All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[pErvinalia]

No one is talking about justification. We are talking about whether it meets the definition of terrorism. Given there's no political position espoused, and no attempt at widespread terror, I maintain it can't be considered terrorism.

[Scot Dutchy]

1984 is not far away. Today ICE what tomorrow. I would really be worried living in America. It is very disconcerting to say the least. The Mussolini clone wants to be dictator. Hitler has the "SS" Trump has the ICE. Who is objecting?

[Brian Peacock]

No one is talking about justification. We are talking about whether it meets the definition of terrorism. Given there's no political position espoused, and no attempt at widespread terror, I maintain it can't be considered terrorism.

I know that's what you maintain, but you're maintaining it only by repetition at the moment.

What definition of terrorism are you working to beyond 'the use of violence for political ends'?

I'm sure you'd agree that protesting and demonstrating against the policy and/or existence of the concentration camps would fall into the category of 'a political act', so what's the basis for saying that this particular protest or demonstration isn't political? You said that there was no ideological component to the act, but that doesn't clarify anything nor touch on the point that protesting and demonstrating against the concentration camps is political regardless of one's personal motivation - the political act is the act of protest or demonstration not the act of wanting to protest or demonstrate etc.

Similarly the act of attempting to harm camp guards or liberate inmates would also be political regardless of one's personal motivation.

I accept what you have said, in as much as you have stated your position on the matter and repeated it, but I think the justification for acts of protest or demonstration, resistance or liberation etc is really quite important, as the example of the supposed non-political nature of an act of white-supremacists violence that I concocted demonstrates.

[pErvinalia]

No one is talking about justification. We are talking about whether it meets the definition of terrorism. Given there's no political position espoused, and no attempt at widespread terror, I maintain it can't be considered terrorism.

I know that's what you maintain, but you're maintaining it only by repetition at the moment.

What definition of terrorism are you working to beyond 'the use of violence for political ends'?

I just elucidated the definition. Political stance and widespread terror. Even if I granted the former, which I'm not sure I do, the latter isn't part of this act.

[Hermit]

The Wikipedia has an article titled Definitions of terrorism. The plural indicates that "terrorism" is a problematic concept, and indeed, the first three sentences of its first paragraph highlights the difficulties with it.

There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism.[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed-upon and legally binding definition. Difficulties arise from the fact that the term has become politically and emotionally charged.

The fourth sentence, though, indicates that, according to US law at least, an essential element of terrorism is an intention to harm people.

In the United States of America, terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".

According to that law persons who set out kill occupants of churches because they are black, occupants of mosques because they are Muslims or occupants of Synagogues because they are Jewish, are easily recognised as terrorists. People whose intention is to incinerate unoccupied cars or set gas tanks alight are not, even if there were a chance of harming people in the process. The difference is that there was no intention to actually harm people.

[pErvinalia]

Most dictionaries have 'cause widespread terror' or the like as part of the definition.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Checking dictionaries: The Oxford English Dictionary (paywalled) has 'The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.' The free publicly available Oxford dictionary has 'The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.' Merriam-Webster has 'the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.' Collins has 'the use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something.' Dictionary.com, based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, has 'the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.' The Free Dictionary, based on the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, has 'The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.'

I'd say that the attack on the ICE facility qualifies as attempted domestic terrorism. The US doesn't have any laws on its books which can be used to bring such a charge, so people like the Trumpist pipe bomber and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter are charged with other things, but not with terrorism.

[pErvinalia]

I'm still not convinced this is political. What reasoning are you two employing to label this political?

[pErvinalia]

Did he have some sort of manifesto?

[Brian Peacock]

No one is talking about justification. We are talking about whether it meets the definition of terrorism. Given there's no political position espoused, and no attempt at widespread terror, I maintain it can't be considered terrorism.

I know that's what you maintain, but you're maintaining it only by repetition at the moment.

What definition of terrorism are you working to beyond 'the use of violence for political ends'?

I just elucidated the definition. Political stance and widespread terror. Even if I granted the former, which I'm not sure I do, the latter isn't part of this act.

If you don't want to argue a point that's fine - just say so - but at the same time don't carry as if you have when you haven't. As far as I can see you haven't said anything about 'terrorism' but I'm happy to accept what you have said about the term 'terrorist'. Apart from encouraging Cunt a few times to go look it up in the dictionary you've said ...

Go and look up the definition of terrorist. The primary aim is to spread terror throughout the populace. And no, that's not what this guy was doing.

I guess if we're going to appeal to the dictionary we should really take a look-see to find out abut that 'primary aim' ...

terrorist noun: person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
terrorist adjective: unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

... can see it there - what about 'terrorism' ?

terrorism noun: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Nope - not there either. Nothing about empathetic acts not counting as violence or terrorism can be found elsewhere, and the definitions above doesn't mention ideology either.

Look, the reason I picked you up on this was because you were giving Cunt the impression that the concentration camp attack wasn't terrorism and the guy wasn't a terrorist because he was motivated by empathy and that in espousing no political position he didn't fit the dictionary definition.

I've given a good enough account of how the act itself was political in spite of the attackers apparent empathetic motivation and there being "no political position espoused" for you to get the point - and enought to make repeating "No it isn't" functionally useless on your part.

To not fit the dictionary definition now you'd have to show that the attacker wasn't engaged in a political act as I've suggested or that being motivated by empathy is some kind of validating or justifying condition for the use of violence against the state.

The thing your position seems to put out of bounds is that those who violently oppose the state on political grounds are dictionary-defined terrorists BUT their use of violence may be entirely justified and/or justifiable. That matter unavoidably rests on the nature of that justification.

No one is talking about justification.

I am.

[pErvinalia]

tl;dr

Like 42 you are singularly impressive at missing the point. I've multiple times defined what I mean by terrorism. Yet you somehow say that I haven't. Not sure what else to say to you.

[pErvinalia]

.

No one is talking about justification.

I am.

Good for you. But you were replying to me, and I certainly never said anything about justification. So you are introducing extraneous lines of argument for God only knows what reason.

[Brian Peacock]

What's happened to you man? You use to put up a good show of holding up your end of an argument. I've covered what you actually posted and how it doesn't match the dictionary definition (while putting aside the fallacious nature of appeals to the dictionary), how an act of protest, demonstration, opposition and/or resistant is political regardless of the motivation for doing it, how the use of political violence by anyone other than the sate is terrorism because the state gets to define that legally, and how political violence without justification is just plain-old ordinary illegal violence. Is this how it ends - politics reduced to thumb-typing tweet-sized assertions and tl;drs?

[pErvinalia]

While we are all quoting dictionaries:

n. The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
n. Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods.
n. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized;
American Heritage dictionary.

noun
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
Dictionary.com

n.
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
Freedictionary.com

Terrorism, the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.
Encyclopedia Britanica

Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a financial, political, religious or ideological aim.
Wikipedia

[Brian Peacock]

Oh, the best dictionary definitely wins.

(Which is mine btw)