Anaxagoras
Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
For there to be a sensible conversation on the matter one needs to look up the technical definitions of the word first rather than applying the loose common language argument.
Good luck with that endeavour!
Indeed, luck is something I need to ever get through to yourself considering the cheap tactics you have used thus far. That is why I didn't wish to discuss terrorism with you because you start off just as I expected you to do by quoting an extreme subjectivist like Hoffman. I shall write an analysis of how terrorism is conceived implicitely and overtly.
quote:
There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term "terrorism".[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.
Furthermore, from the same source:
As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."[3] For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.[9][10]
Nicely describes all of your arguments regarding Iranian "terrorism."
ciao 
Incorrect. Obviously the term is challenging because it is politically charged. That does not mean however that it is completely subjectivised and unworthy of any use whatsoever.
To develop a useful definition of terrorism all one has to do is look at the spirit of the word and how it is applied in the more technical definitions. There are striking features which stand out from other applications of the word. Terrorists have political and/or religious aims. They focus on soft targets - principally the civilian populace to induce fear and terror. The acts often display a barbarity and an indiscriminate nature designed to intimidate. The targets are also often highly symbolic for the same reasons. There is often an absence of a militaristic aim not only because such targets are far riskier but because the military is not their principle target because attacking it will do less to induce a sense of terror in the civilian populace. Outrage by aiming at especially soft targets (e.g. schools and children) in order to divide a populace can also be an objective of terrorism.
The machinations of war differ to a significant extent. War can be used to intimidate a civil populace of course but there targets are overwhelmingly military in nature unless a malign intent is involved as is sometimes the case. This is where the notion of war-crimes comes into play. To take an analytical approach to language, of there are war-wrongs, there are also war-rights. Any nation has a right to defend itself from aggression. In its defence it will inevitably kill civilians. At times conflict will go into urban areas where a population has a high density and civilian deaths will be high as a result. They should only do so if there is a significant military element within these areas. Such activities will of course cause terror in a civilian populace but that is not or should not be the intent of the military activity, and the effort to minimise casualties should be (and often is) a priority.
Features of terrorism are also in stark contrast with other forms of militaristic activity not sanctioned by a state or controlling authority in which the activities take place. Rebellion is one example. Rebellion, as in the case of the 1916-22 Irish Revolution (and the Young Irelanders, the 1798 Rebellion etc. that preceded), did not target the civilian populace. Rather it engaged in largely open warfare with the political and military institutions of the state. As a result these attempts were often crushed but are often noted for their bravery, heroism and sacrifice. This is a notable contrast with terrorism, where the stain of innocent blood follows the likes of Adams around even in the Republic of Ireland. Other examples that do not qualify as terrorism include The French Resistance. Here again they were in opposition to Nazi Germany but they did not target the civilian populace. Quite the opposite in fact, they targeted the military itself. These acts of disobedience to a given state have notable divergences with terrorism as it is commonly understood. I hope that clarifies your supposed confusion although I very much doubt it will since people like Tweak and yourself conflate the various forms of disobedience and militarism for political reasons. 
_____________________________
"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)
|
RE: Iran VS Israel - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread