They call it a bombing, or an attack, why dont they call it terrorism?

Well some one defined terrorism as politically motivated violence bent on intimidation so that sounds alot like the bombing of Baghdad to me. I dont think that is the right definition of terrorism, Someone provided a good definition above so I dropped the issue.

On a side note, what is your picture about? it looks cool.

Why on earth are you so hell-bent on making these things fit the definition of terrorism?

edited 22nd Jul '11 2:15:24 PM by CDRW

If the intention of the bomb was to blow up the giant marshmallow monster that was coming in that direction and the gunman believed he was shooting lizardmen disguised as humans then it wasn't terrorism, it was a deranged psycho killer.

For now we don't know enough to use the T word. Jumping in and appearing to confirm that this was done by terrorists would be irresponsible and insincere.

I can't speak for Baff, but I can say the thought that one, random person could effectively scar a nation in such a manner is, in some ways, much more terrifying than a bunch of terrorists out for blood.

edited 22nd Jul '11 2:31:36 PM by RedViking

what things? also a good answer.

edited 22nd Jul '11 2:44:11 PM by Baff

A lot of Norwegian media is calling it terrorism, particularly the pundits brought in to comment on it.

And to be quite honest, I prefer when they don't call it terrorism. It's become sort of a buzzword that is applied far too often. Just look at Your Terrorists Are Our Freedom Fighters. There is a lot of ambiguity on what is terrorism, but not on what a bombing is. So in that regard it's more precise.

Because Terror was not the primary motivation, assassination seems to have been?

edited 22nd Jul '11 2:50:43 PM by JosefBugman

A car bomb and firing at random kids? Doesn't sound like an assassination to me. Olof Palme was assassinated, and if the PM of Norway was the target, the assassin should have taken a few pointers from whoever shot Plame.

Sidewinder said exactly what I was saying- the word is losing meaning from overuse, and it was never clear to begin with.

It's the new "-ists" the media uses to sow fear in the people, intentionally or unintentionally. Before, it was fasch-ists*

edited 22nd Jul '11 2:57:23 PM by deathjavu

Hey! You left out the monarchists, the anarchists, the nationalists, and the um...I'm sure there's a good many more.

social-ist?

edited 22nd Jul '11 3:04:26 PM by Baff

That is the proper definition of terrorism, as I understand it, but there is also an element of scope. Bombing Baghdad had a militarily relevant goal and there were armed and identified opponents in the city, as I understand it. The point of terrorism is that one is intentionally targeting non-combatants. Hitting civilians along with the actual target is called ineptitude, but it isn't actually terrorism.

Therefore, a political assassination is, in fact, different from terrorism. If one is making a political assassination, one is trying to disrupt governmental functions or make a statement. If one is being a terrorist, one is deliberately targeting non-military installations and personnel in order to incite fear in the general populace.

My picture is White Glint from Armored Core, by the way.

But lets say a bomb went off in the white house and killed Obama, and it had been planted by the taliban, then that wouldn't be a terrorist attack right?

also thanks.

edited 22nd Jul '11 3:13:27 PM by Baff

Terrorism is about intentions, not necessarily actual actions. If a member of the Taliban went and killed a bunch of people in a school shooting, then killed himself, but did so because he went crazy, not because he was a member of the Taliban, that wouldn't be terrorism. Of course, the media wouldn't care, but that's not the point. If I put a bomb in the White House because I just didn't like the tourists, and it happened to take out Obama, well, then it wouldn't really be terrorism, it would be me being crazy and I happened to kill someone important. Although to put a bomb in the White House and assume you will only take out "normal" people is rather stupid, but, whatever...

Political correctness.

Hey, another Armored Core fan.

Terrorism means a lot of things to a lot of people. The dictionary defines it as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." To me, the "threats' part is important. Without the threat of further violence if you don't get whatever you want (or without this being the followup to not getting what you want), it's just a bombing or an attack. Al Qaeda blowing anything up on US soil is terrorism because they've made threats of further violence in the past if we don't do what they want. Bob blowing up the entire Congress isn't terrorism if he's not doing it for any particular reason or threatening to blow up more stuff.

When it's attached to radical Islam or other similar groups, I like to pretend that it basically means a rebellion or insurrection, except perpetrated by people aspiring to cause general mayhem, under the premise that mayhem furthers Generic Radical Belief X.

In other words, if it's the sort of thing that would get pulled in guerrilla warfare, it would essentially be the same thing a terrorist is doing, except a guerrilla is more directly struggling against an organized military and/or political force, while a terrorist considers anything that causes chaos an acceptable target. Including themselves.

Nowhere near a perfect (or even good, really) taking into account the wide scope of bombings and shootings over the past millennium and earlier.

I suppose you'd say it's my own personal coping mechanism for putting up with the relatively nonsensical version people toss around whenever stuff starts blowing up, as well as for the fact that when you do start trying to draw semantic lines in the meaning, you usually can't cleanly do so without a helluva lot of investigation into the motivations, and means of execution of almost every specific incident.

Bombing a building, or going on a shooting spree usually isn't something a group or individual does without some pretty complicated history behind it.

edited 22nd Jul '11 3:29:06 PM by Toodle

.. Well then acording to that definition the U.S bombing of Iraq was terorrism. Look I am not saying it was, and I disagree with it, but however you put it, whenever the U.S goes to war they use politically motivated violence with the thread of further violence. Every nation that goes to war does.

edited 22nd Jul '11 3:47:17 PM by Baff

Pretty much, yeah. The main difference between war and terrorism (aside from which side you're on) is who the combatants are and who starts it.

Well no. The definition I follow is that terrorism is a politically motivated act of violence against civilians with the intention of intimidating said civilian population advancing, as the the perpetrator would believe he is, x-cause.

But even that definition has problems...

I'm not sure you can call it the threat of further violence.

If you call it the threat of destroying those who they've declared enemies, then yeah, that's a threat of further violence.

The difference is that a terrorist usually is vague and indiscreet about the targets they're willing to choose, and exactly what it is which will complete their goals.

The US did waffle about in places like Vietnam and Iraq, no denying it, but when you compare a goal like "Destroy the US," with "Oust the old regime and establish a democracy," one of them certainly seems like something that you could actually fit on a timetable, while the other is something you shout at inflammatory rallies.

That's what I meant to imply by "who the combatants are". In terrorism, it's civilians. In war, it's enemy soldiers/insurgents.

edited 22nd Jul '11 3:55:19 PM by Wulf

sorry I didnt get it.

I think it needs to be reiterated that there really isn't one working definition.

There are a many great number of books devoted simply to dissecting exactly what it means to be a terrorist.

It's not a simple term, just as most "isms" represent a wide range of ideas.

Most people just find it easier to convince themselves they understand the politics of it all when they have a fancy word that vaguely corresponds to a very diverse issue.

My definition of terrorism is "violent acts whose primary value to the perpetrators is not in the actual damage caused but in the psychological effect on the target group".

The attacks on Baghdad weren't an attempt to frighten the Iraqi people into submission, they were part of an attempt to forcibly take control of the country.

If Islamic extremists blew up a power plants in the US, crippling our infrastructure, that would not be terrorism, it would just be an attack. If the US publicly anhilliated an Afghan village, announcing that the same would happen to any village where Taliban were found, that would be terrorism.