• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

Terrorism doesn't become terrorism or cease to be terrorism based upon the person issuing the threat or committing the violent act in question.

Terrorism doesn't become terrorism or cease to be terrorism if the cause for which it is committed happens to be one we agree or disagree with.

As to the question of whether or not violence committed by "militant eco or animal rights groups" constitutes terrorism, that would need to be examined on a case by case basis. Incidental violence (i.e. shoving a security guard out of the way while trying to get away) isn't terrorism, while blowing up an animal testing facility during hours when it is reasonably known or expected to be staffed certainly would be.

Actually, even if they know the building is very likely to be or is completely empty, if they blow it up and not a single person gets hurt, it is still terrorism. They are still promoting fear and their acts are still violent.
 
When I agree with James on something, it is time to be ready for the apocalypse. You nailed it sir with the appropriate definition and answer.

The definition is close, but still fatally flawed.

There is no logical warrant for exempting state/government forces from the definition of terrorism. (If it's not clear, the magical exemption is smuggled in through the word "unlawful").

Terrorism IS still terrorism when the state or its agents do it.
 
The definition is close, but still fatally flawed.

There is no logical warrant for exempting state/government forces from the definition of terrorism. (If it's not clear, the magical exemption is smuggled in through the word "unlawful").

Terrorism IS still terrorism when the state or its agents do it.

You are welcome to use that definition, but it is not the general definition used by moth people Bombing a building during war is not terrorism for example.
 
Actually, even if they know the building is very likely to be or is completely empty, if they blow it up and not a single person gets hurt, it is still terrorism. They are still promoting fear and their acts are still violent.

I reject the premise that property destruction is automatically violence. In the vast majority of cases it typically is, because it predictably leads to harming a person or other animal capable of being hurt...but not automatically. Critically disabling a nuclear missile or an arms factory while going to great lengths to avoid physically harming personnel, for example, demonstrates an explicit organized effort to AVOID injury. Such would still be coercive, but not necessarily violent.

Calling in a bomb threat with instructions to clear a building -- while NOT actually planting a bomb -- would of course be terrorism due to the reliance upon fear as a means of manipulating the actions of the targets.

Planting a bomb WITHOUT warning and with no measures to clear the building of people and/or animals capable of being harmed would be terrorism as well, due to the reliance upon the aftermath of the detonation as a means of seeking change through direct harm.
 
domestic terrorism.
 
You are welcome to use that definition, but it is not the general definition used by moth people Bombing a building during war is not terrorism for example.

Bombing a building in or out of war usually IS terrorism, because the normal predictable result of bombing a building is hurting or killing people (hence it qualifies as violence);

and

it is nearly always done in order to influence others (i.e. attempt to get enemy forces out of an area, weaken a strategic position, etc.)

and

as I already pointed out, there is no logical warrant for giving a magical exemption to governments and their agents (like militaries).


For painfully obvious reasons, official LEGAL definitions of terrorism are and continue to be tailored so as to avoid self-incrimination (those acting on behalf of governments AVOID setting up laws which would lead to identifying the state as having committed a criminal offense).

Once you remove the magical self-granted exemption from typical legal definitions, it becomes consistent and reasonable.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example, are archetypal cases of terrorism: they are massive incidences of planned violence carried out for the sake of attempting to influence the policy and conduct of others in a clear conflict (i.e. get the Japanese military/government to surrender).
 
Bombing a building in or out of war usually IS terrorism, because the normal predictable result of bombing a building is hurting or killing people (hence it qualifies as violence);

and

it is nearly always done in order to influence others (i.e. attempt to get enemy forces out of an area, weaken a strategic position, etc.)

and

as I already pointed out, there is no logical warrant for giving a magical exemption to governments and their agents (like militaries).


For painfully obvious reasons, official LEGAL definitions of terrorism are and continue to be tailored so as to avoid self-incrimination (those acting on behalf of governments AVOID setting up laws which would lead to identifying the state as having committed a criminal offense).

Once you remove the magical self-granted exemption from typical legal definitions, it becomes consistent and reasonable.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example, are archetypal cases of terrorism: they are massive incidences of planned violence carried out for the sake of attempting to influence the policy and conduct of others in a clear conflict (i.e. get the Japanese military/government to surrender).

All violence is not terrorism. While you are welcome to make up your own definition, the word as it is used legally and by most people does not include lawful acts and does not include violence for reasons outside of political coercion or intimidation.
 
In this country, private property is private property, and it belongs to the owner, unless he/she has neglected to pay property taxes. And no, environmentalists who commit violence and destruction are no better than any other thug.

So, isn't it a viable business model, to hire a few (environmentalist/animalrights) thugs to create disturbance before you buy up something, to lower its price? After all, those thugs wouldn't exist in the first place, if the existence of that property was just.
 
No all acts of sabotage for political coercion is terrorism, but many of the acts groups like ALF most certainly are. Among acts I would consider terrorist acts by this type of group was burning down homes under construction, bombing/burning down a ski lodge, bombing science labs, letting disease-infested animals loose into the human populace, that kind of thing.

Throwing paint on a fur coat, although a dick thing to do, does not rise to "terroristic intent" in my opinion.
 
All violence is not terrorism.

I never said all violence is terrorism. See, I include words in my sentences for a reason; their combination in a particular order affects meaning.

While you are welcome to make up your own definition, the word as it is used legally

Did you completely miss my acknowledgement of the ulterior motives behind legal definitions, and their typical (completely unwarranted) exemption for state actors?

and by most people does not include lawful acts and does not include violence for reasons outside of political coercion or intimidation.

Acceptance of the magical exemption for state actors (which is, let's be clear, exactly what the "lawful" vs. "unlawful" clause in legal definitions is intended to achieve) leads to the completely untenable contradiction which holds that:

a man putting a gun to your head and threatening to blow your brains out if you don't move out of town/vote the way he wants you to/start (or stop) doing X action IS terrorism (CORRECT)

BUT... (magically)...

a police officer or soldier putting a gun to your head and threatening to blow your brains out if you don't move out of town/vote the way he wants you to/start (or stop) doing X action IS NOT terrorism (absurd on its face)
 
I never said all violence is terrorism. See, I include words in my sentences for a reason; their combination in a particular order affects meaning.



Did you completely miss my acknowledgement of the ulterior motives behind legal definitions, and their typical (completely unwarranted) exemption for state actors?



Acceptance of the magical exemption for state actors (which is, let's be clear, exactly what the "lawful" vs. "unlawful" clause in legal definitions is intended to achieve) leads to the completely untenable contradiction which holds that:

a man putting a gun to your head and threatening to blow your brains out if you don't move out of town/vote the way he wants you to/start (or stop) doing X action IS terrorism (CORRECT)

BUT... (magically)...

a police officer or soldier putting a gun to your head and threatening to blow your brains out if you don't move out of town/vote the way he wants you to/start (or stop) doing X action IS NOT terrorism (absurd on its face)

There is no exemption for state actors. They are bound by laws too. The ebil gubment is only a criminal when it breaks laws....
 
I reject the premise that property destruction is automatically violence. In the vast majority of cases it typically is, because it predictably leads to harming a person or other animal capable of being hurt...but not automatically. Critically disabling a nuclear missile or an arms factory while going to great lengths to avoid physically harming personnel, for example, demonstrates an explicit organized effort to AVOID injury. Such would still be coercive, but not necessarily violent.

Calling in a bomb threat with instructions to clear a building -- while NOT actually planting a bomb -- would of course be terrorism due to the reliance upon fear as a means of manipulating the actions of the targets.

Planting a bomb WITHOUT warning and with no measures to clear the building of people and/or animals capable of being harmed would be terrorism as well, due to the reliance upon the aftermath of the detonation as a means of seeking change through direct harm.

You are free to reject whatever you want, but legally disabling a nuclear power plant or missile or arms factory is still terrorism if you are doing it to bring about a social or political change. It doesn't even matter how you go about doing it as long as it is violent or causes some fear in those within the society. Just as critically disabling the power plants of a country is still an act of terrorism even if not a single person dies or is harmed by a result of the act if it is done for a reason meant to bring about social or political change. No one has to be harmed for it to be an act of terrorism.
 
To sum up:

The resultant conclusion of a logically consistent definition of terrorism is that terrorism is actually quite common.

The only way to carve a path around state violence in order to keep it outside of a definition of terrorism (for the sake of political convenience and/or catering to cognitive dissonance) is to commit a form of ideational gerrymandering/special pleading.

Logical and consistent application of a reasonable definition of terrorism points clearly to the observation that governments and their agents account for the lion's share of terrorism.
 
There is no exemption for state actors. They are bound by laws too. The ebil gubment is only a criminal when it breaks laws....

Bull****.

CIVILIAN blows up building to scare people and influence their behavior vis-a-vis a political goal? Terrorism.
SOLDIER (i.e. military pilot) blows up building to scare people and influence their behavior vis-a-vis a political goal? STILL terrorism.

If you assert the latter is not terrorism because the bombing was ordered by someone within a government (and therefore legal), that's a glaring, neon-sign, bash-you-over-the-head magical exemption.
 
Bull****.

CIVILIAN blows up building to scare people and influence their behavior vis-a-vis a political goal? Terrorism.
SOLDIER (i.e. military pilot) blows up building to scare people and influence their behavior vis-a-vis a political goal? STILL terrorism.

If you assert the latter is not terrorism because the bombing was ordered by someone within a government (and therefore legal), that's a glaring, neon-sign, bash-you-over-the-head magical exemption.

So in your world two different situations must be the same?
 
Bull****.

CIVILIAN blows up building to scare people and influence their behavior vis-a-vis a political goal? Terrorism.
SOLDIER (i.e. military pilot) blows up building to scare people and influence their behavior vis-a-vis a political goal? STILL terrorism.

If you assert the latter is not terrorism because the bombing was ordered by someone within a government (and therefore legal), that's a glaring, neon-sign, bash-you-over-the-head magical exemption.

It all depends on why the building was blown up. Was it blown up to scare the citizens or the government or was it blown up for a more practical reason, such as to kill specific people inside or to destroy a specific thing within that building?
 
You are free to reject whatever you want, but legally disabling a nuclear power plant or missile or arms factory is still terrorism if you are doing it to bring about a social or political change. It doesn't even matter how you go about doing it as long as it is violent or causes some fear in those within the society.

Legality is completely irrelevant to a logically consistent definition of terrorism.

As for fear, if fear is either the planned -- or reasonably anticipated -- mechanism by which the political goal is achieved or partially achieved *in conjunction with violence*, then that qualifies the act as terrorism. If, on the other hand, some people respond with fear to the action on a completely irrational basis (for example, religious fundamentalists go off the deep end yet again because of their bronze-age dogmas), but that fear response is neither a reasonable prediction nor a planned mechanism of change, then the fear is just incidental to the action and the action may or may not be terrorism.

For example: some fundamentalists absolutely and completely freak out in the presence of public displays of affection by gay people. One occasional counter-protest tactic of gay and lesbian activists is for couples to go out to the hate-fests arranged by folks like the WBC and then kiss each other right in front of them. Does this incite fear among the bigots? Of course it does, and predictably so...but it's not violence. The counter-protestors in such a case are relying upon the irrational dogma of the WBC folks, but non-bigoted (or at least non-homophobic) folks aren't bothered at all by it. By your fear criterion, such couples would be committing terrorism (**if** we were to treat the fear response alone is the pivotal factor).

Just as critically disabling the power plants of a country is still an act of terrorism even if not a single person dies or is harmed by a result of the act if it is done for a reason meant to bring about social or political change. No one has to be harmed for it to be an act of terrorism.

If no one (including fellow animals) is harmed, then no violence has taken place, and one of the criteria for terrorism hasn't been met.
 
Legality is completely irrelevant to a logically consistent definition of terrorism.

As for fear, if fear is either the planned -- or reasonably anticipated -- mechanism by which the political goal is achieved or partially achieved *in conjunction with violence*, then that qualifies the act as terrorism. If, on the other hand, some people respond with fear to the action on a completely irrational basis (for example, religious fundamentalists go off the deep end yet again because of their bronze-age dogmas), but that fear response is neither a reasonable prediction nor a planned mechanism of change, then the fear is just incidental to the action and the action may or may not be terrorism.

For example: some fundamentalists absolutely and completely freak out in the presence of public displays of affection by gay people. One occasional counter-protest tactic of gay and lesbian activists is for couples to go out to the hate-fests arranged by folks like the WBC and then kiss each other right in front of them. Does this incite fear among the bigots? Of course it does, and predictably so...but it's not violence. The counter-protestors in such a case are relying upon the irrational dogma of the WBC folks, but non-bigoted (or at least non-homophobic) folks aren't bothered at all by it. By your fear criterion, such couples would be committing terrorism (**if** we were to treat the fear response alone is the pivotal factor).

If no one (including fellow animals) is harmed, then no violence has taken place, and one of the criteria for terrorism hasn't been met.

Violence is not the only criteria there for it to be terrorism. It is either violence or fear. Fear can be just as valid and vandalism can cause fear. It has to be an act that would cause fear to a reasonable person.

The fear in your example is not a reasonable fear. It is unreasonable to fear people kissing. It is not unreasonable that people who have their property vandalized might fear having either it happen again or something worse because the act was ignored.
 
So in your world two different situations must be the same?

No. Two actions where the only substantial difference is the person taking the action are either both terrorist or both NOT terrorist.

It is an obvious contradiction (special, magical exemption) to assert that the civilian doing X action has committed a terrorist act, while the military actor DOING THE SAME THING has NOT committed a terrorist act.

The legal designation of the actor is completely irrelevant to any logically consistent definition.

It's the same nonsense as if you were to say a right-handed man forcing himself sexually upon someone else has committed rape, but a left-handed man forcing himself sexually upon someone else has not. There's no logical warrant for the exemption.
 
It all depends on why the building was blown up. Was it blown up to scare the citizens or the government or was it blown up for a more practical reason, such as to kill specific people inside or to destroy a specific thing within that building?

As explicitly stated, the SAME action (including consideration of the intended and/or reasonably predicted results of the action), committed by two different actors (one civilian, one acting on behalf of a government, including military forces) must logically be terrorist in both cases or Not-Terrorist in both cases.

It's Still Terrorism When A Government Does It.
 
So, isn't it a viable business model, to hire a few (environmentalist/animalrights) thugs to create disturbance before you buy up something, to lower its price? After all, those thugs wouldn't exist in the first place, if the existence of that property was just.

Mmmmm, no. That wouldn't be viable. As I said, private property rights are strong in this country, and people who commit acts of violence and destruction are criminals, not heros.
 
Violence is not the only criteria there for it to be terrorism. It is either violence or fear. Fear can be just as valid and vandalism can cause fear. It has to be an act that would cause fear to a reasonable person.

The fear in your example is not a reasonable fear. It is unreasonable to fear people kissing. It is not unreasonable that people who have their property vandalized might fear having either it happen again or something worse because the act was ignored.

Sure, vandalism may predictably lead to fear, but not all vandalism would qualify as terrorism either. Slathering a storefront or home with hate speech and threats would certainly qualify, while breaking a window out of some personal motive for revenge would not -- even though the latter may still lead to a reasonable fear/suspicion of future property damage.

Another example of non-terrorist property destruction: lighting a dumpster on fire during a mass street demonstration to discourage police from charging a crowd (because those doing the lighting are aware of protocols in law enforcement which may require specific additional safety measures in such a scenario...thus buying some time for the crowd). Lighting the dumpster is not violence. In this context, lighting it is a delay tactic, and it doesn't harm anyone. It IS part of a larger attempt at influencing behavior in a political conflict, but it's not violence (the normal result does not predictably lead to harming anyone).

That's what I meant earlier when I pointed out that property destruction is not automatically violence.
 
No. Two actions where the only substantial difference is the person taking the action are either both terrorist or both NOT terrorist.

It is an obvious contradiction (special, magical exemption) to assert that the civilian doing X action has committed a terrorist act, while the military actor DOING THE SAME THING has NOT committed a terrorist act.

The legal designation of the actor is completely irrelevant to any logically consistent definition.

It's the same nonsense as if you were to say a right-handed man forcing himself sexually upon someone else has committed rape, but a left-handed man forcing himself sexually upon someone else has not. There's no logical warrant for the exemption.

You say no, and then repeat that two different actions are the same. An ambulance driving over the speed limit on it's way to an accident is not a crime. If you do it, it is. See, different people, different result, and entirely logical. Mindless hatred of government is silly.
 
Mmmmm, no. That wouldn't be viable. As I said, private property rights are strong in this country, and people who commit acts of violence and destruction are criminals, not heros.

Unless one subscribes to a form of state fundamentalism (which would be peculiar indeed for someone identifying as a Libertarian), there is no necessary exclusivity between criminality and heroism.

While vilified in his own lifetime...MLK, Jr., for example, was a serial criminal, and yet today is widely honored and revered and identified by many as a heroic figure.

Law != ethics
Law != morality
 
Key Word: Militant

Short Answer: Yes
 
Back
Top Bottom