I would have continued this in the original thread, but DtC characterized it as a sidetrack so I’ll continue it here, because I think it’s an interesting topic. It may be more of a GD; however, what starts in the Pit stays in the Pit.
To put things in context:
I now reply:
Would you then acknowledge that your personal definition of “terrorism” seems to differ from that of the world at large?
The American Heritage Dictionary defines it thus:
The distinguishing feature of terrorism is not that it hurts someone’s physical body, but that it uses physical coercion as a means to instill fear in order to influence something. If I were, say, a logger, the threat of having my equipment destroyed and my offices burned down–and thus having my livelyhood taken from me–would be just as powerful as a threat to my person. Why must human bodies be involved for an act to be terrorism, when be nearly any measure violence against property can be just as harmful (with the exception of flat-out killing someone)?
“Having a coat ruined” is not what I’m talking about when I speak of terrorist acts involving property. A fur coat typically isn’t a major part of a normal person’s identity nor is it an item necessary for their livelyhood. Workplaces, valuable tools, and homes, on the other hand, frequently are an important part of a persons identity or necessary to their livelyhood. Likewise, I think that destroying someone’s home or worksite (e.g., the ALF destroying a labratory or the ELF destroying a builder’s construction site) is terrorism. If I depended on construction to support my family–to pay for health care, food, shelter, and other necessities–then harm to that which I build would ultimately have the same effect as harm to my person: I would no longer be able to provide for myself or my family or to function in society. The emotions I feel (terror) would not be that different.
I don’t believe I’ve heard the phrase “physical terror,” at least when used in a discussion of what constitutes terrorism. Is this an established phrase (not that it’s wrong if it isn’t, I just don’t want to be arguing against a definition the rest of the world regards as correct…)?
To go back to the question I asked in my OP:
Would you then acknowledge that your personal definition of “terrorism” seems to differ from that of the world at large?
While I think physical (bodily) violence is the first thought that comes to mind when the word “terrorists” is mentioned, I don’t think it’s exclusively that. When I think “eco-terrorists” I think of people burning buildings, destroying property, etc., to protest or make a political statement. Note that the word “terrorists” is in that term. Once people start doing significant damage for political protest or to “send a message,” they start to fit the “Terrorist” definition.
However, my personal definition would mean significant damage. A little bit of splattered paint probably wouldn’t be enough. Burning down someone’s house or their office building, however, would. You’re seriously screwing up someone when you do that, and even though you might not mean to cause bodily harm, you definitely risk it (someone might be in the building that you didn’t know about, someone might be harmed trying to put the fire out, etc.).
So no, I don’t think that “terrorist” must mean doing physical bodily harm.
Yeah, I’d say that if a group were to go around painting people’s clothes red, in order to frighten people into a certain act or lack thereof, are engaging in terrorism. They’re engendering fear (fear of having one’s property defaced,) in order to score political gains.
Now, whether that means it’s important enough to lock 'em up in Gitmo for a decade, well, no, just because it’s terrorism doesn’t mean it’s the end of the world.
Yeah I agree (I mean with Metacom and yosemite). I don’t think the hallmark of terrorism is physical violence. It’s fear. And the use thereof. If someone threated to…say…unlease a computer virus that would disable every computer sytem in the country if they’re demands are not met, that’s a terrorist act.
I think the question of whether ALF or ELF are terrorists is…are they performing acts of vandalism in to destroy the specific tools etc. so they can’t be used? Or are they trying to instill fear? If the later, they’re terrorists. By definition.
Of course we could just solve the whole porblem by calling them freedom fighters.
So in your opinion Dio it’s no hurt and no foul to start a fire, plant an incendiary device or otherwise destroy property, correct?
That is a valid definition, because we all know that when things burn or blow up, cops, firefighters, and other people don’t respond, and therefore can’t possibly be hurt or killed as a result of this social expression.
All the death and injury reports put out by the NFPA and FOP are resultant from benign incidents. Yeh. :rolleyes:
If someone threatened to burn down my house in hopes of coercing me to do something, I’d be pretty terrified. If someone did that to me, they’d be doing it to instill fear in me, and you know what? It would work—it would instill fear in me. Why else would they be doing it?
If they were trying to terrify me by threatening to burn down my house (and having no house would seriously screw me over, so I would be pretty scared), would that be terrorism?
