Definition of Terms

[Oseleon]

I do sometimes wonder at the arrogance of the acedemic.  
The Layman is the one who USES the tool!  The Acedemic should be gearing the tool toward the use of the layman
NOT telling the layman that he is misusing the tool because he is not an acedemic.  

[House of Mustard]

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.

The problem there is that the UN definition of terrorism comes from the general assembly, and the term 'indiscriminate terrorism' comes from the Comission on Human Rights.  The various committees in the UN have come up with at least 27 different definitions of 'terrorism'.  Yeah, it's screwy.

Here's another possible term for you: Bruce Hoffman, in the article The Modern Terrorist Mindset, deliniates two different versions of terrorism: left-wing and right-wing.  Left wing terrorists make attacks on specific targets with assasination or kidnapping -- their very precise and planned.  Right-wing terrorist are more willy-nilly, using large bombs, and killing people just to kill people.  Personally, I don't like the terminology, because of political confusion, but it's another classification you can use, if you want.

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.

Here are some basic qlassifications.  These come from Thomas O'Connor.

Terrorism Classified by Place
1. Domestic -- by residents of a country within that country
2. International -- by representatives of a country against another country
3. Non-state -- extremism and revolution for its own sake
4. State-sponsored -- by a government against its own people or in support of international terrorism against another government
5. Internecine -- conflict that spills over into another country or fought on foreign soil

Terrorism Classified by Purpose
1. Political -- for ideological and political purposes
2. Nonpolitical -- for private purposes or gain
3. Quasi-terrorism -- skyjacking and hostage taking
4. Limited political -- ideological but not revolutionary
5. Official or state -- used by nation against nation or people

Terrorism Classified by Issue
1. Revolutionary -- aims to replace the existing government by drawing out repressive responses which can be exposed as inhumane (Red Army Faction, PLO, Hizballah)
2. Political -- heavily armed groups tending to be focused around supremacy, government intrusion, or religious revisionism (Aryan Nation, Posse Comitatus, Freemen)
3. Nationalist -- promotes the interests of a minority or religious group that has been persecuted under majority rule (Sikh radicals, Muslim fundamentalism)
4. Cause-Based -- groups devoted to a social or religious cause using violence to address their grievances (Islamic Holy War, Abortion clinic bombings)
5. Environmental -- groups dedicated to slowing down development they believe is harming animals (Animal Liberation Front, Earth 1st)
6. State-sponsored -- when a repressive regime forces its citizens into total obedience (Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, Iraq, Sudan, Haiti)
7. Nuclear -- outlaw states possessing nuclear threats (Libya, North Korea)
8. Genocide -- when a government seeks to wipe out a minority group in its territory (Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Turkey)

[House of Mustard]

For Skar and Nicadymus and sort of myself sake , that would at least remove the US military.

Actually, of the four definitions I gave,  three of them could not include the US military as a terrorist group.  The only one that would allow it is the Defense Department's definitions (and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't inlcude themselves  .

I do sometimes wonder at the arrogance of the acedemic.  
The Layman is the one who USES the tool!  The Acedemic should be gearing the tool toward the use of the layman
NOT telling the layman that he is misusing the tool because he is not an acedemic.  

Look.  You could easily say that since most sandwiches are peanut butter and jelly, then we ought to change the definition of 'sandwich' to mean 'peanut butter and jelly'.  The fact of the matter is that language (and laymen) need broad words as much as they need specific words.  And, if there are plenty of specific words to go around, why change the broad ones?  It's lazy, and it's uneducated.

Let's go back to the nuclear reactor example from several posts ago: if you describe a nuclear reactor to a layman, you have to use simple terms.  But, if you were to actually build and use a nuclear reactor, you need very very specific words, or else you blow up.

The use of big words does not mean that academics are elitists.  It means they're actually studying things and looking for answers.  Refusing to acknowledge academic terms means you are refusing to look at issues in any depth.

[Skar]

Actually, of the four definitions I gave,  three of them could not include the US military as a terrorist group.  The only one that would allow it is the Defense Department's definitions (and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't inlcude themselves  .

How does the FBI definition not include the U.S. Military?


That list of terrorisms is impressive.  It meets most of my needs.  However, there still doesn't seem to be one that differentiates between terrorists that  purposely kill innocents and those that don't.  The closest is left-wing vs. right-wing but, as you pointed out, the political usage of the terms left-wing and right-wing today makes those terms pretty useless.  And I suspect that Bruce Hoffman was answering to an agenda when he coined them.  Is there another set that might be useful?  Or do we have to make some up?  

As to the lay people versus academics question.  It seems pretty obvious to me that the lay-people in our country, ie most of them, think terrorism refers to the guys that kill innocents on purpose.  So when the academics call people who don't terrorists, it muddies the waters.  Especially when the academics don't offer a clarifying modifier (and, if you're list is complete, don't have any to offer).  The academics rest on the knowledge that, according to their jargon, they are speaking correctly, but only those in their club understand their true meaning.  Who's lazy in that situation?  Is it reasonable for the academics to require that all those who want to understand what they are saying spend the time it would take to decode their message?  Especially when there are plenty of specific terms to go around?

As for the nuclear reactor example.  Using only the broad term terrorism (with no clarifying modifier) for all the groups we have discussed is like telling someone about a nuclear reactor by saying "They're usually pretty big and power comes out of them, oh and if they explode everyone dies."  It's just not useful.

[Captain Morgan]

Actually, of the four definitions I gave,  three of them could not include the US military as a terrorist group.  The only one that would allow it is the Defense Department's definitions (and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't inlcude themselves

The State Department includes the military becuase we does use special ops to achieve our political goals, and then their are the black ops that are so highly classified that even most people in the military don't know what the missions are, and therefore under the definition is terrorism.
The FBI definition not only appiles to the military but to the national government as a whole. IE Our forces in Iraq was not leagal under Iraqi law until we made them change it.
The Department of Defence definition certainly does included our military under their definition whether they say it applies to us or not. This definition is basicly every war we have gotten into. We don't agree with their politics and policies and we go to war to change them. War is an extentions of politics.
Even the United Nations definition includes our great military becuase it has been a very useful tacit in war to bomb civilian targets to get the population to rebel against their nation to stop the war. We did that during WWII against both Japan and Germany.

While I appreciate the fact that you are suppling us with good information about the research done on the subject of terrorism, All the definitions but forth so far can included our government. And looking outside the box, it is clearly appropriate to label our government a terrorist organization due to the actions our government takes I don't think they would agree and they would say that they are looking out for the people. But it just boils down to that History is written by the winners, and the winners usually look favorable in that history. That is the only reason I can think of why we aren't labeled a terrorist nation even though the actions taken are in accordance with every definition put out.  I do want to point out that I see your point HoM, and I think from looking inside out it is valid, but not if you look at the world as a whole. Most people would not want to live anywhere near or under a government that is a terrorist organization.

Terrorism broken down means terror. To incite terror to coerce. It to is a broad statement, but very percice with its meaning. I will frighten you to get you to do what I want.

While it may be mainstream, I just don't like the way the word terrorism is being tossed about. Sure there are many different forms of terrorism, even the eco-terrorist that instil fear in the population to change evironmental policies are terrorist, but not groups that fight to get change, but don't want the population to be afraid.

Robin Hood under the laws of Nottingham would be considered a terrorist for the actions he took. But the general population reveared him becuase he took pains to to cause terror in them. He gave them money and food when they had none.
Edited: Corrected spelling of the Evil Sheriff

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Nottingham

[Captain Morgan]

Thanks Doc

[Skar]

Actually, in my reading, it was more that we didn't have the means (pinpoint bomb accuracy) to destroy the warmaking apparatus without a lot, and I mean a lot, of civilian casualties in Germany and Japan rather than a desire to provoke the populace to revolt.

Neither one did incidentally.  

We were not attacking the citizens, we were attacking the factories in their city.  Makes no difference to the millions that died in the firestorms really but there is a difference.  The other choice was invading the country with foot soldiers.  shudder.  Even more people on both sides would have died in that eventuality.

[Captain Morgan]

While it is true that we didn't have the pinpoint accuracy to destory warmaing facilities, (and this is from memory form a poly sci class I had about 5 years ago) WWII was the first time that civilian targets were attacked (both the axis and the allies participated) in war on such a mass scale. It demoralizes the enemy to attack the civilians when the enemy's defence can't stop said attack. To this day we still target no military facilities to demoralize our enemies, like power plants and other such utilities. If I remember correctly yet again, times are choosen to minimize civilian causualties, but they still occur due to hitting a civilian facility that runs 24 hours a day.

I don't think targeting civilians at any time should ever be justified, but then again, rarely do I think a war is justified. Some cases yes, but most of the time it is a waste of valuable human beings.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Decisions were made to burn Hamburg and Tokyo to the ground using firebombs dropped all over the cities. Factories were a side benefit, but not a neccesity.

[Captain Morgan]

Let's go back to the nuclear reactor example from several posts ago: if you describe a nuclear reactor to a layman, you have to use simple terms.  But, if you were to actually build and use a nuclear reactor, you need very very specific words, or else you blow up.

As a side note, using laymans to build a reactor wouldn't blow you up, even though the movies like to protray that. You more than likely would just have wasted a lot of money. Most designers of reactors don't want them to blow up so the fuel isn't as enriched as in a weapon of the nuclear type. But I can really derail this topic if I go on about nuclear power. If anyone is intrested about learning more about nuclear power, I would be happy to participate, but that is a different topic indeed.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Decisions were made to burn Hamburg and Tokyo to the ground using firebombs dropped all over the cities. Factories were a side benefit, but not a neccesity.

On top of that, weather conditions were specifically watched for the pressure and conditions that would insure maximum spread and destruction of the firebombing. When the air pressure is high, the firebombs spread more outward than upward, which spreads them further, and also increases the temperature (apparently, I don't understand how that part works), which in turn sucks oxygen from the surrounding area to feed the fire. In "ideal" bombing conditions this will suck things, like people, into the fire and increase the destruction even further.

This technique was discovered by the allies on accident during a Nazi bombing raid over (I can't remember, south England, not Canterbury but I keep wanting to say that). American and British scientists studied some unexplained effects, came up with this theory, and then the Allied military tested it pretty thoroughly to good effect on cities in Germany and Japan.

I don't see that as targeting factories and simply trying to destroy infrastructure. That was plain and simple, destroying as much as possible, no matter what it was. Now, I'm not arguing that it was terrorism, as I think what they were REALLY trying to do was just destroy as much as possible so the enemy didn't have anywhere to go or anything to defend, but we should understand what they were doing.

Incidentally (as a topic digression), you often hear about how firebombing was much more destructive than the A-bombs dropped. However, if I remember right, there were much more firebombs dropped, in terms of tonnage, than any single A-bomb. If they had dropped an equivelent number of A-bombs as firebombs (by weight), I think we'd see areas of Japan that were still not habitable.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

oh, and I was going to add to that. If terrorism is using violence to cause terror with the end of acheiving a political aim... what is the policy of "shock and awe" we recently used in Iraq qualified as?

[House of Mustard]

If terrorism is using violence to cause terror with the end of acheiving a political aim... what is the policy of "shock and awe" we recently used in Iraq qualified as?

See, that's why that definition isn't good enough.

Here's why the American military isn't included in the definitions of terrorism:

State Department: It requires terrorists to be sub-national.
FBI: It requires terrorism to be unlawful.  We could debate how lawful American wars are, but I think most of us would consider them lawful.  Even the current war in Iraq doesn't technically break international law (despite the common perception that it does).
UN: You'd have to prove that the intended targets were civilians.  I think that the fire-bombing and atomic bombing in WWII would fit, but nothing the US has done since.  (They've certainly killed civilians, but they haven't been the intended target.)

It seems pretty obvious to me that the lay-people in our country, ie most of them, think terrorism refers to the guys that kill innocents on purpose.

Except that, as you pointed out, there are a lot of legitimate terrorist groups who don't kill indiscriminately.  For example, a lumber yard here in Salt Lake (a customer of mine) was burned to the ground back in June, by members of the Earth Liberation Front.  They didn't kill anyone, but you can't say it's not terrorism (or, more accurately, you can't say that people don't percieve it as terrorism -- that's your whole argument).

Especially when the academics don't offer a clarifying modifier (and, if you're list is complete, don't have any to offer).  

I've offered three now -- you just don't seem to like them.  You rejected "indiscriminate terrorism" because it conflicted with the UN's definition, and you rejected "right-wing terrorism" because it is politically charged.  But what about O'Connor's "unrestricted terrorism".  What's wrong with that?

[Skar]

The concept I'm trying to get at is deliberately targeting civilians.  For example: Terrorists set up a bomb on the railroad tracks.  When it explodes it will break the tracks and disrupt the flow of supplies to the enemy.  The terrorists then wait until a passenger train is passing along the tracks to blow up the bomb.

The point being that they mess with their enemy's logistics but wait until they can kill some civilians too.

More obvious examples are the suicide bombers who walk into a crowded market place, stand in the crowd watching TV in front of the Radio Shack and then trigger their bomb.

Indiscriminate and/or unrestricted (as I understand the words)  terrorism means that the terrorists would blow up the bomb on the tracks when it was convenient for them whether there was a passenger train going by or not, they wouldn't care about the civilian casualties, they have another goal.    

What's the word for the guys who deliberately murder innocent civilians, the suicide bombers and the ones who waited for the passenger train?