CDZ Nobody has claimed ownership or responsbility

[320 Years of History]

I don't think the definition's in doubt --- it's violence committed to effect coercion.

Off Topic:
Well, I suggest you get the world to accept your definition. Then everyone else also will think that's what terrorism is, and it will be "that simple."

I don't especially care for your definition because it includes an element that must be subjectively measured: intent. I want a definition that has no subjective nature; I want a definition that's 100% binary in nature. I don't know if I can have that, but it's what I want. I know too that one rarely gets that for which one does not ask.

I'm not aware that there's any doubt about the definition --- in other words I do not accept your point in post 8, at all. The fact that X number of people may overuse or misuse a term, whether "terrorism" or "liberal" or "racist" --- doesn't morph that definition into any realm of uncertainty; those misusing the term are simply "wrong".

How's that for binary?

Red:
How can that be so? In post #8 I provided you with four documents that all attest to the same fact: that there is no agreed definition of "terrorism." Some of those documents refer to even more documents that attest to the same fact. (All of the indented/bulleted text in post #8 is from those documents.)


Blue:
Okay.


Green:
Well of course not. How could it when a common definition does not exist? Your definition exists. Mine, though I've not shared it, exists. So does that of myriad others.

Other:
I have more to say, but I don't have the time to say it now. Catch you later.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Well, it's finally happened. Whatever terrorist organization is responsible for the attack at Ataturk has refrained from claiming responsibility. That's new. We've historically seen groups that inspired, planned and executed major terrorist attacks take credit for doing so. It tends to be petty and/or individual felons who attempt to hide behind the veil of uncertainty.

An obvious question to ask is why has nobody claimed responsibility for "Ataturk?"

• To secure a stronger position if/when someone is brought to trial?
• Because no group other than the actual perpetrators had anything to do with it?
• To avoid creating even more negative press?
• Because the attack killed people who weren't meant to be killed?
• Because the attack is viewed within the responsible group as being unsuccessful?

I don't know, but I know that not claiming responsibility for something as big as "Ataturk" is not what we've seen in the past. One thing's certain, one cannot very well make one's point if nobody knows one is person/group making it, no matter the means one uses to make it.

The answer is obvious. ISIS did it, and they are about 50 miles from the Turkish border, Turkey could literally destroy them in 2 days if they wanted. Plausible deniability is key to their survival.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think the definition's in doubt --- it's violence committed to effect coercion.

Off Topic:
Well, I suggest you get the world to accept your definition. Then everyone else also will think that's what terrorism is, and it will be "that simple."

I don't especially care for your definition because it includes an element that must be subjectively measured: intent. I want a definition that has no subjective nature; I want a definition that's 100% binary in nature. I don't know if I can have that, but it's what I want. I know too that one rarely gets that for which one does not ask.

I'm not aware that there's any doubt about the definition --- in other words I do not accept your point in post 8, at all. The fact that X number of people may overuse or misuse a term, whether "terrorism" or "liberal" or "racist" --- doesn't morph that definition into any realm of uncertainty; those misusing the term are simply "wrong".

How's that for binary?

Red:
How can that be so? In post #8 I provided you with four documents that all attest to the same fact: that there is no agreed definition of "terrorism." Some of those documents refer to even more documents that attest to the same fact. (All of the indented/bulleted text in post #8 is from those documents.)

I don't infer that from post 8. What it looks like to me is an attempt to cherrypick several blogs for the apparent purpose of deliberately muddying the waters. At most they point out that the definition is under discussion, particularly by governments who may have an agenda to either point a finger at what they describe in a specific instance as "terrorism", or to deflect one away, depending on where that nation's interests lie.

A simple quick search engine taking all of exactly one half of one second returns:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

What's wrong with that? Simple, concise, right to the point. No need to "fix" what ain't broke.

If we are to bend, distort, replace, pervert, stretch simple to-the-point definitions of terms we lose all cause-and-effect therein. Is anything that produces terror, "terrorism"? Are we to call Harris and Klebold (Columbine) "terrorists" because those in their path felt terror? Had they some political agenda?

We're in danger of diluting the meaning out of words if we consider them "malleable". At that point those words become useless. This is why I'm a linguistic archconservative --- a word means what it already means, period, not as Alice's Humpty Dumpty would have it, "what I choose it to mean". To paraphrase Moynihan, one is entitled to one's own opinions but not one's own definitions.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I don't think the definition's in doubt --- it's violence committed to effect coercion.

Off Topic:
Well, I suggest you get the world to accept your definition. Then everyone else also will think that's what terrorism is, and it will be "that simple."

I don't especially care for your definition because it includes an element that must be subjectively measured: intent. I want a definition that has no subjective nature; I want a definition that's 100% binary in nature. I don't know if I can have that, but it's what I want. I know too that one rarely gets that for which one does not ask.

I'm not aware that there's any doubt about the definition --- in other words I do not accept your point in post 8, at all. The fact that X number of people may overuse or misuse a term, whether "terrorism" or "liberal" or "racist" --- doesn't morph that definition into any realm of uncertainty; those misusing the term are simply "wrong".

How's that for binary?

Red:
How can that be so? In post #8 I provided you with four documents that all attest to the same fact: that there is no agreed definition of "terrorism." Some of those documents refer to even more documents that attest to the same fact. (All of the indented/bulleted text in post #8 is from those documents.)

I don't infer that from post 8. What it looks like to me is an attempt to cherrypick several blogs for the apparent purpose of deliberately muddying the waters. At most they point out that the definition is under discussion, particularly by governments who may have an agenda to either point a finger at what they describe in a specific instance as "terrorism", or to deflect one away, depending on where that nation's interests lie.

A simple quick search engine taking all of exactly one half of one second returns:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

What's wrong with that? Simple, concise, right to the point. No need to "fix" what ain't broke.

If we are to bend, distort, replace, pervert, stretch simple to-the-point definitions of terms we lose all cause-and-effect therein. Is anything that produces terror, "terrorism"? Are we to call Harris and Klebold (Columbine) "terrorists" because those in their path felt terror? Had they some political agenda?

We're in danger of diluting the meaning out of words if we consider them "malleable". At that point those words become useless. This is why I'm a linguistic archconservative --- a word means what it already means, period, not as Alice's Humpty Dumpty would have it, "what I choose it to mean". To paraphrase Moynihan, one is entitled to one's own opinions but not one's own definitions.

Except for words like racism and phobia and such, those mean whatever people want them to mean, right?

 

[Pogo]

I don't think the definition's in doubt --- it's violence committed to effect coercion.

Off Topic:
Well, I suggest you get the world to accept your definition. Then everyone else also will think that's what terrorism is, and it will be "that simple."

I don't especially care for your definition because it includes an element that must be subjectively measured: intent. I want a definition that has no subjective nature; I want a definition that's 100% binary in nature. I don't know if I can have that, but it's what I want. I know too that one rarely gets that for which one does not ask.

I'm not aware that there's any doubt about the definition --- in other words I do not accept your point in post 8, at all. The fact that X number of people may overuse or misuse a term, whether "terrorism" or "liberal" or "racist" --- doesn't morph that definition into any realm of uncertainty; those misusing the term are simply "wrong".

How's that for binary?

Red:
How can that be so? In post #8 I provided you with four documents that all attest to the same fact: that there is no agreed definition of "terrorism." Some of those documents refer to even more documents that attest to the same fact. (All of the indented/bulleted text in post #8 is from those documents.)

I don't infer that from post 8. What it looks like to me is an attempt to cherrypick several blogs for the apparent purpose of deliberately muddying the waters. At most they point out that the definition is under discussion, particularly by governments who may have an agenda to either point a finger at what they describe in a specific instance as "terrorism", or to deflect one away, depending on where that nation's interests lie.

A simple quick search engine taking all of exactly one half of one second returns:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

What's wrong with that? Simple, concise, right to the point. No need to "fix" what ain't broke.

If we are to bend, distort, replace, pervert, stretch simple to-the-point definitions of terms we lose all cause-and-effect therein. Is anything that produces terror, "terrorism"? Are we to call Harris and Klebold (Columbine) "terrorists" because those in their path felt terror? Had they some political agenda?

We're in danger of diluting the meaning out of words if we consider them "malleable". At that point those words become useless. This is why I'm a linguistic archconservative --- a word means what it already means, period, not as Alice's Humpty Dumpty would have it, "what I choose it to mean". To paraphrase Moynihan, one is entitled to one's own opinions but not one's own definitions.

Except for words like racism and phobia and such, those mean whatever people want them to mean, right?

Only if your name is Humpty Dumpty.

The question is, whether you can make a word mean so many different things.

Go ask Alice.

 

[320 Years of History]

What it looks like to me is an attempt to cherrypick several blogs for the apparent purpose of deliberately muddying the waters.

I know damn well you aren't saying the writers of the content at the links in post #8 cherry picked some MF-ing blog! Surely you are not accusing me of "cherry picking?"

Click on the goddamned links I provided in post #8. You can see whether I'm cherry picking. Why the hell do you think I provided the links?

I don't know whom you think you are talking with, but I can tell you need to have another think coming if you're bouncing your pogo-stickin' ass up in here intimating of me the temerity of pulling a puerile stunt like cherry picking a goddamned blog as though I'm a ten year old who doesn't know that a friggin' goose could see through the disingenuousness of such shenanigans! Have you lost your f*cking mind?

 

[Care4all]

Well, it's finally happened. Whatever terrorist organization is responsible for the attack at Ataturk has refrained from claiming responsibility. That's new. We've historically seen groups that inspired, planned and executed major terrorist attacks take credit for doing so. It tends to be petty and/or individual felons who attempt to hide behind the veil of uncertainty.

An obvious question to ask is why has nobody claimed responsibility for "Ataturk?"

• To secure a stronger position if/when someone is brought to trial?
• Because no group other than the actual perpetrators had anything to do with it?
• To avoid creating even more negative press?
• Because the attack killed people who weren't meant to be killed?
• Because the attack is viewed within the responsible group as being unsuccessful?

I don't know, but I know that not claiming responsibility for something as big as "Ataturk" is not what we've seen in the past. One thing's certain, one cannot very well make one's point if nobody knows one is person/group making it, no matter the means one uses to make it.

I believe I heard on the news that the honcho ISIS guy that trained at least one of them in Syria was just recently killed by allied forces... maybe because he and his close cohorts are dead, no one in that crew was alive to take credit???

 

[DarkFury]

Well, it's finally happened. Whatever terrorist organization is responsible for the attack at Ataturk has refrained from claiming responsibility. That's new. We've historically seen groups that inspired, planned and executed major terrorist attacks take credit for doing so. It tends to be petty and/or individual felons who attempt to hide behind the veil of uncertainty.

An obvious question to ask is why has nobody claimed responsibility for "Ataturk?"

• To secure a stronger position if/when someone is brought to trial?
• Because no group other than the actual perpetrators had anything to do with it?
• To avoid creating even more negative press?
• Because the attack killed people who weren't meant to be killed?
• Because the attack is viewed within the responsible group as being unsuccessful?

I don't know, but I know that not claiming responsibility for something as big as "Ataturk" is not what we've seen in the past. One thing's certain, one cannot very well make one's point if nobody knows one is person/group making it, no matter the means one uses to make it.

I believe I heard on the news that the honcho ISIS guy that trained at least one of them in Syria was just recently killed by allied forces... maybe because he and his close cohorts are dead, no one in that crew was alive to take credit???

Seems the mastermind was wanted in Russia but the EU refused to give him up.
Wanted in Russia: EU court blocked suspected Istanbul attack mastermind from extradition in 2010

 

[320 Years of History]

Why are you so "latched onto" this matter of the definition of terrorism? I wrote in post #8 that "there is no agreed definition of terrorism." There isn't. Whether there is or is not an agreed upon definition of the word isn't a matter to debate; it's not a matter of opinion. It's a simple fact. The word has no definition that's been accepted universally in any context that matters. Whether you or I have a definition or can accept one we find somewhere doesn't matter and won't unless and until what we think about it matters to the decision makers of nations and courts.

A simple quick search engine taking all of exactly one half of one second returns:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

What's wrong with that? Simple, concise, right to the point. No need to "fix" what ain't broke.

Just as I don't have much against your definition, I don't have much of a problem with that definition. It's got a small bit of subjectivity in it, and as I stated earlier, I'd prefer to have none.

The folks who have a definition of terrorism don't matter, and the folks who matter don't have a definition.
-- 320 Years of History​

The reality, however, is that I'm not among the folks who "matter" when it comes to defining for the world what "terrorism" means, and the folks who do "matter" -- executive branch, judicial and legislative officials in the world's governments and quasi-governmental bodies -- haven't agreed on a definition, not the one you've shown above and not any other one. Can we find dictionaries that define the word? Obviously we can, but the, or even the majority of, folks who matter are apparently not satisfied with what they find when they do so.

• FBI Definition of Terrorism
• Dictionary.com Definition of Terrorism
• Merriam-Webster Definition of Terrorism
• ABC discusses the fact that there isn't an agreed definition of terrorism and asks readers "How do you define terrorism?"
• State Department Definition of Terrorism (State's definition appears to be the one codified in U.S. law at Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d))
• The several notably different definitions of terrorism found in The Free Dictionary
• The European Parliament's discussion of the varying definitions of terrorism

I would love for you or anyone else to dictate to those officials who "matter" that they universally accept the definition you presented above. I think you should arrange meetings with them and get them to do just that.

I would love the folks who "matter" to call me (or you) and say, "We're leaving it up to you. Decide what definition of "terrorism" the world should use." You could get the task accomplished. I could too. And I'm sure it wouldn't take either of us more than 45 seconds to do it and be done.

Alas, nobody has called us asking us to take up that charge. At least they haven't called me. Have they called you?

At most they point out that the definition is under discussion, particularly by governments who may have an agenda to either point a finger at what they describe in a specific instance as "terrorism", or to deflect one away, depending on where that nation's interests lie.

Red:
Given that the FBI and State and U.S. Code each observe different definition, I'd say that the definition of "terrorism" is "under discussion" within the U.S. Government alone, to say nothing of among and between other governmental bodies.

Blue:
I don't care what agendas might exist. To start and for now, I just want one damned definition that everyone who "matters" accepts as "the" definition of terrorism.

Is anything that produces terror, "terrorism"?

Are we to call Harris and Klebold (Columbine) "terrorists" because those in their path felt terror?

Maybe. I don't know. I would know if there were there an agreed upon definition. Were such a definition to exist, I could then assess accurately whether there be such a thing as degrees of terrorism, somewhat similarly to the way we can identify degrees of homicide/murder.

Had [Harris and Klebold] some political agenda?

I don't know, and I didn't know them. I can look for documents wherein are presented detailed facts about what they said and did (beyond Columbine), the various key influences upon their being and thought, and arrive at a conclusion, but right now, I don't know, but I also don't care whether they did.

I believe I heard on the news that the honcho ISIS guy that trained at least one of them in Syria was just recently killed by allied forces... maybe because he and his close cohorts are dead, no one in that crew was alive to take credit???

TY for sharing that information.

Before writing what follows, please note that I don't care who committed the deed. I do want to know who committed the deed. I certainly think it better that if there is a group responsible, it's not a group that is distinct from the groups known already to be perpetrators of terrorism.

Red:
That fact (I'll accept for now that it is fact) certainly and strongly (although not 100%) suggests ISIS had something to do with motivating at least one of the individuals who perpetrated "Ataturk."

Blue:

Be where your enemy is not.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War​

That's a definite possibility.

• How plausible is it that no surviving and able to communicate ISIS member was aware of the "red" connection?
  
  I don't know and can't guess based on circumstantial info such as the nature of compartmentalization within ISIS because I don't know how compartmentalized any ISIS activities are.
  
  
• How plausible is it that ISIS have shifted to training "lone wolf" terrorists?
  
  Might it be that after inculcating individuals with the will and tools to commit acts of terrorism, ISIS sends them out to do so in places and at times of their choosing rather than doing so via central coordination and planning?
  
  I don't know.
  • I know that such a paradigm shift in tactics would certainly be a novel approach to effecting terrorism.
  • I know from what I've seen over the past quindecennial that at least two terrorist organizations have found innovative ways to accomplish their tactical goals, even if they have not achieved their strategic goals.
  • I know that identifying "lone wolf" actors is next to impossible.
  • I know that in order to succeed, ISIS need to constantly form and implement unique approaches to achieving their goals at all levels -- mechanical, operational, tactical and strategic.

Accordingly, it's easy, when thinking from ISIS' standpoint, to see that there is clearly a need for such a radical and untrackable means and mode of success at committing violent acts of terrorism. Shifting to "lone wolf" operational and tactical approach would do that, and it's well understood that open societies like the U.S. and other Western democracies essentially have close to no ability to identify "lone wolves" before they attack. They also know Western democracies are unwilling to become "police states" or "spy states."

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

​

 

[320 Years of History]

The question is, whether you can make a word mean so many different things.

??? Excuse me? Surely you aren't serious? Do the words homonym and homograph ring a bell from what you were taught in grades K-3?

• Run, theory, and many, many more.

The list is constrained to neither nouns nor verbs. There are scores of them that, unlike "Democratic"/"democratic" and "Republican"/"republican," don't even carry different meanings based on capitalization.

 

[Sunni Man]

It's quite obvious the attack was an just another Israeli funded and Mossad organized event. .......

 

[alang1216]

It's quite obvious the attack was an just another Israeli funded and Mossad organized event. .......

Why would they do it?

 

[alang1216]

I read somewhere the other day ISIS usually will not claim responsibility in Turkey. Sorry, I don't remember the reason.

What I heard was that ISIL never claims responsibility in Turkey so they won't alienate potential recruits to their cause. The Turkish gov't gets the message.

 

[Correll]

It really stretches the definition of "terrorism"

Off Topic:
There is no agreed upon definition of "terrorism."

• What's the definition of 'terrorism'?
  
  It's ironic -- the word "terrorism" appears constantly in newscasts, congressional debates and speeches by world leaders, often as a way of securing public support for one security measure or another. But for such a widely used word, there's actually no single definition of what "terrorism" means. There are many, and often, they're incompatible.
  
  Not only is the public confused about what to call "terrorism" -- the U.S. government is as conflicted as anyone. When Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, published the second edition of his book Inside Terrorism in 2006, he found considerable differences in how federal agencies defined terrorism.
  
  
• Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
  "There is no universal agreement regarding the definition of terrorism."
  
  
• Toward a Contemporary Definition of Terrorism
  
  "Terrorism studies point to the need for a standardized definition."
  
  
• The Meaning of Terrorism: A Philosophical Inquiry
  
  For some time now, many scholars have been engaged with understanding and defining terrorism. This engagement is reflected in the considerable amount of literature produced by them on this topic. Although this body of literature discloses important aspects of terrorism, none of it discusses directly the ‘essence’ of terrorism. The definitions provided are based on the writers’ political discourse rather than their philosophical apprehension of terrorism.
  
  
• The Revised Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism
  
  Terrorism is a contested concept. While there are many national and regional definitions, there is no universal legal definition approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations (the one proposed by the Security Council in Res. 1566 (2004) is non-binding, lacking legal authority in international law). The Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism of the 6th (legal) Committee of the General Assembly has, with some interruptions, been trying to reach a legal definition since 1972 - but in vain.
  
  In the absence of a legal definition, attempts have been made since the 1980s to reach agreement on an academic consensus definition. The latest outcome is the revised definition reprinted below. It is the result of three rounds of consultations among academics and other professionals. A description how it was arrived at can be found on pp. 39 - 98 of Alex P. Schmid (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. London and New York: Routledge, 2011. The same volume also contains 260 other definitions compiled by Joseph J. Easson and Alex P. Schmid on pp. 99 -200.

What's the consequence of society's failure to agree upon a single definition, or even agree upon multiple definitions each of which has its own contextual applicability? "Terrorism" means whatever a given writer/speaker says it means at the time s/he is speaking or in the work s/he writes at that moment.

For my part, I don't too much care what be agreed as the definition of "terrorism." I just want it to be defined so that everyone can easily and objectively look at an act and say with no shadow of doubt or room for debate, "Yes, that was/is an act of terrorism." The one thing I absolutely don't want the definition to be is something that allows one to designate as terrorism behaviors that one does not condone while also allowing one to designate as not-terrorism those acts that one does not condone. As long as it's objective, I'm willing to go with it.

Arguing about definitions?

With bodies literally littering the ground?

Definition of TERRORISM


Full Definition of terrorism

1. : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
   

There, glad to be of service.

 

[depotoo]

Thank you! I believe that is what I did read. hurrieyet news doesn't seem to keep older articles and I could not find it again.

I read somewhere the other day ISIS usually will not claim responsibility in Turkey. Sorry, I don't remember the reason.

What I heard was that ISIL never claims responsibility in Turkey so they won't alienate potential recruits to their cause. The Turkish gov't gets the message.

 

[depotoo]

Sunni is Sunni Muslim...

It's quite obvious the attack was an just another Israeli funded and Mossad organized event. .......

Why would they do it?

 

[alang1216]

Sunni is Sunni Muslim...

It's quite obvious the attack was an just another Israeli funded and Mossad organized event. .......

Why would they do it?

Not all Sunnis are nuts, in fact all of the ones I know are quite rational.

 

[depotoo]

Good to know some don't believe as he does...

Sunni is Sunni Muslim...

It's quite obvious the attack was an just another Israeli funded and Mossad organized event. .......

Why would they do it?

Not all Sunnis are nuts, in fact all of the ones I know are quite rational.

 

[320 Years of History]

I read somewhere the other day ISIS usually will not claim responsibility in Turkey. Sorry, I don't remember the reason. But-
ISIL 'key suspect' in Istanbul's Ataturk airport attack

What I heard was that ISIL never claims responsibility in Turkey so they won't alienate potential recruits to their cause. The Turkish gov't gets the message.

TY both. Seeing your remark, depotoo, I Googled for an answer and found one. There may be more; I'll have to keep looking to see whether the additional ones/ideas I find support or at least don't refute the first one I found. (alang1216, I didn't want to ask you who told you or where you heard what you did until I checked for something I could read. I hardly want to give out my phone number or set up an in person meeting...)

The day after I created this thread that CNN have posted an article that addresses the matter of ISIS not claiming responsibility. The reason they put forth is more complicated than any of the ones I suggested in the OP.

 

[Sunni Man]

The attack on the Istanbul airport has all of the hallmarks of a CIA/ Mossad false flag operation to force Turkey into becoming serious about defeating ISIS. .......