NationStates Jolt Archive

So as to not hijack the South African thread:

Soheran,

I think the issue Andaluciae is bringing to your attention is not necessarily what the universal definition of terrorism SHOULD be, but rather what it is, in legal fact, in the US. In Canada, we have a similar, broad definition:

83.01(1)
‘Terrorist activity” means
(b) An act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed
(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and (this clause has recently been severed as unconstitutional by the Ontario Supreme Court, but not yet ruled on by the Supreme Court of Canada)

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that intentionally
(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
(B) endangers a person's life,
(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

etc.




Destruction of property, that at its least severe causes a RISK to safety, is a terrorist activity if the intentions are as listed in (i)(A) or (i)(B).

Far too broad.

It labels as terroristic pretty much every revolutionary movement that uses violence, and could easily be used to argue that almost all violence by states in non-conventional wars is also terroristic (essentially if not nominally.)

It allows a term as emotionally and morally loaded as terrorism to be applied to uses of violence that are very much justifiable.

Far too broad.

It labels as terroristic pretty much every revolutionary movement that uses violence, and could easily be used to argue that almost all violence by states in non-conventional wars is also terroristic (essentially if not nominally.) Yes.

It allows a term as emotionally and morally loaded as terrorism to be applied to uses of violence that are very much justifiable.
While I agree, what acts or uses of violence do you think would be justifiable?

'Nationalistic' Mohawk people violating a cease-and-desist order, and burning tires at a roadbloack could conceivably be labelled as terrorists under this legislation by the way, and in no way do I support this hastily drawn together (maybe 30 days after 911) Act.

While I agree, what acts or uses of violence do you think would be justifiable?

Use of violence against property, when the intention and the actual effect is to promote a just cause (say, the cessation of murderous aggression against another country, or the liberation of an oppressed population), is pretty justifiable.

Use of violence against people actively involved in some grievous wrongdoing, when no other reasonable options would suffice and when the violence has a good chance of actually solving the problem, is also justifiable.

Independent of extreme thought experiments, in the real world violence against innocent people is essentially never justifiable, whatever the purpose.

Use of violence against property, when the intention and the actual effect is to promote a just cause (say, the cessation of murderous aggression against another country, or the liberation of an oppressed population), is pretty justifiable.

Use of violence against people actively involved in some grievous wrongdoing, when no other reasonable options would suffice and when the violence has a good chance of actually solving the problem, is also justifiable.

Independent of extreme thought experiments, in the real world violence against innocent people is essentially never justifiable, whatever the purpose.

Solution: Ban private property. Then we don't need to worry about a pesky definition of terrorism. ;)

Hi Sinuhue, welcome back!

Terrorist = someone who is designated an enemy by the individual persons nation or the United nations

Also can be applied to the loser of a brutal conflict

Hi Sinuhue, welcome back!

:confused:

:confused:
Just smile and nod, you're on SMOULDERING CRATER CAM! :D

Terrorism - a semantic term to describe violent, often political actions which the person describing them disagrees with.

See 'Freedom fighting, but replace disagrees with agrees'

I don't see how burning tires at a roadblock would be covered by the definition given. Thats like claiming a bonfire is a risk. However, that definition would cover blowing up buildings, vehicles, burning fields, etc., to support a cause covered in the defintion.

Honestly, if you need to go to such extreme lengths to prove your point, I'd say you deserve to go to jail. What's the issue then? If "the definition is too broad," that means you thought, in reading it, that it restricted you in a way you didn't want to be restricted. I'm not going to argue it, that is the logical response to a legal definition that inhibits more than you want it to inhibit. So, what exactly does it prevent you from doing?

Use of violence against property, when the intention and the actual effect is to promote a just cause (say, the cessation of murderous aggression against another country, or the liberation of an oppressed population), is pretty justifiable.

Use of violence against people actively involved in some grievous wrongdoing, when no other reasonable options would suffice and when the violence has a good chance of actually solving the problem, is also justifiable.

Independent of extreme thought experiments, in the real world violence against innocent people is essentially never justifiable, whatever the purpose.

Destroying someone else's property because you disagree with them is illegal. Get over it. And if you want to legalize such actions, then it must also be legal for that person/organization to respond with like measures, burning down YOUR home, blowing up your car, and perhaps by accident your family. And you shouldn't have any problem with that.

Now, if you meant destruction of your OWN property, then go for it. It's also legal as far as I know.

Destroying someone else's property because you disagree with them is illegal. Get over it. And if you want to legalize such actions, then it must also be legal for that person/organization to respond with like measures, burning down YOUR home, blowing up your car, and perhaps by accident your family. And you shouldn't have any problem with that.

Now, if you meant destruction of your OWN property, then go for it. It's also legal as far as I know.

I don't think he was saying it shouldn't be ILLEGAL, but that it simply shouldn't be considered terrorism.

Destroying someone else's property because you disagree with them is illegal.

It may surprise you, but I'm aware of that.

And if you want to legalize such actions,

I don't. I said they were justifiable in some circumstances, and I don't think they should be defined as terrorism in any circumstances.

The whole idea of "legalizing" revolution is rather ludicrous; no state would ever do it.

But again, if you do it to support your own personal cause, by injuring others and their property, then that IS terrorism. You use people's fear of bodily and property harm to further your own message. Please explain why you don't think this is terrorism.

I don't think he was saying it shouldn't be ILLEGAL, but that it simply shouldn't be considered terrorism.

I got it, I'm trying to understand what elements of this he doesn't consider to be part and parcel with terrorism.

But again, if you do it to support your own personal cause,

Political, not personal. I'm not talking about burning down someone's house because she insulted my mother.

by injuring others

Do you support self-defense? I do. I also support acting in defense of innocent people who are being attacked, as an extension of the logic behind self-defense.

and their property, then that IS terrorism.

Why?

You use people's fear of bodily and property harm to further your own message. Please explain why you don't think this is terrorism.

Because it doesn't target innocent people, and is not necessarily based upon the promotion of fear.

So you don't consider the destruction of private property in a politically motivated protest over the deaths of innocent people to be terrorism.


Okay, just say that. Make it simple.

Even if it's wrong. If, in the course of a political protest, you find it necessary to destroy private property, you are using the "fear factor" to spread your dissident opinion, whether the people who hear about it agree with you or not. So, it qualifies as terrorism. You just don't like that word, and don't want it used to describe a cause you support.


By the way, I assumed we both knew we were talking about political causes.

So you don't consider the destruction of private property in a politically motivated protest over the deaths of innocent people to be terrorism.

No.

Okay, just say that. Make it simple.

You took issue with the term "justifiable," so I responded to that part.

If you had seen the other thread, you would have noted that I did say that exactly that there.

Even if it's wrong. If, in the course of a political protest, you find it necessary to destroy private property, you are using the "fear factor" to spread your dissident opinion, whether the people who hear about it agree with you or not.

Nonsense. There are plenty of other reasons to destroy private property beyond promoting the "fear factor." There may be a direct strategic benefit (say, interfering with the operation of an institution committing atrocities.)

So, it qualifies as terrorism.

So all violent acts with the objective of intimidating people are terrorism?

Does this apply to law enforcement, a major role of which is the deterrence of crime?

Terrorism - a semantic term to describe violent, often political actions which the person describing them disagrees with.

See 'Freedom fighting, but replace disagrees with agrees'
Actions can be both freedom-fighting and terrorism at the same time.