John asked, somewhat plaintively, "Does terrorism only occur if it's NOT directed against Americans or Israelis?"
This is a good question, and we should develop an article to answer this question. As a start, let's consider what the definition of terrorism is, or list multiple definition.
"Violence directed against civilians"
Ah, but what about the bombings of Coventry or Dresden?
"Not an act of a state"
Ah, but what about state-supported terrorism?
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
Hmm. Maybe the issue is "injustice".
That is, X will label a given act of violence against civilians "terrorist" if he considers it unjust. Like, how dare those bastards bulldoze this Arab man's house?
Meanwhile, Y might say that the same act is not terrorist, because he does NOT consider it unjust. Like, we were destroying tunnels used to smuggle weapons, etc.
Same logic applies to blowing up a bus or pizzeria. My side calls it an act of war, a blow against oppression (i.e., justifiable). Your side calls it cowardly, unjust, etc.
It all boils down to the point of view of the person classifying the act. So let's identify the POV and its advocate. *yawn* case closed. Not too hard, eh?
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
-----Original Message----- From: John C. Penta [mailto:pentaj2@UofS.edu] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 12:07 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11
----- Original Message ----- From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Date: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:13 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
by definition governments cannot commit terrorism.
We are far from unanimity about that element in the definition.
Granted this part of the definition is disputed (I would not characterize the dispute the way you do - IMO it is not as disputed as you let on), but the intent to cause terror in a civilian population is not. Nor is the fact that few people in the English-speaking world call the 9/11 attacks terrorist acts (what English speakers say is relevant to naming conventions).
OK, this makes me sick.
If 9/11 wasn't terrorism, WHAT IS? Does terrorism only occur if it's NOT directed against Americans or Israelis?
What the hell is wrong with you people?
Terrorism by government is no less atrocious. Destroying the homes of innocent Palestinians is done with the intent of terrorizing them even when the troops are careful to make sure that there is no-one in the house when it is blown-up.
This is a practice I find abhorrent but I would not call it terrorism (esp when it directed at people who somehow aided suicide bombers or were the family of the suicide bombers - terrorism is directed toward a much larger population which causes general fear for *everybody* in that population).
<growls> Must we bring the Palestinians into EVERYTHING?
Of course, a country that depends on the application of massive force to achieve victory finds it difficult to comprehend why
small
groups of people would ever want to continue to use their meagre weapons to secure their freedom.. Perhaps the way to prevent them from engaging in terrorist acts would be to give them something to lose.
No argument from me here. The U.S. could save billions on military spending and terrorism security if they invested in ways to stomp-out the root causes of terrorism - poverty and its close cousin ignorance.
Somehow I doubt a middle-class twenty-something, or a middle-class mom-turned-suicide-bomber, is really hit by poverty or ignorance.
Try another one.
Ahh! then our common name naming convention depends on who is taking the "terrorist" action.
No - it depends on how English speakers use the English language.
Precisely.
Now, pardon me while I vomit at this unique expression of human foolishness.
John
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm probably the only one who didn't participate in this discussion - until now! :-)
This might be a little naive of me, but isn't terrorism defined by the very word it is based on - terror? Because that's what a terrorist does. He doesn't destroy an important military target or kill an important person - that's what military and assassins are for. A terrorist's goal is, in the end, to create _terror_. Fear that *you* or your loved ones could be next. Uncertainty. Trust in the state's ability to protect you melting like butter in the fusion reactor.
And that's what 9-11 was about. Bin Laden (or whoever) didn't gain anything directly through the death of the people in the WTC or the Pentagon. The only "gain" of these peaople comes from the fear, from the *terror* their actions produce. That's why they are called terrorists, and their actions are terrorism.
And it worked. Terror they got. The patriot act alone speaks volumes.
Magnus
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
John asked, somewhat plaintively, "Does terrorism only occur if it's NOT directed against Americans or Israelis?"
This is a good question, and we should develop an article to answer this question. As a start, let's consider what the definition of terrorism is, or list multiple definition.
"Violence directed against civilians"
Ah, but what about the bombings of Coventry or Dresden?
"Not an act of a state"
Ah, but what about state-supported terrorism?
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
Hmm. Maybe the issue is "injustice".
That is, X will label a given act of violence against civilians "terrorist" if he considers it unjust. Like, how dare those bastards bulldoze this Arab man's house?
Meanwhile, Y might say that the same act is not terrorist, because he does NOT consider it unjust. Like, we were destroying tunnels used to smuggle weapons, etc.
Same logic applies to blowing up a bus or pizzeria. My side calls it an act of war, a blow against oppression (i.e., justifiable). Your side calls it cowardly, unjust, etc.
It all boils down to the point of view of the person classifying the act. So let's identify the POV and its advocate. *yawn* case closed. Not too hard, eh?
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
-----Original Message----- From: John C. Penta [mailto:pentaj2@UofS.edu] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 12:07 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11
----- Original Message ----- From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Date: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:13 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
by definition governments cannot commit terrorism.
We are far from unanimity about that element in the definition.
Granted this part of the definition is disputed (I would not characterize the dispute the way you do - IMO it is not as disputed as you let on), but the intent to cause terror in a civilian population is not. Nor is the fact that few people in the English-speaking world call the 9/11 attacks terrorist acts (what English speakers say is relevant to naming conventions).
OK, this makes me sick.
If 9/11 wasn't terrorism, WHAT IS? Does terrorism only occur if it's NOT directed against Americans or Israelis?
What the hell is wrong with you people?
Terrorism by government is no less atrocious. Destroying the homes of innocent Palestinians is done with the intent of terrorizing them even when the troops are careful to make sure that there is no-one in the house when it is blown-up.
This is a practice I find abhorrent but I would not call it terrorism (esp when it directed at people who somehow aided suicide bombers or were the family of the suicide bombers - terrorism is directed toward a much larger population which causes general fear for *everybody* in that population).
<growls> Must we bring the Palestinians into EVERYTHING?
Of course, a country that depends on the application of massive force to achieve victory finds it difficult to comprehend why
small
groups of people would ever want to continue to use their meagre weapons to secure their freedom.. Perhaps the way to prevent them from engaging in terrorist acts would be to give them something to lose.
No argument from me here. The U.S. could save billions on military spending and terrorism security if they invested in ways to stomp-out the root causes of terrorism - poverty and its close cousin ignorance.
Somehow I doubt a middle-class twenty-something, or a middle-classmom-turned-suicide-bomber, is really hit by poverty or ignorance.
Try another one.Ahh! then our common name naming convention depends on who is taking the "terrorist" action.
No - it depends on how English speakers use the English language.
Precisely.Now, pardon me while I vomit at this unique expression of human foolishness.
John
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 01/16/04 at 09:12 PM, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de said:
isn't terrorism defined by the very word it is based on - terror? Because that's what a terrorist does. He doesn't destroy an important military target or kill an important person - that's what military and assassins are for. A terrorist's goal is, in the end, to create _terror_.
What makes it complicated is that there are also things like attacks on civil infrastructure which play into the equation. In Colombia for example the FARC regularly targets things like power lines. Strictly speaking, these are probably more accurately classed as acts of sabotage; they may be more tiresome than terrifying. But attacks on things like wells, and water purification and sewage treatment plants can condemn tens or hundreds of thousands of people to slow death from diseases like cholera. Are these acts of terror? Perhaps not. But people tend to label them as such. Are they morally equivalent? Good question. Aside from the number direct victims, crashing planes into buildings certainly has a terrible psychological impact on vast numbers of people, but destroying the civil infrastucture of a country can retard economic growth for years if not generations.
V.
On Friday 16 January 2004 12:19 pm, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
"Not an act of a state"
Just out of interest. Does anyone know where this part of the mainstream US definition came/comes from. I have my suspicions that it might have originated from the propaganda department of some government, (maybe the british during the their squabble with america?). Anyone got any sources on this?
Best, Sascha Noyes