Who is a terrorist?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

How we speak and how we think can fall victim to unreflected assumptions and prejudices. A swarthy dark-complexioned man who speaks an unintelligible language, and who dresses in clothing no one in Akron would wear, and who believes in a false/bad religion and who blows up buildings and people is (who would argue it?) a "terrorist".

Quote:

One Man's Survivalist is Another Man's Terrorist

As we pointed out back in March, the media have been of two minds when it comes to the matter of who to label a "terrorist."

Many things might fall under the label of "terror"; the U.S. State Department's 2001 annual review of global terrorism defines terrorism, in part, as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

In the case of recently captured bomber Eric Rudolph, the four bombs he detonated outside a gay bar, two women's clinics and at the Atlanta Olympic Games in the mid-to-late 1990s easily fall within these criteria. His goal was political and intended to influence an audience (he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, and saw the Atlanta Games as the first step toward a "New World Order"), and the attacks were most definitely perpetrated against noncombatants by a non-state entity. The situation seems at least as clear-cut as many acts regularly labeled terrorism in the media.

In the coverage of his guilty plea to the bombing charges, however, many reporters have stopped short of labeling him a terrorist. The New York Times online never uses the word, in keeping with a story filed on Friday, in which the Times referred to Rudolph simply as a "anti-abortion crusader and former soldier."

Similarly, an AP story which led most of the early coverage this morning shies away from the "T" word, although Rudolph planned and executed a series of targeted bombings in which two people died and over 120 were wounded. For its part, a Reuters wire story also failed to call Rudolph anything other than a survivalist and a fugitive.

The AP doesn't always display this sort of reticence in labeling someone a terrorist. Today, another of their stories described three "terrorists" who were indicted on charges in Britain after plotting to attack the New York Stock Exchange and other financial institutions on the East Coast. The New York Times was also quick to label the three terrorists in their treatment of the story.

In the end, does it really matter if a paper or wire service uses the word "terrorist," as long as they get their facts straight? Not necessarily -- after all, such labels are always going to be somewhat subjective -- but it would be nice to see some consistency (at least within news organizations, if not within the press as a whole) in who is labeled as such, and who isn't. At a time when both the public and the government fret over the issue of terrorism, it would seem to behoove the media to know who, or what, they are talking about. After all, if the application of the word is arbitrary, it ceases to be meaningful.

--Paul McLeary

http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001443.asp

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 9,728 • Replies: 172

No top replies

No mystery here. A terrorist is someone who deliberately attacks civilians as the primary, intended target.

0 Replies

One man's civilian is another man's oppressor.

Just because you aren't carrying a gun, doesn't mean you aren't supporting the cause of the enemy. Notions of 'fair targets' are going to be as outdated soon as the notion of a 'fair fight' was when armies stopped standing in big long lines to fire their rifles at each other.

If you support the system, you are responsible for the system, in the eyes of many. There are no such things as civilians any longer in Cultural wars. Hell, Brandon, you yourself have said, many times, that Civilian casualties are neccessary and unavoidable in war, yet you somehow distinguish between those casualties and Terrorists' casualties. The intent doesn't matter at all; the people are just as dead no matter why they were killed.

Note that I don't support war in any fashion, or killing; just being realistic.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Our enemies do support war and killing so if you are to be realisitic, you must realize that in defending our selves, our country and our way of life we must use measures that sometimes inflict harm on the innocent as well as the guilty. Especially when the guilty hide amongst the innocent.

0 Replies

For the last time,

OFFENSE IS NOT DEFENSE!

And also,

They feel the same way from their side, so why do we call them murders and we aren't? It's just a matter of perspective.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

No mystery here. A terrorist is someone who deliberately attacks civilians as the primary, intended target.

Using this definition then, Eric Rudolf is properly thought of as a 'terrorist'.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For the last time,

OFFENSE IS NOT DEFENSE!

And also,

They feel the same way from their side, so why do we call them murders and we aren't? It's just a matter of perspective.

Cycloptichorn

I agree.
Reminds me of the old saying..... A good defence is a good offence Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Depends on which side of the "fence" you're on.

0 Replies

A terrorist is someone who utilizes violence (as bombing) in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

A terrorist is someone who utilizes violence (as bombing) in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

Oh, you mean like ......
Shocked

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Our enemies do support war and killing so if you are to be realisitic, you must realize that in defending our selves, our country and our way of life we must use measures that sometimes inflict harm on the innocent as well as the guilty. Especially when the guilty hide amongst the innocent.

Funny. And I thought you would support war and killing....

Wait, let me have a look at what Brandon said not so long ago:

Brandon9000 wrote:

In my opinion, waging a war in which 16,000 innocent people die in order to prevent millions of innocent from dying later is worth it,

Hmmm... sounds like a holy war. "I don't give a damn if thousands of innocent people die, because I believe we have the right to do it." And McG, "you must realize that in defending our selves, our country and our way of life we must use measures that sometimes inflict harm on the innocent as well as the guilty" sounds exactly like something bin Laden could have said.

You are no better than those you are pretending to fight.

0 Replies

Exactly

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Our enemies do support war and killing so if you are to be realisitic, you must realize that in defending our selves, our country and our way of life we must use measures that sometimes inflict harm on the innocent as well as the guilty. Especially when the guilty hide amongst the innocent.

Funny. And I thought you would support war and killing....

Wait, let me have a look at what Brandon said not so long ago:

Brandon9000 wrote:
In my opinion, waging a war in which 16,000 innocent people die in order to prevent millions of innocent from dying later is worth it,

Hmmm... sounds like a holy war. "I don't give a damn if thousands of innocent people die, because I believe we have the right to do it." And McG, "you must realize that in defending our selves, our country and our way of life we must use measures that sometimes inflict harm on the innocent as well as the guilty" sounds exactly like something bin Laden could have said.

You are no better than those you are pretending to fight.

Pretending to fight? Whose doing that? Maybe you have us confused for the French.

Let me remind of one fact before you start that old "You're no better than they are" crap. "They" attacked first. "They" decided to wage war against the US.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

One man's civilian is another man's oppressor.

Just because you aren't carrying a gun, doesn't mean you aren't supporting the cause of the enemy. Notions of 'fair targets' are going to be as outdated soon as the notion of a 'fair fight' was when armies stopped standing in big long lines to fire their rifles at each other.

If you support the system, you are responsible for the system, in the eyes of many. There are no such things as civilians any longer in Cultural wars. Hell, Brandon, you yourself have said, many times, that Civilian casualties are neccessary and unavoidable in war, yet you somehow distinguish between those casualties and Terrorists' casualties. The intent doesn't matter at all; the people are just as dead no matter why they were killed.

Note that I don't support war in any fashion, or killing; just being realistic.

Cycloptichorn

Note that I said a terrorist is someone who attacks civilians as the primary intended target. There is a moral difference between attacking combatants and trying to minimize civilian casualties, vs. strapping a nail bomb to your waist and blowing yourself up in a discotheque. I define only the latter effort as being terrorism.

0 Replies

They would say that we attacked first.

We can play this game all day

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Let me remind of one fact before you start that old "You're no better than they are" crap. "They" attacked first. "They" decided to wage war against the US.

They torture. They use weapons of mass destruction. They kill thousands of innocent civilians. But they did it first (?), so now we are allowed to do it, too.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Note that I said a terrorist is someone who attacks civilians as the primary intended target. There is a moral difference between attacking combatants and trying to minimize civilian casualties, vs. strapping a nail bomb to your waist and blowing yourself up in a discotheque. I define only the latter effort as being terrorism.

I thought the prime target of bin Laden was to end military presence of the US in the Middle East? So he's no terrorist, following your definition?

0 Replies

Brandon

Quote:

Note that I said a terrorist is someone who attacks civilians as the primary intended target. There is a moral difference between attacking combatants and trying to minimize civilian casualties, vs. strapping a nail bomb to your waist and blowing yourself up in a discotheque. I define only the latter effort as being terrorism.

Immaterial. THe people who are dead are just as dead no matter what moral justification you put on it.

It doesn't matter who your primary target is, you kill civilians, you are a murderer the same as a terrorist is.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Let me remind of one fact before you start that old "You're no better than they are" crap. "They" attacked first. "They" decided to wage war against the US.

They torture. They use weapons of mass destruction. They kill thousands of innocent civilians. But they did it first (?), so now we are allowed to do it, too.

Nice try. They started a war against the US. We will win that war. I don't particularly care how you, Cycloptichorn, or any other anti-war person feels about that fact.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
No mystery here. A terrorist is someone who deliberately attacks civilians as the primary, intended target.

Using this definition then, Eric Rudolf is properly thought of as a 'terrorist'.

I think so, but I'd have to re-read the details of the crime. Here is why I say this. Please bear in mind that I am not indicating his approval for his crime, which I don't approve of, but just discussing my definition of terrorism.

Rudolph could construct an argument that the people who ran the clinic were not civilians, but direct participants in his war. Not second-hand participants who were semi-involved at some step of the matter, but the people actually directly responsible. What would qualify him for being described as a terrorist is to see whether he had taken precautions to insure that only clinic workers were hurt. I believe that he did not, and if this is so, then he is a terrorist by my definition.

My use of the word "civilian" is not intended to indicate someone who is not in the army, but someone who is not directly abetting the opposition. An Israeli citizen in a market place that was bombed would qualify as a civilian, because even though he may have voted for the Israeli government, this is a much lower threshold of participation than I require.

0 Replies

Who is a terrorist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know