Australian Politics Forum - responsibility for extremists

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Islam › responsibility for extremists

(Moderator: polite_gandalf)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3 4

responsibility for extremists (Read 12425 times)

tallowood

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4971

Re: responsibility for extremists
Reply #45 - Nov 5^th, 2008 at 4:05pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

Quote:

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[1] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[2] Record continues "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and barroom brawls."[3]

Reality is a figment of imagination

IP Logged

abu_rashid Gold Member Offline Aussie Muslim Posts: 8353	Re: responsibility for extremists Reply #46 - Nov 5^th, 2008 at 4:15pm Emotionally charged indeed. Very few of those people bandying the word around do so in a rational and unemotional manner. It's always just used to invalidate the claims, legitimacy and aspirations of the barbaric other. The term itself, actually seems to be a very effective tool of 'information warfare'.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48814
At my desk.

Re: responsibility for extremists
Reply #47 - Nov 5^th, 2008 at 5:20pm

Most people would define terrorism as being something like violent acts outside of conventional warfare that have a political goal - and thus terrorists the people who commit those acts. War criminals is a more appropriate term for people committing similar acts within the context of conventional warfare.

Obviously people are going to disagree on the details. Trouble getting a political group to agree on a definition does not mean it is hard to define, it means there are political agendas getting in the way, or that a common definition is insufficient for legal purposes. Most words used in statuatory law have complex definitions that are not always directly related to the common english meaning.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page