Old Forum - webDiplomacy

Start a new discussion in the public forum

Post a new thread

If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID# of the game.
We get a lot of feature requests. If your feature request isn't already on our issue tracker, then the best place to ask is the forum. This will help us gauge support for your ideas, before we add it to the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.

Deschutron (142

)
10 Mar 10 UTC

Is "terrorism" bogus?

See inside

Deschutron (142 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

The term "terrorism" treats the use of terror as a weapon as such a special thing. Terror is part of war. Every war contains a psychological battle between the warring parties. Terror is part of that battle.

Remember the goal in war is the surrender of the opponent, or their destruction. The less resources required to reach the goal the better. Apart from predisposing them to give up, terrifying your opponent weakens its ability to fight. That's why terror is used.

My point is everyone in war does it. But only some of them are classed as terrorists.

For example during the 1980s, the US government called the Taliban a group of "freedom fighters", as if this was different to terrorists. But in 2001 they were referred to as "terrorists".

Meanwhile, Hitler's regime in Germany is not classed as terrorist, no matter how much it scared people out of expressing their views by disappearing loved ones, attacked minority groups, or even used the blitzkrieg technique in battle which was designed to maximise terror.

The term "terrorism" has been used to create narratives to start wars against people's better judgement. For example, the US government used the idea of terrorism to make Iraq look like it needed to be invaded. This was done through claiming that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaida - a terrorist organisation.

So,
1. Is the term "terrorist" being used to trick people into doublethink?
2. Does the term "terrorist" have a nontrivial meaning?
2.1. If so, what does it mean?
3. Should we use this term?
4. Should we openly deride anyone who uses it?

Stukus (2126 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

Well definitely not number 4. I don't see how open derision would help any kind of dialogue in any way ever. I guess for me, the nontrivial meaning would be someone who has terror not as an adventitious effect of their goal, i.e. conquering Europe, but as a major objective. Ends vs means, I suppose. I definitely think "terrorist" is being used to manipulate people, but so is pretty much every other important term ever. We could get technical about the etymology and the technical meaning of the word "tyrant," and how it has more to do with hereditary legitimacy than actual treatment, but the word has evolved, as all words do, and now it has a lot of connotations that we accept when e use the word in a modern sense.

And whether it's strictly technical or not, the term should still be used so long as someone finds it as a useful shorthand for a larger set of characteristics. Bananas aren't technically fruit, but if you call it one, I get what you mean, and I'm not going to openly deride you unless I'm trying to win a douchebag award.

Which I am. They're not fruits, you losers! Bwahaha!

Hereward77 (930 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

I just looked that banana thing up...apparently it IS a fruit even though it has no seeds.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/09/08/1453046.htm

Might not be correct though.

bbdaniels (461 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

"In cultivated varieties, the seeds are diminished nearly to non-existence; their remnants are tiny black specks in the interior of the fruit."

Maniac (189 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

Lol, I love it when threads about terrorism decend into discussions about bananas. :)

Back on topic, I think the words we use to describe others are extremely important. The danger is that we use words that can then box into corners, it was hard for the UK Government to negociate a peaceful solution in Northern Ireland as it was viewed as "sitting down with terrorist"; Had the UK government not used the term widely for decades, maybe peace would have been acheived quicker. Likewise, I know that the UK negociates with the Taliban in Afghan and this is criticised because we have called them terrorist for so long.

Labels should be avoided where ever possible in the accurate reporting of incidents, although even our usually reliable BBC can be (unintentionally?) baised at time. I remember seeing a report about an "honour killing" whereby a father had killed his 14/15 year old daughter for becoming pregant by her twenty something boyfriend. The BBC (correctly IMHO) carried a piece about how the phase "honour kiling" is a misnomer even though it used the term in its own reporting. More puzzling was the fact that they always referred to the man who got her pregnant as her 'boyfriend'. In any other circumstances he would have been referred to as an abuser at best or rapist at worst.

Stukus (2126 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

It's not the seeds, it's the banana tree. It has no wood in its stem. The banana is an herb if you go by that.

figlesquidge (2131 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

I would suggest that Terrorism is definitely defined, but I would suggest that it's now been defined.However, I would also comment that it has been successful, because the aim of terrorism is to inspire terror and this has happened.

warsprite (152 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

@ Stukus Yes the banana plant is herbaceaus plant, but it is still produces fruit, as does the strawberry plant. Technically all flowering plants, including grain, legums, nuts produce fruit.

warsprite (152 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

@Maniac In the US the boyfriend might be called a pedophile.

Deschutron (142 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

@ the banana people here
I feel relieved upon finding out that bananas in fact are fruits, moments after being told that they aren't.

I guess I take words pretty seriously. But then so do physicists and chemists and they use them to great effect.

I don't think we should be tolerating a dud word in our vocabulary, especially if it is as emotionally charged as "terrorism".

Of course I don't know whether "terrorism" is a dud word or just an abused one, hence this thread.

@figlesquidge
What would you say has been successful?

Terrorism itself, or the use of the word "terrorism" as a weapon of terror?

figlesquidge (2131 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

He could be called that here, but I think the point is more that the girl & her partner were happily together but that the father had an issue with it.
That it was statutory rape is a slightly different issue.

Maniac (189 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

@figles - the fact that the girl was happy to be abused/raped is besides the point. The abuser may have managed to abuse her mentally as well as physically. I am aware that the rapist/abuser/boyfriend/partner was spoken to by the police. Which should make all 14 year old girls feel a lot safer in their beds!

figlesquidge (2131 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

@Desch: Terrorism.
Terrorism aims to inspire terror. Some major atrocities, and a lot of successful publicity, mean this has been very successful indeed.

alamothe (3367 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

What?? You're not allowed to fuck a 14 year old?

ottovanbis (150 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

Calm down, he means legally...

vamosrammstein (757 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

I'm allowed to:p

Crazy Anglican (1075 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

Guerilla Warfare is nothing new. As such neither is terrorism. They've been called shock troops, assassins, etc. but the result is basically the same. To a great extent the term terrorist is merely becoming a designator for any group who primarily carries out military operations against peace time civilian populations of little or no strategic value.

The 80's joke was:
If you're on our side, you're a freedom fighter;
If you're against us, you're a terrorist;
and if we don't know who's side you're on you're a guerilla fighter.

Everyone knows that they are all the same thing.

The term terrorist has value in that it accurately describes what the group does. If we got rid of the term terrorist, then people would criticize the UK for sitting down with guerilla fighters. It's not the word, but the acts (and more to the point who those acts are aimed at) that are objectionable.

joey1 (198 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

Soldiers wear uniforms, Terrorists do not. Those Germans who landed by sub to the US and discarded their uniforms could have be called Terrorists if they succeed in their planned industrial sabotage.

Crazy Anglican (1075 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

I don't know that I agree with you on that note joey (and I may certainly be the one who is wrong about this). In wartime combatants are expected to wear uniforms and anyone who doesn't is considered a spy. There are different punishments for captured spies than for captured soldiers (in theory). Terrorists and saboteurs are not necessarily confined to wartime actions. The lines get a little fuzzy though. I'm sure the French resistance were considered terrorists by the Germans. The fact of a declaration of war does make a difference though. The intent of the attacks and targeting of civilians comes into play as well.

joey1 (198 )
10 Mar 10 UTC

Yes, The French resistance in occupied france could be called a terrorist organization. And they were treated accordingly by the Germains. I am almost finished reading a memoir of the second world war by Winston Churchill, he argued against a limited raid in France because he was worried about the reprisals on the French who would rally to the invaders side, because they would be considered by the Germans Terrorists and not POWs.

ottovanbis (150 )
11 Mar 10 UTC

war just fucks with all definitions

figlesquidge (2131 )
11 Mar 10 UTC

Agreed: Pretty well any uprising is deemed as terrorist.
The difference between murder and hero is merely the side of the fence.

orathaic (1009 )
11 Mar 10 UTC

indeed - so if i first claim to be king, and then declare war on my neighbouring country (the one which is clearly occupying my land) and then kill people, does that make me a soldier? (i already have a uniform)

Or maybe once i get my US citizenship I can move to new york and claim the island as my own personal islamic fiefdom, and instigate laws to punish any non-muslims (death by fire seems acceptable, right? God's Firey justice!) and again not be a terrorist, interesting idea!

figlesquidge (2131 )
11 Mar 10 UTC

re Orathaic: No, you first have to become king.
Until then you're merely a man of questionable mental stability.

Crazy Anglican (1075 )
11 Mar 10 UTC

As I said the lines get a bit fuzzy.

I'd say that instance number one, would make you a murderer. Whether you are a terrorist or not would be up in the air. You could certainly claim to be a soldier, having made a formal declaration of war. I would imagine that the war would be a short one though.

As for claiming Manhattan, I'm not sure how that applies. There is no right conveyed upon U. S. citizens to claim parts of the land as independent states. There doesn't appear to be any precedent for not considering you a terrorist in that regard.

JECE (1322 )
11 Mar 10 UTC

At the original question, the term 'terrorist' can easily be abused (and has been by dictatorships since 9-11). Scrapping all use of the word is better than attempting to define it.

AgentF (562 )
11 Mar 10 UTC

That Manhattan one is absolutely correct, the only difference is scale. If you just did it by your lonesome and got shot by cops, nobody would support what you did. If instead you had the force of arms to capture Manhattan and hold it against the US government for hundreds of years and controlled a new Manhattan government and instigated Islamic law that punished non-Muslims with fire, and held it so long and so strongly that other nation states recognised your sovereignty, then you would indeed go down in history as the founder of New Pyrostan, nation on the maps of the world.

27 replies

5nk (0

)
11 Mar 10 UTC

Late night WTA Gunboat - 30 mins

gameID=23768

Join up

1 reply