In search of a consensus on "terrorism"

[Aimless]

How do we decide whether or not an act of violence is in fact an act of terrorism?

Does it depend primarily on the method? Does it depend on the motive? Does it depend on the identity of the perpetrator?

And, perhaps most importantly, does it matter whether or not a given act of violence is construed as an act of terrorism?

[GGT]

How do we decide whether or not an act of violence is in fact an act of terrorism?

If the act creates lasting panic and fear, even from those not exposed to the act. (Example Columbine)

Does it depend primarily on the method? Does it depend on the motive? Does it depend on the identity of the perpetrator?

No. I think it depends on the reaction and emotion that can affect large numbers of people *and ends up in policies to 'protect and prevent', even if they might be ineffective. (Examples IRA, Uni-bomber, OK City, underwear bomber)*

And, perhaps most importantly, does it matter whether or not a given act of violence is construed as an act of terrorism?

I don't know. People living in war zones say they feel "terrorized". But no American would say our military is engaging in "terrorism".

[Dreadnaught]

How do we decide whether or not an act of violence is in fact an act of terrorism?

Does it depend primarily on the method? Does it depend on the motive? Does it depend on the identity of the perpetrator?

And, perhaps most importantly, does it matter whether or not a given act of violence is construed as an act of terrorism?

Just to make an off-the-cuff definition, I think any attempt to kill civilians due to religious or political reasons probably counts as terrorism. Especially if influencing politics is the subtext.

EG Norway. I would define that as terrorism. The guy attacked the children of the political elite at their political training ground.

[Aimless]

Does that mean that states can engage in terrorism, Dread? This question is the reason for my adding identity as a possible criteria.

[Loki]

Terrorism is a tactic that seeks to use force against non-military targets for political purposes. There's a general consensus that states can't themselves carry out terrorist attacks, but that's a semantic issue (we'd call similar actions by states "asymmetric" warfare or guerrilla warfare, depending on the circumstances). That definition doesn't preclude states from funding/supporting non-state groups that do engage in terrorist acts.

[Dreadnaught]

Does that mean that states can engage in terrorism, Dread? This question is the reason for my adding identity as a possible criteria.

Sure —*if anything we've seen state-funded terrorism highlighted throughout the years. But I don't think that means all wars or even state-funded proxy battles are terrorism.

[CitizenCain]

If the act creates lasting panic and fear, even from those not exposed to the act. (Example Columbine)

Columbine was not terrorism. It was an act of revenge and mass murder.

If you expand the definition to include anything that scares lots of people, there's almost no limit to what can be classified as terrorism... on account of people being stupid sheep who are easily scared.

No. I think it depends on the reaction and emotion that can affect large numbers of people *and ends up in policies to 'protect and prevent', even if they might be ineffective.

That's even worse; depending on the reactions of third parties to determine the definition. Bank robbers and forgers are terrorists by this definition, on account of the widespread measures implemented to foil their attempts.

(Examples IRA, Uni-bomber, OK City, underwear bomber)*

1) Unabomber.
2) Only one of those actually is an [undisputed] act of terrorism, and two don't apply at all. A mentally unstable genius mailing out bombs to punish those who slighted him is no more a terrorist act than, say, a workplace shooter. Likewise, blowing up a government building full of para-military forces is no more a terrorist act than blowing up a FOB.
3) Notwithstanding the press obsession with sensationalizing dead bodies, the IRA took pains to avoid [civilian] casualties, and took particular pains to focus their efforts on the British government... rather than, for example, retaliating against non-Catholics and/or Brits closer to home. They're only terrorist in the popular sense of the term, which defines terrorism as ~"any large act of violence I disagree with."

Does that mean that states can engage in terrorism, Dread? This question is the reason for my adding identity as a possible criteria.

That depends. Can only governments engage in warfare?

As Loki pointed out, the question is largely semantic. For various reasons (some of which even make some degree of sense), state actions are considered special. Only governments can engage in warfare, only governments are precluded from being "terrorist," only governments can levy taxes, claim sovereignty, impose laws, etc.

When non-state actors engage in warfare, it's generally considered to be an assortment of criminal activity. When state actors engage in terrorism, it's generally considered an act of war and/or oppression/ethnic cleasning/crimes against humanity/etc. When non-government actors levy taxes or impose laws, it's considered extortion. When non-state actors claim sovereignty, well that's a bit trickier, but they're usually ignored and marginalized, unless they do so against an unpopular target, like the baby-eating j00ish ZioMerikan forces.

[GGT]

Pardon my spelling.....Unabomber. We can disagree on what terrorism might mean, politically.

I'm just saying that a layperson definition is probably more expansive than a technical definition. Ask any parent who sends their child to school (post-Columbine) and learns some madman has used a machete to cut off a teacher's fingers, in front of a class of little children. Yeah, those kinds of events get the PTA, principle and superintendent to agree to locked doors and camera surveillance. That's when parents and children feel terrorized.

[CitizenCain]

I'm just saying that a layperson definition is probably more expansive than a technical definition.

Yes, laymen are stupid and opinionated. Even (or especially) about things they have no useful knowledge of. That's hardly a defense; it's more of an explanation as to why it's foolish to rely on laymen when experts are just as readily available.

Ask any parent who sends their child to school (post-Columbine) and learns some madman has used a machete to cut off a teacher's fingers, in front of a class of little children. Yeah, those kinds of events get the PTA, principle and superintendent to agree to locked doors and camera surveillance. That's when parents and children feel terrorized.

That's rather the point (or the problem), though. A large spider or harmless garden snake would "terrorize" most of the PTA. (Ask me how I know... ) That's precisely why we don't rely on that as a metric as what constitutes terrorism, since it encompasses so much (such as "nature") as to make it an utterly useless definition. As part of the war on terror, I propose we cleanse America with nuclear fire, to ensure we rid it of all those "terrorist" spiders and benign snakes.

[GGT]

Yes, laymen are stupid and opinionated. Even (or especially) about things they have no useful knowledge of. That's hardly a defense; it's more of an explanation as to why it's foolish to rely on laymen when experts are just as readily available.

That's rather the point (or the problem), though. A large spider or harmless garden snake would "terrorize" most of the PTA. (Ask me how I know... ) That's precisely why we don't rely on that as a metric as what constitutes terrorism, since it encompasses so much (such as "nature") as to make it an utterly useless definition.

But the "experts" were just as shocked as parents, PTA and lay people, when the madman entered the middle school with a fucking machete and proceeded to cut off a few of the teacher's fingers. Spiders and garden snakes are metaphors as far as I'm concerned. Madmen with machetes or knives are real threats.

As part of the war on terror, I propose we cleanse America with nuclear fire, to ensure we rid it of all those "terrorist" spiders and benign snakes.

I propose you return to Canada, if you hate the US so much.

[CitizenCain]

But the "experts" were just as shocked as parents, PTA and lay people, when the madman entered the middle school with a fucking machete and proceeded to cut off a few of the teacher's fingers.

No they weren't. Anyone who was shocked reveals their ignorance on the topic.

On a related tangent, you really need to stop throwing the word "expert" around like it applies to any and everyone. A journalist is not an expert on terrorism or mental illness. Neither is the half-witted witness who gets quoted for news reports. Nor are dumbassses who compose the general public. Yes, normal, run-of-the-mill morons are shocked every time something like that happens. However, anyone with a brain (which encompasses most "experts") is not surprised, given how many times senseless "tragedies" actually occur in our world.

I propose you return to Canada, if you hate the US so much.

It's even worse up there. Bigger country, more undeveloped land, and thus exponentially more wildlife with terrorist intent. Forget snakes and spiders, they have rodents the size of groundhogs up there!!!

[GGT]

Gimme a break, Cain. How many people would expect a crazy guy to enter a middle school and chop off a teacher's fingers with a MACHETE? It's not like we're in Columbia or Costa Rica, but in suburban PA. This was about ten years ago, and yes everyone was shocked.

[Loki]

How many would expect at least one incident of a person causing significant harm to a teacher somewhere in America at any point in the future? Pretty much anyone with a brain.

[GGT]

How many would expect at least one incident of a person causing significant harm to a teacher somewhere in America at any point in the future? Pretty much anyone with a brain.

With a MACHETE?

[Enoch the Red]

Is there something particularly mystical about this machete that made it more dangerous and destructive than say a butcher's cleaver, a golf club, or a crowbar?

[GGT]

Is there something particularly mystical about this machete that made it more dangerous and destructive than say a butcher's cleaver, a golf club, or a crowbar?

Ever seen a machete? Ever seen a machete wielded at your middle school teacher and chop off her fingers? No, probably not. If you had, you wouldn't compare it to a butcher knife, golf club or crowbar.

[Enoch the Red]

Ever seen a machete? Ever seen a machete wielded at your middle school teacher and chop off her fingers? No, probably not. If you had, you wouldn't compare it to a butcher knife, golf club or crowbar.

I somehow think that it's the assault on the teacher that would have the lasting impact on the students, not the particular implement that was used. If somebody staved the teacher's head in with a crowbar in front of a class of middle school aged children you think that it would be somehow better than if they saw their teacher got his/her fingers chopped off with a MACHETE?

That when the students got home their parents would say, "Thank God that madman didn't use a MACHETE! That would just be barbaric."

[CitizenCain]

How many people would expect a crazy guy to enter a middle school and chop off a teacher's fingers with a MACHETE?

I did. And until the politicians take "machete reform" seriously and start taking real steps to achieve machete control in this country, more innocent people are going to lose their fingers.

"Thank God that madman didn't use a MACHETE! That would just be barbaric."

Actually, it's probably better [for the victim] that a machete was used. Their weight (compared to other bladed weapons) and blade shape make them pretty effective at cutting off small appendages like fingers. That effectiveness and ease of use also explains why it's a much more common choice of bladed weapon than, say a scimitar or a broad sword. So I guess that's another strike against this being a "shocking and unexpected" incident. A machete is also a lot less painful than, say, a "switchblade" or a butcher's knife, which would definitely not be able to amputate a finger in one blow. It would take a lot of painful work and hacking to separate a finger with a normal knife.

So, if anything, the crazy person's choice of weapon was much less terrifying than it otherwise could be. Or, at least, I'd think. Then again, I don't feel terrorized by small, benign critters, so maybe we need a more hysterical person's opinion on the matter before we can decide.

[GGT]

snip

They're only terrorist in the popular sense of the term, which defines terrorism as ~"any large act of violence I disagree with."

Not too many people agree with large acts of violence against civilians, do they? Anyway, we've gotten way off track in defining Terrorism. I do think domestic terrorist acts can change how people perceive "terror(ism)".

Now there are rumblings that Norway's events are Christian Terrorism. At least in the same semantic sense that previous terrorist acts from any Muslim was called Muslim Terrorism.

Any thoughts on that?

[CitizenCain]

Not too many people agree with large acts of violence against civilians, do they?

Not too many people agree with any acts of violence, period, which is probably the root of the problem in relying on any populist definitions of terrorism.

Now there are rumblings that Norway's events are Christian Terrorism. At least in the same semantic sense that previous terrorist acts from any Muslim was called Muslim Terrorism.

Any thoughts on that?

More proof of the boundless stupidity of your average human being... and it probably says something about political correctness, and just how deeply ingrained our prejudices are that anyone pushing such an obviously idiotic interpretation isn't shouted down as the brainless, agenda-pushing twit that they are.

[GGT]

Bumping an old thread to see if/how anyone's perspectives have changed since 2011.....


especially in the aftermath of ax attacks on police, and terrorist groups trying to 'incentivize' individuals to look like lone wolves using knives or blades, instead of guns or bombs (that could be attributed to terrorist groups).



"Terrorism" is fairly hard to define, or pin down. But it's still a huge problem for everyone....

[EyeKhan]

How do we decide whether or not an act of violence is in fact an act of terrorism?

Does it depend primarily on the method? Does it depend on the motive? Does it depend on the identity of the perpetrator?

And, perhaps most importantly, does it matter whether or not a given act of violence is construed as an act of terrorism?

Method and motive is my knee jerk answer. Labelling a group or country a terrorist or terrorism supporter is a powerful weapon these days, like labelling communists in the cold war. It matters for sure regardless of accuracy.

EDIT: OMG this is an old thread, had no idea...

[Hazir]

Method, motive and reaction. Pretty much summed up as in the posts above by CC. Who for some strange reason glossed over the state in a role of sponsor of terrorism. As we would see in the case of (just a random example) Pakistan.