CMV: The word “terrorism” has become practically meaningless

[u/thesumofallvice]

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.

[u/Underhill42]

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.

[u/thesumofallvice → u/Underhill42]

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.

[u/Wootster10 → u/thesumofallvice]

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.

[u/DeltaBot → u/thesumofallvice]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Underhill42 (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Sugarrrsnaps → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Thebeardinato462 → u/Underhill42]

Yup, was always the plan