonon?

A hell of a lot more civilian casualties?

Hell, Dresden we even killed our own in a POW camp on the outskirts of the city.

So what''s the real difference between Sharon and Arafat?

[The Third Man]

Whilst Kynes is quite right in his OP when he says that the term "terrorism" is now used meaninglessly by government, media and the general public, here's my take on a definition:

I'd suggest terrorism is a philosophy used by some (but not all) guerilla fighters. One of the key principles of terrorism is to produce a specific psychological effect, a belief on the part of the terroree that the terrorist is capable of striking anywhere, at any time, that the terrorist organisation is much bigger, more powerful and better equipped and organised than is really the case.

I think the attempt to produce this effect is the defining characteristic of terrorism.


Therefore, by my definition:

The WTC attack was a terrorist attack. The US perception of Al Queda went from a little-known group operating overseas to the perception we have now, where everyone in the West is looking over there shoulder for "some terrorism".

The Hiroshima bombings. Disgusting IMO, but not terrorism. The US wasn't trying to project a false sense of its capabilities

Attacks on occupying forces in Iraq. Not terrorism. The attackers are probably trying to make their organisation look smaller, less well-organised and so on. They would be true guerilla fighters.

IRA attacks on UK soldiers on the British mainland. Terrorism. The idea was to make the British voters believe the IRA was too powerful to fight, and that the voters would force a withdrawal of troops.

French Resistance in WW2. Operations against German targets would be terrorist. However, the assistance of downed Allied pilots, escaped POWs etc would be non-terrorist.


That would be my definition, and it's pretty narrow looking at it. Of course, since eveyone else works by a different definition (as pointed out by Kynes), it's pointless.

[Vympel]

I've never seen such pussy-footing around in all my life. Time to deploy Chomsky.

"[Terrorism]: In acceptable discourse, as can easily be demonstrated, the term is used to refer to terrorist acts that THEY carry out against US, not those that WE carry out against THEM"

QED.

[The Third Man]

[Terrorism]: In acceptable discourse, as can easily be demonstrated, the term is used to refer to terrorist acts that THEY carry out against US, not those that WE carry out against THEM

[BoredShirtless]

Whenever I read these sorts of news forums, I'm always amazed about the constant usage of the term "terrorism" as if that word seriously has any meaning. It is almost ubiquitous in the US news and even overseas people manage to utter it as if has a straight face.

Terrorism is a term which is hard to define. No matter how you slice it, you end up including or excluding people that get labelled as "terrorists" all the time. I challenge any of you to come up with a definition which is both necessary and sufficient.

In fact, the term is really used by the state to circumvent debate. The public and policymakers are conditioned not to resist policies targeted at "terrorism." Look at the continued existence of USA PATRIOT or the fact that the Iraqi war was originally justified under those auspices.

This makes the term inherently statist: placing the needs of the state above the needs of people. The term "terrorism" is used when citizens can't be trusted to make decisions on their own and they need to have thought short-circuited. It is a base emotional appeal that rational people would never use.

In conclusion if you think "terrorism" means anything, then you're an idiot.

------------------------------
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
------------------------------

You're wrong. Terrorism does have a definition. It's just that people with an agenda, whether it be to win a political debate or convince people that they have to go to war, never use the word for the other side. That isn't the words fault. That's the fault of the people who should be using it, and the people who don't recognise when it's not being used.

[kojikun]

------------------------------
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
------------------------------

That includes all military actions.

[BoredShirtless]

------------------------------
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
------------------------------

That includes all military actions.

It's not the best definition, but you can see the picture it tries to draw, no? And my point still stands.

[Knife]

What is left to be said after nine pages?

The original moniker of 'terrorism' was a lable for illegal and unlawful civilians creating paramilitary units who stuck at civilian and other illegal targets.

Since then the term has been molded and stretched by political forces to apply to any unconventional warfare that the inflicted partys were struck by. These days, it seems, if anybody and everybody is attacked, they scream 'terrorism'.

I would submit that if this practice continues, a system of degrees of terrorism would be in order. 1st degree terrorism and the such.

In all seriousness, I think a new convention on the law of war is in order. New technology and the ability of persision strikes negate alot of the old laws as well as the rise of irregular activities and sponsorship of such, makes alot of the Geneva Convention and the Laws of War incompatable with modern warfare.

It would, imo, clear up these stupid situations, mostley used for political gain, of 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedomfighter' that so infest gobal political disscussions.

[Darth Wong]

I'd suggest terrorism is a philosophy used by some (but not all) guerilla fighters. One of the key principles of terrorism is to produce a specific psychological effect, a belief on the part of the terroree that the terrorist is capable of striking anywhere, at any time, that the terrorist organisation is much bigger, more powerful and better equipped and organised than is really the case.

Good. The rapid-fire dropping of two A-bombs in order to make the Japanese think that the USA had a vast supply of these weapons was clearly an example of terrorism according to your definition. Bzzzzzzt! Try again!

Sorry, but when it comes right down to it, terrorism is just a convenient and inconsistently applied label. As BoredShirtless showed, the dictionary definition of terrorism actually encompasses most acts of war.