Support NeoGAF

[AndrewDean84xX]

Yes? What do you think terrorism is?

I tend to think an act of terrorism involves a goal of mass deaths and inflicting fear, not one murder, and then a speech for not forgetting a past event.

 

[sphagnum]

Yes? What do you think terrorism is?

I don't think the word terrorism should be used unless the target is civilian, personally.

 

[m_shortpants]

Turkey has gone to shit thanks to political Islam. The Turkish ethnic identity never used to be this tied up in Pan-Islamic issues. I feel like I'm watching my country fade away.

Is it political Islam? Or the fact that Turkey shares a border with a country undergoing a brutal civil War?

 

[Frustrated_me]

AKP have ruined Turkey.

There is no way Turkey recovers from the injustice Erdogan has committed over the past decade. Totalitarian figure who keeps fucking over the country turning it into a vile place filled with Islamist nationalist. This is what he encourages via his regime.

.. Turkey used to be a gem of a place.

 

[theCalamity]

I tend to think an act of terrorism involves a goal of mass deaths and inflicting fear, not one murder, and then a speech for not forgetting a past event.

Terrorism has a broad definition.

 

[Pyroclastic]

Gunshots are rarely as bloody as what you see in movies

unless you're bud dwyer, in which case reality seemed stranger than fiction.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Maybe Erdogan can send Putin a nice expensive gift as compensation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Diamond

In 1829, the Russian diplomat and writer Alexandr Griboyedov was murdered in the capital of Persia, Tehran. The Russian government demanded severe punishment of those responsible. In fear, the court of Fath 'Alī Shāh sent the Shāh's grandson Khusro Mirzā to Saint Petersburg, where he gave the diamond to the Russian Tsar Nicholas I as a present.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

Terrorism has a broad definition.

Too broad, and too easy to label. I just can't get behind the idea that this is terrorism, instead of a very clear murder/assassination.

 

[Psychoward]

Too broad, and too easy to label. I just can't get behind the idea that this is terrorism, instead of a very clear murder/assassination.

Well get over it because it is.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Too broad, and too easy to label. I just can't get behind the idea that this is terrorism, instead of a very clear murder/assassination.

So, you don't think there was any political motivation behind it?

 

[Audioboxer]

I tend to think an act of terrorism involves a goal of mass deaths and inflicting fear, not one murder, and then a speech for not forgetting a past event.

I get that we live in a world where many people want to "re-write" the definitions of words in the 'English' language to meet their "standards", but no, terrorism, or acts of terrorism does not need to be about groups.

Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence (terror or fear) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.

the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

The definitions of the term are fine, as are the multi-faceted uses of it. Russia are not wrong to call this an act of terrorism. As much as Russia itself is wrong with so much of what it is currently doing. An individual can commit an act of terrorism and it's correctly stated as so.

 

[mrhyderager]

As far as I can see it, murdering diplomats is a pretty good way to delegitimize your legitimate grievances, at least on a personal level.

The entire world doesn't operate quite the same as the West. Sure, in the US, UK, Canada, France, etc. murdering an ambassador isn't something on the agenda. But we're not in a warzone, or living under a dictatorship. We're not starving, our loved ones aren't under constant threat, we're not refugees. You can't jump to an assumption that this was just another page in the ho-hum book of Islamic Terrorism. There are shades of grey that it's hard to get a perspective on.


I'm not condoning assassination by any means, but I think to jump to "Islamic Terrorism!" in every instance of violent in the Middle East can be a little bit quick in this case.

 

[hobblygobbly]

Is it political Islam? Or the fact that Turkey shares a border with a country undergoing a brutal civil War?

Yes it is political Islam, it's the foundation of the ruling party (AKP).

 

[Diancecht]

AKP have ruined Turkey.

There is no way Turkey recovers from the injustice Erdogan has committed over the past decade. Totalitarian figure who keeps fucking over the country turning it into a vile place filled with Islamist nationalist. This is what he encourages via his regime.

.. Turkey used to be a gem of a place.

We have recovered from a cesspool that is Ottoman Empire.

We will recover from Erdogan.

 

[Kinyou]

I don't think the word terrorism should be used unless the target is civilian, personally.

Dont know about that
Non combatants makes more sense

 

[JP_]

We have recovered from a cesspool that is Ottoman Empire.

We will recover from Erdogan.

I like that you cite a fallen empire when arguing against Turkey falling.

 

[Jacob]

I get that we live in a world where many people want to "re-write" the definitions of words in the 'English' language to meet their "standards", but no, terrorism, or acts of terrorism does not need to be about groups.





The definitions of the term are fine, as are the multi-faceted uses of it. Russia are not wrong to call this an act of terrorism. As much as Russia itself is wrong with so much of what it is currently doing. An individual can commit an act of terrorism and it's correctly stated as so.

There isn't a universally agreed-upon definition of terrorism and its disingenuous at best to pretend that there is one.

It's legitimate to make the argument that the targeted assassination of a significant government official like an ambassador is not an attempt at spreading terror among civilians but simply to send a message to a government, and that it is better classified as a different form of political violence. That is not in any way an expression of support for the event. Personally I don't have an issue with calling this terrorism but one can make valid arguments for both more restrictive and more expansive definitions.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I tend to think an act of terrorism involves a goal of mass deaths and inflicting fear, not one murder, and then a speech for not forgetting a past event.

That's not a working definition of terrorism.

The speech he gave said "As long as our towns are not safe, you will not enjoy safety." That's a clear attempt at incitement of fear, violence and intimidation.

I don't think the word terrorism should be used unless the target is civilian, personally.

This is an incredibly stupid definition of terrorism that isn't used by anyone. By this logic you would discount the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings as acts of terrorism.

 

[Audioboxer]

There isn't a universally agreed-upon definition of terrorism and its disingenuous at best to pretend that there is one.

It's legitimate to make the argument that the targeted assassination of a significant government official like an ambassador is not an attempt at spreading terror among civilians but simply to send a message to a government, and that it is better classified as a different form of political violence. That is not in any way an expression of support for the event. Personally I don't have an issue with calling this terrorism but one can make valid arguments for both more restrictive and more expansive definitions.

That reads like a post-modernist statement. By that logic any time someone comes along and says "I don't think there is an agreed-upon definition" we get ourselves where we are often when people act like their opinion trumps logic and reason.

We do have pretty sound understandings of terrorism and what it is. An onus is on the individuals or groups who cannot bring it to themselves to accept the definitions we have. Not the rest of us to hold our thoughts and allow everyone and anyone to tell us we are wrong.

 

[Lubricus]

Terrorism per the Russians.

ANKARA, Turkey — A gunman in a suit and tie shouted slogans about Syria’s civil war after he killed Russia’s ambassador to Turkey in front of stunned onlookers at a photo exhibition in the Turkish capital on Monday, according to an Associated Press photographer who witnessed the shooting. Police later killed the assailant, Turkish station NTV reported.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry called it a terrorist attack.

‘‘We consider this to have been a terrorist attack,’’ Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. ‘‘Terrorism will not pass. We will fight it decisively.’’

Ambassador Andrei Karlov, 62, was several minutes into a speech at the embassy-sponsored exhibition in Ankara when a man fired at least eight shots, according to the AP photographer in the audience.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2016/12/19/russian-ambassador-turkey-attacked-gunman/vlLQ0fWvNzYA0FmfQ4wNqL/story.html

 

[TheCochese]

So I have to scour through 11 pages? OK.



This is your only post between telling me to learn to read and incorrectly saying this is the same as WWI. Thanks for talking down when you still can't explain your viewpoint.

Yeah, that was my only post. Good job, good effort.

I do enjoy how I'm your target even though multiple others said the same thing, but then I went back and gave context. Whatever.

 

[Jacob]

That reads like a post-modernist statement. By that logic any time someone comes along and says "I don't think there is an agree-upon definition" we get ourselves where we are often when people act like their opinion trumps logic and reason.

We do have pretty sound understandings of terrorism and what it is, an onus is on individuals or groups who cannot bring it to themselves to accept the definition.

No, we don't. The application of the label "terrorism" by politicians and the media is incredibly arbitrary and there is not a consensus on its meaning in the academic literature.

EDIT: just saw your edit.

Not the rest of us to hold our thoughts and allow everyone and anyone to tell us we are wrong.

There is not a single "rest of us" who all agree on the definition of terrorism, as this very thread proves.

 

[TheOctodad]

Violence begets violence begets violence begets violence...

 

[Audioboxer]

No, we don't. The application of the label "terrorism" by politicians and the media is incredibly arbitrary and there is not a consensus on its meaning in the academic literature.

EDIT: just saw your edit.



You're deluding yourself if you think there is a "rest of us" that completely agrees about the definition of terrorism.

The media or politicians incorrectly using the term terrorism to describe things does not mean there is anything wrong with the definition(s). Your beef in those situations are with those who seemingly do not know what terrorism is. Or do know, and are simply trying to play an ideological/political game.

 

[FStop7]

And he's Russian....wouldn't they kinda NOT like the Nazi's.....?

I wondered the same thing at first but I guess the thing to consider is that when you're examining the life of a person who murders people for a job you're going to see a lot of stuff that makes no sense.

 

[Diancecht]

I like that you cite a fallen empire when arguing against Turkey falling.

Ottoman Empire was a disease over Turkish culture. Our culture prevailed against it, now we have Erdogan who wants to do the same thing. We will restore it again when he is gone.

 

[Stereogatari]

Is it political Islam? Or the fact that Turkey shares a border with a country undergoing a brutal civil War?

Both. I wish we were an island.

 

[Jacob]

The media or politicians incorrectly using the term terrorism to describe things does not mean there is anything wrong with the definition(s). Your beef in those situations are with those who seemingly do not know what terrorism is. Or do know, and are simply trying to play an ideological/political game.

Since you agree that there is widespread inconsistency in the usage of the word "terrorism" throughout society, what is your basis for privileging your definition as the only correct one? It can't be that it's agreed upon by political scientists, because there isn't widespread agreement there either. This isn't a question of verifiable fact; there are no studies one can do to discover a natural "true" meaning of a word based on political and societal values.

Nor does one have to label an incident terrorism to deplore it or to consider it criminal, so I'm not really sure why you attack the morality or honesty of people who disagree with you.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

Are drone attacks, acts of terrorism?

 

[Curufinwe]

I tend to think an act of terrorism involves a goal of mass deaths and inflicting fear, not one murder, and then a speech for not forgetting a past event.

I don't think the word terrorism should be used unless the target is civilian, personally.

Terrorism is violence used for political purposes. Per the FBI:

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

This was terrorism.

 

[Biske]

Are drone attacks, acts of terrorism?

Yes.

 

[Jacob]

Are drone attacks, acts of terrorism?

Again, it depends on your definition. I would label them terrorism since the drone program takes a very cavalier attitude towards civilian deaths and uses the classic terrorist strategy of "double-tap" strikes, where they use secondary attacks to target first responders. But some definitions of terrorism are very strict in applying only to non-state actors and would label war crimes carried out by states as something different.

 

[Diffense]

Was this shooting terrorism? Was 9-11 War? Whether it's terrorism or war is largely a matter of semantics. In either case there will be winners and losers. America, in particular, has to decide what it wants to be. For argument's sake, let's say it's war, if that will make the identity oif the enemy any clearer.

 

[sphagnum]

This is an incredibly stupid definition of terrorism that isn't used by anyone. By this logic you would discount the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings as acts of terrorism.

Sure. Something doesn't have to be terrorism to be wrong.

9/11? Terrorism. Fort Hood? Not terrorism. Both are still bad.

 

[Eylos]

That's not a working definition of terrorism.

The speech he gave said "As long as our towns are not safe, you will not enjoy safety." That's a clear attempt at incitement of fear, violence and intimidation.

This is an incredibly stupid definition of terrorism that isn't used by anyone. By this logic you would discount the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings as acts of terrorism.

''A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states.''


there's no consensus on definition of terrorism

 

[Chairman Yang]

Turkey has gone to shit thanks to political Islam. The Turkish ethnic identity never used to be this tied up in Pan-Islamic issues. I feel like I'm watching my country fade away.

You, and Turkey, have my sympathies. Keep in mind this sort of Islamization is happening in pretty much every Sunni country...it's not a specifically Turkish failure.

 

[LQX]

Fucking hell. It's "little" shit like this that starts "big" shit. Hopefully Russia does not go off on the deep end and spark a war.

Terrorism per the Russians.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2016/12/19/russian-ambassador-turkey-attacked-gunman/vlLQ0fWvNzYA0FmfQ4wNqL/story.html

Is that actually the killer and victim?

 

[Diancecht]

Turkey has gone to shit thanks to political Islam. The Turkish ethnic identity never used to be this tied up in Pan-Islamic issues. I feel like I'm watching my country fade away.

Don't worry. We will take it back. Turkey and the old Turkish culture is much bigger than these fucks.

 

[Secret Character]

Fucking hell. It's "little" shit like this that starts "big" shit. Hopefully Russia does not go off on the deep end and spark a war.



Is that actually the killer and victim?

Yup. This is a historically important photograph.

 

[| Praxis |]

Fucking hell. It's "little" shit like this that starts "big" shit. Hopefully Russia does not go off on the deep end and spark a war.



Is that actually the killer and victim?

It's not going to spark a war, with us any way.

And yes, that's the killer and victim. Historic photo right there.

 

[kame-sennin]

"Donald Trump has zero chance of winning, ha ha ha !"
"Switch won't be that weak ha ha ha zero chance!"
"This won't trigger World War 3, ha ha ha!"

Fuck. GAF's spirit animal is Michael Pachter

I almost died.

 

[Staccat0]

And I just watched some that showed it off? You're point? your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything. I can understand you not wanting to see dead bodies, cool. Don't expect everyone else to have some aversion to it when it comes to some important breaking news.

So you effectively agree with the person you are replying to?

 

[Marvel]

Is that actually the killer and victim?

Yes.

 

[Liljagare]

I am starting to feel better about the emergency gen and stockpile of food again in my storage. Nothing new sadly though, humans continue to be humans.. :\

Why we never appear to learn from history is really.. appalling and amazing? We call animals stupid and dumb, but we collectively constantly bang our heads against concrete walls, over, and over.

It's been a couple of thousand years, it is getting old imho.

 

[Audioboxer]

Since you agree that there is widespread inconsistency in the usage of the word "terrorism" throughout society, what is your basis for privileging your definition as the only correct one? It can't be that it's agreed upon by political scientists, because there isn't widespread agreement there either. This isn't a question of verifiable fact; there are no studies one can do to discover a natural "true" meaning of a word based on political and societal values.

Nor does one have to label an incident terrorism to deplore it or to consider it criminal, so I'm not really sure why you attack the morality or honesty of people who disagree with you.

That when people stray so far from dictionary definitions they are being ignorant and/or purposely deceitful, not that we need a post-modernist take that everything in life is now "subjective" and we don't really have any "truths".

 

[SmackDaddy]

Terrorism per the Russians.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2016/12/19/russian-ambassador-turkey-attacked-gunman/vlLQ0fWvNzYA0FmfQ4wNqL/story.html

Very powerful photo. Wow.

 

[jorma]

Terrorism per the Russians.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2016/12/19/russian-ambassador-turkey-attacked-gunman/vlLQ0fWvNzYA0FmfQ4wNqL/story.html

Terrorism per pretty much everyone, one should think.

 

[la_briola]

Are drone attacks, acts of terrorism?

What else?

 

[Apathy]

So you effectively agree with the person you are replying to?

no. he wants to be squeamish that up to him. The world isn't set up to cater to just him. some of us understand the importance events like these and the images that sometimes they produce. Sorry you didn't get that

 

[trembli0s]

Fucking hell. It's "little" shit like this that starts "big" shit. Hopefully Russia does not go off on the deep end and spark a war.



Is that actually the killer and victim?

It is. It looks like a scene out of a movie.