Chilly Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 You guys are merely looking at targets and garbage like that. If you think that is what terrorism is, you are sadly mistaken. You guys are touching base on the idea of terrorism in general with perspectives and differences in types of terrorism, but you are still not quite getting it. Not to mention your use of only modern topics in terms of things that have occurred in the last 50 years, it is becoming ever so clear that no one truly knows terrorism. 780206[/snapback] What's sad is that you aren't realizing how !@#$ing ridiculous you sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 it is becoming ever so clear that no one truly knows terrorism. 780206[/snapback] Especially you. I've been studying terrorism, counter-terrorism, insurgency, asymmetric warfare, etc., for probably eight years now. I still couldn't give you less than a three-page definition. But I know I know more about it than your sanctimonious ass does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 Especially you. I've been studying terrorism, counter-terrorism, insurgency, asymmetric warfare, etc., for probably eight years now. I still couldn't give you less than a three-page definition. But I know I know more about it than your sanctimonious ass does. 780240[/snapback] I was merely looking to intelectually spar with someone about terrorism in general really. I guess it came out wrong. Oh well, this thread will probably die now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Oh well, this thread will probably die now. 780245[/snapback] You killed it with your first post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 How's this for a definition? "Terrorism is the premeditated use of violence deliberately directed against random civilians, with the aim of killing as many as possible and sowing psychological fear and despair." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 How's this for a definition? "Terrorism is the premeditated use of violence deliberately directed against random civilians, with the aim of killing as many as possible and sowing psychological fear and despair." 781988[/snapback] Nope. First off, it doesn't cover the USS Cole (which was not crewed by "random civilians"). Second, it doesn't necessarily require violence (e.g. the threat of violence; leaving a bomb threat on an airliner with intent to disrupt operations is a form of terrorism.) Thirdly, the aim isn't the physical act of killing civilians, it's the psychological effect that terrorism aims for (it just so happens that the most effective way to mess with someone's psychology is to kill a bunch of people, but killing isn't required). Fourth, "fear and despair" is overly narrow...hell, my points six through eight cover deficiencies in that last clause as well, so let me just restate it: "...with the aim of applying effective pressure to a defined group or society by any means deemed practical." Killing is just the practical means to that end. Terrorist groups don't just kill for ***** and grins; their behavior is highly goal-directed, something that your definition doesn't recognize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Nope. First off, it doesn't cover the USS Cole (which was not crewed by "random civilians"). Second, it doesn't necessarily require violence (e.g. the threat of violence; leaving a bomb threat on an airliner with intent to disrupt operations is a form of terrorism.) Thirdly, the aim isn't the physical act of killing civilians, it's the psychological effect that terrorism aims for (it just so happens that the most effective way to mess with someone's psychology is to kill a bunch of people, but killing isn't required). Fourth, "fear and despair" is overly narrow...hell, my points six through eight cover deficiencies in that last clause as well, so let me just restate it: "...with the aim of applying effective pressure to a defined group or society by any means deemed practical." Killing is just the practical means to that end. Terrorist groups don't just kill for ***** and grins; their behavior is highly goal-directed, something that your definition doesn't recognize. 782025[/snapback] OK, let me refine it a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 OK, let me refine it a bit. 782026[/snapback] Between the two of us, I'm pretty sure we can refine that definition until we reach a point where you think it's right and I think you're a !@#$ing idiot. We're just THAT good together... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Between the two of us, I'm pretty sure we can refine that definition until we reach a point where you think it's right and I think you're a !@#$ing idiot. We're just THAT good together... 782039[/snapback] Go calculate the mass of Jupiter or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Go calculate the mass of Jupiter or something. 782041[/snapback] Okay, so we're half-done. Now we just need the definition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted September 21, 2006 Author Share Posted September 21, 2006 Nope. First off, it doesn't cover the USS Cole (which was not crewed by "random civilians"). Second, it doesn't necessarily require violence (e.g. the threat of violence; leaving a bomb threat on an airliner with intent to disrupt operations is a form of terrorism.) Thirdly, the aim isn't the physical act of killing civilians, it's the psychological effect that terrorism aims for (it just so happens that the most effective way to mess with someone's psychology is to kill a bunch of people, but killing isn't required). Fourth, "fear and despair" is overly narrow...hell, my points six through eight cover deficiencies in that last clause as well, so let me just restate it: "...with the aim of applying effective pressure to a defined group or society by any means deemed practical." Killing is just the practical means to that end. Terrorist groups don't just kill for ***** and grins; their behavior is highly goal-directed, something that your definition doesn't recognize. 782025[/snapback] You forgot one thing that i can think of off the top of my head, and that is shock value. The ultimate goal of every terrorist action is to enflict as much shock on the people as they can. After 9-11, Bin Laden was quoted as saying that what happened at the WTC was a larger success than he had hoped for. This was not because it killed more Americans, but because he himself was not actually expecting the towers to collapse. Had the towers stayed upright, the added shcok value would not have been present in the attack, so there fore, from Bin Laden's perspective, it was a larger success than he had hoped for. One of the things that adds to shock value is the idea of conspiracy. No one knows that a conspiracy is being planned and then when it is finally shown to the world through terrorist action, the world is shocked which adds to the shock value. The thing with terrorism is that it is a cyclical motion that renews itself time and time again in certain cultures. It starts with intolerence, then transfers over into conspiracy or plotting, then moves into terrorist action, and then comes repression or retaliation by nation or state. This has been the case in Northern Ireland for the last 60 years, as well as in Russia in the early 1900's when it was introduced by Karl Heinzen when he wrote the docturate for modern terrorism called "Murder", and in the Algerian struggle for independence from France as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 You forgot one thing that i can think of off the top of my head, and that is shock value. 782065[/snapback] No, I didn't. That was covered in "...with the aim of applying effective pressure..." Originally, I'd typed "effective psychological pressure", basically meaning "shock value"...but I decided that was a needlessly restrictive definition. And not all terrorism includes "shock". Shock maximizes psychological pressure...but psychological pressure can exist in the absence of shock. The insurgent campaign in Iraq, for example...who can possibly claim to be shocked by an IED when there's fifty being detonated every day? But even so, it applies a great amount of psychological pressure to US and US-backed forces via the long-term consistency of the IED campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 You guys are merely looking at targets and garbage like that. If you think that is what terrorism is, you are sadly mistaken. You guys are touching base on the idea of terrorism in general with perspectives and differences in types of terrorism, but you are still not quite getting it. Not to mention your use of only modern topics in terms of things that have occurred in the last 50 years, it is becoming ever so clear that no one truly knows terrorism. 780206[/snapback] Please, Oh all-knowing oracle, give us your definition. Elighten the masses. Come down from the mountain or at least shout it down to us. Note: I don't care that you're 19. Maybe you're 19 and know more than every person here like you assume. But get real: your know-it-all attitude shows you to be an unlikable prick. Next time you post a topic like this, imagine mommy told you she loved you when you were a kid and try to interact with your fellow humans with some respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 But get real: your know-it-all attitude shows you to be an unlikable prick. Next time you post a topic like this, imagine mommy told you she loved you when you were a kid and try to interact with your fellow humans with some respect. 782133[/snapback] You talking to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted September 21, 2006 Author Share Posted September 21, 2006 Please, Oh all-knowing oracle, give us your definition. Elighten the masses. Come down from the mountain or at least shout it down to us. Note: I don't care that you're 19. Maybe you're 19 and know more than every person here like you assume. But get real: your know-it-all attitude shows you to be an unlikable prick. Next time you post a topic like this, imagine mommy told you she loved you when you were a kid and try to interact with your fellow humans with some respect. 782133[/snapback] Relax. You have some real agression that you should probably work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted September 21, 2006 Author Share Posted September 21, 2006 No, I didn't. That was covered in "...with the aim of applying effective pressure..." Originally, I'd typed "effective psychological pressure", basically meaning "shock value"...but I decided that was a needlessly restrictive definition. And not all terrorism includes "shock". Shock maximizes psychological pressure...but psychological pressure can exist in the absence of shock. The insurgent campaign in Iraq, for example...who can possibly claim to be shocked by an IED when there's fifty being detonated every day? But even so, it applies a great amount of psychological pressure to US and US-backed forces via the long-term consistency of the IED campaign. 782092[/snapback] Agreed. Well, i just learned something today. NOW, i am a know it all prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 No, I didn't. That was covered in "...with the aim of applying effective pressure..." Originally, I'd typed "effective psychological pressure", basically meaning "shock value"...but I decided that was a needlessly restrictive definition. And not all terrorism includes "shock". Shock maximizes psychological pressure...but psychological pressure can exist in the absence of shock. The insurgent campaign in Iraq, for example...who can possibly claim to be shocked by an IED when there's fifty being detonated every day? But even so, it applies a great amount of psychological pressure to US and US-backed forces via the long-term consistency of the IED campaign. 782092[/snapback] The one question you need to ask yourself though is "Is the insurgency in Iraq and the psychological pressure that the troops face, is it psychological pressure, or war fatigue"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 No, I didn't. That was covered in "...with the aim of applying effective pressure..." Originally, I'd typed "effective psychological pressure", basically meaning "shock value"...but I decided that was a needlessly restrictive definition. And not all terrorism includes "shock". Shock maximizes psychological pressure...but psychological pressure can exist in the absence of shock. The insurgent campaign in Iraq, for example...who can possibly claim to be shocked by an IED when there's fifty being detonated every day? But even so, it applies a great amount of psychological pressure to US and US-backed forces via the long-term consistency of the IED campaign. 782092[/snapback] So you would classify IED attacks targetting foreign forces in Iraq as terrorism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 The one question you need to ask yourself though is "Is the insurgency in Iraq and the psychological pressure that the troops face, is it psychological pressure, or war fatigue"? 782580[/snapback] There's a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 So you would classify IED attacks targetting foreign forces in Iraq as terrorism? 782586[/snapback] Yes. And I know that was a set-up, to get me to make what you perceive to be a value judgement about the Iraqi insurgency. So before you do, note that in my discussion of terrorism so far I've taken great pains to be value-neutral; most of my disagreement with JSP's definition, if you'll read back, were about the value judgements he made. So that "yes", above, is entirely judgement free. The tactic of using IEDs against occupying forces simply is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts