Agent Monkeysee on 30/5/2006 at 21:12
Quote Posted by Fragony
Basicly non-governmential armies/combatants.
Directed at civilian targets to further political or ideological goals.
I think that pretty much wraps it up nicely. Non-governmental combatents that target civilians to further political or ideological goals was pretty much the definition of terrorism since the time the distinction made any sense up until the world went bonkers about 5 years ago. So I say stick with that.
Aerothorn on 30/5/2006 at 23:00
oh shit, did I post this in Gen Gaming? I don't know what I was thinking. Bleh.
Anyway thanks for the responses - due to unreasonable homework load I won't be able to read them till much later tonight but I'm sure they'll be helpful.
ok, who am I kidding, it's probably a bunch of 'more like terrier am i rite' but, well, we'll see.
Phydeaux on 30/5/2006 at 23:17
A terrorist is a freedom fighter with fucked up ideals.
The "War on Terror" is an oxymoron. War implies a battlefield between opposing militaristic forces. Terrorism targets civilians in non-military settings.
Ultraviolet on 31/5/2006 at 00:47
Quote Posted by Hier
The fact that the terrorist group is small or hidden and in some way
(a. fighting against a much larger),
(b. generally peaceful society) is important. As much as many people hate what the US government is doing, I doubt many reasonable people would call them "terrorists". Referring to the government of the world's most powerful nation as a terrorist organization basically
(c. trivializes the word.)a. "Guerillas" or "resistance" or even "freedom fighters" in some cases.
b. Who?
c. Because the use of "terrorist" to describe anyone who commits even so little as curiosity-motivated electronic espionage according to the Patriot Act doesn't trivialize the word one bit, oh no... This trivializing is what lets people rename "guerillas" or "resistance" or even "freedom fighters" to "terrorists." I mean in general. I am not applying any of the other names to Bin Laden specifically. Then again, who can really claim to understand their motives?
DinkyDogg on 31/5/2006 at 02:25
I'd say one distinction that needs to be made is that terrorists attack civilians. At least in my definition, militias or paramilitary types attack or defend against opposing armed forces. Terrorists try to intimidate by attacking civilians.
tungsten on 31/5/2006 at 02:30
A terrorist is someone who lets TTLG solve his/her homework for him/her.
Oh, you were asking for TERRORISTS - well, that's those that do it in general gaming.
aguywhoplaysthief on 31/5/2006 at 03:19
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
Non-governmental combatents that target civilians to further political or ideological goals
^^^^
Umm...people, the thread ended after this post.
Aerothorn on 31/5/2006 at 04:02
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
Directed at civilian targets to further political or ideological goals.
I think that pretty much wraps it up nicely. Non-governmental combatents that target civilians to further political or ideological goals was pretty much the definition of terrorism since the time the distinction made any sense up until the world went bonkers about 5 years ago. So I say stick with that.
So what do you call it when a government, or goverment agency/agents, commit actions that, if committed by civilians, would be called terrorism? Is that war crimes? What if there is no war on? Then what is it called?
Note that I'm not trying to be challenging your definition, just trying to figure this out - one of the big questions is whether you count governments as terrorists.
To my great suprise, the CIA does, sort of. The CIA definition (from CIA.gov) says:
The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or
clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
And CIA agents are obviously clandestine agents, so by their definition, them laying mines in the canal in Nicaragua (or other things in the Iran-Contra affair) is terrorism.
Another great thing I found was from the United Nations site.
"In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as 'peacetime equivalents of war crimes'."
I'm currently leaning towards the above definition, though I of course then need to research what, exactly, constitutes a war crime.
tungsten on 31/5/2006 at 04:32
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
"In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as 'peacetime equivalents of war crimes'."
I'm currently leaning towards the above definition, though I of course then need to research what, exactly, constitutes a war crime.
Doesn't really work. The US declared war on the world in 2001, so it's not possible anymore to perform acts of terror against them? - Hey, I finally understand how Bush's way works to make terror against the US impossible :p
Illuminatus on 31/5/2006 at 05:54
As has been mentioned earlier, terrorists attack the masses because the elites are invulnerable, whereas revolutionaries attempt to attack the state directly. What this means is that the attack needs to produce an effect, usually psychological, and therefore it has to be highly calculated (dismissing such attacks as irrational is a real mistake). A terrorist needs to make sure his attack is highly visible, and he's gotta remember to take credit for it, otherwise the work goes to waste. Obviously the media plays a big role in both these aspects, and the more spectacularly and randomly a terrorist attack occurs, the farther it goes (unfortunately September 11 was a stellar success in these departments).
It's worth noting however that terrorists need to strike an actual balance betwee instilling people with fear and potentially galvanizing them against their political ends. The reaction to September 11 may or may not have been in bin Laden's favour- if his ambitions were to stir up military conflict in the Middle East, then the resulting War on Terror goes along with his agenda.
