Define Terrorism: Win $1000

[Ramo]

Your definiton also does not seem to meet the notion of a state being terrorist, again given that all states have equal authority, if not equal power, in the system.

The Taliban, for instance, was crushed under the authority of the US and the world community. States do not have equal authority in the system, and even if they did, coalitions of states would tip the balance.

[David Floyd]

The real trick is to separate "war" from "terrorism".

Good luck, because every war ever fought has been no different, really, than terrorism.

Even in "defensive wars", one side or the other is behaving aggressively, which seems to be terrorism to me.

As such, my definition of terrorism:

"Any hostile, aggressive, and/or unprovoked act against a person, NGO, and/or nation-state, conducted by a person, NGO, and/or nation-state."

[chequita guevara]

It think you two should start collaborting instead of butting heads. I want $100, you guys can each split the rest.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
As such, my definition of terrorism:

won't win you a thousand bucks.

[David Floyd]

I know, but I still think it's valid - killing people should be considered bad, even if the state says that it's OK.

[chequita guevara]

Yes, killing people is bad. That's not the point of this excercise. (or rather, it is . . . )

[Ramo]

It think you two should start collaborting instead of butting heads. I want $100, you guys can each split the rest.

I wouldn't mind getting a cut of the $1000, provided someone else goes to the trouble of writing the essay and sends it out.

[David Floyd]

I wouldn't mind getting a cut of the $1000, provided someone else goes to the trouble of writing the essay and sends it out.

I tend to be a fairly good writer. I'll write it up if we reach a consensus, provided I get at least a 10% cut for the trouble.

che,

Yes, killing people is bad. That's not the point of this excercise.

Well, defining terrorism is the point, and I would define terrorism as killing or attacking people with no provocation, which I would also define as bad. To me, it doesn't matter if an individual or a state is doing it, it's essentially the same.

[korn469]

I think something along this line could work:

Terrorist: An entity, sovereign or not, that engages in violence against a sovereign entity, NGO, or particular population to further either political or ideological goals. Terrorists act without expressed legal authorization from any recognized sovereign entity or multinational body that could grant such authorization, or they have authorization to take actions that the international community has clearly indicated are abhorent to any sane society. Terrorists do not adhere to internationally accepted conventions governing the use of force in combat. Terrorist will forsake legitimate military or governmental targets to attack symbolic, economic, or civilian targets that are easier to destroy. Terrorists try to inflict as much collateral damage as possible in each attack to generate as much publicity as possible. The overall strategy of a terrorist is to cause so much fear, confusion, or loss of confidence that its enemy must capitulate to their demands even when it is not at risk of a military defeat. Terrorists do not respect borders, and they will attack benign entities outside of the conflict to exert pressure to their stated or implied enemy.

[chequita guevara]

Okay, now let me throw out this little bone. Some US actions are illegal even in US law. Clinton, Reagan, Bush (both), and Ford could all be tried in the US for war crimes (not that it would ever happen). The fact that the US government breaks its own laws needs to be gotten around, somehow (I think Korn gets real close with his authorization).

[David Floyd]

korn, I think that is a good definition, but I think the language against waging war could be stronger (ie, I think the definition should reject the concept of a "just war" other than self defense).

[chequita guevara]

You just aren't trying to win, DF.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You just aren't trying to win, DF.

He apparently doesn't need the money.

[David Floyd]

Well, then, for a "winning" definition, I think korn is closest so far.

[Ramo]

Okay, now let me throw out this little bone. Some US actions are illegal even in US law. Clinton, Reagan, Bush (both), and Ford could all be tried in the US for war crimes (not that it would ever happen). The fact that the US government breaks its own laws needs to be gotten around, somehow (I think Korn gets real close with his authorization).

Does law exist if it will never be enforced? Objectively, I wouldn't consider empty proclmations to be real law.

I tend to be a fairly good writer. I'll write it up if we reach a consensus, provided I get at least a 10% cut for the trouble.

That's fine by me.