Terrorism - a definition

Peregrinus · 24-06-2015 02:15AM

Jayop wrote: »

Again, I didn't mention NI, you did. Twice now actually.

So if you lived in my hypothetical country that was overrun and your people were being abused and shat on from a height you'd call your fellow man fighting to get justice against a corrupt illegal regime terrorists?

I'd call them terrorists if they employed terrorism in their fight for justice, yes.

Wouldn't you?

Victor · 24-06-2015 02:43AM

conorh91 wrote: »

However, using my definition, the invasion of iraq, for example, would not constitute terrorism because although one might conceivably argue it was against the law of war and that it intended to precipitate political change, the decision to go to war was not arbitrary, in that it was in accordance with established democratic procedures.

Starting a war is a war crime.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Well, by the very definition of the doctrine, the US Air Force was almost a terrorist force during the opening phase of the campaign, when it relied upon "shock and awe" to suppress the Iraqi military and its domestic legitimacy.

Can you explain the underlined bit?

A Primal Nut · 24-06-2015 05:02AM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It was a hate crime, it was not a terrorist attack. You can be one, or you can be the other, you can not be both.

Says who? I don't get that at all? If a sunni suicide bomber walks into a shi'a mosque in Iraq and blows himself up which is it? I would say it's both.

Maybe under the legal definition the prosecutor has to decide which to go with...most likely they will go with the one that has the harshest sentence attached.

A Primal Nut · 24-06-2015 05:04AM

According to google, the definition is:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

In that case; that would also include violence against legitimate military targets, even from people fighting for their rights. So I can't say I agree with the official definition at all.

At the very last it should cover the targeting of civilians.

Remember that China calls the Dalai Lama a terrorist, which makes a mockery of the word and almost makes this discussion a waste of time!!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/19/dalai-lama-prayers-tibetans-terrorism

Peregrinus · 24-06-2015 05:13AM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

According to google, the definition is:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

In that case; that would also include violence against legitimate military targets, even from people fighting for their rights. So I can't say I agree with the official definition at all.

At the very last it should cover the targeting of civilians.

That's odd. When I google terrorism, I get:

"the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Clearly you're not getting the highlighted words. What gives?

Plus, the Google definition doesn't have any link or citation to show where they're getting it from, and we can't judge how authorative that source might be.

So I think, even if Google did offer the same definition to you and me, you'd be wrong to call it the "official definition". It's a definition offered by some completely unknown person whose reasons for offering it, and whose expertise in offering it, are completely unknown. Nothing "official" about that.

For what it's worth, I completely agree with your criticisms of the definition that google offered you. By that definition, the allied landings in Normandy in June 1944 were a clear example of "terrorism". But that's nonsense; nobody uses the word in that way.

Even the more restrictive definition offered to me is not much good. The actions undertaken by the Provisional IRA during its campaign of violence weren't "unofficial or unauthorised", they were official IRA operations, authorised by the Army Council. Yet most people would say that many of those operations were terrorist in nature.

MakeEmLaugh · 24-06-2015 05:35AM

digzy wrote: »

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Deep.

TomBtheGoat wrote: »

Your sarcasm aside, the comment the other poster made is quite true.

Not to mention blindingly obvious. It had all the insight of a Christmas cracker.

IrishTrajan · 24-06-2015 01:51PM

Victor wrote: »

Can you explain the underlined bit?

Saddam's power stemmed from "I'm stronger than you, if you revolt, I'll crush you". Carrying out strikes on Saddam's palace broke that facade.

Jayop · 24-06-2015 02:31PM

I'm no ira supporter, never have been a and never will be, bit thanks for tarring me with that brush for trying to raise some questions. The ira probably could have fought a non terrorist campaign by attacking military and state targets but once they started murdering civilians and blowing up children they lost any moral authority they may have had.

Were the ira terrorists, most definitely. Were they freedom fighters too, almost certainly.

Were the paratroopers shooting innocent civilians I'm derry terrorists? Absolutely. Were the British government guilty of terrorism when colluding with loyalist forces? 100%.

KingBrian2 · 24-06-2015 05:54PM

Some countries call drone operations Targeted Assassinations. This is slightly different to terrorism but is does the same thing.

Jayop · 24-06-2015 06:00PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Some countries call drone operations Targeted Assassinations. This is slightly different to terrorism but is does the same thing.

That's why it's such a grey area. While the traditionalist's view of a terrorist is someone who is very wrong, I'd say if you added up all the murders by every terrorist group in history it wouldn't come to a fraction of the murders from state killings for a single large country like the US or England.

That's not logical inconsistencies.

KingBrian2 · 24-06-2015 06:08PM

Jayop wrote: »

That's why it's such a grey area. While the traditionalist's view of a terrorist is someone who is very wrong, I'd say if you added up all the murders by every terrorist group in history it wouldn't come to a fraction of the murders from state killings for a single large country like the US or England.

That's not logical inconsistencies.

You have to fight wars to defend yourselves. The ANC did not have proper weapons so they used terrorist tactics to fight Apartheid, The Black Panthers had to make use of the weapons made available to them against the Jim Crow Southerners, the Maquis needed to mercilessly drive the Nazis from their homelands. Human history is full terrorists fighting wars to defend themselves. Today the world is different these terrorists are not in danger of death, they actively court death just for the sake of fun, warmongers not fighting wars but trying to spread a political message. Wars are regrettable but part of the human condition and indeed even in the animal world wars are common. Today's terrorists crave media attention and hype.

Jayop · 24-06-2015 06:12PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You have to fight wars to defend yourselves. The ANC did not have proper weapons so they used terrorist tactics to fight Apartheid, The Black Panthers had to make use of the weapons made available to them against the Jim Crow Southerners, the Maquis needed to mercilessly drive the Nazis from their homelands. Human history is full terrorists fighting wars to defend themselves. Today the world is different these terrorists are not in danger of death, they actively court death just for the sake of fun, warmongers not fighting wars but trying to spread a political message. Wars are regrettable but part of the human condition and indeed even in the animal world wars are common. Today's terrorists crave media attention and hype.

Again I'm no IRA supporter, but do you feel it was the same in NI back in the day? Post Bloody Sunday enlistment numbers we're told sky-rocketed because catholics/nationalists genuinely feared for their lives, especially when trying to engage in peaceful resistance which I was told on the last page was such a viable alternative.

KingBrian2 · 24-06-2015 07:19PM

Jayop wrote: »

Again I'm no IRA supporter, but do you feel it was the same in NI back in the day? Post Bloody Sunday enlistment numbers we're told sky-rocketed because catholics/nationalists genuinely feared for their lives, especially when trying to engage in peaceful resistance which I was told on the last page was such a viable alternative.

NI intercommunal warfare between two distinct communities. The IRA council was prepared to listen and talk while the loyalists acted as hit squads for MI5.

Victor · 24-06-2015 08:11PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You have to fight wars to defend yourselves. The ANC did not have proper weapons so they used terrorist tactics to fight Apartheid, The Black Panthers had to make use of the weapons made available to them against the Jim Crow Southerners, the Maquis needed to mercilessly drive the Nazis from their homelands. Human history is full terrorists fighting wars to defend themselves.

You seem to be be confusing guerilla tactics (hit and run) with terrorist tactics (disregard or even create disproportionate (even civilian) casualties).

KingBrian2 wrote: »

NI intercommunal warfare between two distinct communities. The IRA council was prepared to listen and talk while the loyalists acted as hit squads for MI5.

Glib and simplistic?

The IRA wanted their socialist revolution and power.

Jayop · 24-06-2015 08:20PM

Victor wrote: »

You seem to be be confusing guerilla tactics (hit and run) with terrorist tactics (disregard or even create disproportionate (even civilian) casualties).

Glib and simplistic?

The IRA wanted their socialist revolution and power.

Aims of a true socialist state aren't necessarily a bad thing in theory but in reality every one of them becomes even more corrupt than your average capitalist state.

The tactics employed by the IRA after the long war strategy was employed is what makes them a true terrorist organisation as opposed to pure freedom fighters or liberators. Even the bombing campaign and efforts to take civilian life are pretty unforgivable.

KingBrian2 · 24-06-2015 10:44PM

Victor wrote: »

You seem to be be confusing guerilla tactics (hit and run) with terrorist tactics (disregard or even create disproportionate (even civilian) casualties).

Glib and simplistic?

The IRA wanted their socialist revolution and power.

First and foremost the IRA built themselves around the civil rights movements of the time which advocated equality. I'm sure you would not argue that MLK was not a terrorist. Sometimes unconventional methods are required for social justice but it is always the power of the ballot box that comes ahead of confrontation.

Jayop · 24-06-2015 10:51PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

First and foremost the IRA built themselves around the civil rights movements of the time which advocated equality. I'm sure you would not argue that MLK was not a terrorist. Sometimes unconventional methods are required for social justice but it is always the power of the ballot box that comes ahead of confrontation.

Mandela said....

“I salute the South African Communist Party,” “The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue.”

and Thatcher said just after

“A considerable number of the ANC leaders are Communists… When the ANC says that they will target British companies, this shows what a typical terrorist organisation it is. I fought terrorism all my life… I will have nothing to do with any organisation that practises violence. I have never seen anyone from ANC or the PLO or the IRA and would not do so.”

Peaceful protests should always be a first, second and third option to try to bring about revolutionary change, but with world leaders like Thatcher still in power in most of the worlds superpowers it's little wonder so many civil rights organisations break into armed struggle to achieve their aims.

jank · 25-06-2015 03:48AM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

First and foremost the IRA built themselves around the civil rights movements of the time which advocated equality..

Equality for whom exactly? At the beginning they did not believe at all in the democratic process, hence they took up arms to try and force the Brits out of the North even though they did not even command the support of the majority of Nationalists. The non violent civil rights movements was pioneered by John Hume and his likes, so spare us the 'equality' narrative when the Provos were quite content in blowing people up as some movement for 'equality'

Jayop · 25-06-2015 02:33PM

jank wrote: »

Equality for whom exactly? At the beginning they did not believe at all in the democratic process, hence they took up arms to try and force the Brits out of the North even though they did not even command the support of the majority of Nationalists. The non violent civil rights movements was pioneered by John Hume and his likes, so spare us the 'equality' narrative when the Provos were quite content in blowing people up as some movement for 'equality'

The democratic process was a farce in the north back then so let's not bring that into it. Huge numbers of IRA members signed up with the sole purpose of protecting their community. Loads would have put the all Ireland goal as a very distant second. The non violent equality movement was he.tting nowhere and they were regularly getting beat off the streets.

I'd dispute the idea that a majority of nationalists didn't support the IRA in the beginning too.

Peregrinus · 26-06-2015 02:18AM

Jayop wrote: »

The democratic process was a farce in the north back then so let's not bring that into it. Huge numbers of IRA members signed up with the sole purpose of protecting their community. Loads would have put the all Ireland goal as a very distant second. The non violent equality movement was he.tting nowhere and they were regularly getting beat off the streets.

I'd dispute the idea that a majority of nationalists didn't support the IRA in the beginning too.

All of this is highly arguable. But none of it is relevant to the question of whether the IRA was a terrorist movement, which is answered simply by looking at the tactics and strategies they employed. Did they employ terrorist tactics? Did they practice terrorism? If so, they they were terrorists. The goals which they sought to acheive through terrorism are not relevant. They may have been admirable goals, but it's perfectly possible to seek to attain admirable goals through terrorism, and if you do that you're terrorist.

Jayop · 26-06-2015 02:52AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

All of this is highly arguable. But none of it is relevant to the question of whether the IRA was a terrorist movement, which is answered simply by looking at the tactics and strategies they employed. Did they employ terrorist tactics? Did they practice terrorism? If so, they they were terrorists. The goals which they sought to acheive through terrorism are not relevant. They may have been admirable goals, but it's perfectly possible to seek to attain admirable goals through terrorism, and if you do that you're terrorist.

I've said throughout this thread they were terrorists for the same reason as you. Not sure which part of my post is arguable though.

Son Of A Vidic · 26-06-2015 03:02AM

jank wrote: »

the non violent civil rights movements was pioneered by John Hume and his likes, so spare us the 'equality' narrative when the Provos were quite content in blowing people up as some movement for 'equality'

And as the non violent civil rights movement was being crushed by sectarian state sponsored bigotry via B-Specials brutality ect. It was common to see I Ran Away daubed on nationalist walls. Violence begets violence as they say and armed resistance in the face of state terror was and still is, an almost inevitable global response. We also might have had no PIRA, if the N.I. state had of simply refrained from the savage violence, it sadistically meted out to the civil rights movement.

Peregrinus · 26-06-2015 03:08AM

Jayop wrote: »

I've said throughout this thread they were terrorists for the same reason as you. Not sure which part of my post is arguable though.

All of it. By which I mean that there are good arguments for saying that the democratic process in NI at the time was a farce, that IRA volunteers were primarily motivated by a desire to protect their community, and that a majority of Nationalists probably supported the IRA to at least some extent at the time.

Jayop · 26-06-2015 03:32AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

All of it. By which I mean that there are good arguments for saying that the democratic process in NI at the time was a farce, that IRA volunteers were primarily motivated by a desire to protect their community, and that a majority of Nationalists probably supported the IRA to at least some extent at the time.

Apologies. I read arguably and thought objectionable. My mistake

Jayop · 26-06-2015 03:34AM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

And as the non violent civil rights movement was being crushed by sectarian state sponsored bigotry via B-Specials brutality ect. It was common to see I Ran Away daubed on nationalist walls. Violence begets violence as they say and armed resistance in the face of state terror was and still is, an almost inevitable global response. We also might have had no PIRA, if the N.I. state had of simply refrained from the savage violence, it sadistically meted out to the civil rights movement.

Certainly a much smaller less supported PIRA, especially financially.

K-9 · 26-06-2015 10:32AM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

NI intercommunal warfare between two distinct communities. The IRA council was prepared to listen and talk while the loyalists acted as hit squads for MI5.

It took them 20 years from the ceasefire in 74. They might have been prepared to talk but they weren't listening.

The IRA around that time is a good example, the Catholic minority were failed and had put up with decades of discrimination in a supposedly Democratic country. The lines are a bit blurred in the early 70'so.

For Reals · 26-06-2015 06:06PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

trapping government officials in cars, bricking police cars, attacking police and intimidating workers is a slippery slope though. But your right, we'll leave the definition alone until they shoot someone.

You report Paul Murphy for all of the above?
Picket lines are acts of terrorism?
Sit in's?
Civil disobedience?

Nice to see the illogical nonsense of the pro IW folk spill over on to other threads

K-9 · 26-06-2015 06:09PM

For Reals wrote: »

You report Paul Murphy for all of the above?
Picket lines are acts of terrorism?
Sit in's?
Civil disobedience?

Nice to see the illogical nonsense of the pro IW folk spill over on to other threads

WHAT happens in the cafe, stays in the cafe. Thanks.

For Reals · 26-06-2015 06:21PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You have to fight wars to defend yourselves. The ANC did not have proper weapons so they used terrorist tactics to fight Apartheid, The Black Panthers had to make use of the weapons made available to them against the Jim Crow Southerners, the Maquis needed to mercilessly drive the Nazis from their homelands. Human history is full terrorists fighting wars to defend themselves. Today the world is different these terrorists are not in danger of death, they actively court death just for the sake of fun, warmongers not fighting wars but trying to spread a political message. Wars are regrettable but part of the human condition and indeed even in the animal world wars are common. Today's terrorists crave media attention and hype.

Calling something a War doesn't wipe clean any acts of terror.
And look as Israel, they are terrorists and perpetrate acts of terror daily yet they are treated like an international friend. You can't write a people off because they are tagged 'Terrorist'. We have twits in the Dail, (some on here) comparing water protesters to ISIS for **** sake.
Your idea that any terrorist is simply acting in such a way for 'fun' is ridiculous. You may not agree with their cause but you can't ignore they have one in an attempt to belittle their opinions or views, that's what breathes terrorism. 'Today's' terrorists are not impudent teens having a strop on Vine or Instagram. Like all guerrilla warfare, you make use of what you have at hand to fight for your beliefs. You would be foolish not to use social media. Remember Gerry Adams being voiced by an actor? Control of and access to the media is a weapon all use. Propaganda.

KingBrian2 · 26-06-2015 09:45PM

For Reals wrote: »

Calling something a War doesn't wipe clean any acts of terror.
And look as Israel, they are terrorists and perpetrate acts of terror daily yet they are treated like an international friend. You can't write a people off because they are tagged 'Terrorist'. We have twits in the Dail, (some on here) comparing water protesters to ISIS for **** sake.
Your idea that any terrorist is simply acting in such a way for 'fun' is ridiculous. You may not agree with their cause but you can't ignore they have one in an attempt to belittle their opinions or views, that's what breathes terrorism. 'Today's' terrorists are not impudent teens having a strop on Vine or Instagram. Like all guerrilla warfare, you make use of what you have at hand to fight for your beliefs. You would be foolish not to use social media. Remember Gerry Adams being voiced by an actor? Control of and access to the media is a weapon all use. Propaganda.

Well actually they many are, those fighting in Muslim Lands are not fighting for equality or to protect the communities like the IRA did, infact the IRA acted as a form of neighbourhood watch. Today's terrorists are not. They just attack for no reason other than to unleash violence. A callous act of unreasonableness.

Terrorism - a definition

Comments