Challenge: Define terrorism

[MikeMcMann]

So terrorism is a thought crime?

Is the US military terrorists?

This makes no sense as a reply to what he wrote.

The answer to your question despite you not addressing his post, is NO to the first part, and arguable to the second.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Any act/ threat of violence for a political purpose

Even by state actors?

If you cut off the last six words I endorse the definition.

The last six words just give cover to superpowers who have the capacity to move unilaterally against sovereign nations and send in uniformed military to target the civilian populations.

I agree with the sentiment here. I could agree to that more specific definition only for the purpose of clarity but if so then there should be some counterpart for state violence done for political purposes but there really isn't. In reality restricting it in that way seems to be cynically used to legitimize violence by state actors.

In a way isn't state violence more terrifying than violence by non-state actors? So if anything the term terrorism seems more fitting for acts of state violence. If I lived in a third world shithole I'd sure as hell be more afraid of a US invasion than the occasional terrorist attack.

 

[Ruprecht]

I need you to talk to me like I'm stupid. Let's keep it simple.

2 guys commit the same action that is illegal.

Give me an example of this crime, where the motivation changes not the degree of the crime, but what the crime itself is.

Where else does that exist in Western law?

Manslaughter and Murder.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Manslaughter and Murder.

Isn't manslaughter not murder at all, and in fact a accident that resulted in a death?

I mean, yeah, a complete lack of intent to do anything resulting in death isn't murder. I wouldn't call it the same crime at all.

 

[MicroBrew]

I challenge anyone here to define terrorism.

I believe the word terrorism is a trojan horse to create thought crime.

I believe that actions are crimes, and that motivation can be a compounding factor, increasing the degree of the same crime.

What we have done with the phrase terrorism, is create new crime based on motivations.

I cut off a guy's head because he pissed me off. Murder.

I cut off a guy's head because I am brainwashed by Saudi propaganda, and I am a terrorist(unless in Syria, then it's a moderate rebel)

Terrorism has no meaning. It is the definition of a Orwellian phrase, and babble speak.

What we call terror acts, are actually crimes.

Discuss.........

Terrorism = our enemies and or their allies react violently to our violence.

It is the biggest bullshit and biased term there is.

 

[MicroBrew]

Any act/ threat of violence for a political purpose

Technically yes but in the real world it is only levied against certain entities who practice violence for political purposes. It is not a term applied fairly and evenly.
In much the same way as "Hate Speech" is a term only applied to entities without influence and power, while hate and intolerance from major religions is given a pass.

 

[Ruprecht]

Isn't manslaughter not murder at all, and in fact a accident that resulted in a death?

I mean, yeah, a complete lack of intent to do anything resulting in death isn't murder. I wouldn't call it the same crime at all.

It's the same action, but the difference (with involuntary manslaughter) is intent.
What other difference is there between accidentally shooting someone or running them over, and doing it on purpose?

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I tend to define it as: ideologically motivated violence, committed by an organised or loosely organised group and inflicted upon non-combatants.

Of course, the irony of that definition is that the people who most use the term, tend to use it as a direct or indirect weapon against civilian populations.

 

[VivaRevolution]

It's the same action, but the difference (with involuntary manslaughter) is intent.
What other difference is there between accidentally shooting someone or running them over, and doing it on purpose?

But the definition of murder requires intent.

Intent to commit a action, and why you committed the action, seems a very significant difference.

Why you did something assumes you already had intent. Whether you meant to do something, and why you did it, is very different.

 

[MicroBrew]

Why isn't the US a State supporter of terrorism?

Apart from using violence to overthrow a sovereign leader (Saddam)

The US enabled, supported , funded, provided material support to rightwing deathsquads in Latin American and MesoAmerica. The Army's Camp of the Americas at Fort Bening Georgia is infamous for training rightwing genocidal deathsquads.

The Irgun and the Stern gang, 2 Zionist militant groups that were central to Israel's founding are terrorist by any definition, as they not only attacked Palestinian civilians (unprovoked) but also the British authorities.

Why were the Afghans fighting the Soviets labelled Freedom Fighters but the Taleban are not?

Saudi Arabia, a major US ally, considers atheists to be terrorists.

 

[Ruprecht]

But the definition of murder requires intent.

Intent to commit a action, and why you committed the action, seems a very significant difference.

Why you did something assumes you already had intent. Whether you meant to do something, and why you did it, is very different.

It's the same with terrorism and the intent to achieve political or ideological goals by attacking the general population. That's why the massacre in Las Vegas wasn't terrorism. There's no evidence of political/ideological intent.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

I challenge anyone here to define terrorism.

This thread.

 

[VivaRevolution]

It's the same with terrorism and the intent to achieve political or ideological goals by attacking the general population. That's why the massacre in Las Vegas wasn't terrorism. There's no evidence of political/ideological intent.

Intent to achieve, is some funny wording there.

 

[Ruprecht]

Intent to achieve, is some funny wording there.

It's still terrorism if they fail to achieve their intended goals.

 

[surrealworlds]

I challenge anyone here to define terrorism.

I believe the word terrorism is a trojan horse to create thought crime.

Terrorism has no meaning. It is the definition of a Orwellian phrase, and babble speak.

So terrorism is a thought crime?

So right there. It says it. Terrorism is a thought crime.

So you support thought crime?

Isn't that the definition of a thought crime?

Yep, hate crimes are thought crimes too.

I feel like your trying to say something but i can't quite put my finger on it...

 

[luckyshot]

Terrorism is when you kill someone to send a message to someone else.

 

[Amerikuracana]

A crime committed for political reasons, which is committed with the intention of scaring, or terrorizing, an opposition group into repressing their normal expression of living.

 

[IDL]

Terrorism is a tactic I'd say. Instilling fear (terror) into the population (usually by targeting them with violence) with the intent on pushing for political objectives as a result.

 

[InternetHero]

Violence inflicted on a civilian population for political ends.

 

[InternetHero]

Terrorism is when you kill someone to send a message to someone else.

Sounds like a terrible valentine, bloodshed instead of chocolate.