Terrorism is conceptually meaningless

The decision to call an act “terroristic” is conceptually meaningless. It says nothing of the actor’s motive or mental state. It says nothing of the action’s damage, danger or threat level. It says nothing of the attack’s broader social or political significance—except this. It tells us to conceive of the act as analytically separate from ordinary, domestic crime; to externalize it onto an agency foreign to the social body; and to associate it with the exotic Enemy with which we are at permanent War. It becomes the faceless Other by which the nation-state affirms its falsified unity, smoothing over its internal antagonisms, and giving fodder for voodoo salesmen like “radicalization experts” and racial chauvinists. The obscene result isn’t simply that it serves as fuel for bigotry and paranoia, but that it contains the implicit admission that all sorts of non-“terroristic” acts—murder, rape, torture, slavery, imperial mischief and aggression—are more wholly “ours.” The act of naming Terror is the act of announcing Fascism.

a reply to: DarkPalSFO

What you supposed to call it?

a reply to: DarkPalSFO

When you use violence to forward a goal that is terrorism this isn't a difficult concept for most people

a reply to: dragonridr


There’s no consensus international definition. In U.S. law and policy, there’s a tenuous definition (something like political motivations, intimidation and coercion) but in practice, it’s too vaguely defined for any consistent line-drawing and it’s almost wholly reserved for Muslim criminals nowadays. (White nationalist militants were more closely targeted in the 90s.) I’d say that most any type of state-sponsored or non-state violence could fit the U.S. definition, and the term’s application is mostly cynical and politically motivated.

I like this definition

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Although I would also put religious alongside political (they can arguably be the same thing)

What is violence then?

vi·o·lence
noun
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

So fun fact
when antifa is burning cars, it is violence (something)..and its politically motivated
antifa = terrorist organization by definition.

Anyhow, ultimately terrorism is a tactic, not a ideal or anything..just a method of achieving a goal through force

a reply to: DarkPalSFO

When you devise a scheme that results in your actions causing terror, it is terrorism. Not just some insane dude walking around screaming before he stabs random people, but when it is called for by a doctrine.

So, it's not that hard to grasp, really.

You can presume most serial killers are in fact, terrorists. But their actions are motivated by a sickness in their brain. Not a holy book or political/religious ideology. Which, is where, when it is called terrorism, these people are born from.

Well, here's the legal interpretation for the UK, which is quite clear...

Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

etc...

Source - UK legislation website

Source - UK Legislation website - Terrorism Act 2000

a reply to: DarkPalSFO

The decision to call an act “terroristic” is conceptually meaningless.

The perpetrated acts are designed to cause terror , the word is descriptive not conceptual.

a reply to: DarkPalSFO
What you're calling for is an intelligent analysis of a situation.

Sorry, our leaders and the media prefer us to label things as black or white - there is no middle ground, therefore there is no room for critical, logical thought.

It's how they control our tiny minds.

a reply to: SaturnFX



Exactly my sentiments ..... but I would add to that it is also a war of one

race against another to gain the upper hand, by way of a waging of war in

the homeland of the ordinary person who is being terrorised/persecuted?

a reply to: DarkPalSFO

It is not supposed to do anything but cause fear in the general populace. That is the point of "terror".

By making us fear them, they achieve their goals. By making us wonder if going to the store, will be our last endeavor, they make us think twice.

If people were not so pragmatic, and more fearful than they were, a large-scale terrorist attack could bring a country to its knees by causing such fear, no one leaves their homes.

By pitting neighbor against neighbor, and citizen against citizen is another achievement of terrorism. Causing terror, regardless of affiliation, or logic is the point. Terrorism is pretty synonymous with a specific group, at this point in history, they are trying to show who is in charge, and make us fear them. This is the crux of terrorism, fear...

If we all would align with the terrorist views tomorrow, it would stop. But that is not the case, so it will continue. Manchester was a strike at the immorality of western society by "their" view.

This is why it will continue because we value our freedom and ability of freedom of expression.

a reply to: DarkPalSFO

As long as we have endless war killing Arabs for Israel with no reason or policy in the ME the war machine is happy.

originally posted by: Cygnis
a reply to: DarkPalSFO

It is not supposed to do anything but cause fear in the general populace. That is the point of "terror".

I don't think the terrorists are that smart. I think they are just seeking revenge. You want to know why we have terrorism in the world? Look at the guy in this picture and read his story:

www.latimes.com...

One man approached a bag that contained the body of a pregnant woman, touched it, talked to it, then began to cry and wail. Civil defense workers had to lead him away.

That guy in the picture is your next terrorist attacker!

Good God. Is this the opening salvo to making the term "terrorist" politically incorrect?

a reply to: DarkPalSFO

Reading these comments, I have concluded that your original point has been all but entirely obscured.

To your original point I would only say that CorpGov has always needed and perpetuated an "enemy" to deflect the masses from the reality that CorpGov is itself the enemy.

I think terrorism is defined as a random deliberate attack on civilians to cause terror... and from a military perspective it is fairly useless. It won't win wars and has no real purpose other than to cause mayhem.
In fact I would say terrorism doesn't work, any cause which uses it to further their goals will harm itself and would be better off not using such tactics.

Terrorism usually leads to the peoples carrying it out to end up worse than they were to begin with. Its basically spite your own face by cutting off your nose.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Most of the people in the article KNEW who was at fault. They were pushed inside their homes and saw a vehicle full of explosives parked. Some did blame the coalition but most blamed ISIS.

Most of them were begging for us to find a more precise way or a different way.

Unfortunately, it is not one we can afford to ignore or let be in its place of dwelling.

Historically, Terrorism was used to forward a political agenda, and was phrased under such criteria.

But in the past 2 decades.. we have seen a new kind of problem, it's just all to easy to slap a tag on something and phrase it for a headline the masses will understand.

A better terminology would be 'unadulterated evil' as there's no 'real' political agenda other than carnage, fear and hate in the past decade, Daesh might have stated out with an political (state) agenda.. but their actions have proven them to be after something else entirely.

Real "terrorism" still happens, for political agenda's in the ME
But the attacks and actions of those under the ISIS/ISIL banner have slipped into cult like bloodbaths, far removed from what they proclaim to be, it's not about reclaiming anything.. it's about killing anything that isn't a part of their cult.. and so.. yes i agree with OP.. that's something far uglier and should get a different terminology.

This is something i believe most Muslims also understand, but are having problems trying to convey.

a reply to: dragonridr
All murder and rape or general strong armed robbery is terrorism under that interpretation. I agree, because typically the victim is in fact terrorized.

I believe all violent crime should be terrorism. The we can finally get the authority to clean up some of the bigger cities where crime has been rampant for generations due to the politicians being owned by mob bosses and street gangs.

But for the sake of the writing between the lines.
Terrorism is the label and tool the State (God) has used to automatically make a target instantly vilified by every agent of the state as well as the ignorant civilian population. The general population will not question any narrative or story that involves a terrorist. Remember that some people within the establishment were calling wikileaks guy terrorist and sympathizer/supporter. Even with Snowden as well. And yet they committed no acts of violence.

Sometimes people called terrorists are legitimate. Many times acts of terror are carried out by the state against itself in order to garner support from the proletariat. Support for things that would have previously been very questionable or even outright unbelievable. But as long as someone or something called terrorist is responsible, everyone will submit.

When the state wants somebody dead, they will just slap on the terrorist label and their own mama will be cheering for their demise. Not a day in court, but outright death.

Always be suspect of any American citizen the government wants killed on site. It is more likely that the information they would reveal in a courtroom is more dangerous to those who want them dead, rather than being a violent threat to the general population.

Also by definition, state actors globally are the single largest source of terrorism. But if they are the stronger adversary, it will not be called at such, even though the actions fit the definition precisely.