A definition of Terrorism for the 21th century

[Kaftan Barlast]

Im currently working on building a world that is to be used in anything from a future computer game(in school) to a fiction novel. It takes place in the usual bleak future where nothing is good and everything is true.

 

I was thinking of the politics that such a world might have and I came up with the question of how they would define terrorism. Naturally this is meant to poke at the real world and what might happen here, as any good sci-fi novel would

 

 

Im looking for feedback on this, mostly grammatical in nature since Im not a native english speaker.

 

A definition of terrorism for the 21th century.

 

A terrorist:

 

An individual acting under an ideal that is in opposition with that of the authorities or goverment, whose actions or words lead to or may be presumed to lead to, or who may be considered to encourage; violence and/or a radical change in society.

 

 

 

Terrorism

 

An ideal or political movement whose agenda can be presumed to support and/or encourage violence and/or a radical change in society, and that can be considered to be in opposition with that of the authorities or goverment

Edited October 4, 2005 by Kaftan Barlast

[Guest Fishboot]

I'd think that terrorism will gain a wider and wider sphere of influence towards infinity until it halts the progression of the technical infrastructure that it utilizes directly or indirectly. In future history any sufficiently interested group or individual will be able to damage a greater scale of humanity with each technological advance. There were no planes to crash in the European Middle Ages, and no understanding of germ theory to utilize plagues offensively (to their fullest extent, anyway), for example, and terrorism's physical impact would be limited to what could be done with knives and arrows. Obviously, terrorism grows stronger as society progresses. If you accept an infinite limit on human progression eventually one person will be able to affect all others by utilizing or subverting technology, at which point terrorism would be the only meaningful political force.

 

Thus the obvious techniques for dominating terrorism are either authoritarian ludditeism or sequestration of technology from possible terrorists by other authoritarian means.

[taks]

i think you're letting the ultimate goal of terrorism take a back seat. it is not simply "in opposition" to society. terrorism is, at its heart, designed to terrorize. i.e. the goal of terrorism is to cause fear.

 

terrorists make a lot of lofty claims, but they're all simply excuses, rationalization as it were, for their own tyrannical desires. in this sense, remember, i'm referring to the leaders of the terrorist movements. no doubt the followers believe in what they are doing.

 

either way, any definition that does not include the desire to cause fear is incomplete.

 

taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

Maybe I should have explained it further. The point of this "definition" is to show that this is a goverment who designs laws that make it possible for them to mark just about anyone as a terrorist. 'Real terrorism' is completely irrevelant to them.

 

 

Its like the classic 1984 "The war was never meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. The essential pact of modern warfare is destruction of the produce of human labour. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In priciple, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects, and its object is not victory over Eurasia or east Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact"

 

 

As such, this imaginary goverment fights an ongoing "war against terrorism" in order to keep the masses frighetened and controllable by making them believe there is a war being fought against an imaginary enemy, an enemy who really is those among the people who are willing and able to change things.

[Guest Fishboot]

Maybe I should have explained it further. The point of this "definition" is to show that this is a goverment who designs laws that make it possible for them to mark just about anyone as a terrorist. 'Real terrorism' is completely irrevelant to them.

 

Its like the classic 1984 "The war was never meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. The essential pact of modern warfare is destruction of the produce of human labour. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In priciple, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects, and its object is not victory over Eurasia or east Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact"

 

As such, this imaginary goverment fights an ongoing "war against terrorism" in order to keep the masses frighetened and controllable by making them believe there is a war being fought against an imaginary enemy, an enemy who really is those among the people who are willing and able to change things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eh, I think it's a bit overwrought. There are much easier ways to keep peope in line - just point guns at them, pogrom, etc. With modern technology, a muscular bureaucracy and a privileged military class I honestly don't think an authoritarian government could be broken in an internal civilian revolution any more. Guns just shoot too many bullets, information moves too fast and databases are too thorough. Terrorism might be one useful boogeyman for subverting a democracy initially, but once the structures of authoritarian power are installed there wouldn't be a need to tell civilians anything, even lies.

 

Edit - One thing about an authoritarian regime that isn't isolated is that a modern power base is increasingly defined by your population of scientists and engineers as much as your capacity for massive slave labor. Since they are important and not trivially dispensible it might be worth it to control them with lies.

Edited October 5, 2005 by Fishboot

[Azarkon]

i think you're letting the ultimate goal of terrorism take a back seat.  it is not simply "in opposition" to society.  terrorism is, at its heart, designed to terrorize.  i.e. the goal of terrorism is to cause fear. 

 

terrorists make a lot of lofty claims, but they're all simply excuses, rationalization as it were, for their own tyrannical desires.  in this sense, remember, i'm referring to the leaders of the terrorist movements.  no doubt the followers believe in what they are doing.

 

either way, any definition that does not include the desire to cause fear is incomplete.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Terrorism is just a word. It has no meaning outside of what is socially implicated in its definition. Those who think that the goal of terrorism is to cause fear are taking that definition from those who oppose it. The terrorists themselves, even the leaders, do not necessarily agree with said definition. But then neither would they call themselves terrorists.

 

Unfortunately, any argument over terrorism IRL tends to expose too many deep, fundamental emotions, so I won't go further than that.

 

An ideal or political movement whose agenda can be presumed to support and/or encourage violence and/or a radical change in society, and that can be considered to be in opposition with that of the authorities or goverment

 

I would say the question you have to ask here is who is using this definition. It sounds like the definition of a neutral observer instead of either party, unless the point of this definition is to reveal a world where the government and the terrorists both respect each other's causes. I'd say that a definition never exists in a vacuum but is always the product of the social factors that surround those who coin it. Since the word terrorism implies a antagonistic outlook towards its goals (an idealist would not name his movement "terrorism", I'd think), it is most likely coined by those who are against it, and therefore its definition would probably be much more condemning.

Edited October 4, 2005 by Azarkon

[taks]

Terrorism is just a word.  It has no meaning outside of what is socially implicated in its definition.  Those who think that the goal of terrorism is to cause fear are taking that definition from those who oppose it.  The terrorists themselves, even the leaders, do not necessarily agree with said definition.  But then neither would they call themselves terrorists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

we define the terrorists actions based on what their ultimate goal is, not what is socially implied. the semantics are irrlevant. that the terrorist leaders openly admit their own goals or not is irrelevant. their intent is fear, no matter how you want to define it. UBL (OBL?) wants to frighten. the IRA wants to frighten (well, the radical arm). hamas wants to frighten. of course, once enough people are afraid, other, perhaps more materialistic, goals are attainable (these leaders are tyrants by any definition).

 

and kaftan says he's not making any political statements "

 

taks

[kumquatq3]

we actaully had thsi discussion LONG ago. I wonder if that thread still exists...

[Azarkon]

Terrorism is just a word.  It has no meaning outside of what is socially implicated in its definition.  Those who think that the goal of terrorism is to cause fear are taking that definition from those who oppose it.  The terrorists themselves, even the leaders, do not necessarily agree with said definition.  But then neither would they call themselves terrorists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

we define the terrorists actions based on what their ultimate goal is, not what is socially implied. the semantics are irrlevant. that the terrorist leaders openly admit their own goals or not is irrelevant. their intent is fear, no matter how you want to define it. UBL (OBL?) wants to frighten. the IRA wants to frighten (well, the radical arm). hamas wants to frighten. of course, once enough people are afraid, other, perhaps more materialistic, goals are attainable (these leaders are tyrants by any definition).

 

and kaftan says he's not making any political statements "

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How do you justify your statements? You basically just repeated your argument.

 

For instance, the ultimate goal of terrorism is terror? What? Terror is the instrument, not the goal. If fear were the goal of terrorism then we might as well call horror movie makers terrorists.

Edited October 4, 2005 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

Terrorism is a fighting strategy, like cavalry charges, or human wave assaults. It has certain requirements on the user, and imposes certain difficulties on the defender. As Fishboot very astutely observed the requirements go down, and the implications go up as society becomes more sophisticated and enters higher energy states as a system. This is because terrorism is quite simply about causing destruction and mayhem until Society cries 'uncle', or breaks down entirely permitting revolutionary justice, commissars, holy community militias and so on to have fun. Thus we are witnessing the rise of ever more tiny groups using terrorism.

 

Again, as Fishboot points out, this has frightening implications. Because it means that ever smaller groups of halfwits will be able to ruin our days by screwing around with our health databases, our road networks, our stock exchanges, our oil refineries, and so on.

 

I say again that terrorism is just a strategy. Its purpose is simply to destroy and make life unpleasant for as large a group of people as possible with the minimum effort. It can be used by your strapping huddled masses yearning to kick some ass, but in an increasing number of cases it is turning up in the hands of minority extremists. People like white supremacists or Aum Shinrikyo with whom compromise is neither attractive nor possible.

 

Your authoritarian regime would be attempting to portray some sort of huddled mass movement as one of the extremist crazy movements. Note, however, that a perfectly reasonable state would protray real extremist crazies as extremist crazies also. This is one of those reasons why politics is so much fun.

[Dark Moth]

In addition, a terrorist(s) are usually also organizations not sponsored by or associated with the government of any sovereign country, and usually whose political/social aims are in conflict with the aims of the government/society they fight against. And of course, they do this to instill terror and weaken their enemies mentally more than militarily.

[Hildegard]

Maybe I should have explained it further. The point of this "definition" is to show that this is a goverment who designs laws that make it possible for them to mark just about anyone as a terrorist. 'Real terrorism' is completely irrevelant to them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well you should look at the USA Patriot Act then:

 

USA PATRIOT Bill

 

To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.

 

....other purposes

 

Using such words when writing a law, those guys in the Bush administration really crack me up sometimes

[Child of Flame]

Come all you young rebels and list while we sing for the love of one's country is a terrible thing.

It banishes fear with the speed of a flame and it makes us all part of the patriot game.

My name is O'Hannon and I've just gone sixteen. My home is in Monaghan where I was weaned.

I've learned all my life cruel England's to blame and so I'm a part of the patriot game.

It's barely two years since they wandered away and it was with the local battalion of the bold IRA

For they'd read of our heroes and they wanted the same to play their own part in the patriot game.

This Ireland of ours has for long been half-free. Six counties are under John Bull's tyranny.

So, we gave up our boyhood to drill and to train and play our own part in the patriot game.

And now as I lie here, my body all holes, I think of those traitors who bargained in souls.

I wish that my rifle had given the same to those Quislings who sold out the patriot game.

 

If you had the luck of the Irish

You'd be sorry and wish you were dead

You should have the luck of the Irish

And you'd wish you was English instead!

 

 

A thousand years of torture and hunger

Drove the people away from their land

A land full of beauty and wonder

Was raped by the British brigands! Goddamn! Goddamn!

 

 

If you could keep voices like flowers

There'd be shamrock all over the world

If you could drink dreams like Irish streams

Then the world would be high as the mountain of morn

 

 

In the 'Pool they told us the story

How the English divided the land

Of the pain, the death and the glory

And the poets of auld Eireland

 

 

If we could make chains with the morning dew

The world would be like Galway Bay

Let's walk over rainbows like leprechauns

The world would be one big Blarney stone

 

 

Why the hell are the English there anyway?

As they kill with God on their side

Blame it all on the kids the IRA

As the bastards commit genocide! Aye! Aye! Genocide!

 

 

If you had the luck of the Irish

You'd be sorry and wish you was dead

You should have the luck of the Irish

And you'd wish you was English instead!

Yes you'd wish you was English instead!

 

Anyhow, besides posting pro-IRA lyrics, what little I have to contribute to the discussion is basically this:

 

Terrorism:

 

A methodology for waging a war, often wielded by non-state sanctioned combatants, with not nearly enough money to fight using multi-million dollar machines of modern warfare. Terrorism's primary goal is to weaken the populace, and tangentially the economy and country, through fear. Terrorists have little to no concern for what collateral [civillian] damage they cause, and often times main objectives will include civillian targets.

 

I'm not going to argue the right or wrongness of targetting civilians, as it's been done before, but that seems an adequate definition to me.

[Walsingham]

In addition, a terrorist(s) are usually also organizations not sponsored by or associated with the government of any sovereign country, and usually whose political/social aims are in conflict with the aims of the government/society they fight against.  And of course, they do this to instill terror and weaken their enemies mentally more than militarily.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Weell... you are right up to a point. But what you are really talking about is a difference of opinion, where one party is vastly inferior in terms of resources. It doesn't necessarily follow that you then become a terrorist. The aim of terrorism as a strategy is to cause destruction and disruption. the primacy of mental over military relies on the eventual aim of the terrorist group. Some want compromisable political goals, and aim to break the will of the target. Some want revolutionary goals like maoists, islamofascists, and my mom. The latter have ultimately military/political goals. And they see terrorism as the first step in tehir revolutions, to be followed by gaining more and more adherents, moving on to guerrilla and then regular war. They plan to move up by bringing the target down.

[julianw]

Common to tyrannical governments, arresting or assassinating outspoken religious or political leaders to instill fear in the people and keeping them in line also seems like terrorism to me.

 

In fact, those are the governments that most likely to open or secretly support terrorist groups.

 

But revolutionists who attack a existing system that is corrupt might be called terrorists at the time, but history will be the final judge.

[Azarkon]

Common to tyrannical governments, arresting or assassinating outspoken religious or political leaders to instill fear in the people and keeping them in line also seems like terrorism to me.

 

But that's not called terrorism. Terrorism as a modern day term only applies to insurgent groups, or for governments associated with these insurgent groups. If a large national government executes dissenters, it's either called a problem of human rights (China), or a tyrannical state (Iraq), depending on the standing of said country in the world.

 

Like I said, terrorism is a term constructed by those who oppose it. Yes, it indicates a strategy based on fear, but that's only because in propaganda you concentrate on the attribute that most people can identify with rather than one that most people can't. For instance, the assassination of a government leader is NOT necessarily for the sake of instilling fear. Yet it is called terrorism by said government. Similarly, attacking commercial and military structures can clearly be seen as economic warfare, but it is their terrorist nature that's stressed. In neither of these cases can we be confident that the GOAL of the attackers is to instill fear - perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. We certainly cannot judge them only based on the results. After all, gang wars DO bring fear to the populace, but gangsters are not called terrorists. Dictators construct fear to control the entire populace, yet it is not terrorism.

 

In the end, the question of whether or not the goal of terrorism is to bring fear is irrelevant. ALL acts of war bring terror and fear upon the populace, and all manners of control depend somewhat on fear. Whether if that was the strategic purpose is, in most cases, difficult to see. For example, it's easy to say that an attack on a children's hospital is an act of terrorism if done on purpose. But what if it wasn't done for the sake of terror? What if the purpose of the act was hate crime? It's hard to say, and most of the times no one knows the details - certainly not the media. So in the end it's government's propaganda that discerns a terrorist from a freedom fighter. We, in the US, *have* called terrorists freedom fighters (ie when we were supporting them in Iraq & Afghanistan against the USSR), and we have called what other countries consider freedom fighters terrorists. This is solely a matter of political self-interest: we color the world as would advance our own goals, and the vast majority of the population believe in the divisions we give.

 

In war, it is necessary to paint the other side as evil, and our own cause as the cause of righteousness. The enlightenment of a society, then, depends on whether it is able to sympathize with the other side. Common sense dictates that conflict is resolved through mutual understanding. Yet in the modern world, such a philosophy does not exist. On either side.

[julianw]

I think it's the term "white terror" that threw me off.

 

The term is not post-Modern, but it still exists today, maybe in different forms than before.

Edited October 4, 2005 by julianw

[Reveilled]

I would argue that terrorism is a form of attack upon a country that attempts to maximise or deliberately targets non-combatants.

 

Thus, I would contend that some actions that would be considered terrorist are not such at all. For instance, there were times when the IRA would phone the police about the locations of their bombs so that civilians could be evacuated. Of course, such an attack is obviously meant to cause terror, but it is nowhere near as morally reprehensible as setting off a bomb where the intention is to kill as many people as possible.

 

Questions that arise from this: If 9/11 had only been an attack on the Pentagon, and the plane flown into it had been empty of everyone but the person or persons making the attack, would that have been a terrorist attack or a pre-emptive military strike, like Pearl Harbour? In your opinion, is there a difference? Similarly, if the planes flown into the WTC had been unmanned, and the attackers had called in threats such that the towers had been evacuated, would that have been a terrorist attack, or something else? In your opinion, would that have been less morally reprehensible? Would such an act have affected your view either or the attackers themselves, or of their cause (either the one they believed they were fighting for, or the one you believe their leaders are fighting for)?

 

I'd be genuinely interested to hear people's thoughts on these questions, whether or not they agree with my proposed--as well as overly-generalised and pretty vague--definition of terrorism.

[Walsingham]

Here's a provisional distinction for you between terrorist ad freedom fighter.

 

A freedom fighter is an individual who uses terrorist strategy and tactics in pursuit of political/social change against undemocratic states. These being typically where the franchise is witheld to either a majority ethnic group or the entire population. In such states the disenfranchised, while more numerous than the organs of control, generally possess less power. The use of force is less reprehensible because it may plausibly be argued the dissatisfied have no recourse to peaceful means of change. Having chosen to use force terrorism is the only militarily sensible strategy to pursue.

 

A terrorist is an individual who uses terrorist strategy and tactics in pursuit of political/social change against democratic states. Here the group possesses no moral or popular weight, and chooses to use force because peaceful means do not satisfy them . NOT because peaceful means are denied them. Thus an extremist terrorist group is no different in political terms to a junta or other tyranny. It merely uses the military strategy best suited to its resources, which are small.

 

Any good?

[Reveilled]

Hmm...no, I don't think so. In my opinion, a freedom fighter is the good kind of Guerrilla or Partisan, not the good kind of terrorist. Thus, I think that to be a "freedom fighter" rather than a terrorist, one must limit oneself to attacks and raids on military--and possibly government--targets.

[Atreides]

What if they incur civilian casualties by hiding out/drawing battle to civilian areas, intentionally or not?

[Reveilled]

What if they incur civilian casualties by hiding out/drawing battle to civilian areas, intentionally or not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I'd apply the same criteria that is applied to other kinds of Guerrillas: If the primary target is a military one, and civilians are caught in the cross-fire, then that is obviously a bad thing, but it isn't terrorism. On the other hand, if the primary target is the civilian population, or if civilians are explicitly targeted during the attack, then that would cross the line into terrorism, in my opinion. Unlike a standing army, though, I would say that Guerrillas and Partisans do not have to minimise civilian casualties as an army would in order to remain Guerrillas as opposed to Terrorists. Obviously, one would hope, especially in the case of a group we choose to label Freedom Fighters, that the group would attempt to minimise those casualties, but I would say that that line is the distinction between good and bad guerrillas, while deliberately targeting civilians is the line between Guerrilla and terrorist.

 

Thus, I'd say that if they (intentionally) draw battle into civilian areas in order to make it easier to target the military, that that is different from drawing battle into civilian areas so that they can kill as many civilians as possible.

[Walsingham]

Well, I don't agree, but I wouldn't go so far as to pelt you with rocks over it.

 

Some would say that if guerrillas do not wear uniforms they are drawing down (potentially) fire on ivilians, by refusing to distinguish themselves. Is this bad and wrong?

[taks]

Terrorism as a modern day term only applies to insurgent groups, or for governments associated with these insurgent groups.  If a large national government executes dissenters, it's either called a problem of human rights (China), or a tyrannical state (Iraq), depending on the standing of said country in the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that's not true at all. al qaeda is not called a terrorist group because they want change nor because they are an insurgent group. they're called a terrorist group because they indiscriminately kill innocent people in an attempt to terrorize (terrorize: to coerce by intimidation or fear) them.

 

though there is typically a distinction between government actions (i agree on this point a bit) and rogue organization actions in terms of classification, what i've been referring to as terrorism/terrorists has always been true.

 

contrary to your beliefs, the idea that the word terrorism is applied only to insurgent groups that are "unpopular" is the new definition applied only by people such as yourself, in an attempt to bring legitimacy to their actions. in any rational belief system actions committed by terrorists are morally repugnant and worthy of the moniker terrorism.

 

taks

Edited October 5, 2005 by taks

[Reveilled]

Well, I don't agree, but I wouldn't go so far as to pelt you with rocks over it.

 

Some would say that if guerrillas do not wear uniforms they are drawing down (potentially) fire on ivilians, by refusing to distinguish themselves. Is this bad and wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would say yes, up to a point. If the guerrillas were to engage a military target in a civilian area without a uniform (or any distinguishing mark; a coloured armband, coloured bandolier, a flower in the hat), then yes, I would say that is bad and wrong. Nevertheless, I would still say that that is a distinction between good guerrilla and bad guerrilla, rather than guerrilla and terrorist (as such a measure would be to minimise their own casualties, rather than to maximise civilian ones, and though that would be the consequence, it would not be the intent, which in my opinion has to be there for a terrorist group). On the other hand, if the guerrillas hide themselves among the civilian population when not involved in a battle, then I would say this is justifiable as it is the only reasonable means by which the guerrillas can ensure their survival.

 

Now, where are my rocks?