What defines a "terrorist?"

[Oniya]

Being a vocal moderate can be a dangerous stance in contentious locales.

*nods*  Just look at the Republican Party.

[Neysha]

*nods*  Just look at the Republican Party.

WELL PLAYED MISS!

*slow applause*

Well played...

[Oniya]

I figured the local moderates would get a laugh at least.  ;)

[Cyrano Johnson]

Yes, it's sure a shame no Chechens of any note thought to condemn the Moscow subway bombing. But on the upside, it's nice to see Dashenka continuing to perfect the art of trolling E with statements of absolutely blatant and open bigotry -- apparently all that's needed is to hint heavily "don't ask me any more about Those People" and leave the bigotry just sort of really unmistakably implied? (Although on that theory, the choice of phrases like "the definition of being a terrorist is being a Chechen" are a but puzzling...)

Anyway, on-topic:

terrorist

1. (n.) Someone who wages war by uncoventional means and/or for objectives of which one does not approve. (If one approves the objectives, then cf. "revolutionary," "partisan," "freedom fighter," "resistance fighter," "pro-Western rebels.")

2. (n.) A term useful for motivating soldiers to shoot people, whether or not they are actual enemies or engaged in actual hostile actions. Ergo people shot in the process of occupying a tract of the Middle East or Central Asia can be defined automatically as "terrorists," regardless of age or combatant status. (Also cf. "insurgent," "rejectionist," "jihadist.")

[Callie Del Noire]

I figured the local moderates would get a laugh at least.  ;)

If I wasn't so mad at being ignored and paying the consequences of my party leadership's hubris I might. I got confirmation. My job is on hold till the DoD has a plan for the New Years possible shutdown

[Neysha]

But on the upside, it's nice to see Dashenka continuing to perfect the art of TERRORIZING E with statements of absolutely blatant and open bigotry -- apparently all that's needed is to hint heavily "don't ask me any more about Those People" and leave the bigotry just sort of really unmistakably implied? (Although on that theory, the choice of phrases like "the definition of being a terrorist is being a Chechen" are a but puzzling...)

Fixed that for you.

:P

[Cyrano Johnson]

Well-played, madam. Well-played.  :-*

[Dashenka]

Yes, it's sure a shame no Chechens of any note thought to condemn the Moscow subway bombing. But on the upside, it's nice to see Dashenka continuing to perfect the art of trolling E with statements of absolutely blatant and open bigotry -- apparently all that's needed is to hint heavily "don't ask me any more about Those People" and leave the bigotry just sort of really unmistakably implied? (Although on that theory, the choice of phrases like "the definition of being a terrorist is being a Chechen" are a but puzzling...)

Anyway, on-topic:

terrorist

1. (n.) Someone who wages war by uncoventional means and/or for objectives of which one does not approve. (If one approves the objectives, then cf. "revolutionary," "partisan," "freedom fighter," "resistance fighter," "pro-Western rebels.")

2. (n.) A term useful for motivating soldiers to shoot people, whether or not they are actual enemies or engaged in actual hostile actions. Ergo people shot in the process of occupying a tract of the Middle East or Central Asia can be defined automatically as "terrorists," regardless of age or combatant status. (Also cf. "insurgent," "rejectionist," "jihadist.")

God your ignorance about Russia is staggering. If you really believe that Kadyrov means that, you are...

Well.. you did render me speechless on that one. Credit where it's due.


I believe a terrorist is what everybody thinks it to be. Unlike what CJ thinks, not everything can be solved or answered by giving it a definition. Because there's always somebody who has a different opinion on it. What I find to be a terrorist, might well be a hero for somebody else, making it very hard to find a definition for a terrorist which is globally supported. This goes for many more things.

[Cyrano Johnson]

God your ignorance about Russia is staggering.

So staggering that I was able to catch you out in a simple, bald-faced lie about what Chechens had or hadn't said in the wake of events like the Moscow bombing? That sure is pretty staggering.

If you really believe that Kadyrov means that, you are...

... probably aware of Kadyrov's reputation as being enthusiastically Moscow's man in Chechnya? Of the Kadyrovites having defected from the separatist cause in the late Nineties and being mostly notable since for their excesses in cracking down on guerilla groups like those responsible for the Moscow bombing?

Well.. you did render me speechless on that one.

Isn't that convenient. And unsurprising.

I'll tell you what I do know a little something about, though, is how bigotry defends itself and what can be expected from its proponents. The fact of the matter is that someone genuinely bigoted against Chechens -- the kind of person who, speaking theoretically, might be tempted to make blanket claims that "they're all terrorists" -- does not really care about what Chechens say or don't say about bombings. When they say they are "waiting" to hear "Chechens condemn" this or that, they aren't. There is no condemnation from any Chechen source that would be enough, since the person in question will simply find an excuse to dismiss any implications of such condemnations for their existing bigotry. Bigotry makes excuses for itself as being "realism" but in fact operates in the pre-real, the realm of kneejerking rather than of evidence... which is what makes it so prone to distortion and avoidance when the evidence gets inconvenient. One cannot reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.

I believe a terrorist is what everybody thinks it to be.

Which if you actually read my definitions above is their point. "Terrorism" is a largely meaningless term, a game of rhetorical Calvinball in which the rules change depending on the observer. A term that is "what everybody thinks it to be" really, in the end, describes nothing. Indeed, its entire value is that it describes nothing; that's what makes it so amorphous, so rhetorically handy as a means of painting whatever group one is hostile to as the villain.

[alextaylor]

terrorist

1. (n.) Someone who wages war by uncoventional means and/or for objectives of which one does not approve. (If one approves the objectives, then cf. "revolutionary," "partisan," "freedom fighter," "resistance fighter," "pro-Western rebels.")

2. (n.) A term useful for motivating soldiers to shoot people, whether or not they are actual enemies or engaged in actual hostile actions. Ergo people shot in the process of occupying a tract of the Middle East or Central Asia can be defined automatically as "terrorists," regardless of age or combatant status. (Also cf. "insurgent," "rejectionist," "jihadist.")

I was trying to say this earlier, but I like your words more :P

[Chris Brady]

I'll believe that when I hear it.

The issue, I guess, is that we're not hearing it.  But the real question is 'why'?

Take Egypt for example.  We hear all the time about how one side is attacking the other (I believe the Muslims were targeting Christian places of worship, someone correct me if I'm wrong, which was the focus) and nothing was being talked about how the non-radicals of BOTH sides were reacting.

However, if you dug deep on the internet you'd find (and someone linked these incidents in our Good and Cuddly section of the forums) instances of BOTH Muslim AND Christians forming rings around places of EACH OTHERS' worship, while the 'other side' was going through a religious ceremony.  Normal people standing up for peace among each other.  Things that aren't being reported by the news stations because it's not flashy, or ratings grabbing.

All we see of the Chechen conflict is the acts of the Russian army and potentially a small group of depraved radicals.  And I do agree with Dashenka with the statement that the Chechen people would probably like to be their own nation.  What we don't see is that under Russian rule, the Chechen weren't exactly treated with fairness and equality, and likely would have liked that to change, but the don't see the Russians (of which they only see the military of) changing.  So breaking off seems like the only option.  Sadly, they get some psychos and fanatics doing it for them.   We're just not seeing the non-radical side of it.  Probably because it's not 'sexy' news.

[Shadowclaw]

For me it just boils down to if they're attacking innocent civilians (especially children), and what exactly they're fighting for.

[mayovagn]

Terrorism, to me and what other definition should I care about, is -any- act of violence, coercion, any other palpable harm or threat thereof for any form of political purpose or gain.

A freedom fighter to me is anyone who struggles/fights in any way to establish, keep and maintain the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the many in any way shape or form.

Now, I don't expect any of you to necessarily agree with me. My views are my views. I am just sharing because I'm bored. *Smiles*



The upshot and full ramifications of the above definitions are quite eye opening if you think carefully.

[gaggedLouise]

Well, taking up arms to create a country of your own, for and by those you see as part of your own group (your nation, or whatever) - that *is* a political act. There's no way around it. And most times, setting up a new country, a new state, founded on some sort of shared bond by those who are in on the venture, isn't something that can be done in a void, on truly virginal soil. Or even with the claim that "there's a tyranny here which is known to oppress everyone in these lands, except for its own cronies - so this tyranny must be thrown out". Even in the thirteen colonies there were many people in 1776 and some time after who were not in on the idea of rebellion against the crown. Plus the slaves, most of whom presumably didn't have an opinion, and anyway they were never asked.

At best, you can make it appear to the world around that there were no viable claims to a particular part of the earth that you claim (or that one's forefathers claimed), before it was settled by the group you claim to belong to.  Or that the claim that your group is making is older and more steady, has better credentials than anyone else's. Very few communities of people - nations, speakers of a certain language etc - can say truthfully: "we didn't grab our land from anyone but nature".

Of course over hundreds of years, the tide of history often mixes together people who are living in a certain patch of the earth - such as in Britain where there were Celts, Angles, Saxons, Normans and lots of others - and they might get to feel a common identity. At the time when some people is/are trying to break out of the national melting pot, it's never going to look that simple though. And very often it will be violent or disturbing.

Not saying nations or nation-forming is wrong in any way, but they are eminently political creations. It's VERY iffy to work from the line that "some people have an absolute right to nationhood and a country of their own to live in - but others simply don't, they don't qualify as real peoples".

[Dashenka]

Sadly, they get some psychos and fanatics doing it for them.   We're just not seeing the non-radical side of it.  Probably because it's not 'sexy' news.

Or maybe they just don't excist?

For me it just boils down to if they're attacking innocent civilians (especially children), and what exactly they're fighting for.

That would make the US Army a terrorist organization.

Terrorism, to me and what other definition should I care about, is -any- act of violence, coercion, any other palpable harm or threat thereof for any form of political purpose or gain.

I guess I like that one.

[White Wolf]

Or maybe they just don't excist?

Dashenka, in 1974, the Ulster Volunteer Force detonated three bombs in Dublin and killed 26 people - including a baby. My aunt and uncle were caught in the explosions, but survived.

Today, I have a very good Northern Irish friend who is a devout Protestant and die-hard Loyalist as well as being a member of the Orange Order to boot. Nonetheless, we get on extremely well, and often discuss and amiably debate politics and the Troubles. It's hard to look past the extreme violence, it really is, but unless we're going to perpetuate that violence it's our DUTY to look beyond it and reach a hand over the barbed fire fencing. That's the only way to defeat people who spread fear and terror through violence.

[Dashenka]

Dashenka, in 1974, the Ulster Volunteer Force detonated three bombs in Dublin and killed 26 people - including a baby. My aunt and uncle were caught in the explosions, but survived.

Today, I have a very good Northern Irish friend who is a devout Protestant and die-hard Loyalist as well as being a member of the Orange Order to boot. Nonetheless, we get on extremely well, and often discuss and amiably debate politics and the Troubles. It's hard to look past the extreme violence, it really is, but unless we're going to perpetuate that violence it's our DUTY to look beyond it and reach a hand over the barbed fire fencing. That's the only way to defeat people who spread fear and terror through violence.

I see bombing Grozny off the map as a very good solution to this particular problem as well but I see your point. :)

[White Wolf]

I see bombing Grozny off the map as a very good solution to this particular problem as well but I see your point. :)

...No, I think you quite missed my point :P

[gaggedLouise]

I see bombing Grozny off the map as a very good solution to this particular problem as well but I see your point. :)

Come on now, lady. No one would be surprised if the retaliation move after that was bombings of Russian embassies in major cities around the world, or even an attempt to place a few time-set bombs inside the Kremlin.

[Dashenka]

That's probably why I'm not into politics. I wouldn't be very good at it :D

[Shadowclaw]

That would make the US Army a terrorist organization.

However, whether the cause of a group is just or unjust is also open to interpretation, and that is exactly why defining a terrorist is so difficult. That's why there's never a definitive answer everyone can agree on.

[Shjade]

However, whether the cause of a group is just or unjust is also open to interpretation, and that is exactly why defining a terrorist is so difficult.

Actually it's irrelevant. Justified terrorism is still terrorism. Your justification doesn't change your actions. Whether I hose you down because you're on fire or because I think it'll be funny, you're still going to end up wet.

[Shadowclaw]

What actions? Can you be more specific?

[Dashenka]

What actions? Can you be more specific?

Whatever your justification is, killing somebody is still murder. Blowing up a subway is still wrong and still kills people. Whether you do it out of religious beliefs, political motivation, or simply because you're an idiot.

[Shadowclaw]

Ah, I see. We weren't talking about the same thing then. Never mind then, you guys seem to be talking about something different than I was. :)