Support NeoGAF

[infinitys_7th]

Terrorism is the act of advancing an ideology by inciting fear through violence.

It's a straightforward definition that labels a violent action based on its context to differentiate it from other violent actions.

For example, if a bank robber shoots five people, is he a terrorist? He incited fear in the people around him and in those he shot, but he has no ideological motive. Therefore, he is not a terrorist.

For example, if a man carries out a mass shooting for no reason beyond seeking a thrill, is he a terrorist? By the previously described logic, no.

If a man has an ideological belief that abortion is evil and burns down an abortion clinic as a result, is he a terrorist? Yes, because his actions have an ideological context.

If a man has an ideological belief that abortion is evil and randomly robs and kills another man who happens to be an abortionist, is this terrorism? No, because there is no ideological context.

So why is there a push to conflate all these scenarios? We already have an all-inclusive banner for them all - crime. Terrorism is a subset of crime.

 

[Relativ9]

Because if you redefine the term, then suddenly there isnt an overwhelming representation of muslim offenders in the catagory.

 

[zelo-ca]

Because if you redefine the term, then suddenly there isnt an overwhelming representation of muslim offenders in the catagory.

Amen to that.

 

[EBE]

Bakunin and Kropotkin* are spinning in their graves.

*Kropotkin renounced terrorism shortly after setting his ideas to paper

 

[Mohonky]

Where is this occuring?

 

[Knob Creek]

There's a difference between redefining the word and realizing that there are different types of terrorism for different reasons. This is common in pretty much every crime there is. As a wiseman once said, there are levels to this shit. While everything fits under the singular banner of "terrorism", Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is a different kind of terrorism from racial lone wolf white guy domestic terrorism, which is different from ecoterrorism, which is different from economic terrorism, and so on and so forth.

 

[Dunki]

There's a difference between redefining the word and realizing that there are different types of terrorism for different reasons. This is common in pretty much every crime there is. As a wiseman once said, there are levels to this shit. While everything fits under the singular banner of "terrorism", Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is a different kind of terrorism from racial lone wolf white guy domestic terrorism, which is different from ecoterrorism, which is different from economic terrorism, and so on and so forth.

But even then they should all fall under the same law and judgement.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Where is this occuring?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/face-terrorist-article-1.3888551

And various forums. r/politics and ERA have tons of tons of posting mirroring the (debunked) allegations in the link. The claim that the bomber specifically targeted minorities has no supporting evidence and neither does the claim that he represents "white Christian terror", which is an obvious attempt to establish a parallel with Islamic terror and obviously wrong because there were no "white Christian" based ideological motives.

Both sides rush to push these events off on the other, but I have noticed that the left is especially interested in applying "terrorism" even when the facts do not fit the label.

 

[TheShadowLord]

Well if Theodore J. Kaczynski was called as a domestic terrorist, couldn't it also be possible to call Mark Anthony Conditt a domestic terrorist once(or if) we get more information? Because this is what it is all about, really.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...d=0ahUKEwiIiPXRqYDaAhUEd6wKHS9TDqsQ_B0IjwEwDg

 

[Xiaoki]

But even then they should all fall under the same law and judgement.

So, an "ecoterrorist" that frees lab animals from a testing facility should be treated the same as a militant Islamic terrorist that bombs a mosque killing 300 people?

 

[infinitys_7th]

Well if Theodore J. Kaczynski was called as a domestic terrorist, couldn't it also be possible to call Mark Anthony Conditt a domestic terrorist once(or if) we get more information? Because this is what it is all about, really.

The Unabomber did have some ideology guiding his attacks, though. Some slight amount of environmentalism, and intense misanthropy. He wrote a manifesto for a reason.

So, an "ecoterrorist" that frees lab animals from a testing facility should be treated the same as a militant Islamic terrorist that bombs a mosque killing 300 people?

Do you really think the two would face similar charges?

And how is the "ecoterrorist" in that scenario advancing ideology through fear? They are just a vandal.

 

[Knob Creek]

But even then they should all fall under the same law and judgement.

Sure, in the same way that someone getting caught peeing outside is a sex offender just the same as a child molester.

 

[Dunki]

So, an "ecoterrorist" that frees lab animals from a testing facility should be treated the same as a militant Islamic terrorist that bombs a mosque killing 300 people?

There are both terrorist should the jail sentence the same? No. Should they be treated by the public the same until this sentence? For example: Some left wing politicians tried to argue that left wing Terrorism is not as bad as right wing terrorism and that shortly after Antifa and co tried to burn down the bank district of Frankfurt. IT is still terrorism and none of it should be defended by the public.

Sure, in the same way that someone getting caught peeing outside is a sex offender just the same as a child molester.

In Germany its called public disturbance and will cost you a fee. And you are not a sex offender

The sexoffender lists are totally fucked up in America anyways but that is a different topic.

 

[Knob Creek]

There are both terrorist should the jail sentence the same? No. Should they be treated by the public the same until this sentence? For example: Some left wing politicians tried to argue that left wing Terrorism is not as bad as right wing terrorism and that shortly after Antifa and co tried to burn down the bank district of Frankfurt. IT is still terrorism and none of it should be defended by the public.

In Germany its called public disturbance and will cost you a fee. And you are not a sex offender

The sexoffender lists are totally fucked up in America anyways but that is a different topic.

That's why there are levels and variations on crimes to denote somethings aren't as bad as others despite being under the same umbrella.

 

[Dunki]

That's why there are levels and variations on crimes to denote somethings aren't as bad as others despite being under the same umbrella.

The biggest difference is that terrorism done by Antifa is being celebrated by the left. Criminal acts by BLM celebrated by the left. This is a fucking double Standard I am against. And When they even use the "right side of history" argument its even more upsetting.

 

[Knob Creek]

I'm not sure protests (violent or otherwise) are terrorism, but I guess this is a thread about trying to change the definition of the word

 

[Dunki]

I'm not sure protests (violent or otherwise) are terrorism, but I guess this is a thread about trying to change the definition of the word

A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorist

 

[Knob Creek]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorist

Do you consider BLM to be a terrorist group

 

[Dunki]

Do you consider BLM to be a terrorist group

The group no but I think there are also quite a few domestic terrorists in there. So the question is difficult to answer for me. Rioting/burning areas, plundering shops because of the political climate is in fact domestic terrorism. They are no Antifa thats for sure. And these assholes are real terrorists

 

[way more]

Once you start making or planning to make bombs I think that qualifies as terrorism. I still don't agree that the Las Vegas shooter was a terrorist because there needs to be a political motivation and so far we know nothing about that guy.

But bombs? They take the entire city hostage and make everyone feel like a target. Normally I think you have to target a specific "type" to be a terrorist whether it be cops, abortion doctors, muslims or millionaires but this bomber has me conflicted.

 

[Wulfric]

Bombs cause terror. Therefore, the person setting them up is a terrorist.

We see this time and time again where law enforcement and media outlets are reluctant to use the "T' word when it comes to white suspects.

 

[Papa]

The same reason racism was re-defined to mean "prejudice + power": it suits the definer's ideological purpose.

 

[Autoignition]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/face-terrorist-article-1.3888551

And various forums. r/politics and ERA have tons of tons of posting mirroring the (debunked) allegations in the link. The claim that the bomber specifically targeted minorities has no supporting evidence and neither does the claim that he represents "white Christian terror", which is an obvious attempt to establish a parallel with Islamic terror and obviously wrong because there were no "white Christian" based ideological motives.

Both sides rush to push these events off on the other, but I have noticed that the left is especially interested in applying "terrorism" even when the facts do not fit the label.

The problem isn't so much that people are trying to redefine the word terrorism; it's that people are prematurely trying to twist Conditt to fit it when the reality is that we don't know anything about him yet. He could very well have been a Klansman, or he could have just decided to take out as many people possible on the road to his own suicide. We don't know.

 

[Makariel]

What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? The side you're rooting for.

 

[Dunki]

What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? The side you're rooting for.

This is way to simple. BLM are no freedom fighters, Antifa are no freedom fighters. Hamas are no freedom fighter. They are fighting for a political goal which the wish to see fulfilled. If you however use violence or intimidation to reach these goals you are a terrorist.

 

[Makariel]

I don't think that BLM, Antifa, etc. would refer to themselves as terrorist?

 

[Dunki]

I don't think that BLM, Antifa, etc. would refer to themselves as terrorist?

What they themselves refer to should not matter at all. This is what the definition of the word terrorist means. Hamas also does not refer themselves as terrorist. The moment you cross the line you are a terrorist.

 

[bucyou]

Because if you redefine the term, then suddenly there isnt an overwhelming representation of muslim offenders in the catagory.

Care to explain? "muslim offenders", as you call them, are 100% driven by ideology/religion. In context, your addition comes down to nothing but being a shitpost.

 

[Relativ9]

Care to explain? "muslim offenders", as you call them, are 100% driven by ideology/religion. In context, your addition comes down to nothing but being a shitpost.

Not a shitpost at all. I'm not sure what's confusing about it. It's simply a matter of fact: if you redefine the word terrorism to no longer require an ideological motive for violent acts, then statistically a much smaller proportion of the total number will be perpetrated by Muslim offenders. There are countless political reasons why some people would want to do this and promote that narrative, most of them come from a good place, but that doesn't mean it's the most sensible and realistic way to approach the problem. If it's crucial in the fight against terrorism, to fight the ideology itself (as most experts agree on), then deciding that the act being ideologically motivated isn't important anymore will do significant harm in the fight to prevent future attacks.

 

[Dunki]

Not a shitpost at all. I'm not sure what's confusing about it. It's simply a matter of fact: if you redefine the word terrorism to no longer require an ideological motive for violent acts, then statistically a much smaller proportion of the total number will be perpetrated by Muslim offenders. There are countless political reasons why some people would want to do this and promote that narrative, most of them come from a good place, but that doesn't mean it's the most sensible and realistic way to approach the problem. If it's crucial in the fight against terrorism, to fight the ideology itself (as most experts agree on), then deciding that the act being ideologically motivated isn't important anymore will do significant harm in the fight to prevent future attacks.

Thats one of the reason I think we also should include the Islam itself in these discussions of Terror. Because it is a very major point to fight terrorism. Radical believes are being taught in almost every mosque here in Germany and to fight terrorism we should also tackle these issues as well. We should not be silent because some would think its Islamophobia. Making something a taboo will not help solving these issues.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

I'm not sure protests (violent or otherwise) are terrorism, but I guess this is a thread about trying to change the definition of the word

Black people throwing trash cans through store windows = terrorism

White right wing kid mailing bombs = not terrorism

 

[Relativ9]

Thats one of the reason I think we also should include the Islam itself in these discussions of Terror. Because it is a very major point to fight terrorism. Radical believes are being taught in almost every mosque here in Germany and to fight terrorism we should also tackle these issues as well. We should not be silent because some would think its Islamophobia. Making something a taboo will not help solving these issues.

Well, I don't think you can do that either. Anders Behring Breivik was/is definitely a terrorist, and he didn't do it for Islamic reasons, in fact he didn't really do it for religious reasons at all, his ideology was a political and xenophobic one. A sub-category of terrorism is Islamic-terrorism, you also have Separatist-terrorism and so forth. We can take seriously the impact of radical Islam and it's casual relationship with terror without redefining terrorism as something exclusively Muslims do.

Black people throwing trash cans through store windows = terrorism

White right wing kid mailing bombs = not terrorism

The black people throwing trash cans would be vandals, possibly rioters. I've never heard of any convictions of terrorism like that? Did I miss something?

The white right wing kid would only be a terrorist if the purpose of mailing the bombs was to make a political/social statement and/or if his victims was part of an adversarial group. Something being categorized as terrorism depends 100% on the motive behind the attack. What leads you to believe otherwise?

 

[Dunki]

Black people throwing trash cans through store windows = terrorism

White right wing kid mailing bombs = not terrorism

Acts do not matter intention matter. If you want everyone to die you are not a terrorist. If you are angry and or want to change the political view/climate in a country with intimidation and violence then you are a terrorist. This is the definition of terrorism.

If this mail guy for example did send bombs to women because he hates women than he is not a terrorist. If he sends these bombs to political party members because he does not like what they are standing for then you are a terrorist.

 

[Dunki]

Well, I don't think you can do that either. Anders Behring Breivik was/is definitely a terrorist, and he didn't do it for Islamic reasons, in fact he didn't really do it for religious reasons at all, his ideology was a political and xenophobic one. A sub-category of terrorism is Islamic-terrorism, you also have Separatist-terrorism and so forth. We can take seriously the impact of radical Islam and it's casual relationship with terror without redefining terrorism as something exclusively Muslims do.

I would never put terrorism exclusively to muslims. That would be Islamophobia. I just point but that the Islam in general plays a huge role in the rise of radical Islamist/terrorists. And that we need t tackle these issues happening in mosques to be able to fight islamic terrorism.

 

[Zog]

I don't think that BLM, Antifa, etc. would refer to themselves as terrorist?

Yeah, that matters. /s

Do they call it terrorism when people drive cars into crowds?

 

[Relativ9]

I would never put terrorism exclusively to muslims. That would be Islamophobia. I just point but that the Islam in general plays a huge role in the rise of radical Islamist/terrorists. And that we need t tackle these issues happening in mosques to be able to fight islamic terrorism.

Yeah, to be honest, I assumed you didn't mean it like that, but it appeared to be what you were saying so I thought I'd address it just to be sure. But yeah any mosque that teaches Wahhabism essentially promotes Islamic terrorism, whether it's on purpose or not.

 

[zelo-ca]

Black people throwing trash cans through store windows = terrorism

White right wing kid mailing bombs = not terrorism

The black people aka BLM are a doing it for political reasons aka terrorism.

The white guy with the bombs we don't know yet if it was political so could be terrorism or could not be.

 

[Relativ9]

The black people aka BLM are a doing it for political reasons aka terrorism.

The white guy with the bombs we don't know yet if it was political so could be terrorism or could not be.

Are the black people actually violent in this case though? Are they intimidating people with violence? Doesn't seem to be quite a clear-cut case of "this is terrorism". Antifa are terrorist, they seek to hurt, intimidate or in same cases even kill people, but throwing trash cans through windows? Not quite.

If politically motivated destruction of property is terrorism, then Banksy could be accused of terrorism.

 

[zelo-ca]

Are the black people actually violent in this case though? Are they intimidating people with violence? Doesn't seem to be quite a clear-cut case of "this is terrorism". Antifa are terrorist, they seek to hurt, intimidate or in same cases even kill people, but throwing trash cans through windows? Not quite.

If politically motivated destruction of property is terrorism, then Banksy could be accused of terrorism.

The group is deemed a terrorist group because of their political intentions. Same goes for Antifa. Both have performed really bad stuff in the past and will do it again in the future unfortunately.

 

[Dunki]

Are the black people actually violent in this case though? Are they intimidating people with violence? Doesn't seem to be quite a clear-cut case of "this is terrorism". Antifa are terrorist, they seek to hurt, intimidate or in same cases even kill people, but throwing trash cans through windows? Not quite.

If politically motivated destruction of property is terrorism, then Banksy could be accused of terrorism.

Sometimes they do sometimes they do not IMO. I think it is difficult to call BLM a terrorist group but there are certainly terrorists in there. With Antifa their whole ideology is based on fear and intimidation.

 

[JKRMA]

Because if you redefine the term, then suddenly there isnt an overwhelming representation of muslim offenders in the catagory.

Good for you. I am not taking your bait.

This. I wonder what is the rate of murder and violence for the sake of inciting for Muslims compared to other ethnicities in the US for the past year. If someone finds it, please share!

 

[ickythingz]

Because if you redefine the term, then suddenly there isnt an overwhelming representation of muslim offenders in the catagory.

This is pretty much it.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

There is some grey area because you could say a mass shooter is driven by a sort of ideology and that's one of nihilism and hate for the world.

But even then, trying to change the meaning is obviously racially motivated, certain liberals hate the fact that when you say "terrorist" the first thing that pops into the average person's mind is a Muslim and now they want you to picture a white guy instead, I'm definitely not ok with that agenda.

At the end of the day I think terrorism is something that isn't just motivated by an ideology but also working towards a goal, be it political or Religious, "I hate my life and I want a bunch of people to die" isn't working towards a political or Religious goal.

 

[Unknown Quantity]

Every brown or Arab looking person is most of the time looked at suspiciously and on some occasions insulted, rare occasions attacked.
South London had 22 people almost kill a 17 year old refugee, and the amount of abuse and intolerance that's not reported is astounding, I've never reported an incident because (quoting a black friend who lives in South Tottenham) " racism is not gonna pay my rent". If a poor soul who happens to be Muslim is pushed beyond the line and acts out and gets shot, you know he'll be called a terrorist. Isis will claim it also.
Feel bad for and respect Sikhs as they get some of that aimed at muslims, and are always cool.

 

[camelCase]

Your example of burnig down an abortion clinic doesn't fit your definition of terrorism. Having an ideological reason to commit a crime doesn't make it terrorism, either. It has to be a criminal act done specifically to incite fear and warn people from doing something. Loan shark tactics fall under this definition, as do many forms of discipline in the west. We should stick to the ink and not just call whatever the most recent front page item terrorism because we simply find it reviling.

 

[Relativ9]

Your example of burnig down an abortion clinic doesn't fit your definition of terrorism. Having an ideological reason to commit a crime doesn't make it terrorism, either. It has to be a criminal act done specifically to incite fear and warn people from doing something. Loan shark tactics fall under this definition, as do many forms of discipline in the west. We should stick to the ink and not just call whatever the most recent front page item terrorism because we simply find it reviling.

Loan shark tactics certainly don't fit. The pursuit of money isn't an ideology, it's greed, it's a desire. And bombing the abortion clinic because you have a religious objection to the practice of abortion is an ideology, and by bombing the clinic you're preventing that practice from being undertaken there, and also implicitly threatening all other abortion clinics with the same. This, of course, causes fear, makes them reconsider where to set up shop, and perhaps even spend a large amount of money on security and specially designed buildings not protect against such attacks. It's pretty textbook definition Terrorism.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

Your example of burnig down an abortion clinic doesn't fit your definition of terrorism. Having an ideological reason to commit a crime doesn't make it terrorism, either. It has to be a criminal act done specifically to incite fear and warn people from doing something. Loan shark tactics fall under this definition, as do many forms of discipline in the west. We should stick to the ink and not just call whatever the most recent front page item terrorism because we simply find it reviling.

How is burning down an abortion clinic not inciting fear and warning people from doing something?

I'd say burning down or shooting up an abortion clinic is definitely a terrorist act since it has both a political and more often than not a Religious motivation at the same time.

I can semi-sympathize with what liberals are going for, a terrorist isn't always a Muslim and that's an important thing to remember, but trying to classify senseless violence as terrorism is incorrect.

 

[Alphagear]

There is some grey area because you could say a mass shooter is driven by a sort of ideology and that's one of nihilism and hate for the world.

But even then, trying to change the meaning is obviously racially motivated, certain liberals hate the fact that when you say "terrorist" the first thing that pops into the average person's mind is a Muslim and now they want you to picture a white guy instead, I'm definitely not ok with that agenda.

At the end of the day I think terrorism is something that isn't just motivated by an ideology but also working towards a goal, be it political or Religious, "I hate my life and I want a bunch of people to die" isn't working towards a political or Religious goal.

What if a Muslim hates his life and wants a bunch of people dead?

Not working towards a political or religious goal.

Pretty sure he would be labelled a terrorist just for being a Muslim.

 

[Dunki]

What if a Muslim hates his life and wants a bunch of people dead?

Not working towards a political or religious goal.

Pretty sure he would be labelled a terrorist just for being a Muslim.

No he would not. In the first moment probably but thats why there are investigations happening afterwards. Also most of these shouting their idiotic allahu akbar during it anyway. So did the new one in France.

In Europe right now its most likely a muslim terrorist when something like this happens. And no this is not racist this is the sad truth people need to realize.

 

[Relativ9]

What if a Muslim hates his life and wants a bunch of people dead?

Not working towards a political or religious goal.

Pretty sure he would be labelled a terrorist just for being a Muslim.

If he screams "Allahu Akbar" before/during/after then sure. Just like if a bible thumper screams "Praise JEBUS!" before/during/after would be labeled a Christian terrorist. I mean sure some people will probably call a vaguely Arab looking man walking down the street a Terrorist no matter what he does, doesn't mean he is one. We don't tend to follow the definitions of the intellectually challenged.