Definition of Terms

[House of Mustard]

Our target is... laymen who want to be able to understand what the academics are talking about without having to discover the new definitions the academics have made up for words with other, more common, definitions.

Well, I know I'm not going to win this argument, but I have to say I'm still bewildered.  If the goal is to understand what academics are talking about, why not use their lingo?  It seems to me that, if we're discussing what the academics have to say, then it's extra work to replace their terms with our terms.  Wouldn't it be easier to just say: "unrestricted terrorism" means: ______, and then continue the conversation?

[Skar]

It seems to me that, if we're discussing what the academics have to say, then it's extra work to replace their terms with our terms.  Wouldn't it be easier to just say: "unrestricted terrorism" means: ______, and then continue the conversation?

I reread and discover that I was not as clear as I could have been.  The goal is not to discuss what the academics have to say but to discuss terrorism.

Even in the world of Academics references to Gus's  unrestricted terrorism are caveated with reference to Gus himself.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect01.htm

This discussion is not an attempt to pretty please be allowed into the academic discussion of terrorism but rather an attempt to include what the academics have to say in the wider discussion.  A discussion that has grown much wider since 9-11.

For me at least the difference between terrorists in general and snuff terrorists is an important distinction to make.  Unrestricted terrorism is unclear unless you happen to have run across Gus's definition and I for one, with nine years of interest in and reading on the subject had never heard it before you mentioned it and even after you had, the modifier was so badly chosen I didn't get it until you posted the "new" definition.  Niether did Oseleon.  Neither of us is stupid.

So, my conclusion is that you should just snargle the fangle blaster.

[Skar]

maybe the political idealism is the sticking point, its a question of the ends justifying the means. Even if the terrorist has an alleged political goal or motive, if he kills to carry out that goal isnt it still murder? Maybe the problem is that the public cant understand why the motives of the terrorist matter more than the horrible things they do. Take a serial killer as a example way off in left field (I say this because scarilly for the most part terrorists would be considered sane by psychatrists while serial killers arent). No matter what the serial killer uses to justify his actions he is still a murderer. If we care one way or another about the terrorists politics, maybe they win.

I dont really know where Im going with that, but maybe thats a line of discussion we should look into.

I agree whole-heartedly.  No matter the political or ideological motivation behind it murder is still murder and in some way when we bother to discuss the terrorist's motives we legitimise their actions, as though their motivations might, somehow, justify murder.  It can't.

What it does do, however, is allow us to counter their actions and eventually catch or kill them with greater efficiency.  "Know thy enemy" and all that.

Knowing what the terrorists are willing and unwilling to target and what their goals are is important in the effort to stop them.  

Skar cracks open a can of worms

In that vein I think the fact that Al Quaeda demonstrated the desire and the wherewithal to kill thousands of civilians at one stroke may have been a large motivating factor in Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq as precipitously as he did rather than dither around until the U.N. gave its blessing.  It's quite possible that if that invasion had happened a single day later than it did that single day would have given someone enough breathing room to start another 9-11.   And knowing what we knew at that point about the target of choice of the Al Quaeda network, going to war in those two countries was preferable to letting it happen.

[House of Mustard]

I agree and I don't.

I agree that murderers should be treated as murderers, and need swift and strong justice to ensure that their murdering doesn't continue.

BUT

Terrorism IS rational.  With few exceptions, terrorists are not crazy, wild killers.  They have very specific reasons for what they do, and have very specific goals, and have very real, honest motivations.  To ignore the reasons for terrorism only leads to more terrorists popping up.  I'm certainly NOT saying that the victims of terrorism are getting their just desserts, nor am I saying that terrorist should be negotiated with.  But I do think that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

There are, of course, some terrorist groups (Al-Qaeda being one) who have completely unresolvable concerns.  Bruce Hoffman (an academic!  the horror!) refers to these groups as 'apocalyptic terrorists' -- a group that can only win through total destruction of everybody else.  They need to be shot in the head.  In my opinion.

[Fellfrosch]

Hey guys, just popping in. This has been a fascinating discussion so far, and I'm very pleased to see that after six pages it's remained civil and literate with no one insulting anyone else or threatening to leave the forum. Bravo.

May I also say that I'm highly amused by one of the rationales at work here: An elite group of people has created a term that the general populace isn't aware of, so we (an elite group) will combat the confusion by creating our own term that the general populace isn't aware of.

(That said, I agree that Unrestricted Terrorism is a stupid term. It implies something other than it means, because of the typical connotation of "unrestricted." I would personally like to go with Terro-Zeppo-Murdo-ism, because it includes the concept of killing, the concept of political motivation, and a needless reference to the Marx Brothers.)

[House of Mustard]

Fell, you are ugly, fat, and I'm offended.  Consider this my two weeks notice, because I'm cleaning out my cubicle and going to work for the enemy.  (The Official Efficient Time Managers Guide).

[Fellfrosch]

The TMG? How I hate them. They stole all my best staff, and now they're stealing my worst.

[Skar]

Terrorism IS rational.  With few exceptions, terrorists are not crazy, wild killers.  They have very specific reasons for what they do, and have very specific goals, and have very real, honest motivations.  To ignore the reasons for terrorism only leads to more terrorists popping up.  I'm certainly NOT saying that the victims of terrorism are getting their just desserts, nor am I saying that terrorist should be negotiated with.  But I do think that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I agree that terrorists are usually rational and that ignoring the reasons behind terrorism just leads to more terrorists.  Once a terrorist group starts deliberately targeting innocents, however, they have closed all their options.  They can either give up and try to disappear or they must win totally.  There is no middle ground.  Snuff terrorism cannot be allowed to succeed in any degree no matter the  "cause."

If either the palestinians or the IRA, for example, had not turned to snuff terrorism I would probably be rooting for both of them.  

[Peter Ahlstrom]

How about terms like "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber"? I'm not sure I've heard that anywhere other than Fox News.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

For a while all the stations switched to homicide bomber, and I like it. Fox does use it more, but the others use it when sucide gets too dull.  I think It makes bombings seem more harmful, suicide bombing conjures up images of a guy killing himself on the street. Homicide conjures up images of women and children....

[Entsuropi]

Well, the IRA do actually have some of their goals achieved by the peace process.

And they have always killed civilians. They started out that way, they will always be that way. Just a bunch of thugs with an agenda who spend most of their time in prision due to gross incompetence.

[Skar]

Which, (to drastically depart from the subject at hand) is why I abolutely hated the new version of "The Jackal" with that twit Richard Gere and Bruce Willis.

They tried to make an IRA goon into a hero!  What universe was that writer from?

[Captain Morgan]

Terrorism - doing things that causes terror for the sake of a political/religious agenda involing killing people, destorying public/private and government property and as long as you aen't insane.

I dunno. I still say terrorism just isn't the same word it was years ago. Nowadays it seems like everyone that does something is labled a terrorist. I guess I just feel that the really truly evil bad guys should get labeled terrorist (Like Al-Qaeda killing thousands of innocents) that deserve the worst punishment by law, versus someone who bombs a transmission tower becuase it makes the enviroment look ugly. By definition they are one in the same, but they "feel" different to me. I dunno. I do like snuff terrorism, but I would shorten it to snufferist!

[House of Mustard]

I could go with Snufferist.  It sounds like the Snuffleupagus gone bad.

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

Sesame Street's Most Wanted, starring Ernie.