"terrorism" and "perspectivity" of photography

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

It beats me why people want threads they don't like deleted rather than just stop reading it themselves. Why should you decide for everyone else what they should or shouldn't read?

I don't see anything wrong with a contribution that says, in effect, "this is not something I like to talk about and I wish others would not, either". I feel that a contribution saying, "Well I like to talk about it", is also valid.

It seems to me that this exchange of views is the whole point of a forum.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

Roger, you are right ! version III is better because it fits the M8, version II only analog leicas... Roger. also: Do you think I should get more M leicas, as Mr kaufmann is absolutely on the wrong track, he should have invested in an aluminum hut in Wetzlar so he could have had a 50% discount sale on Digital leicas. THAT would have saved the world, or at least the conversation on rangefinder forum...(besides I dug what you said in the private message..I should have listened to you !)

 

[Roger Hicks]

although i cannot speak for all, i have met many of the folks out there on the front lines in person and very, very few of them are talking about anything camera related. unless of course one of the tools is broken or in need of some sort of service.

Well, quite. But the people who are obsessive about bokeh (for example) don't usually have much else to talk about. Conviction? Passion? Fairness? Justice? Life and death? Nah... Version II or Version III.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Do you think I should get more M leicas, as Mr kaufmann is absolutely on the wrong track . . .

For sure. After all, EVERYONE on RFF knows more about how to run Leica than... um... the owner.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't see anything wrong with a contribution that says, in effect, "this is not something I like to talk about and I wish others would not, either". I feel that a contribution saying, "Well I like to talk about it", is also valid.

It seems to me that this exchange of views is the whole point of a forum.

Until you want others' views suppressed, yes.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Further thought. "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." (Lenin)

And those who hide their heads in the sand are doing something akin to buying rope off the communists.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

Those dammn nationalists in Finland smuggled Lenin in to St Petersburg to make the "October revolution". F**k it, they should have made a nice hole in his head. Too bad none of them had a chrystal ball clear enough to see what was coming...We had to wait more than 70 years for our neighbors to become sane in their heads...
The first gimmic of him was to call their few followers "Bolsheviks" = majority... The second was to promse workers double pay if they join the party. well put ! when most of them just talking and making demonstrations... double pay for that. and on and on... Not to talk abut STALIN... when he came to power, and wiping off the peasant workers.. No food. and what did he do then... His famous motto was: when ten or hundred people get killed, it`s a tragedy, but when thousands or million people are eliminated, THAT IS ONLY HISTORY, not even TERRORISM...

 

[Sparrow]

Further thought. "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." (Lenin)

And those who hide their heads in the sand are doing something akin to buying rope off the communists.

Cheers,

R.

... but at least they won't be arguing as to which type of rope eh? ... no one gets a choice in a command economy they say

 

[gdi]

If the massacre at Oradour s/Glane -- http://www.oradour.info/ -- was not terrorism, it's hard to see what is. Dictionary definitions are less than worthless in the face of such evidence. And, as Rangefinderfreak says, there really are times when "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" depend purely and simply on your political and moral views. Another good example is Uighurstan.

Cheers,

R.

Yes, the word has been defined in many contexts, and, as we see here, to many people it may be summed up simplistically as "terrorism is that which causes terror (as in extreme fear)". As is clear in this thread, where practically everyone or everything from politicians spouting rhetoric, to police brutality, to war crimes has been labeled "terrorism", the average RFFer seems to view the term as the ultimate way to vilify that or those that they fear or hate.

There is no value in this way of thinking, unless one has the intent of obscuring the discussion. To me the more useful definitions of terrorism are the academic ones used by people who have made a career of studying terrorism in the practical modern sense. Most that I have seen (Martha Crenshaw, Jessica Stern, etc) are fairly consistent and generally define the actors as non-state or sub-national, the targets as non-combatants, and the motivation as presenting the act to a large audience in order to influence political policy. A topic must be defined in a fairly consistent and accepted way in order for the topic to be studied and understood.

Is mass murder of civilians by a military force during war really more vile and condemnable if labeled "terrorism" rather than an "atrocity of war", "massacre" or perhaps "genocide" ( as applicable)? Does police brutality really need to be called terrorism in order to be condemned and punished? Should people who get anger and make vague or idle threats against an overzealous local government be tried as terrorists?

Of course not - "No" is the answer to both of those questions; insisting on using the term terrorism as a label in these cases is an attempt to recast the act itself, rather than describe it.

 

[Sparrow]

“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable" ... Eric Blair said, I fancy he would say the same about terrorism these days despite his first hand experience of swinging a riot-batton

 

[Roger Hicks]

... (1) and generally define the actors as non-state or sub-national, the targets as non-combatants, and the motivation as presenting the act to a large audience in order to influence political policy (2). A topic must be defined in a fairly consistent and accepted way in order for the topic to be studied and understood (3).

Is mass murder of civilians by a military force during war really more vile and condemnable if labeled "terrorism" rather . . . (4)

(1) is as others have pointed out a recent/current definition, not one for all time: the original "terror" was carried out by the state and we still refer to a "reign of terror"

(2) Political policy? Or the behaviour of society as a whole?

(3) No. The definition must ALWAYS be fluid and open to dispute. Otherwise it's too easy to hijack

(4) "If you kill 1 of us, we'll kill 10 of you" That's pretty much what happened at Oradour and I really have some difficulty in applying the label "terrorist" to the resistants who killed a German general and not to the "state actors" who killed 600-odd men, women and children.

Terrorism is the use of terror, i.e. deliberately harming/killing some innocent people, or forgetting completely about proportionality, or imposing extremely brutal collective punishment, in order to make sure that others don't even consider arguing with you, or to make them give in to your demands. With this definition, states can't weasel out. For example, "terror bombing" is a phrase widely (and accurately) used to describe so-called "strategic bombing", as conducted by both sides in World War Two.

Trying to pretend that states cannot carry out terrorist acts and policies is a REALLY good way of obscuring the debate. And no, I don't think that's simplistic.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Trying to pretend that states cannot carry out terrorist acts and policies is a REALLY good way of obscuring the debate. And no, I don't think that's simplistic.

I feel that what really obscures the debate is the Realpolitik approach of most governments to the whole question of terrorism.

To take just one example, it is worth considering that the Taliban is a re-incarnation of the Mujahideen. As I see it, when the CIA and MI6 saw an opportunity to destabilise a close ally of the Soviet Union, the Mujahideen were "freedom fighters". Now the Taliban are demonised and their attacks on "our guys" are terrorism.

Of course, the question that must never be asked, I believe, is at what point does the use of violence to achieve a political aim, change from "war" to "terrorism". Were Germany's attacks on British cities "war" or "terrorism"? What about Britain's attacks on German cities?

Were the attacks on British and Arab targets by the Jews "terrorism" or a "war of independence". If you feel that they were the latter, in what way are they different from the Palestinians' attacks on Israel?

I wish that we could get some agreement on this subject but I really doubt it is possible, so long as violence is considered a legitimate part of national foreign policy.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

maybe you should read this: http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/publications/Oppose.htm

Henry Kissinger was once asked: Why did USA supply arms to both, Iran and Iraq ...?
The answer was: To both of them fight until the very end, trying to wipe each out. Then we would just take the oil... Things have changed. It is not necessary for USA to rely on Arab oil anymore. What this means for US politics, we see already. The center of attention is now China, South and North Korea, in a lesser way Japan, that is allowed to re-arm itself now. China is making strides to gain land in Africa, giving loans, buying land, trying to gain acess to the vast natural resources. The day Russia and China find their interests to be the same in the world: China has money and workforce, Russia huge reserves of the natural resources they themselves are lacking... That`s the day USA faces the situation the Roman empire faced. Villains and "Godless flocks of uncultivated herds" have taken the power, both economical and military.

 

[shootar401]

Terrorism is violence against nonmilitary targets that intends shock value out of proportion to the actual damage inflicted. This makes the question of whether or not someone is a "terrorist" rather easy.

Calling anything else terrorism is the speaker twisting a charged word to his purposes.

-Greg

You nailed it!

 

[Sparrow]

You nailed it!

.... no not really; that is nowhere near a definition, he is simply defining it to fit his viewpoint I would suggest

 

[gdi]

(1) is as others have pointed out a recent/current definition, not one for all time: the original "terror" was carried out by the state and we still refer to a "reign of terror"

(2) Political policy? Or the behaviour of society as a whole?

(3) No. The definition must ALWAYS be fluid and open to dispute. Otherwise it's too easy to hijack

(4) "If you kill 1 of us, we'll kill 10 of you" That's pretty much what happened at Oradour and I really have some difficulty in applying the label "terrorist" to the resistants who killed a German general and not to the "state actors" who killed 600-odd men, women and children.

Terrorism is the use of terror, i.e. deliberately harming/killing some innocent people, or forgetting completely about proportionality, or imposing extremely brutal collective punishment, in order to make sure that others don't even consider arguing with you, or to make them give in to your demands. With this definition, states can't weasel out. For example, "terror bombing" is a phrase widely (and accurately) used to describe so-called "strategic bombing", as conducted by both sides in World War Two.

Trying to pretend that states cannot carry out terrorist acts and policies is a REALLY good way of obscuring the debate. And no, I don't think that's simplistic.

Cheers,

R.

As I said:

1) I noted that others used a definition of "that which causes terror", and the one I prefer is the recent/current one. I generally choose that definition for any word; it seems best suited to the time in which I exist.

2) One, many times, begets the other. Genrally I would say political policy because the actors, by this definition, lack adequate political power to see their will carried out. It should not surprise you that the political policy of those in power can greatly influence the behavior of the society as a whole.

3) Must be fluid to avoid being hijacked? It can only be hijacked when it is fluid. Academics will define the topic, agree on it, debate and test the merits of various hypotheses and observations. If everyone can define the topic to suit their own whims and wishes, research and understanding cannot be furthered.

4) Surely you didn't think that I would label the resistants terrorists either; I would apply the term terrorist to neither party in your example. People fighting for their lives directly against atrocity, are far from terrorists in my book.

Trying to pretend that states cannot carry out terrorist acts and policies is a REALLY good way of obscuring the debate. And no, I don't think that's simplistic.

I think that is quite simplistic; as I have tried to point out, you conflate the label with the act. Your implication that by "pretending" states cannot commit "terrorist" acts one is condoning State atrocities and crimes, or is allowing them to weasel out of such a label, simply serves to make my larger point. The real debate is about heinous and cruel acts against humankind, not about whether you get to pin your most vile label on the perpetrator. Focusing on the definition of the label rather than the act IS the obfuscation.

 

[CameraQuest]

Whatever your opinion might be on this thread, I think most will agree that this discussion is solving absolutely nothing while producing needless rancor in the forum.

RFF is about photography, not politics and / or political points of view.

While interesting in some ways, this thread is not worth its cost in terms of upset. IF we were actually solving anything, that would be a different matter.

This thread is closed. Thanks to all for sharing your points of view.

Stephen