a non-moral discussion about terrorism

[danyboy27]

Terrorism is the use of violence and fear to achieve an objective.

I dont want to discuss the cause or the moral implication of terrorism in this thread, what i want to do is to speak about it in a non-ethical, non-moralistic way.


I think the biggest Question of all is why in all logical reasoning, its not okay to use fear to achieve an objective?

enjoy the discussion!

[Revolution starts with U]

Fear shuts down rationality. Scantly are good decisions made by those crippled with fear. When you hear of good leaders/soldiers/etc, you almost exclusively are told of how they never let their fear get the better of them.

[Decolonize The Left]

Terrorism is the use of violence and fear to achieve an objective.

I dont want to discuss the cause or the moral implication of terrorism in this thread, what i want to do is to speak about it in a non-ethical, non-moralistic way.


I think the biggest Question of all is why in all logical reasoning, its not okay to use fear to achieve an objective?

enjoy the discussion!

Incorrect.

Terrorism is the threat and/or use of violence against a civilian population for the purposes of political and/or economic gain.

It has a very specific meaning.

To answer your question, people use fear as a tool all the time. Governments are the biggest terrorists of all, given the definition provided above. Hence the whole 'objection' is that this tactic is used against civilian populations, not against the army.

- August

[Lt. Ferret]

Governments who sign the Geneva Convention are not allowed to target Civilian populations or structures unless they pose an immediate military risk. That is why most governments are not terrorists, and are usually not acting in a terroristic manner (though some are pragmatic and heartless enough to do it and try to get away with it).

No government that I know of has a suicide bomber brigade, or outright and unabashedly targets civilians or innocent life in its doctrine or training manuals.

[Decolonize The Left]

Governments who sign the Geneva Convention are not allowed to target Civilian populations or structures unless they pose an immediate military risk. That is why most governments are not terrorists, and are usually not acting in a terroristic manner (though some are pragmatic and heartless enough to do it and try to get away with it).

No government that I know of has a suicide bomber brigade, or outright and unabashedly targets civilians or innocent life in its doctrine or training manuals.

Hmm.. not one for reading well are you?

If terrorism is the threat/use of violence against a civilian population for economic/political gains, and the government employs the police and military (and the threat of these forces) against the civilian population in order to maintain political normalcy and/or say.. to break up a strike for economic gain?... how is this not terrorism?

And I guess you've never heard of the School of the Americas? This example seems the most obvious of government terrorism.

- August

[danyboy27]

Governments who sign the Geneva Convention are not allowed to target Civilian populations or structures unless they pose an immediate military risk. That is why most governments are not terrorists, and are usually not acting in a terroristic manner (though some are pragmatic and heartless enough to do it and try to get away with it).

No government that I know of has a suicide bomber brigade, or outright and unabashedly targets civilians or innocent life in its doctrine or training manuals.

terrorism is not forced to be military, it can be economic, it can be the feeling of constant insecurity for your life or your livehood.

I agree with you august that if targeted against ennemy combattant, the use of fear is not necessary terrorism.

But then again what is the logical reasons (outside morality) to oppose it?
I mean, if it get shit done why would governement or organisation abandon it?

[Decolonize The Left]

terrorism is not forced to be military, it can be economic, it can be the feeling of constant insecurity for your life or your livehood.

I agree with you august that if targeted against ennemy combattant, the use of fear is not necessary terrorism.

But then again what is the logical reasons (outside morality) to oppose it?
I mean, if it get shit done why would governement or organisation abandon it?

Well you wouldn't "logically oppose" something which was tactfully usefully... Your terminology here is kind of confusing. You would logically avoid a situation which wasn't practical, but you wouldn't "oppose" it.

So it depends on what kind of logic you're talking about. If you mean logic according to combat tactics, terrorism still isn't that useful as it can only really be used to acquire a certain outcome (i.e. a specific movement or monetary sum). It only becomes useful when it is implemented from a position of authority and supremacy - only in this case is it truly useful as it serves to destabilize the population under control allowing the ruler to further secure the position of power.

- August

[gorillafuck]

Governments who sign the Geneva Convention are not allowed to target Civilian populations or structures unless they pose an immediate military risk. That is why most governments are not terrorists, and are usually not acting in a terroristic manner (though some are pragmatic and heartless enough to do it and try to get away with it).

No government that I know of has a suicide bomber brigade, or outright and unabashedly targets civilians or innocent life in its doctrine or training manuals.Have you ever heard of the School Of The Americas?

Edit: oh beaten to it.

[red cat]

Incorrect.

Terrorism is the threat and/or use of violence against a civilian population for the purposes of political and/or economic gain.

It has a very specific meaning.

To answer your question, people use fear as a tool all the time. Governments are the biggest terrorists of all, given the definition provided above. Hence the whole 'objection' is that this tactic is used against civilian populations, not against the army.

- August

I totally agree, though I sometimes use the word to describe a part of psychological warfare waged by revolutionaries on the ruling class. Post appreciated.

@ the OP :

Yes it is perfectly logical to use fear in the revolutionary war. The ruling class elements are cowards and this can be used to the proletariat's advantage in fighting them. For example, revolutionaries can concentrate attacks in the residential areas of ruling class elements so that crack troops are deployed in those areas instead of the places where the revolutionaries are organizing the masses.

[Lt. Ferret]

Hmm.. not one for reading well are you?

If terrorism is the threat/use of violence against a civilian population for economic/political gains, and the government employs the police and military (and the threat of these forces) against the civilian population in order to maintain political normalcy and/or say.. to break up a strike for economic gain?... how is this not terrorism?

And I guess you've never heard of the School of the Americas? This example seems the most obvious of government terrorism.

- August


Don't insult my intelligence. I teach counter-insurgency as my fucking job.

breaking strikes is not terrorism. blockades are not terrorism.

and im aware of the school of the americas. its a pretty dark stain on American foreign policy. that was a "victory at any cost" mentality that has been largely dropped by the united states, they moved the facility to fort benning, i've walked by it. it's under constant non-partisan supervision, and it's academic material is reviewed thoroughly so that human rights abuses are not taught.

[#FF0000]

breaking strikes is not terrorism. blockades are not terrorism.


why not

[Lt. Ferret]

Just because they're douchebag moves, does not make them terrorism. Terrorism is rigidly defined.

The Soviet Union crushing the Hungarian revolution in the 50s was not terrorism, Tienanmen square was not terrorism.

[#FF0000]

What's your def. of terrorism?

[Lt. Ferret]

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.


thats how the department of defense defines it. to get into nitpicky legalese, the key words are unlawful. a big factor is that the state is almost always acting in a lawful manner, even if the laws are just plain ridiculous.

also, intimidating governments by these acts are usually groups not recognized as a lawful government.

right now, quaddafi in libya is killing people, shelling civilians, and bombing oil areas. that's not really considered terrorism. if al queada was doing it, it'd be terrorism.

[Ele'ill]

How is violence defined?

[#FF0000]

Yeaaah Ferret's definition is the one I'm used to.

It sort of arbitrarily excludes governments.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's supposed to (not add governments in the definition).
Governments like to act like their is some difference between war and a mugging.

[Revolution starts with U]

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

How is union busting, Kent State circa 1970, or the rush-up to the Iraq war NOT terrorism under this definition?


thats how the department of defense defines it. to get into nitpicky legalese, the key words are unlawful. a big factor is that the state is almost always acting in a lawful manner, even if the laws are just plain ridiculous.
Oh, right. There's my answer...



right now, quaddafi in libya is killing people, shelling civilians, and bombing oil areas. that's not really considered terrorism. if al queada was doing it, it'd be terrorism.

Sounds like a coherent definition of terrorrism doesn't it?

[danyboy27]

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.


thats how the department of defense defines it. to get into nitpicky legalese, the key words are unlawful. a big factor is that the state is almost always acting in a lawful manner, even if the laws are just plain ridiculous.

also, intimidating governments by these acts are usually groups not recognized as a lawful government.

right now, quaddafi in libya is killing people, shelling civilians, and bombing oil areas. that's not really considered terrorism. if al queada was doing it, it'd be terrorism.

Terrorism dosnt have to be unlawful, i mean look at the result of a lawful terrorist act versus an unlawful one, practicly the same bro.

Union busting is terrorism, beccause you use fear against your opponent, you threaten his livehood in order to make him do what you want to.

how is that different from a rogue country threatening another one from anexaction if they dont surrender their jews and natural ressources?

[Revolution starts with U]

Surrender their Jews?
:lol:

[Lt. Ferret]

yeah i saw that too.

[PhoenixAsh]

Just because they're douchebag moves, does not make them terrorism. Terrorism is rigidly defined.

The Soviet Union crushing the Hungarian revolution in the 50s was not terrorism, Tienanmen square was not terrorism.

There is NO singular universally agreed upon definition of terorism...not in common, political or legal vernacular...

Its most common meaning is the use of urgent fear as a means of persuasion or obedience. Which broadly embrella's every definition out there. The subsequent various definitions...are..as stated...varied :-)

They can include all acts which do not result in physical violence, result in death or bodily harm. They could include warfare and economic threats.

So basically...any definition you use...is useless unless accepted by all conversation partners.

[danyboy27]

Surrender their Jews?
:lol:

sorry my bad, i typed too fast.

i meant send the jews of their countries to various concentration camps...

[Lt. Ferret]

Shut up danyboy, you have 24 hours to hand over all of your Jews to me.

[Viet Minh]

Terrorism is the use of violence and fear to achieve an objective.

I dont want to discuss the cause or the moral implication of terrorism in this thread, what i want to do is to speak about it in a non-ethical, non-moralistic way.


I think the biggest Question of all is why in all logical reasoning, its not okay to use fear to achieve an objective?

enjoy the discussion!

Because the end result is synthetic, and in most cases where terrorism is used the same fear must then be maintained indefinately to keep the status quo. The exception is where there is already a state of fear, and terror is a tool to redefine power structures.

[NGNM85]

I'm really skeptical of the value of this endeavor. First, because it suggests that reason is hopelessly mute on questions of morals and ethics. Second; why don't we discuss child rape in a non-ethical, non-moralistic sense? I trust my point is clear.

[RGacky3]

I think the biggest Question of all is why in all logical reasoning, its not okay to use fear to achieve an objective?


That IS a moralistic question, you can't ask whats wrong with terrorism but from a non-moral standpoint, if you ask that your basically asking about logistics, does it work or not.

[Bud Struggle]

Well on non moral terms--terrorism works pretty well to achieve a particular end. If you are discussing state terrorism, it works really well. Most of the ststes of Africa and Asia amd maybe South America use it to full advantage. It keeps democracy toa minimum and lets those in powner have full reign of the country.

On the small scale it works pretty well, too. Everybody sits up and takes notice whe there Sarin in a subway or a bombing in a marketplace.

If you want to achieve the end of cowing people to a particular point of view--then terrorism is a good means for doing so.

[ComradeMan]

Surrender their Jews?
:lol:

??????????????? :confused:

I think he must mean "dues"!

Terrorism is a bad strategy from a military point of view. It is bad revolutionary warfare, not the same as guerrilla warfare, and is not supported by Marxists/communists in general. Terrorism gives propaganda gold to the enemy and alienates the civilian population from the cause.

[RGacky3]

Terrorism is a bad strategy from a military point of view.

It depends, sometimes it works, sometimes not, generally not for revolutions though.

[Viet Minh]

I suppose it works better for a seperatist/ nationalist cause, as it divides people, but its counter productive for a socialist revolution in the traditional sense imo.

[danyboy27]

I'm really skeptical of the value of this endeavor. First, because it suggests that reason is hopelessly mute on questions of morals and ethics. Second; why don't we discuss child rape in a non-ethical, non-moralistic sense? I trust my point is clear.

well, i already had a debate with spliteeth over child rape and made my position verry clear that in theory you could argues against it without using moralistic argument.

An individual could argues against child rape beccause it permanentely damage the verry fabric of society it is inherentely wrong.

I guess you could also argues against terrorism beccause it compromise the integrity of the entity you are trying to submit, making it highly instable and is likely to cause blowback.

[NGNM85]

well, i already had a debate with spliteeth over child rape and made my position verry clear that in theory you could argues against it without using moralistic argument.

An individual could argues against child rape beccause it permanentely damage the verry fabric of society it is inherentely wrong.

I guess you could also argues against terrorism beccause it compromise the integrity of the entity you are trying to submit, making it highly instable and is likely to cause blowback.

Again, you're thinking is flawed because you're creating this imaginary boundry between reason and ethics and morality. The best ethics and morals are rooted in rational conclusions based on empirical facts. This barrier doesn't exist, or, it doesn't have to.