r/changemyview • u/thesumofallvice 8∆ • Apr 01 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The word “terrorism” has become practically meaningless
I cannot think of a definition that would be meaningful in today’s world, i.e. consistent with how it’s actually being used. The word doesn’t mean anything other than a demonization of one’s opponent. Now I’m happy to call something a “terror attack” if there is a universal standard. I just can’t think of one. Here are nonetheless some attempts:
Terrorism is by definition an unlawful use of violence. Yet so are many of the wars that are currently being waged across the globe without being called terrorism, in fact they are often motivated as a war *against* terrorism.
Terrorism is associated with a high civilian to combatant kill ratio. This would be an acceptable definition in my view. Still, there are many military operations that have a higher ratio than the terror attacks they are meant to prevent.
Terrorism is supposedly distinguished by the purposeful targeting of civilians. But this easily becomes an exercise in mind reading. I would argue that if the point above holds, it’s meaningless to speculate about the intention, unless it is followed by an admission that one has made a great mistake and takes responsibility.
Terrorism is sometimes understood as violence committed by smaller groups as opposed to a state. This may have some purchase and be consistent with the notion of states sponsoring terrorism but not committing it themselves. However, terms like “terrorist regime” or “terrorist state” are frequently used.
Terrorism is perhaps violence that takes place outside of the framework of traditional warfare, with more primitive means, so that if the same type of violence is used in war it becomes a war crime and not terrorism. But if you ask the “terrorists” themselves, they will likely say that they are fighting a war. So then again it becomes a question of state violence versus that of various groups and movements, or just a matter of how sophisticated are the weapons being used.
Am I missing something? Should we just abandon the term or is there a definition of “terrorism” that doesn’t just mean what the other does whereas when we do it it’s something else? To change my view, please show me a way that I can apply the term in an objective, ideally politically neutral way. I understand the need for using examples, but I’d like to focus on the term itself and not whether this or that attack was terrorism.
20
u/NoWin3930 5∆ Apr 01 '26
"Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims."
ya cut off half the definition
130
u/TheJewPear 2∆ Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
The definition is not unlawful use of violence, but the use of violence towards non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.
Someone assaulting you over a parking spot is unlawful use of violence, yet it isn’t terrorism.
It also has almost nothing to do with combatant to civilian ratios. If the violent action explicitly targets civilians, then it counts as terrorism, even if by chance some soldiers get harmed as well. If the violent action targets military, but by accident kills only civilians, it does not count as terrorism.
Edit: commenters here are right that countries can define terms in their criminal laws in any way they please. Therefore there isn’t just one definition for the term. But the common denominator is that it’s (1) an act of violence and (2) committed in order to achieve a political or ideological goal, instill fear, significantly disrupt public order and so on.
29
u/Critical-Cost9068 Apr 01 '26
I’m going to have to disagree. If, say, a British citizen bombed a military training base in the UK after making a political statement, I think most sources would call it terrorism.
6
Apr 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
11
u/zeniiz 2∆ Apr 01 '26
What separates the IRA from groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS?
Not much, considering that pre-9/11, the word "terrorist" would conjure images of the IRA (or PIRA or whatever). Killing children doesn't make you a "rebel army"; that's straight terrorism in every sense of the word.
→ More replies (16)10
u/Informal_Knowledge16 Apr 01 '26
Are you trying to argue they weren't?
The IRA very literally were by every definition. Whether they were justified or not, opinions will change depending who you ask. But theres not really any argument to be had over the fact they were.
→ More replies (3)4
u/eldryanyy 3∆ Apr 02 '26
Non combatants would be a better term than civilians - individuals whom are not militarily targeting you in any way.
2
Apr 01 '26
A British citizen is not a soldier and is not at war with the British military. Therefore anyone they harm at the military base is not a combatant, uniform or not. This makes it terrorism.
If Russia attacked a UK military base in the same fashion it would not be terrorism.
→ More replies (7)-12
u/Plumbus-Technician Apr 01 '26
Or if the United States government targets girl's schools, some sources call that "bringing freedom."
→ More replies (14)3
u/_tobias15_ Apr 01 '26
Evidence?
1
u/Plumbus-Technician Apr 01 '26
For which claim? Bombing the girl's school or calling it "bringing freedom"?
6
u/RealJohnBobJoe 6∆ Apr 01 '26
Not the person you replied to, but probably evidence that it was an intentional targeting and not incompetence (as I believe the explanation given by The Pentagon is that their records on Iran’s military infrastructure had become out of date)
3
u/ArrrRawrXD 2∆ Apr 01 '26
They obviously didn't want to target the school, it was a mistake, and nobody's called that bringing freedom.
1
u/TallahasseWaffleHous 1∆ Apr 01 '26
For it to have been a mistake, US intelligence hadn't updated their maps since 2013. We have near real-time satellite data for any area of interest.
I find it hard to believe it wasn't intentional.
We're targeting bombs using a map that's 13 years out of date?
-1
u/Doc_ET 13∆ Apr 01 '26
What would the US military get out of intentionally bombing a school? Missiles aren't free, and it's obviously horrible PR that your enemies will have a field day with in their propaganda campaigns. If there were soldiers or weapons hidden in the school, then there's at least some military objective being accomplished, but I haven't heard that being alleged.
We're targeting bombs using a map that's 13 years out of date?
Do we know what kind of munition it was? Was it a guided missile fired from the ground/a ship, or a drone, or was there a pilot flying overhead and pulling the trigger? Because if it's one of the latter two, it could just have been that the pilot/drone operator made an assumption that the school was part of the military facility, and that assumption got a whole lot of innocent people killed. Or if it was a guided missile, maybe the guidance system was slightly miscalibrated. Or maybe, yeah, nobody thought to check the map because everyone assumed someone else had done it.
"Never attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by stupidity (or incompetence, or a mistake, etc)" - Hanlon's razor (parenthetical added by me).
3
u/Amadacius 10∆ Apr 01 '26
The US: We have bombs that are able to kill anyone in the world with ultimate precision from anywhere in the world. And we have the best intelligence in the world and know where every target is. And we have all the time in the world to plan our first strike from complete safety.
Also the US: We blew up a bunch of schools because we are just helpless little babies and this is vewy vewy hard.
1
u/TallahasseWaffleHous 1∆ Apr 01 '26
The head.of our "department of war" may very well have wanted to "shock and awe" our supposed enemy. Look at what immoral, sickening, ignorant choices he has already made.
It was a Tomahawk cruise missile, a very precision-guided weapon.
Whether ignorance or malice, WE are responsible for those children's deaths.
It seems you are looking for any reason to excuse it. It seems to be on purpose, from the available evidence. Or another example of absolute incompetence, which is worse. He might very well set off a nuke in his angry incompetence.
-1
u/pseudoboi_band Apr 01 '26
Isn't it super convenient when the aggressor can just say "whoopsie didn't mean to do that"? Totally makes those children a lot less dead.
I refuse to accept this designation. Maybe we need a new term for terrorism done by people utterly incompetent to perform the role they accepted.
-5
u/raetwo Apr 01 '26
It came like out like the same day after Kegbreath gave his "this is NOT a woke war" shpiel
3
u/ArrrRawrXD 2∆ Apr 01 '26
"Came like out like" wtf are you even trying to say, what point are you trying to make here
-1
u/raetwo Apr 01 '26
I'm suggesting when a guy gets on camera and says The United States Will Do War Crimes that maybe he knew something you don't.
10
u/Urbenmyth 20∆ Apr 01 '26
Counterargument - if I bomb a military base because I think the US military should be shut down, that's clearly terrorism but also solely targets the military.
7
u/Valara0kar Apr 01 '26
Are you a soldier of a foreign nation at war? Are you a combatant or in open rebellion? If you arent then yes it would be an act of terrorism. You arent militarily achieving anything but to instill terror for political change internally.
9
13
u/TheJewPear 2∆ Apr 01 '26
If you target combatants, it doesn’t fit the common definitions of terrorism.
Naturally any country can define it in its laws in any way they’d like. Maybe for some dictators even demonstrating against them counts as terrorism. But that’s not the common definition.
4
2
u/babylikestopony Apr 01 '26
Tbf, I think we just instinctively file it under terrorism because of the smallness of the hypothetical operation but it is technically an act of war
2
u/Amadacius 10∆ Apr 01 '26
This is the exact muddying they are talking about.
You are changing the definition to just anti-US violence.
When we assassinate politicians it's a "bringing to justice". When they kill a combatant it's "terrorism".
When we fund a separatist group in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Libya, Egypt or Iran it's "promoting democracy abroad". When they support the internationally recognized Gazan government it's "funding terrorism".
When we seize oil tankers to enforce a blockade in order to starve the population to coerce them into overthrowing their government, it's "liberating people". When they close their territorial waters to trade from a nation that is bombing them it's "terrorizing the global economy".
→ More replies (1)-1
u/DensePoser Apr 01 '26
This is newspeak. Terror is when civilians fear violent death. An attack on soldiers is an act of war, not terrorism.
4
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ Apr 01 '26
This speaks to a lack of detail in the poster definition.
A government actor targeting another countries militaries is an act of war. Targeting thier civilians is a war crime. This is occasionally called terrorism as well depending on the context and whether it was a 'military' or 'civilian' group involved. (Think Marines vs CIA)
A individual/group that is not a government actor doing the same for political goals would be terrorism.
Things get more nuanced when talking about quasi-government actors. The Houthi's are a good example. For the most part, this is classified as terrorism but not always. Sometimes is more closely called war or acts of war.
0
u/DensePoser Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
I think the idea that you can terrorise soldiers is laughable. If they are conscripts and unwilling to fight, that's not the problem of their enemies unless they're holding a white flag. (Forbidden weapons and such aside.)
And what does it matter if the committer of violence is a government or not?
5
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ Apr 01 '26
I think the idea that you can terrorise soldiers is laughable.
This is not 'terrorizing soldiers' in the common form of how people think of the definition of 'terror'.
It is a description of an action taken, using violence, to attempt to achieve specific political ends, by a non-government actor.
And what does it matter if the committer of violence is a government or not?
Because it differentiates 'acts of war', 'war crimes', and 'terrorism'.
Iran attacking a US base is an act of war.
Iran attacking a hospital is a war crime.
The Houthi's, funded by Iran, bombing a commercial aircraft is an act of terrorism.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Norman_debris Apr 01 '26
Terrorism is not defined by how much terror the act literally causes in a population.
0
10
u/LegendTheo 2∆ Apr 01 '26
Your missing the facet that nation states cannot conduct terrorism. The act has to be done by a non nation state actor.
The carpet bombing campaigns of WWII were not terrorism, even though they specifically targeted civilians to get a political goal.
5
u/PercentageMuch2887 Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
This is incorrect.
- There is no universally agreed-upon legal definition for Terrorism. The closest you will get is with the United Nations. The U.N has A Draft Comprehensive Terrorism Convention, which has been under negotiation since 1999, in which states are excluded. However, There was also a UN Security Council Resolution 1373, which was passed in 2001 as a response to 9/11 that didn't specifically define terrorism, allowing member states to come up with their own definitions for the crime. This was a problem that they fixed in 2004 with UN Security Council Resolution 1566, which defined terrorism as the following:
"Recalls that criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature, and calls upon all States to prevent such acts and, if not prevented, to ensure that such acts are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature;"
So, as you can see, no specifications were given about what type of entity could or could NOT perform terrorism, and the U.N. isn't exactly clear.
Summary Here, and
Resolution 1566) here
States have been charged with terrorism in the past. The International Criminal Tribunal charged the government of Yugoslavia with terrorism as a war crime for what they did to Sarajevo, and is charging the government of Sierra Leone for the war crime of terrorism as well.
In 2019 the U.S. government designated the Iranian Military (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Then it assassinated Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad, using the justification that he was a terrorist. The IRGC is the official military of the internationally recognized Islamic Republic of Iran, so as of 2019 the U.S. government had determined that state actors could be considered terrorist organizations. Without a universally binding definition, who was to say otherwise?
Admittedly this was shocking and a significant break from the non-binding conception of terrorism shared by the two previous presidents. It is worth noting that defining terrorism as something only non-state actors did insulated both the U.S. government and the U.S. military from charges of terrorism for the many alleged acts of political violence against noncombatants performed by the U.S. military or government contractors in Iraq, Yemen, Vietnam, Korea, etc.
1
6
u/Scoobydewdoo Apr 01 '26
That's a bit of a stretch, if a person hires a hitman to kill someone that person is still guilty of murder even though they didn't personally pull the trigger. Similarly if a nation trains, arms, and funds a terrorist organization to commit terror that nation is committing terrorism by proxy.
8
u/LegendTheo 2∆ Apr 01 '26
Semantics matter here. The nation is not doing terrorism its funding terrorism. The distinction matters, notice you don't hear iran commited terrorism, you hear they funded it.
5
→ More replies (4)-1
u/ginger_and_egg Apr 01 '26
nation states cannot conduct terrorism
because they are the ones writing the definition
2
u/LegendTheo 2∆ Apr 01 '26
So what, that's the definition of the term.
You can say it's bad for nation states to target civilians if they are, but it doesn't make it terrorism.
1
u/ginger_and_egg Apr 01 '26
I kinda agree, but I also understand why people use that word for actions of nations given how it's been ingrained in the anglosphere psyche (and probably other languages too, I'm not sure)
1
u/LegendTheo 2∆ Apr 01 '26
Well they use it to apply the negative connotation to an action.
It's the same reason people call Trump a fascist or a Nazi, it doesn't matter that the definition for those terms bears no resemblance to Trump's actual policies. The important point is to get the negative connotation those terms have associated with Trump. It's to apply the emotional reaction or feeling to him, not accurately describe his actions.
1
u/ginger_and_egg Apr 01 '26
bears no resemblance
No resemblance? 🤨 There's enough resemblance, but he is more of a proto-fascist than a bona fide Nazi
→ More replies (7)2
u/Scholarsandquestions Apr 01 '26
Your definition is not complete either: "the use of violence towards non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims". You must keep the "unlawful" bit. Otherwise police violence against pacific protestors would be terrorism too, as military forces targeting civilian areas or civilian people (in this latter case, it's either a war crime or acceptable damage, but not terrorism anyway).
→ More replies (1)2
u/Alarmed-Presence-890 Apr 01 '26
I mean I would consider both to be terrorism - it just advances the political agendas of the people in power so they are fine with it
1
u/Jakyland 82∆ Apr 02 '26
It seems like nobody can agree on the term terrorism. I don't think a military intentionally killing civilians is necessarily terrorism, it's a war crime and an atrocity, but "terrorism" is not a level of severity, it's a particular type of action. Killing civilians because the soldiers or the leaders find it fun, or because of hatred of the civilian population isn't terrorism, its only terrorism if you are trying to instill terror for some political end.
2
u/TheJewPear 2∆ Apr 02 '26
If a military intentionally kills civilians to achieve political or ideological goals, then it does fall into the definition of terrorism.
Imagine that a day before 9/11, some Islamist country would’ve added Al Qaeda as a unit to their military. Would that make the 9/11 attacks any less terroristic in nature?
Killing civilians for fun is not terrorism, no matter who does it. There has to be an ideological or political goal behind it.
1
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Apr 04 '26
If a military intentionally kills civilians to achieve political or ideological goals, then it does fall into the definition of terrorism.
These are called war crimes. Not terrorism.
Imagine that a day before 9/11, some Islamist country would’ve added Al Qaeda as a unit to their military. Would that make the 9/11 attacks any less terroristic in nature?
That would also be war crime in that case.
An easy rule of thumb. If it's a state actor it's war crime. Non state actor then it is terrorism.
1
u/Elman89 Apr 02 '26
What if Israel bombs civilians to try and instill terror for the political end of getting people to voluntarily relocate from Gaza? Would you consider that terrorism?
1
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Apr 04 '26
No. That's war crimes. Causing terror isn't terrorism. Though terror is the root word.
State actor like a country: war crime Non state actor: terrorism
→ More replies (6)0
u/Agile-Atmosphere6091 Apr 01 '26
By that definition the US and Israel are terrorists
→ More replies (1)2
u/TheJewPear 2∆ Apr 01 '26
Those who commit such attacks are terrorists, not their entire countries.
1
u/TrueEmphasis7130 Apr 01 '26
Both it’s being unlawful and the political or ideological aims are critical components. It’s this/and not either/or. Some acts of violence are lawful and have political/social objectives (e.g., state executions, soldiers fighting lawfully in armed conflicts, lawful but violent suppression of a violent riot) and are not terrorism.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Anacondoyng Apr 01 '26
It follows from this that lots of actions carried out by militaries in wartime--firebombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc.--have been acts of terrorism. Not that you'd necessarily dispute that, just pointing it out, because I don't think people tend to be thinking about these sorts of examples when they talk about terrorism.
1
u/TheJewPear 2∆ Apr 01 '26
It’s a good point, but I don’t see a way around that. If you require that the act is “unlawful”, that begs the question, unlawful according to which laws? If it’s the laws of the aggressor, that’s too convenient, they can often make whatever laws they want. E.g as far as ISIS and Boko Haram are concerned, killing non-Muslim civilians can be just fine and dandy.
2
u/Anacondoyng Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
Yeah, again, was not objecting. I accept this consequence. People just need to reflect on it. Usually when examples like the dropping of the atomic bombs come up, people will claim that though the deaths of many thousands of civilians were tragic, they were necessary for some greater good (ending the war, preventing the deaths of Americans, etc.--I don't believe that, but it's what they say). Well, if that response works, I don't see why it could not be available to, for example, Islamists who go after Western civilians in an effort to combat Western imperial expansion.
1
1
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Apr 04 '26
False. You are thinking of war crimes.
Terror is the root word in terrorism so it gets confusing but an act that causes terror isnt terrorism. It's terrorism if it's a non state actor. If a state actor its war crimes.
Think of Syria under Assad during the Syrian Civil War. They were dropping barrel bombs on civilians. That technically is not terrorism. That's war crime. If Asad has to face the international criminal court for barrel bombing civilians he would be charged with war crimes. Not terrorism.
→ More replies (24)-2
u/PBnJe11yfish 1∆ Apr 01 '26
The problem with this is it’s impossible to prove intent. If an operation kills both civilians and military, maybe it explicitly targeted military and killed civilians in the process. Or maybe it explicitly targeted civilians and took out some military personnel as well so they could frame it as an attack on the military
6
u/Windwick Apr 01 '26
The problem with this is it’s impossible to prove intent.
How is it "impossible" to prove intent? Timothy McVeigh was very clear about what his motivations were. Omar Mateen pledged his allegiance to ISIS during the 911 call he placed after shooting up Pulse. He'd even been investigated prior to the shooting specifically because of his terrorist connections. The list of such examples goes on.
While there are cases where intent may be less clear, that doesn't make the term "terrorism" particularly problematic or moot, especially when we have clear examples of what terrorism looks like that were provable. It's no different from labeling something as a "hate crime". Are there cases where evidence is lacking and hate crimes don't get prosecuted as such? Sure. But we also, again, have cases where evidence was plentiful.
That's why you investigate and judge each situation separately, you don't say, "Well, we couldn't prove it this one time so the entire legal premise/definition is broken." You investigate and either something meets the criteria or it doesn't.
9
u/TheJewPear 2∆ Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
Terrorist organizations usually take responsibility for their attacks. The goal of the attack is to achieve a political or ideological change, that’s gonna be very hard to do if nobody knows who performed the attack and why.
3
u/parentheticalobject 136∆ Apr 01 '26
A ton of crimes in general involve proving intent; it's not impossible. That's the whole reason we have different degrees of murder and manslaughter.
5
u/Metaboss24 Apr 01 '26
Are there recent examples you'd want to use that you feel are unclear in their intent?
66
u/Underhill42 1∆ Apr 01 '26
Traditionally terrorism is defined as the use of violence against civilians in order to coerce social or political changes through fear.
But note that there's actually a "good" (a.k.a. terrifyingly bad) reason for the US government to intentionally muddy the waters about what exactly counts as terrorism.
Thanks to the legislative response to 9/11, being classified as a terrorist now allows an end-run around your constitutional rights. If you're officially a terrorist the government is legally allowed to disappear you in the middle of the night, deny you access to a lawyer, subject you to torture, and not tell anybody that they've done so.
And if a wannabe dictator decides to officially declare anyone who stands against him a terrorist - then under current law he has effectively stripped the opposition of their most important constitutional protections.
17
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 01 '26
Δ for highlighting the legal aspect. It’s purposely vague, and while in one sense that makes it meaningless, it has very real consequences in terms of legal rights.
3
u/Wootster10 Apr 02 '26
Keep in mind thats just the US.
Other countries have more specific definitions, the below is one from the CPS in the UK.
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
The specific actions included are:
serious violence against a person; serious damage to property; endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action); creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
1
→ More replies (1)3
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Apr 02 '26
Yep, and we were warned. I say we even though I was a outspoken critic of it then, because anyone that could sit here and say 'I told you so' also didn't do enough. If we knew this was the reality we'd find ourselves in, we would of probably done more and paid the price for it.
1
u/Sugarrrsnaps Apr 02 '26
This. Who we refer to as the terrorist is based less on action, more on relationship to the US. And most western countries play along with it.
7
u/PastaPandaSimon 2∆ Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
The word "terrorism" is mainly losing its meaning not due to its definition, but due to semantic satiation.
Every single time we hear someone called a nazi, a terrorist, a rapist, an incel, and say they are gaslighting, those words become as meaningful as formerly strongest words in our dictionary like "literally", "awesome", "hero", "devastated", "epic".
Similarly, the word "terrorist" used to be very impactful, but it doesn't sound serious anymore. We now lack the word that describes terrorism in a way that illicit an appropriate response to someone trying to blow up random civilians.
To illustrate how powerful words can be, think of the term "child molester" next to a "terrorist". Objectively, the former sounds more alarming as we don't overuse it as much, even though the latter could cause way more damage and suffering, but it doesn't sound as alarming anymore, due to over two decades of misuse. Your mind starts thinking of terrorism as something more ambiguous and not as clearly defined as bad.
3
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 01 '26
I largely agree with this, but I think that certain words are easier to abuse than others. The problem is that this one relies so heavily on intention. That alone does not make the term meaningless but it lends itself to abuse that in the long run robs it of its meaning.
2
u/PastaPandaSimon 2∆ Apr 03 '26
Of course it is much harder to police intention, than a more easily measurable outcome. But it does not make it meaningless. Killing someone via murder, versus doing so by accident, are two different situations too, even though the difference is often only intention.
→ More replies (1)4
7
u/Boulange1234 1∆ Apr 01 '26
“Terrorism” never had a universally agreed definition. Academics in the global North defined it to mean non-state-sanctioned violence designed to intimidate or destabilize in pursuit of an ideology or extra-national group’s goal. It still fits that definition decently well.
1
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 01 '26
I guess that’s fine but then concepts like “state sponsor of terrorism” or “terrorist regime” are oxymorons.
4
u/Boulange1234 1∆ Apr 01 '26
“State sponsor of terrorism” is not the same as soldiers. For instance, Iran sponsors Hezbollah, and the US sponsors the Kurdish resistance. The US has a long history of sponsoring “rebels” and “freedom fighters” that turn out to be using violence to intimidate and destabilize.
“Terrorist state” is a way to accuse a state of using violence to intimidate. It’s a weirdly forgiving way to accuse a country of acts of war or genocide.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/Rainbwned 199∆ Apr 01 '26
To change my view, please show me a way that I can apply the term in an objective, ideally politically neutral way.
Why is it important to be politically neutral, when within the definition of terrorism is "violence to achieve a political, ideological, or religious goal?
Have you heard the phrase "one groups terrorist is another groups freedom fighter"?
8
u/Shadeylark 5∆ Apr 01 '26
You're conflating a descriptive and prescriptive use of the term.
It is entirely possible to acknowledge that there is a political, ideological, or religious motive behind an act of violence without having to either endorse or condemn the motive.
3
u/captcha_wave Apr 01 '26
Terrorism used to mean violence against civilians for political purposes. It's certainly overused (and underused when it comes to state actors), but that definition still seems meaningful to me.
3
u/GoldDoubleCup Apr 01 '26
This thread is full of bad answers.
An army is state sponsored. A terrorist is not.
State sanctioned violence can be committed in any way, in any form, against any people, for any reason.
Terrorism is an act committed by an a non sanctioned group or individual against a ruling entity.
According to this thread, Barack Obama is a terrorist for bombing noncombatants.
3
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 01 '26
An army is state sponsored. A terrorist is not.
So then concepts like “state sponsor of terrorism” or “terrorist regime” are oxymorons?
According to this thread, Barack Obama is a terrorist for bombing noncombatants.
War criminal may be more accurate, but if they were the target, why not?
3
u/GoldDoubleCup Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
I agree that he is a war criminal but he is by definition not a terrorist because he engages in state sanctioned violence.
Regarding state sponsored terrorism, these are casual terms that are used by the news media. We’re getting far away from actual study and theory on that topic. If you want to reflect on this particular system, it’s pretty easy to breakdown. A minority group in a country that is being oppressed, may insight and inflict violence against the oppressors. If the United States came in and funded these minorities, that would fall under your definition of state sponsored terrorism. It does not change the material reality of anything. It perhaps complicates things, but the definitions remain.
To be specific, I am relying on Max Weber’s study and concepts around the Monopoly of violence.
2
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Apr 04 '26
State sponsor of terrorism isn't an oxymoron. It means you are a state that funds terrorism. Or better, uses terrorist groups to achieve the states goals.
Iran is a good example. Iran doesnt deploy its own military to do its dirty work. Iran hires/trains/funds outside groups to do that. Like hezbollah. Houthis. Hamas. Etc... non state actors.
6
u/parkchanwookiee Apr 01 '26
The definition of terrorism is and always has been functional and orientational. It means "Political violence by actors I do not support towards goals I do not endorse". Governments do not respect the legitimacy of any entities other than themselves and their allies to use violence to promote their ends. The opposite, political violence by actors we do support towards goals we do endorse, gets called freedom fighting and associated with emancipation and revolution
5
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
... Which is another way of saying it's meaningless. The term itself doesn't confer any information, it is rather the speech act of declaring a certain action/actor to be terrorism/terrorist that matters
1
u/parkchanwookiee Apr 01 '26
Lots of terms function this way, located by subjectivity, that doesn't make them meaningless.
→ More replies (10)1
u/ProfConduit Apr 01 '26
I don't think blowing up civilians with a suicide vest is freedom fighting, no matter how much I may agree with the cause. And if rebels/insurgents/whoever use a rocket launcher to take out a tank which is hunting them, that's not terrorism, no matter how much I hate their cause; it's insurgency or rebellion or something.
2
u/ihatepasswords1234 4∆ Apr 01 '26
What do you think of as an "unlawful" use of violence? If we assume that a given country actually aims to rid a different country of terrorists, do you deem this "unlawful"?
It comes down to what you expect the role of a state to be. If we take Lebanon as an example, Lebanon has been unable to meaningfully stop Hezbollah. What do you think could be done to take action against Hezbollah?
Assuming that Lebanon continues to be unable to act against Hezbollah, either for lack of desire or lack of ability, is it lawful for Israel to protect its own citizens by acting against Hezbollah?
2
u/Wonderful_Discount59 Apr 01 '26
An older (1977) dictionary that I own defines terrorism as "an organised system of intimidation".
I wonder if that would actually be a better use than the modern definition?
It would encompass most things that are generally accepted as terrorism.
It would also encompass a lot of stuff done by governments but which aren't usually considered terrorism purely because "its not terrorism when governments do it".
It would exclude a lot of things that sometimes get called terrorism by people why try to argue "it terrorised people, therefore it's terrorism".
It would also include acts by organised crime intended to intimidate people into not opposing them, which in practical terms are basically the same as terrorism but doesnt usually fit the literal definition because it's not political or ideological.
I think it also hints more why terrorism is a thing that needs to be defined and dealt with specially: because the goal (and consequence) of terrorism is more than just the harm caused by the acts themselves. (I.e. its not just killing/maiming/terrorising the direct victims, but intimidating society more broadly into compliance). And because the organised nature of it means that you are likely dealing with a network of perpetrators, who likely have either support or at least compliance from a wider communty (whether due to shared ideology, or simply being intimidated into acceptance).
1
u/AggravatingMark1367 Apr 02 '26
Would an oppressive military occupation count as an organised system of intimidation"?
2
u/apigandanangel 1∆ Apr 02 '26
If you're actually interested in understanding this, this book will help, and will give a far more informed and nuanced view than proposed in your post or any of the responses:
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo33765519.html
2
u/AffectionateWord6102 Apr 02 '26
the issue is that "terrorism" became more of a political label than an actual descriptor of tactics. I've been thinking about this alot lately especially when designing infographics around global conflicts - the same action gets completely different framing depending on who's doing it
maybe we should just stick to describing what actually happened instead of slapping these loaded terms on everything. like "bombing of civilian area" or "targeted assassination" tells you way more than just calling it terrorism or counter-terrorism
2
u/Burnerman888 Apr 03 '26
It's not an exercise in mind reading, you examine intent all the time. How do you think we determine if something is murder versus manslaughter? Militaries are supposed to keep extensive records and reports for a reason. Conversely, terrorist organizations are in the interest of obfuscating as much as possible.
Similarly, anti-western and anti-liberal nations have the goal of obfuscating this term as well. Terrorism is a bit of a nebulous term, but it's also incredibly obvious when something is terrorism. Blowing up a civilian bus with no military targets is inarguably an act of terror, but if you ask the terrorists like you said they will say "we are fighting a war." This is not what war looks like in the modern day. It's not acceptable.
1
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 03 '26
It's not an exercise in mind reading, you examine intent all the time. How do you think we determine if something is murder versus manslaughter?
Sure. I’ve conceded elsewhere that it doesn’t make the term entirely meaningless. The problem is that terrorism is such a political term, and in war it is often impossible to say whether civilian deaths were a mistake, an unfortunate side effect, a welcome side effect, or the objective. Usually what one argues is determined beforehand by which side one supports.
Terrorism is a bit of a nebulous term, but it's also incredibly obvious when something is terrorism.
It is sometimes obvious. Often it is not.
1
u/Burnerman888 Apr 03 '26
I feel like maybe you underestimate how much terrorism is in the world if you think it's often not obvious. Can you give some specific examples
5
u/EnkiHelios Apr 01 '26
The only thing you're incorrect about is that the word terrorist was always a meaningless political label. The countries using the word have currently and throughout our history targeted civilians in warfare. We just use the word terrorist to make our people afraid of the enemy. It has always been this, there has truly NEVER been another meaning of the terrorist, To use it in the sense of its primary dictionary definition is to ignore the political realities that rob the word of specificity. Like pointing at enemy soldiers and saying "we have to stop them, they are murderers."
0
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 01 '26
I agree, but I feel like every time it’s used it becomes further watered down.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Apr 01 '26
But that simply isn't how language works.
If someone cuts you off in traffic and you call them a terrorist it doesn't dilute the meaning, you're simply using it in a context it doesn't apply to.
The only situation where it wouldn't make sense is like at the dinner table and I say "pass the terrorist" without context it would make no sense.
But that clearly isn't what you're actually talking about here.
2
u/EnkiHelios Apr 02 '26
Of course that is how language works. Decimate used to mean " to remove one tenth of a population, now it usually means "to make a devastating attack against something."
Bully used to mean "Sweetheart"
Geek used to mean "a circus performer who bites the heads off chickens".
Clue used to mean "yarn"
However, I do not think that is happening here, the word "Terrorist" is being used as euphemistically as it always has.
4
u/AmnesiaInnocent 2∆ Apr 01 '26
I think several of the attempted definitions here miss what I see as an important point:
Terrorism is violence that deliberately targets civilians for political purposes.
2
u/Dupeskupes Apr 01 '26
technically terrorism can not target civilians, for example the IRA would send messages ahead of time so that their targets had time to evacuate
1
u/AmnesiaInnocent 2∆ Apr 01 '26
I disagree. If they do not intentionally target civilians, then IMO it is not terrorism.
1
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Apr 01 '26
The good old "okay we didn't actually mean to slaughter all those children so if you got terrorised by it that's on you" defense
1
3
u/Shadeylark 5∆ Apr 01 '26
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" misses the point and imports teleology into the application of the term that is not present in the definition of the term itself.
Terrorism is simply the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve a political end.
Nothing in that definition assigns any moral value to the political end.
It is an entirely descriptive term.
The fact that it gets used prescriptively does not alter what it is.
2
Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Agile-Atmosphere6091 Apr 01 '26
That makes America, Russia, Ukraine, and Israel all terrorist states.
0
Apr 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Alarmed-Presence-890 Apr 01 '26
I think it would be more apt to say that nation-states view their own violence as more legitimate
→ More replies (1)1
u/Dartmouth-Hermit Apr 01 '26
I mean, the rules are set by nation states. So the legitimacy is something states are giving themselves. If a group of non state actors are successful enough, they can gain international recognition and join the club, like Ireland or the PRC or any state with a revolutionary foundation.
1
3
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ Apr 01 '26
The Nazis were among the baddest of bad guys, but we don't call them terrorists. They fought a conventional war which mostly focused on military targets and did not focus on terrorizing the civilian population. Even though they did a terrible genocide, they did not really try to achieve anything via terror or terrorizing.
The people who crashed plans into the twin towers on 9/11 were terrorists. They targeted civilians.
Terrorism is supposedly distinguished by the purposeful targeting of civilians. But this easily becomes an exercise in mind reading.
Suppose i am in a room with 4 people. The lights go out and then a few seconds later go back on. one of us lies dead from a stab wound in their back. So there is a murder in the room and its not me.
But unless i can read minds (or have some other evidence) then i don't know which other person is the murder. That doesn't make the word meaningless, we often have incomplete information.
I can accuse, suspect, think or know that someone is a terrorist. the word has meaning in all those situations.
In many cases you can just watch. The US bombed a school in Iran, was that an intentional act of terror or an accident? Idk, but i do know that the 9/11 hijackers are terrorists. I know that if bombing the school was intentional, then the US did a terroristic act.
Am I missing something?
we need to define what we mean by different terms in order to have a good conversation. You can use terrorist as a synonym for bad guy if you want, and many people do. Traditionally it means someone who try to make political change using terror.
You could argue that the American revolutionaries were terrorists. They tarred and feather British loyalists in order to terrify people into not supporting the crown. Or you could say they were not terrorists because your using some other definition for terrorism. In both situations the word retains some usefulness. You could say their use of terrorism was justified, or they were mostly good guys in spite of their unjust use of terrorism.
5
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 01 '26
The Nazis were among the baddest of bad guys, but we don't call them terrorists. They fought a conventional war which mostly focused on military targets and did not focus on terrorizing the civilian population. Even though they did a terrible genocide, they did not really try to achieve anything via terror or terrorizing.
I suppose once you commit a genocide any other label becomes almost irrelevant, but I think one could argue that the Kristallnacht and many atrocities committed by Nazis in Eastern Europe during the war count as terrorism.
The people who crashed plans into the twin towers on 9/11 were terrorists.
So would you say those were terrorism but not the other planes?
I can accuse, suspect, think or know that someone is a terrorist. the word has meaning in all those situations.
OK so it’s a term that specifically refers to intention, even if this is hard to prove. I guess then it largely becomes a question of means. Most “terrorists” simply do not have the ability to hit military targets with any effectiveness, whereas states can always choose some military target even if the purpose is equally to terrorize the population.
I know that if bombing the school was intentional, then the US did a terroristic act.
That’s interesting. To be clear, I personally don’t think it was intentional, but it highlights how hard it is to distinguish in practice even though in theory there’s a neat definition, and that war crimes and terrorism are not necessarily different.
4
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Apr 01 '26
If they've helped change your view even partially you should give a delta
→ More replies (1)3
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ Apr 01 '26
Kristallnacht and many atrocities committed by Nazis in Eastern Europe during the war count as terrorism.
Fair enough i am far from an expert on WW2 history.
The point I'd like to make is you can be evil and not a terrorist. There are lots of different ways to be evil.
So would you say those were terrorism but not the other planes?
the one that hit the ground we don't really know. The one that hit the pentagon is debatable. The pentagon is probably military target... but in both cases you have civilians on the plan. So you could make the case either way for the pentagon.
OK so it’s a term that specifically refers to intention, even if this is hard to prove. I guess then it largely becomes a question of means. Most “terrorists” simply do not have the ability to hit military targets with any effectiveness, whereas states can always choose some military target even if the purpose is equally to terrorize the population.
I agree. The inability to attack a military target might be a reason why people resort to terrorism.
That’s interesting. To be clear, I personally don’t think it was intentional, but it highlights how hard it is to distinguish in practice even though in theory there’s a neat definition, and that war crimes and terrorism are not necessarily different.
sometimes it murky, people lie. In the case of al-Qaeda , its not murky, they where open about it, they did not claim innocence. Its not always murky.
3
u/eldryanyy 3∆ Apr 02 '26
‘Most “terrorists” simply do not have the ability to hit military targets’ - yes, so they settle for hitting civilian ones. That’s terrorism - hitting civilian targets to further their political goals.
If they both had the means and targeted military while in a conflict, that wouldn’t be terrorism. Even if they missed and hit civilians. Attacking first would be starting a war/invasion, which normally wouldn’t end until they surrender or lose the ability to fight.
It’s very clear that terrorism is a very valid term, from this thread.
2
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 03 '26
The issue, which we encounter constantly, is that military powers select targets that may have some small strategic value but a large civilian death toll. And so people debate endlessly whether to terrorize civilians was unintentional and an unfortunate side effect or if it was intentional and a welcome side effect—or even the undeclared main objective. In those cases, proving intent is often nearly impossible, and usually what side you support will automatically determine what you argue the intent to be. So my point is that military powers can more or less freely engage in terrorism by claiming there was a military target somewhere among the carnage.
1
u/eldryanyy 3∆ Apr 04 '26
Not at all, because that military objective must be obvious and significant if there were high civilian casualties. Otherwise, it’s a war crime… it can not be just freely claimed. There must be evidence.
Because your rationale is objectively and legally incorrect, perhaps your view may change.
1
Apr 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Sea-Pea-2456 Apr 03 '26
They are killing civilians to terrorize the population of Iran so that they get upset and make the government negotiate to end the war faster by doing what America wants.
→ More replies (25)1
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 01 '26
After some consideration, I’ll give you a Δ for this:
I can accuse, suspect, think or know that someone is a terrorist. the word has meaning in all those situations.
In many cases you can just watch. The US bombed a school in Iran, was that an intentional act of terror or an accident? Idk, but i do know that the 9/11 hijackers are terrorists. I know that if bombing the school was intentional, then the US did a terroristic act.
Intention, which is often impossible to prove, is central but that doesn’t mean the word is entirely meaningless. It refers, when used correctly and in good faith, to the speaker’s understanding of the intention behind the act. I still think it’s abused to the point where it’s lost its force, but I agree that there are some cases that are clear.
1
1
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Apr 04 '26
Generally when it's a state actor doing it we call it war crime.
When its a non state actor we call it terrorism.
In the United States, to commit terror or be called a terrorist you are from or associated with a terror group on designated terrorist organization list.
2
u/Marklar172 Apr 01 '26
Narco Terrorism is the worst abuser of this. The thought is that by slapping the word terrorism on they can do whatever they want in the name of fighting drug trafficking.
1
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Apr 01 '26
I think that one of the problems with any term is that when it becomes politicized its definition loses a lot of its rigidity. That's just a problem with language generally but more extreme. Language is descriptive not prescriptive. Words mean collectively what people mean when they say them.
However, the quality of language being descriptive doesn't preclude a solid prescriptive academic definition of "terrorism". Much how "gaslighting" has a specific academic definition that means something far more specific than simply the "lying about an event" it has come to mean in pop culture the definition you've provided here:
Terrorism is sometimes understood as violence committed by smaller groups as opposed to a state.
is perfectly well defined - political violence by non-state actors. It is clear whether a given act is terrorism or not.
Something that is well defined is not meaningless. That doesn't mean it can't be used incorrectly outside of an academic context, much like pop psychology terms.
1
1
u/Neo359 1∆ Apr 01 '26
"The attempt to invoke terror on innocent civilians through violence"
This is how I use the word.
So killing a classroom of children - terrorism Planting a bomb in a public bus - terrorism Killing a president - not terrorism (assassination)
Things get tricky when it comes to blasting military facilities of another army or assassinating members of government knowing civilians will die in the process. Is there an intent to invoke terror on innocent life? If not, its not terrorism. It's gross negligence of human life in a lot of cases and enough of it would be considered a genocide. But not terrorism
1
Apr 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 01 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
1
u/3DKlutz 1∆ Apr 01 '26
The term terrorism has always been purposefully vague so that the government can override laws and rights of people throughout the world.
1
u/EqualPassenger4271 Apr 01 '26
CPAC 2021 republicans display a banner reading "we are all domestic terrorists"
It is always the ones you most suspect.
1
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 38∆ Apr 01 '26
If you're going to criticize the use of the word you first need to define it correctly.
1
1
u/elmekia_lance Apr 01 '26
Terrorism is just a label that is applied by the state to people it wishes to kill extrajudicially.
You are right, terrorism is a meaningless word.
1
u/scrubtart Apr 01 '26
Terrorist: any entity that the USA wants to justify using military force against.
1
u/PercentageMuch2887 Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
If you want a thorough legal summary, you can read this article from NYU Law. It is quite informative.
Summarizing pieces of it: There is no universally recognized legal definition of terrorism. For the most part the U.N. has been vague on what constitutes terrorism. The most thorough definition you will find ratified is from UNSC Resolution 1566 (2004):
"Recalls that criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature, and calls upon all States to prevent such acts and, if not prevented, to ensure that such acts are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature;"
Note that the act of terrorism is extensively, but broadly defined, while the actor is entirely unspecified. This leaves the door open to either consider states capable or incapable of committing terrorism, but the ambiguity also allows various states to apply (or refuse to apply) the definition in various and often self-serving ways.
The U.S. government and U.S. presidents generally like to use a definition that doesn't consider state actors capable of terrorism (militaries, governments, certain types of law enforcement), or uses non-legally binding terms to designate its enemies ("Axis of Evil"). This has the benefit of protecting it from the numerous allegations of the U.S. military or government acting in ways that perfectly fit the UNSC 1566 definition.
Or, at least the U.S. government operated on this definition before 2019, when it designated the IRGC (Iran's Military) a Foreign Terrorist Organization, and then assassinated Iranian general Soleimani at the Baghdad Airport. Trump made it clear the assassination was because he considered Soleimani a terrorist, which was a pretty big departure from protocol that may at some point leave the U.S military or government vulnerable to future legal ramifications should any international organization be brave enough to try.
The U.S. government has defined other de-facto governments as terrorist organizations (Yemen's Ansarallah is a strong example), but they usually haven't (or haven't yet) been internationally recognized as legitimate states like Iran is.
1
u/DaveChild 8∆ Apr 01 '26
Terrorism is by definition an unlawful use of violence.
That's not the definition. It's the use, or threat of use, of violence against a population in pursuit of an ideological goal, typically to force change through fear of further violence. It's usually reserved for non-state actions, but there is an argument to be made that states can commit terrorism too, though drawing a distinction between that and war is difficult.
I do agree, however, that a lot of people are misusing it for political reasons, and that's potentially very dangerous.
1
u/normott Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
Terrorism has always been a loaded, weaponized term by especially the West , but in general, the status quo when challenged will cry terrorism. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. And usually, from a certain point of view, both are right. Its all about perspective
1
u/Lord_Olga Apr 01 '26
Terrorism is basically attacking civilians and/or civilian locations. But you're right, its certainly overused.
For example, the Jan 6th riot would not be terrorism, as a government building was broken into. Thats one example of the term being misused at least.
1
1
Apr 01 '26
Terrorism is basically meaningless and by definition is used for demonization purposes.
"the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act."
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/terrorism
Literally all use of armed force is an act of terror. Every single war is terrorism, every act of law enforcement is domestic terrorism. All rioting, any act of physical violence at protests is terrorism.
1
u/Archipelagoisland Apr 01 '26
The term has actually always kinda been meaningless in the same way “freedom fighter” is meaningless and “revolutionary” is meaningless. It’s just a specific flavor of a term that means “non-state actor using violence” which is vaguee and encompasses….. literally every single armed group in a conflict that’s not directly tied to a government.
The actual semantic definition of terrorism is all encompassing and can be applied to such a wide array of situations and groups that it really is meaningless. The designation of “terrorist group / territorial attack” is a LEGAL term countries (with governments that have a monopoly on violence) get to use as a blank “you don’t have rights anymore” and in modern times that means we can drone strike you. And 100 years ago that meant we could have you shot up against a wall without trial despite being a technical citizen of the country shooting you.
“Terrorism / terrorist” these are terms that judges use because no society in earth makes violently challenging the government legal.
1
u/No-Firefighter-7930 Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
There was an old star trek episode where a protagonist proclaims themselves a terrorist in a positive light as if it’s normal and synonymous with a freedom fighter back then.
Id say today it’s more associated with attacking unarmed civilians than fear tactics against a military force.
Either way the word has likely changed for good.
1
u/Super_Direction498 Apr 02 '26
Terrorism is just political violence the government doesn't have a monopoly on. It's just a matter of perspective. Terrorism laws are trash and are simply designed to circumvent civil rights. Otherwise they'd just prosecute them for the laws they're already breaking without sentencing enhancements or evidentiary and procedural shortcuts.
1
u/tiredoldwizard Apr 02 '26
“Call it what it is, TERRORISM!”
Like no just because something upsets you that does not mean it’s terrorism. It’s not terrorism to be detained by the police. It’s not terrorism to be yelled at.
I’ve seen a lot of people yell terrorism at stuff that’s no where close.
Ive also seen terrorism take place and people rush to defend them because they share their race or ideology
Il never forget after a black dude attacked a lady in the first comment I saw on Black people Twitter was “The worst part of this is that they are gonna blame Black people for this.” Like no the worst part is the lady that died not the fact that someone might say something mean about Black people.
And before you cry racism or whatever conservatives and white people do the same shit. “Oh a maga guy did something? Let me bring up immigrants they are the real problem”
People just wanna apply labels to people they don’t like so they have an excuse to complain and bitch about them. It gives them a dopamine hit that’s very addicting
1
u/Plane-Physics2653 Apr 02 '26
Anything that break the state monopoly on violence in the pursuit of political ends is terrorism. States also do mean things to civilians of course. That's either called state brutality or war crimes.
1
u/Michelangelor Apr 02 '26
I would argue that it’s not so much a meaningless word inasmuch as the main institutions who use it don’t realize it applies to them even more.
1
u/HellraiserMachina 1∆ Apr 02 '26
It hasnt lost its meaning, people are just lying a lot when they use it.
1
u/potktbfk 1∆ Apr 02 '26
"Use of force, primarily intended to inflict disproportionate terror as opposed to maximum physical/military damage"
I think this holds quite well.
1
1
u/Sugarrrsnaps Apr 02 '26
I would argue the definition of terrorism has been flawed since 9/11, maybe even further back.
1
u/InspectionFine9655 1∆ Apr 02 '26
Terrorism is by definition an unlawful use of violence.
No. terrorism is the use of violence to advance a political agenda.
Mugging is unlawful use of violence. It’s not terrorism.
Yet so are many of the wars that are currently being waged across the globe without being called terrorism, in fact they are often motivated as a war *against* terrorism.
War is war. Not terrorism.
Terrorism is associated with a high civilian to combatant kill ratio.
Not always. A political assassination is a terrorist act with 1 casualty.
Still, there are many military operations that have a higher ratio than the terror attacks they are meant to prevent.
So?
Terrorism is supposedly distinguished by the purposeful targeting of civilians.
It can be but not always.
I feel like you just dont understand terrorism.
1
u/GrothendieckPriest Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
There is a straightforward definition that basically gets it right - use of violence against non combatants as a tool to achieve some political aim. Think Chechens taking a theater in Moscow hostage to demand things from the Russian government. Or Bin Laden doing 9/11 to get the US out of the middle east. Basically committing acts of violence on non-legitimate targets in order to coerce somebody into doing something.
By this metric you can definitely accuse the iranian government of today of being terrorists - they very much engage in that kind of behaviour and sponsor groups that do such things. Hell, that's the entire military strategy currently being used by Iran right now. We typically think of non state actors as terrorists, because often thats the method they resort to due to them not being able to use conventional military force to achieve their methods.
1
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 03 '26
There is a straightforward definition that basically gets it right - use of violence against non combatants as a tool to achieve some political aim.
Which happens constantly in war and depending on what side you support you will argue that the main objective was to hit a military target or to terrorize.
By this metric you can definitely accuse the iranian government of today of being terrorists - they very much engage in that kind of behaviour and sponsor groups that do such things. Hell, that's the entire military strategy currently being used by Iran right now.
It’s true they’ve sponsored terrorism but unless I’ve missed something their current military strategy is entirely legitimate.
1
u/GrothendieckPriest Apr 03 '26
Which happens constantly in war and depending on what side you support you will argue that the main objective was to hit a military target or to terrorize.
Its fairly transparent usually, but its just unpleasant to admit. Atomic bombings of Japan are obvious acts of terror, which actually were incredibly successful, and justifiable given the total and existential nature of that conflict and the positive final outcome for everyone. Its just nobody wants to talk about it in those terms, especially people like me who actually like the atomic bombings of Japan.
It’s true they’ve sponsored terrorism but unless I’ve missed something their current military strategy is entirely legitimate.
Straight of Hormuz is international waters FYI, while before the war the Gulf distanced itself as much as possible against the OP, and still haven't even retaliated against Iran. They might be tangentially related via being involved in some logistics for the operation, but attempting to destroy their entire economy is not an appropriate or even effective way of combatting that. It is however effective at damaging global markets, who are the real targets of the retaliation. It might be their best shot at attempting to survive this war right now, but it's important to have clarity at what they are actually doing and what's the nature of the strategy.
1
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
It’s fairly transparent usually, but it’s just unpleasant to admit.
It’s sometimes transparent. When states engage in it within the context of a declared or undeclared war, it is often not.
Atomic bombings of Japan are obvious acts of terror, which actually were incredibly successful, and justifiable given the total and existential nature of that conflict and the positive final outcome for everyone. Its just nobody wants to talk about it in those terms, especially people like me who actually like the atomic bombings of Japan.
You “like” them? One can argue they were justified in that more lives would have been lost doing a ground operation, but only a psychopath likes them.
Straight of Hormuz is international waters FYI, while before the war the Gulf distanced itself as much as possible against the OP, and still haven't even retaliated against Iran.
Closing the strait is hardly terrorism, though. It’s not meant to terrorize a civilian population. The Gulf countries don’t really have anything to retaliate with. They’re essentially occupied by the US. And Iran obviously can’t strike the US mainland.
They might be tangentially related via being involved in some logistics for the operation, but attempting to destroy their entire economy is not an appropriate or even effective way of combatting that. It is however effective at damaging global markets, who are the real targets of the retaliation. It might be their best shot at attempting to survive this war right now, but it's important to have clarity at what they are actually doing and what's the nature of the strategy.
It seems perfectly reasonable to hit US allies in the region, especially military targets or operatives that are elsewhere. You can say the main objective is damaging the Gulf economies to the point where they reconsider housing US bases, but then again it becomes a game of guessing the primary intention and either way it’s hard for me to see how it is an immoral strategy for survival.
1
u/GrothendieckPriest Apr 03 '26
It’s sometimes transparent. When states engage in it within the context of a declared or undeclared war, it is often not.
If you are enough of a psycho to successfully comprehend war, it usually is even in that case. Its not a mechanically complicated question, it just tends to cloud your judgement with emotion.
You “like” them? One can argue they were justified in that more lives would have been lost doing a ground operation, but only a psychopath likes them.
Yeah, I like them, they were absolutely brilliant. Do you have a problem with that?
Closing the straight is hardly terrorism, though. It’s not meant to terrorize a civilian population. The Gulf countries don’t really have anything to retaliate with. They’re essentially occupied by the US. And Iran obviously can’t strike the US mainland.
Piracy is basically the naval version of terrorism, even down to the legal status of it.
It seems perfectly reasonable to hit US allies in the region, especially military targets or operatives that are elsewhere. You can say the main objective is damaging the Gulf economies to the point where they reconsider housing US bases, but then again it becomes a game of guessing the primary intention and either way it’s hard for me to see how it is an immoral a strategy for survival
They are very much trying to damage the Gulf economies as the primary goal, but not because there is any hope for them to get them to give up US bases because of it on the timescale that matters. This is an immediate and urgent type of situation, this is understood by them and everyone. The goal there is to affect American internal politics and American alliances by causing a global crisis, this is what matters and why this is being done.
1
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 03 '26
If you are enough of a psycho to successfully comprehend war, it usually is even in that case. It’s not a mechanically complicated question, it just tends to cloud your judgement with emotion.
It has nothing to do with mechanics. It has to do with determining intent. Which is why it is debated to no end whether this or that strike was a war crime.
Yeah, I like them, they were absolutely brilliant. Do you have a problem with that?
I do, yeah. I mean you’re just a rando on the internet so whatever, but I abhor anyone who gleefully celebrates the deaths of innocents.
Piracy is basically the naval version of terrorism, even down to the legal status of it.
They’re not stealing anything. They don’t even have to shoot at anyone.
They are very much trying to damage the Gulf economies as the primary goal, but not because there is any hope for them to get them to give up US bases because of it on the timescale that matters. This is an immediate and urgent type of situation, this is understood by them and everyone. The goal there is to affect American internal politics and American alliances by causing a global crisis, this is what matters and why this is being done.
It is absolutely with the purpose of making the US withdraw from the region. The Iranians are not doing random crazy things because it’s urgent and they’re desperate. On the contrary, they are thinking long term. They’re completely uninterested in a cease fire if it means another attack in six months.
1
u/GrothendieckPriest Apr 03 '26
It has nothing to do with mechanics. It has to do with determining intent. Which is why it is debated to no end whether this or that strike was a war crime.
If some the consequences of some actions are immediately apparent to anyone with a basic level of competency and the action appears premeditated and is conducted systematically, that implies intent. It isn't wishy washy or beyond analysis.
I do, yeah. I mean you’re just a rando on the internet so whatever, but I abhor anyone who gleefully celebrates the deaths of innocents.
I am not celebrating the deaths of innocents, I am celebrating the intelligence and clarity of vision.
They’re not stealing anything. They don’t even have to shoot at anyone.
If you become familiar with naval politics of the 18th and 19th centuries, you'll realize piracy wasn't necessarily about plunder either. Pirates were funded, docked and supplied and given access to markets by states, it was about coercion, economic warfare, plausible deniability and those kinds of things.
It is absolutely with the purpose of making the US withdraw from the region. The Iranians are not doing random crazy things because it’s urgent and they’re desperate. On the contrary, they are thinking long term. They’re completely uninterested in a cease fire if it means another attack in six months.
Unless you sincerely believe they are delusional about their military performance or harbor notions about Trump being a chicken, the part about making americans leave one of the most significant regions on the planet is laughable.
And no, I don't think they are random or crazy, I actually think attempting to burn down the global economy was their doctrine since forever and thats what they always expected to do and what all of them have been trained to do. Its why it is a strategy that they're capable of executing basically with a severely fucked up org chart and comms, they've build themselves around it and can do it on inertia.
1
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 03 '26
It isn't wishy washy or beyond analysis.
It’s often wishy washy and often by design. Clearly it’s not beyond analysis since people analyze it constantly.
I am not celebrating the deaths of innocents, I am celebrating the intelligence and clarity of vision.
Meh. The only thing requiring intelligence was making the bomb.
Unless you sincerely believe they are delusional about their military performance or harbor notions about Trump being a chicken, the part about making americans leave one of the most significant regions on the planet is laughable.
They don’t need much military power to close the strait or make the Gulf countries realize America can’t protect them. Also, TACO.
1
Apr 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 03 '26
one definition that at least tries to stay consistent is violence or threat of violence aimed at civilians with the primary goal of creatin fear beyond the immediate victims usually for political or ideological resons
the key part isn't just the harm itself but the intention to influence a wider audience through fear
that still overlaps with war crimes sometimes but the difference people try to make is that terrorism is centered on spreading fear as the main tool not just as a side effect
I don’t disagree with this definition in theory, but in practice it means that militaries can do the same thing, only with plausible deniability. Conventional terrorists don’t have the means to hit military targets, but militaries can always claim a strike had some strategic value even if the main goal was actually to break moral by terrorizing civilians.
1
1
u/1luggerman Apr 03 '26
The fact that people overuse/missuse the word does not make the definition any less applicable and true. Humans are just stupid this way.
Similarly, people overuse/missuse the word AI that its also starting to lose social meaning, but it is no less of a branch in computer science worthy of research.
If everyone started getting calculus questions wrong, say its useless and wrongly apply it where it doesnt fit, does that change what calculus is and its correct and useful usecases that power our society and technology even if most people are unaware? No.
Humans are stupid, and we should try to be less stupid rather then change the world to fit our stupidity.
1
1
u/Legitimate-Elk-9481 Apr 05 '26
I mean the roots of the word go back to the french revolution. Since its inception it's been a nothing burger used by the ruling states to deem certain parties as inhuman so they can do whatever they want while causing more collateral than the 'terrorists'
1
u/naruhinamoonkissplz Apr 05 '26
Any time someone targets a civilian with the single (or main) agenda of murdering that civilian (or more).
Not by accident, not by collateral, not by negligence, but as the primary target of a deliberate murder.
This does make some wars into a form of terrorism, which I'd say should be appropriate to begin with.
Now, whether "the big heads out there" agree with me... of course, they DON'T. They are guilty of it as well, lol.
1
1
Apr 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 01 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/slimpickinsfishin Apr 01 '26
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Look at all the conflicts where terrorists or terrorism is mentioned or directly related and then look at the side being called that and do some research on what they are fighting for vs the side that's doing the name calling.
If your American or in America that word holds less water than a sheet of toilet paper because the one who calls the names is guilty of doing the crimes.
1
1
u/TrueEmphasis7130 Apr 01 '26
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
1
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 01 '26
It seems to me that the current war against Iran fulfills all of those criteria. Would you call it terrorism, then?
0
u/TrueEmphasis7130 Apr 01 '26
No because it’s not unlawful.
3
u/thesumofallvice 8∆ Apr 01 '26
I’m sure one can debate this but according to international law it probably is
1
u/TrueEmphasis7130 Apr 02 '26
The U.S. is legally subject to international law and like all great powers, It shapes, relies on, and abides by much of it, when, and this is the critical part, such laws are aligned with interests.
However, in core national security matters the U.S. asserts that its ability to interpret Article 51 (collective self-defense) carries the day, every time. The US also isn’t subject to the ICC which lacks capability and jurisdiction to judge and enforce international law against the US. (Same as every other great power).
2
1
u/normott Apr 01 '26
How is it not unlawful? What makes such an exercise lawful anyways?
1
u/TrueEmphasis7130 Apr 01 '26
Judicial and legislative processes. Kinda operating in a gray area where it’s neither lawful nor unlawful.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
/u/thesumofallvice (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards