"I'm not really sure how to exactly define 'terrorism' but I darned well know it when I see it."
finn, brandon
Is Carilles properly to be considered a terrorist by the Bush administration?
Whatever the semantics, Al Qaeda clearly poses an ongoing threat, which has the capacity to do things even worse than 9/11. Clearly, we need to pursue them in the world rather than wait for their next attack. A strategy which is solely defensive can never work. Any government which harbors Al Qaeda is our enemy.
Review May Shift Terror Policies
U.S. Is Expected to Look Beyond Al Qaeda
By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 29, 2005; Page A01
The Bush administration has launched a high-level internal review of its efforts to battle international terrorism, aimed at moving away from a policy that has stressed efforts to capture and kill al Qaeda leaders since Sept. 11, 2001, and toward what a senior official called a broader "strategy against violent extremism."
The shift is meant to recognize the transformation of al Qaeda over the past three years into a far more amorphous, diffuse and difficult-to-target organization than the group that struck the United States in 2001. But critics say the policy review comes only after months of delay and lost opportunities while the administration left key counterterrorism jobs unfilled and argued internally over how best to confront the rapid spread of the pro-al Qaeda global Islamic jihad....
Was Adolf Hitler a terrorist?
The notion of "terrorism" and "terrorist" is misleading. The word "terror" from Latin terrere, is to frighten. Technically any individual, group, or state, that relies on such methods is a terrorist, the United States included. However, when the United States government means "terrorist" it is talking about amorphous non-state entities who are most likely Muslims. Terrorism itself is a tactic, and everyone has employed terrorism throughout history at one point or another. One can legitimately argue that the forefathers of the United States were terrorists and they used terrorist acts to achieve their ends, just like the Vietnamese against the United States. So the idea of declaring war on a tactic (terrorism) is stupid from a military point of view. You don't declare war on a tactic, especially if you yourself have engaged in, and continue to engage in it.
But to the bias of America the Congress defined "terrorist activity" in 8 USCA Sect. 1182 as "any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following: . . . (IV) An assassination. (V) The use of any - (a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or (b) explosive or firearm (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property. (VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing".
Notice how in the italicized portion the United States excluded itself and its terrorist activities?
A simpler definition is an individual or individuals who attempt to gain some political advantage or result through acts which give rise to terror among the deciding population.
Thus, it is terrorism when Iraqi insurgents set off car bombs throughout the cites of Iraq. The intent of these actions is to drive the populace, through terror, to a particular political choice or action: Demanding the departure of American troops, refusing to vote in elections, or rejecting the current Iraqi government. These bombs are not intended to kill or maim all of the enemies of the insurgents and thus allow them to win their war, nor is it intended to deal such a bloody blow to their enemies that they will withdraw from the fight.
It was terrorism, as well, on 9/11 when Islamists flew planes into the Twin Towers and killed some 2,800 civilians. Here again, the intent of this attack was not to defeat the enemy either by killing them all or killing so many that they felt compelled to withdraw. The intent was to influence the American electorate through terror. Clearly, Al-Qaeda hoped that American citizens would find the kitchen too hot and demand that their government get them out of it.
How important are any of these distinctions?
Not very when viewed in terms of the loss of innocent, non-combatant lives, but they do matter when the discussion is lifted to a more esoteric level.
Nevertheless, while there is a distinction between the fire bombings of Tokyo and the attacks of 9/11, it is hardly one upon which I would bet my soul.
Because we are a violent species with a common cultural regard for the warrior, we are inclined to rationalize, if not forgive the grim produce of War. Because we are an altruistic species with a common cultural regard for innocence, we recoil from violence that deliberately targets the innocent.
To some extent, it is similar to the collective sigh of relief a community experiences when they learn that children of their town have been slaughtered by a friend or family member rather than a stranger engaged in random action.
I believe that part of Al-Qaeda's intent on 9/11 was to make the American public aware of what they believed was the case: That, through its government, America was engaged in a war with Islamists in the Middle East. How many times did we hear words to the effect of "Now you will have a taste of what Muslims have been forced to eat," in the rhetoric of Bin Laden and his fellow Islamists?
However, there is a tremendous irony here. America pre-9/11 did not believe it was at war with Muslims, but it did after 9/11, and not because Al Qaeda's actions brought with them realization, but because they were seen (and rightly so) as an initiation of war.
This should be a lesson to terrorists. The tact doesn't work. Rather than driving the American people to demand that their government withdraw from the Middle East, 9/11 resulted in overwhelming support for the government to overtly bring war to the Middle East.
There was tolerance of the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden, because Japan and Germany were, without doubt, enemies who sought our destruction, and there was never the perception (and rightly so) that the citizens of Japan and Germany were, in the majority, opposed to their governments' imperialistic goals.
The simple truth is that history affords the winners of conflicts far greater forbearance than the losers, and only a truly barbaric bloodlust on the part of the winners can shake this trend (e.g. The French Revolution)
As a people, we find the embezzler less noxious than the bank robber. Why is this so? Primarily, I would argue, because the latter introduces the possibility of violence toward the innocent, while the former is believed to hurt no one.
It is foolish to assert that the US is and has been devoid of all questionable practices in its long history. It is equally, if not more, foolish to assert that the US is morally equivalent, if not worse, than categorically terrorist groups at work in the world today.
Hello everyone!
A friend suggested I take a look at this thread, and I'm glad I did. It was most interesting. And it was especially nice to see some old Abuzz friends...and that even includes the indomitable Finn.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:A simpler definition is an individual or individuals who attempt to gain some political advantage or result through acts which give rise to terror among the deciding population.
Thus, it is terrorism when Iraqi insurgents set off car bombs throughout the cites of Iraq. The intent of these actions is to drive the populace, through terror, to a particular political choice or action: Demanding the departure of American troops, refusing to vote in elections, or rejecting the current Iraqi government. These bombs are not intended to kill or maim all of the enemies of the insurgents and thus allow them to win their war, nor is it intended to deal such a bloody blow to their enemies that they will withdraw from the fight.
It was terrorism, as well, on 9/11 when Islamists flew planes into the Twin Towers and killed some 2,800 civilians. Here again, the intent of this attack was not to defeat the enemy either by killing them all or killing so many that they felt compelled to withdraw. The intent was to influence the American electorate through terror. Clearly, Al-Qaeda hoped that American citizens would find the kitchen too hot and demand that their government get them out of it.
How important are any of these distinctions?
Not very when viewed in terms of the loss of innocent, non-combatant lives, but they do matter when the discussion is lifted to a more esoteric level.
Nevertheless, while there is a distinction between the fire bombings of Tokyo and the attacks of 9/11, it is hardly one upon which I would bet my soul.
Because we are a violent species with a common cultural regard for the warrior, we are inclined to rationalize, if not forgive the grim produce of War. Because we are an altruistic species with a common cultural regard for innocence, we recoil from violence that deliberately targets the innocent.
To some extent, it is similar to the collective sigh of relief a community experiences when they learn that children of their town have been slaughtered by a friend or family member rather than a stranger engaged in random action.
I believe that part of Al-Qaeda's intent on 9/11 was to make the American public aware of what they believed was the case: That, through its government, America was engaged in a war with Islamists in the Middle East. How many times did we hear words to the effect of "Now you will have a taste of what Muslims have been forced to eat," in the rhetoric of Bin Laden and his fellow Islamists?
However, there is a tremendous irony here. America pre-9/11 did not believe it was at war with Muslims, but it did after 9/11, and not because Al Qaeda's actions brought with them realization, but because they were seen (and rightly so) as an initiation of war.
This should be a lesson to terrorists. The tact doesn't work. Rather than driving the American people to demand that their government withdraw from the Middle East, 9/11 resulted in overwhelming support for the government to overtly bring war to the Middle East.
There was tolerance of the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden, because Japan and Germany were, without doubt, enemies who sought our destruction, and there was never the perception (and rightly so) that the citizens of Japan and Germany were, in the majority, opposed to their governments' imperialistic goals.
The simple truth is that history affords the winners of conflicts far greater forbearance than the losers, and only a truly barbaric bloodlust on the part of the winners can shake this trend (e.g. The French Revolution)
As a people, we find the embezzler less noxious than the bank robber. Why is this so? Primarily, I would argue, because the latter introduces the possibility of violence toward the innocent, while the former is believed to hurt no one.
It is foolish to assert that the US is and has been devoid of all questionable practices in its long history. It is equally, if not more, foolish to assert that the US is morally equivalent, if not worse, than categorically terrorist groups at work in the world today.
It is not foolish to assert that the US is morally equivalent to these terrorist grouops. Why do you think this is foolish? Because America lauds itself as spreading "peace" and "prosperity" and "freedom"?
It is foolish not because of the high regard the US has for itself, but because there is no intelligent reason to make the comparison. You are free to attempt such a comparison, but it will take more than breathless rhetoric to make it convincing.
There are two points that need illumination. First, the notion that only Muslims or Iraqi insurgents can be terrorists or use acts of terror is unfounded. I don't know if this is what was implied, but given your definition, America can just as well be defined as a terrorist state.
Wrongly inferred perhaps, but certainly not implied. There is nothing in what I have written to suggest that only Muslims or Iraqi insurgents can be labelled as terrorists. Search back a few pages and you see that I agree that Americans (McVeigh and Rudolph) are/were terrorists.
After all, it spent years bombing the "no fly" zones over Saddam and thousands have been killed as a result. For what did the United States engage in? For political ends, to compel the population to somehow oust Saddam, no different than what these so called 'terrorists' are engaged in.
I'm afraid not. The bombing of "no fly" zones was in response to Saddam's attempt to shoot down American and British fighter jets. To my knowledge, all such bombings targeted Iraqi military installations. You will need to show that these bombing raids targeted civilian centers to make your charges stick.
While the American military is more than capable of stupid moves, even the stupidest of Pentagon strategists would not conclude that bombing Iraqi civilian centers was a way to induce a rebellion agains Saddam.
That would also qualify as a terrorist action.
Not by my definition, but I suppose if one wants to apply a ridiculously loose definition that equates any act of aggression with terrorism, you may be right.
Furthermore, these Iraqi insurgents whom you define as "terrorist" are not so from their perspective. For them they are resisting an imperial occupation. The notion of terrorism is vague and amorphous. Technically, anything and everything can be acts of terror. During the Vietnam war, Vietnamese were engaged in terrorism. The American revolutionaries engaged in terrorism as well. For example Paul Revere can be classed as one. Jesse James, and William Wallace could technically be classified as terrorists as well. I suppose we should go back in history and revise things to fit it in accordance with the times.
This is a weak, albeit predictable argument: One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Classic post-modernist nonsense.
Anything and everything cannot be defined as terrorism.
Your problem, if I may be so bold, is that you assume that by labeling one brand of violence as terrorism, the implication is that all others are acceptable. This is not necessarily the case, however society has, for better or worse, chosen to qualify the various brands of human violence, and terrorism finds itself at the bottom of the list.
To the extent that American Revolutionaries and William Wallace (How you include Jesse James in this group is beyond me) specifically targeted civilians for the purpose of shaping their opinions and actions through terror, you're right. However, I think you will be hard pressed to show that this was even an infrequent practice of either rebel, let alone a strategy.
Whatever terrorists may consider themselves is entirely meaningless. There are serial killers who consider themselves the agents of God.
If the Iraqi insurgents are resisting an Imperial Occupation, why have they focused so heavily on killing their fellow Iraqis, as opposed to the Imperialist Occupiers? While the number of insurgent kills has grown over recent weeks, the proportion of American deaths has decreased. Are the insurgents simply the Patriots Who Couldn't Shoot Straight?
But what we really mean when we say "terrorist" are Muslims, and in this case Iraqis.
Perhaps this is what you mean, but it is certainly not what I mean.
The acts of George Bush such as placing the sanctions and ensuring air raids over Iraq, are not deemed terrorist acts. Clinton who continued this policy of air raids was not engaging in any terrorist acts. The only separation between terrorists and America is that one is a state army the other is not. As far as the rhetoric of "Islamists", the American media, especially Fox News does a good job of selective news coverage and cherry picking what it wants. I recommend some alternative, non-US media sources to get an idea of the discourses that pervade Al Qeada, or insurgents. Their concerns and aims are political.
We have already addressed the post Gulf War air bombings. Sanctions are a dubious response to bad guys but it is a large stretch to classify them as acts of terrorism. The purpose of sanctions is to weaken the ruling government, not to influence the political will of the citizenry. That they have questionable results in this regard makes them questionable tactics, not terrorism.
Were the sanctions employed against South Africa terrorism? In reality, these sanctions hurt the poor of South Africa far more than the ruling elite, but did anyone dare to suggest they were acts of terrorism?
Of course, for ideological reasons, they did not, but, regardless, they would have been wrong if they had.
What can you possibly mean by "The only separation between terrorists and America is that one is a state army the other is not?"
This is the only distinction?
This is the sort of emotion laden nonsense that fogs thinking and discourse.
Second, this notion of "Islamists" or this supposed "clash of civilizations" as articulated by Huntington is flawed. Often what accompanies this notion is a gross misunderstanding of Islam, and Middle Eastern history. In fact, it is precisely because of this ignorance that America is in a quagmire in Iraq right now.
This is an accurate example of "begging the question," as opposed to the current common place usage of the term as "this gives rise to the question."
You are answering a question (or addressing a point) that was never raised, rather than addressing the ones that were.
What is your point? There is no such thing as an "Islamist?"
Note that I have not ever used the terms "Islamist" and "Muslim" interchangeably. Perhaps you would prefer if I called them Islamo-fascists?
Your contention that "America is at war with Muslims" is based on the faulty assumption that because Al Qeada or any other group that has Islamic elements (we must remember that before they're religion, they are first and foremost, political movements with political ends, all too often ignored by Americans) is an enemy, therefore all Muslims are enemies.
I've just gone through the laborious process of checking each and every one of my postings on this thread, and not once do I contend that "America is at war with Muslims." Your assertion and your use of quotation marks is intellectually sloppy, at best, and dishonest, at worst.
This is just utter nonsense thrown in to argue against a point you would prefer rather than one that was made. Forgive me, but I am having trouble reigning in my contempt for this sort of debating technique.
If you wish to post a screed, by all means feel free to do so, but intellectual manners, if not honesty requires you to do so without any pretense that you are responding to another poster.
The logic this produces then gives the notion that all Muslims are enemies and therefore should be destroyed in an endless war. This is how we paint the "us vs them" polar equations. It is often myopia in America that thinks this is a religious conflict.
What more can I say? You are obviously caught up in a debate you would like to have as opposed to one that has been offered to you. Try pasting pamphlets on subway walls. You won't get any more attention, but at least you will be honest in your expression.
