Definition of Terms

[House of Mustard]

I think your guys' problem is that you think terrorism means something else.  There are many many subclasses of terrorism -- there are already words for what you're looking for.  Don't try to redefine terrorism, just because of the public's perception of terrorism.

Some types:
Nationalist terrorism
Apocalyptic terrorism
Cyberterrorism
Narcoterrorism
Ecoterrorism
State-Sponsored Terrorism
Religious Terrorism
Left-Wing Terrorism
Right-Wing Terrorism
Revolutionary Terrorism
"Friendly Fire" Terrorism
False Flag Terrorism
Diplomatic Terrorism
Military Terrorism

Oseleon said:

I think that rather than invent a NEW word, we pull "Terrorism" away from its Thersaurus brothers and make it a Unique word that means THIS ONE THING.

Frankly, that's a pretty uneducated idea.  You'd be destroying mountains of academic study just so the layman could misuse a word.

[Captain Morgan]

Wasn't the original complaint that the definition was unclear?  So we have a clear definition, but you like your own, rambling definitions better?

The complaint wasn't that it was unclear, but too broad. Our founding fathers would be considered terrorist under the FBI definition, but quite frankly I regard them as Revolutionist.

The 'techno law jargon babble' in the FBI definition was "thereof, in furtherance" segment. While I do enjoy using those words it seemed a little lawyerese to me.

Frankly, that's a pretty uneducated idea.  You'd be destroying mountains of academic study just so the layman could misuse a word.

The layman's are the one using the term in the broad sense. The world of academia is small when compared to the world of the layman. Could you tell me how a nuclear reactor works without going into laymen? Unless you specifically had classes or studied the subject of nuclear reactions, then you probable couldn't. I laugh whenever the media tries to put something out about nuclear power just based on my knowledge of the subject, however that doesn't make the laymen incorrect. Laymen makes it understandable to the general population. Mountains of academic study would still be there for anyone who truly wants to understand what terrorism is actually about and would not be destroyed.

Trying to define it here using our collective education makes defining terrorism very educated. It brings us to and understanding on using the term and when it is appropriate to use. The other terms we define will allow us to specify our thought processes to others on this forum to know what we mean. You know what I mean?

All the instances of the subgroups of terrorism you gave were just that - subgroups. What about revolutionist? Revolutionary Terrorism might be applicable if they wanted to incite terror to bring about their revolution, but what if that is not one of their goals. What if they want change because the government was corrupt, and they declare independence and have to fight for it? Are they terrorist? The term is just too broad and being used for used to the point where it is meaningless (at least to me it is.)


The FBI definition doesn't included inciting terror, which is the basis of the word terrorism. And for the record, I like my "rambling definitions " because I help create. Or am I stealing someone elses idea. Ummmm

[Skar]

Wow, HoM.  It sounds like you have some emotional attachment to the broad use of the word "terrorism."  Have you read this whole thread?  It seems as though you haven't because you keep trying to tell us we are "uneducated" and "laymen who misuse words" when the whole point of the discussion is that we know how the word is currently used and think it causes confusion.  You have not addressed that issue at all except in your latest post where you list words that are simply "terrorism" with adjectives added on.

To restate: We see a difference between _____terrorism that targets civilians(read the rest of the thread for the nuances) and _____terrorism that does not.

The FBI definition does not address the difference.  We want to.  What would you suggest?

And to respond a little more specifically to the whole "who cares what the laymen think" attitude:  The laymen who are using the word incorrectly and drawing false conclusions because of it happen to be voters who have a direct say in our national policies.  Dismissing them out of hand is rather cavalier.  

[Captain Morgan]

Just as a side note: Skar I loved that line from "Soldier"

[House of Mustard]

My complaint is simply this:  there ALREADY ARE words to define what you guys are trying to define.  To try to redefine terrorism, which already has a definition (and it's broad because it has to be -- there are many many kinds of terrorism), is detrimental to a true understanding of terrorism.

To put it another way: rather than trying to educate yourselves by reading the many many scholarly studies done on terrorism, and defining it, you're trying to make up your own seat-of-the-pants definitions.  You're trying to reinvent the wheel.

So here's my question: why are the current terminologies not good enough?  (And don't complain about the word 'terrorism'.  Talk about the specific types of terrorism.)

[House of Mustard]

As for the revolutionary/terrorist problem: if you're on the side of the terrorists, you call them revolutionaries.  Al-Qaeda calls themselves freedom fighters.  But that doesn't change the fact that they're terrorists.

As for Skar's statement:

Wow, HoM.  It sounds like you have some emotional attachment to the broad use of the word "terrorism."  

I very rarely have an emotional attachment to anything I argue on this site.  On this particular thread, I'm a little more bewildered than usual, but I'm certainly not upset or anything.

[Entsuropi]

Complete aside: HoM, you ever get DoW? If so, fancy getting your ass handed to you?

[House of Mustard]

Actually, yes.  Fell and I both have it.  I'll resurrect the DoW thread.

[Skar]

My complaint is simply this:  there ALREADY ARE words to define what you guys are trying to define.  To try to redefine terrorism, which already has a definition (and it's broad because it has to be -- there are many many kinds of terrorism), is detrimental to a true understanding of terrorism.

To put it another way: rather than trying to educate yourselves by reading the many many scholarly studies done on terrorism, and defining it, you're trying to make up your own seat-of-the-pants definitions.  You're trying to reinvent the wheel.

So here's my question: why are the current terminologies not good enough?  (And don't complain about the word 'terrorism'.  Talk about the specific types of terrorism.)

As for the revolutionary/terrorist problem: if you're on the side of the terrorists, you call them revolutionaries.  Al-Qaeda calls themselves freedom fighters.  But that doesn't change the fact that they're terrorists.

Skar said:

To restate: We see a difference between _____terrorism that targets civilians(read the rest of the thread for the nuances) and _____terrorism that does not.

The FBI definition does not address the difference.  We want to.  

All of the words you listed differentiate terrorism into subsets defined by either the ideology the terrorists espouse or who authors the terrorism.  None of them differentiate by the kind of act (murdering civilians vs not murdering civilians) the terrorists are willing to commit. Differentiating along that line is the entire point of this thread.  

While there may already be "words to define what you guys(we) are trying to define" you have yet to present us with any.

[House of Mustard]

To restate: We see a difference between _____terrorism that targets civilians(read the rest of the thread for the nuances) and _____terrorism that does not.
 
The FBI definition does not address the difference.  We want to.  

Here's the problem: to a terrorist, there is no such thing as an innocent bystander -- no such thing as civilians.  We can make up our own words to differentiate between civilian killing terrorists and non-civilian killing terrorists, but the definition wouldn't have much of a real-world application.  (Furthermore, who are you trying to differentiate between, anyway?  What terrorist groups haven't killed civilians?)(And I'm hoping one of you tries to use American revolutionaries as an example, so I can make fun of you.)

However, if you don't like the FBI definition, try one of these.  FBI suits my tastes best, but it's certainly not the only definition out there.  Looking at these, I think you'd like the state department version best:

State Department definition: premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

FBI definition: the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Defense Department definition:  the calculated use, or threatened use, of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

United Nations definition: any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I have waited to comment on this thread, because Im very biased about the subject. The NRC http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/ where I work has as on of its collateral jobs the responsibility to recieve reports on terrorism or suspected terroism and report them to the fbi, USCG and DHS. While we do recive a number of legitimate calls, the bulk of our calls about the subject are either racially motivated or made by people who have no concept of what terrorism is. The end result is a complaceny in the investigative elements of the government. The problem does not stop at the public though, as government agencies like Marine Safty Office New Orleans for example also make reports through our terror line that in actuality are not reports of terrorism. For instance, an old couple with their kids standing on the river bank next to a picnic lunch with a tripod and camera set up to take a group picture is not a terrorist act. Reports like that are common. A clearer more concise definition would not only help the public, but it would help the government distinguish between crimes, harmless activity and acts of terror, saving tax payers a lot of money and government officials a lot of heartache.

[Skar]

Here's the problem: to a terrorist, there is no such thing as an innocent bystander -- no such thing as civilians.  

How glib.  The problem is that the FBI definition of terrorist lumps people who do acknowledge the existence of innocent bystanders with those that don't.

We can make up our own words to differentiate between civilian killing terrorists and non-civilian killing terrorists, but the definition wouldn't have much of a real-world application.  

It would have had application in the discussion that started this tangent.  What more do you need?

(Furthermore, who are you trying to differentiate between, anyway?  What terrorist groups haven't killed civilians?)(And I'm hoping one of you tries to use American revolutionaries as an example, so I can make fun of you.)

Better get ready to make fun because that's exactly who I'm talking about.  Are you really going to argue that the American Revolutionaries deliberately killed innocent bystanders as a matter of policy?

How about ecoterrorists?  As a rule they try not to harm innocent bystanders yet they too are lumped in with Hamas by your definition of terrorism.

Or the armed forces of the U.S. in their invasion of Iraq?  Non-U.N. sanctioned therefore against international law and certainly against the law of Saddam Hussein and certainly destructive of property and harmful to the persons who put up armed resistance.  Yet, again, by the FBI definition they're I'm lumped in with the I.R.A.  

However, if you don't like the FBI definition, try one of these.  FBI suits my tastes best, but it's certainly not the only definition out there.  Looking at these, I think you'd like the state department version best:

State Department definition: premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

FBI definition: the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Defense Department definition:  the calculated use, or threatened use, of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

United Nations definition: any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

Both the State Department's definition and the UN's definition suit my personal reading of the word just fine.  How does the fact that we have four definitions of the same word here of such disparate implication contribute to the ability to communicate clearly on the topic?

If we use the same word to refer to such different things, and the difference between murdering innocent bystanders and not seems pretty big to me, then it seems to me that there is a problem.  One that could be solved either by narrowing the definition of the word we have, or coming up with new words that refer to the particular subsets we're trying to talk about.

And if you're going to say that we're talking about reinventing the wheel when we talk about coming up with new words, please show us the wheel in the same post.

[House of Mustard]

And if you're going to say that we're talking about reinventing the wheel when we talk about coming up with new words, please show us the wheel in the same post.[

The UN Commission on Human Rights classifies terrorist groups who kill civilians as "indiscriminate terrorism".  Academics lean more toward the term "unrestricted terrorism", as coined (I believe) by O'Conner in The Criminology of Terrorism: History, Law, Definitions, and Typologies.  I'll post better references once I get home to my old notes and books.

(Furthermore, who are you trying to differentiate between, anyway?  What terrorist groups haven't killed civilians?)(And I'm hoping one of you tries to use American revolutionaries as an example, so I can make fun of you.)[quote/]

Better get ready to make fun because that's exactly who I'm talking about.  Are you really going to argue that the American Revolutionaries deliberately killed innocent bystanders as a matter of policy?

How about ecoterrorists?  As a rule they try not to harm innocent bystanders yet they too are lumped in with Hamas by your definition of terrorism.

Okay... I spoke a little too soon, and I'll admit that.  Not all terrorist groups kill people.  However, I think that the example of ecoterrorism vs. hamas proves the need for an over-arching, broad term (such as "terrorism").

However, as far as the American Revolution goes: innocents were killed all the time.  That can't be factually disputed.  For pure terrorism, I think you need look no further than the Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Correspondence.  Essentially, they were intimidation gangs, who routinely dragged Loyalists from their homes, beat them, and tarred and feathered them (and, occasionally, killed them).  The acts were (1) perpetrated against non-combatants, (2) premeditated, and (3) designed to incite terror among a civilian populace.

These weren't rare occurances -- there were Committees of Correspondence in most cities.  They were led by the likes of Samuel Adams.  They started their actions ten years before the Declaration of Independence, so they weren't acting as legal combatants (there was no declaration of war), and they didn't stop until their goals were achieved (1783).


But, of course, none of this is the point. The point is that there are already words to describe terrorism, so we don't have to make up new ones.

[Skar]

OK.  Fine points you make.

Okay... I spoke a little too soon, and I'll admit that.  Not all terrorist groups kill people.  However, I think that the example of ecoterrorism vs. hamas proves the need for an over-arching, broad term (such as "terrorism").

I never said that we needed to make up a new over-arching term to describe terrorism.  I was arguing, from the beginning, that referring to everyone from the American revolutionaries to eco-terrorists to Hamas to (by the FBI's definition anyway) the United States Armed Forces in Iraq, as terrorists was confusing.  I suggested several ways to fix the problem, one of which was to redefine terrorism to match your latest definition from the U.N., "indiscriminate terrorism"  Making up new words to refer to the different subsets within terrorism was another suggestion.

While "Indiscriminate Terrorism" would certainly be a useful term it  appears to have the same meaning as "Terrorism" by the U.N.'s own definition so...not really.

Terrorism works fine as a broad term, just not as the ONLY term.  When you get back to your books let's see all the other words that refer to the meaningful subsets so that, at least on this forum, we can have clear communication on the subject.  I, at least, am interested to know them.  That was the real point of this thread after all.

However, as far as the American Revolution goes: innocents were killed all the time.  That can't be factually disputed.  For pure terrorism, I think you need look no further than the Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Correspondence.  Essentially, they were intimidation gangs, who routinely dragged Loyalists from their homes, beat them, and tarred and feathered them (and, occasionally, killed them).  The acts were (1) perpetrated against non-combatants, (2) premeditated, and (3) designed to incite terror among a civilian populace.

These weren't rare occurances -- there were Committees of Correspondence in most cities.  They were led by the likes of Samuel Adams.  They started their actions ten years before the Declaration of Independence, so they weren't acting as legal combatants (there was no declaration of war), and they didn't stop until their goals were achieved (1783).

I didn't know the details but it doesn't surprise me at all that such things went on. Still doesn't hold a candle to the activities of Hamas, Sendero Luminoso, IRA, Al Quaeda, IMU etc... The differences are substantial, as you well know.

And I still think that Gemm could make up a better word than "indiscriminate terrorism"  

[Captain Morgan]

Wow, terrorism certainly has many definitions. What was it some said to me eariler, that the author may be politically motivated when define the terms. The fact that no one group, even our government, can define a word like terrorism prove that the word is pretty much meaningless today. It is like my favorite bad word. The mother of them all. So many meanings, yet the difference  is you can usually tell which one I'm using. Can't tell that with the word terrorism. Terrorism is newspeak at least today with it's variety of definitions.
This is what I remember terrorism being from when I was young.

Terrorism -The systematic use of terror esp. as  a means of coercion. (As defined by Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary cica 1987)

That's different than how they defined it today. Hell that definition is simple to the point, Terrorist was a subset notation as in "A Person who uses a systematic ..." Nice and easy and concice. For Skar and Nicadymus and sort of myself sake , that would at least remove the US military. We don't use terror for the sake of coericion. It may be a side effect. (Not that the Military hasn't used these tactics on small scale sometimes, but I would say those would be rare)