Originally posted by Quincy
stoned
so, tell me, how does one discuss terrorism, then, if there is no way to define it?
also, you are ignoring that there is an abundance of academic research that is not stifled by such considerations.
I also conceded that there is no absolute definition of terrorism, then quoted that to you.
EDIT: to this last point, there is also no absolute definition of "red"
Originally posted by inimalistindeed, attacks leveled against British military personnel would not be considered terrorism, but warfare.
however, the necessity of violence is irrelevant. Terrorism is determined by the target of violence and the motivation for such violence.
The targetting of military personell can be made to deter others from joining the military. Thus attempting to damage the resolve of a country to fight by convincing people not to join the military for fear of violence even in areas they would deem to be safe, such as homeland bases.
Thus terrorism.
Of course, we don't yet know what Major Nidal Malik Hasan's motivations were. It may well simply be that he was mentally ill (as is often the case with people who commit these types of atrocities). If it turns out that it was genuine and deliberately thought out actions that were in revenge for US policies in Iraq and Afghanistan then it's terrorism. If it's a reaction to the alleged bullying he'd been the victim of for being a muslim then it's no different to high school shooters who commit their acts under a justification of revenge for whatever stupid personal reason they say.
Originally posted by Robtard
Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs?
😆
Originally posted by inimalist
so, tell me, how does one discuss terrorism, then, if there is no way to define it?also, you are ignoring that there is an abundance of academic research that is not stifled by such considerations.
I also conceded that there is no absolute definition of terrorism, then quoted that to you.
EDIT: to this last point, there is also no absolute definition of "red"
You seem upset over that last little smiley.
Originally posted by inimalist
by definition this is not terrorism, but a "spree killing"for instance, the goal seems more to kill soldiers rather than to reduce the moral of America to continue fighting or to burden the populace enough to get them to no longer fight.
There was a civilian among the soldiers killed fyi.
Originally posted by Quincy
You seem upset over that last little smiley.
not particularly, though you did dodge the question.
You said it is not impossible to talk about terrorism, yet you are claiming we cannot define terrorism in any way except for the fact that it is violent.
how is this possible? or is the extent of your discussion about terrorism to simply repeat that there is no definition of terrorism?
Originally posted by jaden101
The targetting of military personell can be made to deter others from joining the military. Thus attempting to damage the resolve of a country to fight by convincing people not to join the military for fear of violence even in areas they would deem to be safe, such as homeland bases.
I might disagree. Targeting the military of a nation in such a way strikes me more as asymmetrical warfare more than terrorism. Simply an adaptation that weaker military forces have had to make in order to compete with more powerful forces.
I do see the point, and clearly it is a gray area, and different attacks would be more or less obvious.
If Mr. Hasan's motives were in fact to scare people away from joining the military, sure, that could be terrorism.
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
There was a civilian among the soldiers killed fyi.
you would define any military operation in which a civilian is killed terrorism then?
as best as can be pieced together, the attack was not targeting civilians. Also, there are many civilians employed by the military, and a distinction between civilian employed by the military or whose job brings them in close proximity to the military and a proper soldier might be too pedantic for the discussion.
A terrorist is an individual or member of a group or government who subscribes to the idea that acts of violence against either military or civilian targets or both are a legitimate form of political, religious, and/or social protest or public policy with the primary causative factor being fear with removal of those perceived as enemies and agitators. It can be used as either a revolutionary tactic, a military tactic, or official or unofficial social policy to maintain control over a population by creating fear of or perceived dependence on an illiberal governing body or leader.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
A terrorist is an individual or member of a group or government who subscribes to the idea that acts of violence against either military or civilian targets or both are a legitimate form of political, religious, and/or social protest or public policy with the primary causative factor being fear with removal of those perceived as enemies and agitators. It can be used as either a revolutionary tactic, a military tactic, or official or unofficial social policy to maintain control over a population by creating fear of or perceived dependence on an illiberal governing body or leader.
Or in short, motive. That is what it comes down to.
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Do tell us what a terrorist is then..since you're so high in the definition.
how detailed do you want? I've admitted 3 times directly and implied in a 4th that an unambiguous definition is nearly impossible.
Basically, however, I'd say it is an action for which the motive is symbolic rather than material or psychological, the symbol fostering fear and terror in the minds of the victims and the greater community the victims belong to.
If you want me to get any more specific, give me an example you want me to discuss.
He's a shrink who worked as a grief counselor for returning soldiers...and then went nuts. Sounds like a movie pitch, don't it?
Unlike most American mass-shooters, this one didn't off himself, so maybe the investigators will be able find out things, assuming he's not a total nutjob who's foaming at the mouth, rocks back and forth and doesn't recognize other humans.
Originally posted by inimalist
how detailed do you want? I've admitted 3 times directly and implied in a 4th that an unambiguous definition is nearly impossible.Basically, however, I'd say it is an action for which the motive is symbolic rather than material or psychological, the symbol fostering fear and terror in the minds of the victims and the greater community the victims belong to.
If you want me to get any more specific, give me an example you want me to discuss.
Take some notes.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
A terrorist is an individual or member of a group or government who subscribes to the idea that acts of violence against either military or civilian targets or both are a legitimate form of political, religious, and/or social protest or public policy with the primary causative factor being fear with removal of those perceived as enemies and agitators. It can be used as either a revolutionary tactic, a military tactic, or official or unofficial social policy to maintain control over a population by creating fear of or perceived dependence on an illiberal governing body or leader.
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Take some notes.
DJ's is more detailed, but we are making the same general points.
Given he had just written that, and that I feel strict definitions of terrorism allow for more examples that don't "fit the mold", so to speak, I decided to give a heuristic rather than a formal definition.
Given what we know of Hasan at this point, he does not meet DJ's definition any more than he does mine.