|
Anaxagoras -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/23/2012 6:51:37 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Terrorism from Wikipedia:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[3] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[4][5] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[6] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state)
I think, before we start calling people on the forums "terrorists" we should define what we mean, since it has such a vague and uncertain definition.
Or before we start calling the killing of the scientist "terrorism", either.
After all, the term "terrorists" seems to have become one of those all encompassing words, which seems to just mean "you are a bastard and I disagree with you and want to insult you, de-legitimize your argument without actually refuting it and get away with it". Like having cake and eating it too, yanno. [8D]
So, unless that is what tweak means by calling Anax a "terrorists", I don't think we can discuss "terrorism" without discussing our definitions in these contexts. Nor do I think you and I can have a civil discussion about whether or not the attacks are "terrorist" attacks, unless we understand where we are both coming from.
I don't believe the attacks on the scientist qualify as "terrorism". You do. No discussion can follow unless we understand what we mean, and why we are making those distinctions.
I have justified what I meant by stating repeatedly that the killing was only justified if the scientist was engaging in certain extremely critical military activities - namely being instrumental in creating weapons of mass destruction that had a distinct possibility of being used against other nations. Said nations have a moral right to ensure their own survival and a responsibility to protect their populace. It would be gravely remiss if they abdicated on that responsibility. If he was a civilian with no involvement in said activity, and this was just an attempt to bully and intimidate Iran then whichever nation was involved should be subject to censure internationally. However, the latter is unlikely to be the case.
Its right to suggest Tweak calls me a supporter of terrorism to delegitimise my overall stance. Its her standard behaviour that led me to decide not to engage in discussion with her.
The question of what constitutes terrorism is an interesting one. Some seek to water down the meaning of the word for political reasons but the majority of people understand terrorism as an act typically aimed at soft targets to inflict maximal psychological damage. I feel this is the authentic use of the word, as Aylee pointed out, and with good reason:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee
Using violence to instill fear in order to convince someone to do things a certain way politically.
Of course, certain posters believe that only Jews or Israel commit terrorism. The other folks/nations just create man-made disasters.
The act of violence in Iran was done with a clear aim of preventing the development of serious weapons of mass destruction. One proof is that the Stuxnet virus probably came from the same source, which had no effect other than trying to directly impede Iran's progress. Thus the act was not likely to be done to cause psychological fear in the populace although a secondary effect may be fear for other scientists but that would be inevitable with any lethal act of violence.
One could call virtually anything terrorism. I heard it being used with respect to cuts in the budget deficit the other day! The core meaning, as Aylee states, in the strict context relating to the killing of the scientist in Iran, simply doesn't fit as this randomly picked definition http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism found on Google illustrates:
quote:
ter·ror·ism
noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
Terrorism as understood above is a social phenomenon quite unlike other acts that are also claimed to be "terrorism". It is by its nature filled with symbolism. For example, 9/11 was a terrorist act designed to hit the heart of the US psychologically by picking two structures that symbolically represented America's power. Similarly Boko Harum and assorted Islamists hit defenceless Christian worshippers at Christmas in the Middle-East and Africa on what is their holiest day and they will feel unsafe visiting a Church to simply pray.
The "terror" instilled by such acts is intended to gravely undermine the confidence of the people under assault. It is often an attack on their very identity hence the symbolism.
|
|
|
|
