CDZ Is every violent individual or group a terrorist or terrorist organization?

[usmbguest5318]

I say to the title question, no:

• There is no agreed definition of what the hell terrorism is, so I can't say who is and isn't a terrorist -- a committer of terrorism -- is.
• The "Potter Stewart" approach may work in the SCOTUS and other settings where sound cases are presented, but it doesn't work on the street, at least not for me. Just as I can't call a someone a gigolo/harlot merely because I think they are or in some way resemble one, I can't just call someone (a group) a terrorist merely because they do things terrorists might and often enough also do.
• The epithet "terrorist" is becoming an easy aspersion, one bandied about far too casually. We've long observed instances of individuals or groups that were very violent and we didn't call them terrorists. We called them murderers or mass murderers or bombers, or whatever.

"Terrorist" seems to be morphing into a catchall disparagement much like the "N-word," "F-word" and other terms variously have been. It should not. It needs to mean something specific. It needs to have real value, not merely be yet another term that means "all things evil and despicable that one can possibly be."


Edit:

Why have I remarked as I above have? Because I've seen, for instance the "N-word" by dint of its ubiquitous use in some quarters seemingly convert it into some sort of banal term, in some instances even a thoroughly neutral term. Now, that might be construed as a good thing, but for the fact that it remains also among the most disparaging things one can call another, it's not a "catchall" but rather a "be all" term -- as in it be all that can be wrong about one and one's character -- that when used as such, it necessarily refers to and draws its frame of comparative reference from one and only one genre of people and it's based on hateful and deeply held misrepresentations about them. When does the "N-word" not as readily apply? When the object of one's scorn isn't black, in which case the "F-word" becomes the alternative, and even that distinction accords a small measure of improvement over one's being a n*gger. About all that's worse is being both an "F" and an "N."

It seems as though "terrorist" is headed in that direction, that is, in the direction of becoming banal, and then joining the lexicon of hurtful words people toss about. Do we really need more ways to asperse one another?​

Of course not! Violent groups are only terrorist if you don't agree with their politics.

Touché

Well, I have to say that you are in one dimension correct, yet, normatively at the very least, you should not be. LOL

 

[Mac1958]

Let's call Jihadism what it is, Jihadism.

While some want to dilute the word "terrorism" so that Jihadism doesn't seem any worse than what Americans do, I don't want that to happen.

We're on the receiving end of a real, literal, old fashioned, barbaric, global holy war, and we should treat it as such.
.

Death by a thousand cuts or a quick death one never had the chance to fear coming is still a death. I don't think one is better than the other. I certainly don't want to be the victim of either. Do you?

No, I sure don't.

I just don't want Jihadism diluted by those with an ideological motivation for doing so.
.

 

[PredFan]

I say to the title question, no:

• There is no agreed definition of what the hell terrorism is, so I can't say who is and isn't a terrorist -- a committer of terrorism -- is.
• The "Potter Stewart" approach may work in the SCOTUS and other settings where sound cases are presented, but it doesn't work on the street, at least not for me. Just as I can't call a someone a gigolo/harlot merely because I think they are or in some way resemble one, I can't just call someone (a group) a terrorist merely because they do things terrorists might and often enough also do.
• The epithet "terrorist" is becoming an easy aspersion, one bandied about far too casually. We've long observed instances of individuals or groups that were very violent and we didn't call them terrorists. We called them murderers or mass murderers or bombers, or whatever.

"Terrorist" seems to be morphing into a catchall disparagement much like the "N-word," "F-word" and other terms variously have been. It should not. It needs to mean something specific. It needs to have real value, not merely be yet another term that means "all things evil and despicable that one can possibly be."


Edit:

Why have I remarked as I above have? Because I've seen, for instance the "N-word" by dint of its ubiquitous use in some quarters seemingly convert it into some sort of banal term, in some instances even a thoroughly neutral term. Now, that might be construed as a good thing, but for the fact that it remains also among the most disparaging things one can call another, it's not a "catchall" but rather a "be all" term -- as in it be all that can be wrong about one and one's character -- that when used as such, it necessarily refers to and draws its frame of comparative reference from one and only one genre of people and it's based on hateful and deeply held misrepresentations about them. When does the "N-word" not as readily apply? When the object of one's scorn isn't black, in which case the "F-word" becomes the alternative, and even that distinction accords a small measure of improvement over one's being a n*gger. About all that's worse is being both an "F" and an "N."

It seems as though "terrorist" is headed in that direction, that is, in the direction of becoming banal, and then joining the lexicon of hurtful words people toss about. Do we really need more ways to asperse one another?​

Interesting question.

 

[SeaGal]

To answer the question - no.

Not that terminology matters to the victims and their families. Even though the Depts of State, FBI and Homeland Sec don't have a standard definition of terrorism it's pretty much agreed that acts of violence motivated by political and/or ideological beliefs fall within the category of terrorism. McVeigh and the Unabomber were domestic terrorists, Bundy - a serial killer, Specht - a mass murderer.
I remember reading that the victims and families petitioned the US gov't to change the classification of Ft. Hood massacre to an act of terrorism - don't recall why. Bill Ayers involvement with the Weather Underground and the bombings of public buildings is a grey area, imho...other than no one was killed as I recall. It gets sticky when violence breaks out during demonstrations from an ostensibly peaceful group of radical activists.

And, yes, I do think we too quickly and too broadly label political or ideological opposites as evil, the enemy or despicable. I am disturbed more deeply when it is done by national figures, media, politicians, celebrities, etc. rather than one on one in a heated confrontation.

AQ and ISIS people are stupidly fanatical, but they are not abjectly stupid. I'm quite sure that the goal of 9/11 was not to "get the US to leave the middle mast." [sic] I think the goal of 9/11 was to show that AQ had the perseverance, will and means to inflict grievous harm on Americans and on American soil, to show that just as the US can hit Middle Eastern targets in their homelands, AQ can strike Americans at home too.

I pretty much agree with this assessment. Bin Ladin declared war (fatwa) on America in '96 citing our occupation of 'Holy Lands', and jihad against America and Jews in '98. (even though we were invited into Saudi Arabia - where he was a wanted man). Unfortunately I don't think anyone took him too seriously at the time.

 

[oldsoul]

To answer the OP question, No.

To define terrorism: I would, and do, use a fairly broad definition.

Terror/Terrorism: An act, or failure to act, that is meant to create fear, or "terror", in a specific group (nation, town, ideology, etc.), usually involving violence or the threat thereof, to effect a desired response. Pretty simple, yet broad (even slightly ambiguous). So, a person(s) could commit terrorism by dumping blood on a person wearing a fur coat, blowing up a building, LE refusing to act on threats made, even blocking the route of a demonstration march with armed persons.

Ted Bundy- serial killer, he never intended (as far as I know) to create fear, just death.
AQ, ISIS, etc.- Terrorists, their point IS to create fear, among other things. Death is no more than a tool for them.
Bloods, Crips, MS-13, etc.- Street gangs mostly, yet they do fall into the terrorist category, to me at least, because they want everyone to "respect" them, OUT OF FEAR.
Many LE dept. in the past (the argument could be made for current ones too)- Some, yes, were terrorists. They FAILED TO ACT (and in some cases participated) to suppress groups such as the KKK, Militant Nazis, etc. Knowing what, where, and when they were likely to act.
That "Christian Biker group" that was showing up at military funerals- Terrorists, they used the IMPLIED threat of violence in an attempt to effect a desired response.

Now, all that said, not all terrorists are created equal, insomuch they do not all use violence (some merely use the threat), the level of violence is not all the same, nor are the "targets". I don't think anyone would say that the KKK is on the same level as ISIS, but who would deny they both have used violence in an attempt to effect a desired response? Yes, ISIS wants people to "convert or die", and the KKK merely wants to put "black people in their place", but are they not both terrorist groups?