I don't think Osama Bin Laden's goal is causing terror, but spreading his religion.
I'm a Troper!!!
The Other Wiki describes terrorism as "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion."
Yeah, but Lenin was a man who forced himself into power after losing the USSR's first and only election in 1917 and used ethnic cleansing during the Red Terror on some of his opponents/many of the people who opposed him and Che at least did some of those things. The idea of terrorism is that part of your revolution includes ignoring the average person, using your power to murder people you know are civilians to gain said power, and causing genocides to cement your own power are considered forms of terrorism.
Isn't this trope irrelevant? A act of terrorism is blowing up, beheading, etc RANDOM CIVILIANS. Terrorist attack is different from an attack on military targets. Otherwise it is an attack CARRIED OUT BY A TERRORIST GROUP. If it is someone saying that good guy rebels are terrorists, it is propaganda. Battlestar Galactica had the good guys actually commit terrorism via suicide bombing, but i can't think of any other situation where good guys could be called terrorists without it being a big lie.
Hide / Show Replies
The point is people can't agree on the definition. Is the military bombing some civilian targets (especially random ones) terrorism? US law says no, it only applies to non-state actors. Others would disagree of course. The page quote is referencing groups such as the Contras whom the US supported that committed acts like you mention. Yet the government called them freedom fighters, not terrorists. If you want a fictional example, one that immediately comes to mind is Kira Nerys from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. She admits to targeting not just the Cardassian military forces, but random civilians, and actually calls it terrorism. Yet this was to fight a brutal foreign occupation and free her people. I'd say that's very relevant.
Edited by Fireblood Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick
Actually, the definition of "terrorism" is pretty well settled in the science that actually studies it: political science.
The key is "violence committed by a NON-state actor for the purpose of political gain".
States (as in, nation-states and those recognized as equivalent, such as the 2 sides in a civil war) CANNOT, BY DEFINITION, commit terrorism. They can commit terror attacks, but while the non-academic may confuse this with terrorism, it's distinctly different.
This exclusion includes folks that are directly sanctioned by a nation-state, but does not include those merely funded or "supported" by said concept.
As such, the Union and CSA in the American Civil War are "nation-states", and the various parties in "Bleeding Kansas" (being direct irregular forces of both sides, whether we like to admit it or not) are not capable of committing terrorism.
The line gets fuzzy when a former terrorist group who was NOT in any way considered a state actor suddenly gains government recognition or legitimacy. E.g. Hamas now being the government of Gaza.
The various incarnations of ISIS are still all terrorists and do terrorism, despite having claims of nation-hood (since said nation has no international recognition).
It's a bit of self-serving definition admittedly, but it was cooked up in the context of international relations, where the defining characteristic of legitimacy is Statehood.
TL;DR: terrorism is ONLY committable by non-state actors who don't have official nation-state recognition or sanction. Nation-states can commit acts of terror, but that's NOT the same thing as terrorism. it's an important distinction.
That may be the case, but beyond academia it sure isn't settled. Regardless, certain academics do argue for "state terrorism" being a thing, and so it isn't everyone's definition there either.
I wonder precisely what the distinction is between acts of terror and terrorism. As you say, it doesn't seem like something that can really be distinct, what with non-state actors becoming states or just having state backing.
In any case, simply taking the definition you provided, this seems deeply problematic. French Resistance fighters killing German soldiers in the '40s with the political goal of freeing France? Terrorism (as Germany indeed called this). Protestors throwing stones at cops in pursuit of (insert cause here)? Terrorism. As most states now punish terrorism very harshly, this seems like a recipe for gross disproportionate retribution and all crimes are equal laws (some already have this problem, I understand).
I think this is extremely self-serving, rather than simply a little. Why legitimacy of statehood should make states' "acts of terror" something distinct from "terrorism" isn't clear to me. I honestly think both terms are pretty useless. Assuming there's underlying crimes this covers (bombings, hostage taking, murder) can't we simply call them that? What does "acts of terror" and "terrorism" really add, except useful political rhetoric?
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick
State terror is just to show states are not above being see as terrorists and yes, killing actively dangerous military targets is not terrorism nor are protestors throwing stones.
Legal definition of a terrorist as in 22 U.S.C. 38 § 2656f (d) (2). "[T]he term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents..."
People not fighting against noncombatants and trying (keep word trying) to free themselves from an active militant presence while not trying to harm civilians & having some degree of a plan of what to do afterward is what we see as freedom fighting.
Why does the edit page say "no real life"?
Every civil/revolutionary war ever fits this trope, and IMO deserves this page.
Edited by rockdeworld Hide / Show Replies
That's exactly why. Such entries would both bloat the page immensely, and serve as ultra-volatile flame bait.
Edited by Whitewings
Yeah, it'd probably be better suited for a Useful Notes page on guerrilla movements, with a note saying that this trope could be applied to each and every one.
I changed the example about how under a literal definition, a police officer who intimidates a witness into cooperating is a terrorist. The obvious implication readers are meant to take away is "Of course that guy isn't a terrorist, he's a hero."
Except, no, he's not. That's a really bad thing to do, and quite illegal in the US at least, since at all times a witness has the right to not talk to the police. So it's a terrible example. Just FYI for anyone who might want to change it back.
Edited by 98.218.119.25
So this trope is pretty much "Going against OUR interest/way? Must be terrorists!"? (starting a topic for Laconic description too, by the way)
Edited by MrEvergreen
I prefer the legal definition of a terrorist as in 22 U.S.C. 38 § 2656f (d) (2). "[T]he term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents..."
By this standard, the Patriots in the Revolutionary were not terrorists, while some elements of the Confederacy were.
Nice to see that I'm not the only one who thinks 00 was about freedom hating terrorist bastards.
MORE MEN! MORE TANKS! -Lord General Khuranak, Warhammer 40k
Jesus as in Revelations
That quote on the quotes page is hilarious!
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?
I thought a fairly common definition for terrorism was "Violence with the goal of causing terror". Che Guevara defined it as such, and disavowed terrorism when he was fighting in Cuba. I think Lenin might have said virtually the same thing.
Hide / Show Replies