A definition of Terrorism for the 21th century

[Dark Moth]

It's incredibly naive to think everyone who hates America in the world is motivated by anti-American propaganda.  A lot of Western Europe thinks we're absolutely nuts, too, don't forget.  Maybe they hate us for our freedom, too?  No matter how you spin it, a significant portion of the Middle Eastern population is never going to like us due to establishment and continued support of Israel, among numerous other reasons.

 

Furthermore, a completely democratic Middle East will most likely result in even higher oil prices.  The tacit agreement has always been that we don't go in and kick around despotic regimes, and in return we get our oil at low prices from those same regimes. 

 

When did I ever say that? Please, don't put words into my mouth, or it'll just make you look like the ignorant one. Maybe oil prices will rise in a democratic Middle East. But a democratic Middle East would be safer than a non-democratic one.

 

Reagan didn't do anything about Islamic fundamentalists hitting U.S. targets back in '83, and I don't hear you pitching a fit about that.  Furthermore, the attacks during Clinton's administration weren't nearly on the scale of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks; I very strongly doubt that the American public would've supported a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan as a result of the USS Cole, for example.  There was widespread dissent about the decision to help out with Kosovo, for example.  Wasn't related to terrorism, of course, but it does help make my point that we're not the selfless world-helpers you seem to think we are.

 

So what if they weren't nearly on the scale as 9/11? Clinton should have acted on them from the start, not sit idly back and hope a few missiles would solve the problem. And what if the American population did support a war back then? Even if they didn't, it's likely 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton had acted on it. But he didn't. I wasn't talking about Reagan, was I? Pay attention to what I say in my posts. But yes, Reagan, or any president for that matter, who did nothing about the threat are all to blame.

[metadigital]

The problem here is a lot of people in this thread see things as black and white, good and evil, right and wrong when things are not.  One man's terrorist can be another man's freedom fighter.  One man's good is often another man's evil.  It is all relative to one's perspective and in the end there is no single person right or wrong.  There is only death and tragedy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That may be your reality, but that doesn't guarantee that it is everyones.

 

I draw you attention to Situational Ethics on the one pole, and Moral Absolutism on the other.

 

Of course, this is philosophy, so there isn't a "right answer".

 

[Azarkon]

Essentially my entire argument in this thread has been that both sides were blinded by propaganda in their attempts to demonize each other in the name of self-interest. I guess I didn't really have to write pages justifying my argument: the proof is right here.

[Judge Hades]

That is my assessment as well. In the end it is the pawns that die in this little game.

Edited October 10, 2005 by Hades_One

[julianw]

Clinton should have acted on them from the start, not sit idly back and hope a few missiles would solve the problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I remember seeing that on the news. From what I remembered, it would have killed Osama if he wasn't tipped off by Pakistan intelligence. I could be wrong though.

[metadigital]

Essentially my entire argument in this thread has been that both sides were blinded by propaganda in their attempts to demonize each other in the name of self-interest.  I guess I didn't really have to write pages justifying my argument: the proof is right here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as there is a population to rule over, there will be power struggles.

 

The end doesn't justify the means needs to be a closely-kept doctrine; but it is not unforeseeable that it may, at rare occassions, be broken. (Interesting tangent; we can discuss further, if required.)

 

But that is what an "oversight committee" is for: the ability to perform a Root Cause Analysis function, to ascertain the why and then prevent future transgressions with legislation.

 

But in all cases the mechanism needs to be transparent: justice must be seen to be done, otherwise humans tend to become proportionally corrupt to their relative power in the organisational structure.

 

That said, the structure of the USA, for example, is in the order of a logarithmic multiple of the transparency of al Qa'ida; I can say with absolute certainty that "dubya" won't be pulling the strings in four years' time, and that means a new administration and their tacit ability, right and resposibility to investigate any abuses of power in the preceding term(s).

 

I know which system is the least flawed.

[Calax]

American revolutionaries were terrorists to the british... And that's all I'm going to say.

[Colrom]

Alot of folks want to play games with the word terrorism. I think it is a fine word when used to descibe a policy/program/philosophy/whatever focusing on the inducement of terror on targets.

 

For example:

 

1. Torture is a terror technique. Those who use it in a coordinated way are terrorists as well as torturers. So this would include those US military and mercenaries they employ who are tasked to carry out torture as part of their interrogations. It is especially telling that torturers generally want to have it known that they use such tactics and will publicize it themselves in various ways - but they do not want to debate it and so they need to manage the news carefully. So they wish to induce terror on all members of the target group even and maybe especially those who are not yet strapped on the rack as it were.

 

2. Shock and awe is terror and bringing it about with artillary and bombs is terrorism.

 

3. Surrounding a town with barb wire and artillary and demanding that certain people be handed over or else, and then carrying out a bombardment and assualt when terms are not met - is part of a terror campaign.

 

4. Random bombings of target civilians is terrorism.

 

5. Holding individual hostages (rather than whole towns) and making demands or else and then carrying out videotaped murders when the terms are not met - is part of a terror campaign.

 

All that is required in my mind is that it be a conscious program of propaganda and actions designed to induce terror - and by that means bring about some other objective - such as meeting demands.

 

All those definitions that seek to limit the application of the word to selected groups are so much propaganda BS.

 

Speaking of propaganda and twisting of words, how about the "yes man" ads on TV? Nice spinmanship, eh!

Edited October 10, 2005 by Colrom

[Commissar]

American revolutionaries were terrorists to the british... And that's all I'm going to say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell me how many British civilians - or even soldiers - the American revolutionaries killed before the formal outbreak of hostilities. Throwing tea into Boston Harbor doesn't match up with flying planes into a building. In all honesty I used to make this argument myself, since in some things I'm a moral relativist, but it just doesn't hold up.

[Azarkon]

But that is what an "oversight committee" is for: the ability to perform a Root Cause Analysis function, to ascertain the why and then prevent future transgressions with legislation.

 

But in all cases the mechanism needs to be transparent: justice must be seen to be done, otherwise humans tend to become proportionally corrupt to their relative power in the organisational structure.

 

Oversight committees tend to examine and convict a regime (and usually that attempt is itself political in goal), not the underlying moral issues. It certainly does not question the meaning of terrorism as Bush might have used it, nor the judgments of the moral majority and its relationship to reality. Only history can do that and only after the facts. By then, it's often too late.

 

 

That said, the structure of the USA, for example, is in the order of a logarithmic multiple of the transparency of al Qa'ida; I can say with absolute certainty that "dubya" won't be pulling the strings in four years' time, and that means a new administration and their tacit ability, right and resposibility to investigate any abuses of power in the preceding term(s).

 

I know which system is the least flawed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the US government is far more opaque than you would like to believe. Just recently I was made aware of a long string of CIA operatives in Mongolia and Tibet attempting to stir up hatred towards China and to allow for the entrance of American propaganda. This about sums up the nature of what US foreign policy has been for the last sixty years, and about explains why other countries distrust us so. It's also frankly not going to change with a mere administration switch.

[Commissar]

Alot of folks want to play games with the word terrorism. I think it is a fine word when used to descibe a policy/program/philosophy/whatever focusing on the inducement of terror on targets.

 

For example:

 

1. Torture is a terror technique. Those who use it in a coordinated way are terrorists as well as torturers.  So this would include those US military and mercenaries they employ who are tasked to carry out torture as part of their interrogations. It is especially telling that torturers generally want to have it known that they use such tactics and will publicize it themselves in various ways - but they do not want to debate it  and so they need to manage the news carefully. So they wish to induce terror on all members of the target group even and maybe especially those who are not yet strapped on the rack as it were.

 

2. Shock and awe is terror and bringing it about with artillary and bombs is terrorism.

 

3. Surrounding a town with barb wire and artillary and demanding that certain people be handed over or else, and then carrying out a bombardment and assualt when terms are not met - is part of a terror campaign.

 

4. Random bombings of target civilians is terrorism.

 

5. Holding individual hostages  (rather than whole towns) and making demands or else and then carrying out videotaped murders when the terms are not met - is part of a terror campaign.

 

All that is required in my mind is that it be a conscious program of propaganda and actions designed to induce terror - and by that means bring about some other objective - such as meeting demands.

 

All those definitions that seek to limit the application of the word to selected groups are so much propaganda BS.

 

Speaking of propaganda and twisting of words, how about the "yes man" ads on TV? Nice spinmanship, eh!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Torture isn't terrorism. Torture is torture. A torturee might be induced to speak out of terror of what's going to happen, but torture itself seeks to induce compliance out of pain.

 

And while we're on the subject, I heard Alan Dershowitz on NPR a couple of weeks ago, and he made an interesting point; if something is vital to the national security of the United States, we're going to torture people to get answers. For example, if we know that a nuclear bomb has been planted in a major city, and we catch the guys responsible before it goes off but don't know in which city, we're obviously going to torture those guys. What we're not going to do is tell anyone about it. He suggested that we do the exact opposite; torture them, but have some sort of mechanism in place, something like an oversight committee in Congress.

 

2. If the shock and awe campaign was terrorism, then you're essentially saying that all war is terrorism. Attacking military targets in wartime can't really be defined as terrorism, can it?

 

3. I'm going to assume you're talking about Grozny, because I don't believe the US or coalition forces have done this in Iraq. The Russians really have gone over the line multiple times in their campaign against the Chechens, but I wonder if they don't have a more realistic appraisal of the situation than we do with ours. After all, the Caucasus isn't exactly a new region for unrelenting violence. This is a fight that's been going on for centuries, with a couple of breaks.

 

4. Yep.

 

5. Yep.

 

And I disagree with your last statement. I think terrorism has to be conducted by a non-governmental organization or individual, in pursuit of goals contrary to the wishes of the society in which it operates, utilizing random or targeted killings to induce fear to bring about political goals.

[Commissar]

I think the US government is far more opaque than you would like to believe.  Just recently I was made aware of a long string of CIA operatives in Mongolia and Tibet attempting to stir up hatred towards China and to allow for the entrance of American propaganda.  This about sums up the nature of what US foreign policy has been for the last sixty years, and about explains why other countries distrust us so.  It's also frankly not going to change with a mere administration switch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Welcome to the world circa 2005. Believe it or not, we're not the only ones doing that. If you think Chinese intelligence services aren't actively working inside the US, you're nots. I'd say every intelligence service in the world has something going on inside our borders, and we likewise have thumbs in a lot of pies. What's the big deal?

[Azarkon]

The big deal is that the government is not honest to the people, therefore the process is far from transparent and we are, therefore, very much in the thrall of propaganda and a non-democratic government. Metal implied that the next administration, presumably elected democratically, can change things and I'm arguing that this is not the case. We won't become a more honest or meddle less in other country's affairs just because Bush goes out of power. Our policy of AGGESSIVE foreign intervention has gone on for decades and it's the reason so many nations and organizations hate the US - because we're hypocrites. We proclaim our dedication to freedom and justice on one hand and then go in and stir up hatred in another country on the other. The ends in this case does not justify the means, even if the means were for the sake of freedom (which is hardly the case; the real goal is to isolate Chinese influence in the region so that we can accrue allies in Asia), and from this respect it's fully understandable that extremist organizations would target the US specifically.

 

We, like all meddlesome superpowes, inevitably invite the ire of those we meddle against. The entire idea of moral superiority fails completely once we adopt your notion of "every nation for themselves." If that were the case, you can no longer argue that the US is justified in anything that it does, and that in the end it's just all a power play, in which case no one is right and no one is wrong.

Edited October 10, 2005 by Azarkon

[metadigital]

But that is what an "oversight committee" is for: the ability to perform a Root Cause Analysis function, to ascertain the why and then prevent future transgressions with legislation.

 

But in all cases the mechanism needs to be transparent: justice must be seen to be done, otherwise humans tend to become proportionally corrupt to their relative power in the organisational structure.

 

Oversight committees tend to examine and convict a regime (and usually that attempt is itself political in goal), not the underlying moral issues. It certainly does not question the meaning of terrorism as Bush might have used it, nor the judgments of the moral majority and its relationship to reality. Only history can do that and only after the facts. By then, it's often too late.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought you might take my general term literally. I perhaps should have been clearer in my useage: I am not talking about the specific "Oversite Committee" of the US Senate. More a general political mechanism to rein in administrations who get too big for their legislative boots.

That said, the structure of the USA, for example, is in the order of a logarithmic multiple of the transparency of al Qa'ida; I can say with absolute certainty that "dubya" won't be pulling the strings in four years' time, and that means a new administration and their tacit ability, right and resposibility to investigate any abuses of power in the preceding term(s).

 

I know which system is the least flawed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the US government is far more opaque than you would like to believe. Just recently I was made aware of a long string of CIA operatives in Mongolia and Tibet attempting to stir up hatred towards China and to allow for the entrance of American propaganda. This about sums up the nature of what US foreign policy has been for the last sixty years, and about explains why other countries distrust us so. It's also frankly not going to change with a mere administration switch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't doubt there is opacity there. It still is many times more transparent than the workings of the Taliban, for example ... even though both overlords seem to be getting instructions on the big red telephone from God ...

[Azarkon]

Well, I'll agree that the Taliban is probably alot more openly opaque in their dealings, but then they have alot less influence than either the US or Chinese government, for example. That's not to say that we should dismiss the difference, only that the nature of the US government requires that it be more responsible, since its power and influence is world-spanning. With great power comes great responsibility. The reason people criticize the US is exactly for this reason - because we conceive ourselves to be the best humanity has to offer, and yet sets a horrid example by our foreign policy of what that "best" means.

Edited October 10, 2005 by Azarkon

[Colrom]

1. Torture isn't terrorism.  Torture is torture.  A torturee might be induced to speak out of terror of what's going to happen, but torture itself seeks to induce compliance out of pain. 

 

And while we're on the subject, I heard Alan Dershowitz on NPR a couple of weeks ago, and he made an interesting point; if something is vital to the national security of the United States, we're going to torture people to get answers.  For example, if we know that a nuclear bomb has been planted in a major city, and we catch the guys responsible before it goes off but don't know in which city, we're obviously going to torture those guys.  What we're not going to do is tell anyone about it.  He suggested that we do the exact opposite; torture them, but have some sort of mechanism in place, something like an oversight committee in Congress. 

 

2. If the shock and awe campaign was terrorism, then you're essentially saying that all war is terrorism.  Attacking military targets in wartime can't really be defined as terrorism, can it? 

 

3. I'm going to assume you're talking about Grozny, because I don't believe the US or coalition forces have done this in Iraq.  The Russians really have gone over the line multiple times in their campaign against the Chechens, but I wonder if they don't have a more realistic appraisal of the situation than we do with ours.  After all, the Caucasus isn't exactly a new region for unrelenting violence.  This is a fight that's been going on for centuries, with a couple of breaks.

 

4. Yep.

 

5. Yep.

 

And I disagree with your last statement.  I think terrorism has to be conducted by a non-governmental organization or individual, in pursuit of goals contrary to the wishes of the society in which it operates, utilizing random or targeted killings to induce fear to bring about political goals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. A single instance of torture is just torture, as I said. Torture is just the administration of physical or psychological punishment. But a policy of

a) conducting torture on persons of some type, and

b) publicizing that practice to the audience of that type

goes beyond just torture (done on an individual for the sake of extracting information or coercing individual performance) and becomes terrorism (done to a group in order to achieve a state of fear. When these elements are combined by a government like Saddam's or by our forces then they constitute terrorism.

 

The US practice of torture and publicizing of it is terrorism. You didn't think that all of that publicity was a mistake did you? - for example: dental tools in Sadams mouth, pictures of captives with bags over their heads which restrict breathing as well as sight, with blindfolds and earmufs on, the odd picture of captives with a US soldiers foot on their face - and that's just a small part of what we see and hear about .

 

2. The shock and awe campaign went beyond the needs of military killing into the realm of inducing terror. Terrorism has often been practiced in war. German Stuka dive bomb attacks on fleeing civilians to induce terror and block roads for example. But not all elements of war involve terrorism. Also, just as torture isn't always terrorism war isn't always terrorism but it can be.

 

3. If you look into the details of the US campaign against Falluja you will find that the US commander did in fact issue and ultimatum against the threat of decapitation (my word - not his) of the city. Perhaps you haven't been paying close attention.

 

4 and 5. You seem to recognize terrorism when the folks doing it are wearing sandals.

 

Your arbitrary - presumably politicaly motivated - restriction of the concept of terrorism to groups who are less powerful is just the kind of BS I was talking about. See the origin ofthe word for a counter example to your spin.

Edited October 10, 2005 by Colrom

[Colrom]

Some examples of terrorism:

 

KKK burning crosses and hanging and otherwise killing blacks.

 

Joe McCarthy and the witch hunt for communists.

 

Maybe - the Duck and Cover campaign - although I'm not sure about that.

[Commissar]

1. Torture isn't terrorism.  Torture is torture.  A torturee might be induced to speak out of terror of what's going to happen, but torture itself seeks to induce compliance out of pain. 

 

And while we're on the subject, I heard Alan Dershowitz on NPR a couple of weeks ago, and he made an interesting point; if something is vital to the national security of the United States, we're going to torture people to get answers.  For example, if we know that a nuclear bomb has been planted in a major city, and we catch the guys responsible before it goes off but don't know in which city, we're obviously going to torture those guys.  What we're not going to do is tell anyone about it.  He suggested that we do the exact opposite; torture them, but have some sort of mechanism in place, something like an oversight committee in Congress. 

 

2. If the shock and awe campaign was terrorism, then you're essentially saying that all war is terrorism.  Attacking military targets in wartime can't really be defined as terrorism, can it? 

 

3. I'm going to assume you're talking about Grozny, because I don't believe the US or coalition forces have done this in Iraq.  The Russians really have gone over the line multiple times in their campaign against the Chechens, but I wonder if they don't have a more realistic appraisal of the situation than we do with ours.  After all, the Caucasus isn't exactly a new region for unrelenting violence.  This is a fight that's been going on for centuries, with a couple of breaks.

 

4. Yep.

 

5. Yep.

 

And I disagree with your last statement.  I think terrorism has to be conducted by a non-governmental organization or individual, in pursuit of goals contrary to the wishes of the society in which it operates, utilizing random or targeted killings to induce fear to bring about political goals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. A single instance of torture is just torture, as I said. Torture is just the administration of physical or psychological punishment. But a policy of

a) conducting torture on persons of some type, and

b) publicizing that practice to the audience of that type

goes beyond just torture (done on an individual for the sake of extracting information or coercing individual performance) and becomes terrorism (done to a group in order to achieve a state of fear. When these elements are combined by a government like Saddam's or by our forces then they constitute terrorism.

 

The US practice of torture and publicizing of it is terrorism. You didn't think that all of that publicity was a mistake did you? - for example: dental tools in Sadams mouth, pictures of captives with bags over their heads which restrict breathing as well as sight, with blindfolds and earmufs on, the odd picture of captives with a US soldiers foot on their face - and that's just a small part of what we see and hear about .

 

2. The shock and awe campaign went beyond the needs of military killing into the realm of inducing terror. Terrorism has often been practiced in war. German Stuka dive bomb attacks on fleeing civilians to induce terror and block roads for example. But not all elements of war involve terrorism. Also, just as torture isn't always terrorism war isn't always terrorism but it can be.

 

3. If you look into the details of the US campaign against Falluja you will find that the US commander did in fact issue and ultimatum against the threat of decapitation (my word - not his) of the city. Perhaps you haven't been paying close attention.

 

4 and 5. You seem to recognize terrorism when the folks doing it are wearing sandals.

 

Your arbitrary - presumably politicaly motivated - restriction of the concept of terrorism to groups who are less powerful is just the kind of BS I was talking about. See the origin ofthe word for a counter example to your spin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your number three point is ridiculously ironic. Ridiculously, ridiculously, ridiculously ironic.

 

Four and five are, too, especially given my track record on discussions of this type. It's really not fair to be called a terrorist sympathizer in one thread, and a right-wing despot in another.

 

Point two just isn't correct, because I don't validate any definition of terrorism that would include strikes on only military targets legitimately engaged in an armed struggle. That's a military conflict, not a terror campaign.

 

As for point one...if you think getting blindfolded and earmuffed is torture, you must have it pretty easy. And the military tries to keep photos of detainees unpublished as much as possible, but that pesky little freedom of the press stuff occasionally gets in the way.

 

Like I said before, if you want to include anything and everything designed to make an opponent quit the battlefield rather than fight under your umbrella definition of terrorism, then yes, all wartime acts are indeed terrorism. A tank battle is terrorism; if one side wins it, maybe guys on the other side will decide not to engage in the next one. There is a decided difference between demoralizing an enemy through legitimate military strikes on legitimate military targets and random attacks on anyone associated with the other side, no matter how loosely.

[Lucius]

Four and five are, too, especially given my track record on discussions of this type.  It's really not fair to be called a terrorist sympathizer in one thread, and a right-wing despot in another. 

Perhaps you shouldn't play on both horses then.

[metadigital]

...

2. The shock and awe campaign went beyond the needs of military killing into the realm of inducing terror.  Terrorism has often been practiced in war. German Stuka dive bomb attacks on fleeing civilians to induce terror and block roads for example. But not all elements of war involve terrorism. Also, just as torture isn't always terrorism war isn't always terrorism but it can be.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Forget civilians! My father was under some, during his WW2 service in the Mediterranean, and he was quite adament that those sirens placed on the wings were extremely effective ...

[Hildegard]

...

2. The shock and awe campaign went beyond the needs of military killing into the realm of inducing terror.  Terrorism has often been practiced in war. German Stuka dive bomb attacks on fleeing civilians to induce terror and block roads for example.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You don't know what you're talking about you worm! Imagine......squadron upon squadron of stukas rise to great heights, break into line ahead and swoop perpendicularly down, followed by the second, third.... fifth.... eleventh aeroplane. Simultaneously like bird of prey, they fall upon their victims and release their load of bombs on the target.

 

Each time their explosion is overwhelming, the noise absolutley deafening. Everything becomes blended together, along with the howling sirens of Stukas in their dives, the bombs whistle, crack and burst. A huge blow of annihilation strike the enemy, still more squadrons arrive, rise to a great height, and then come down on the their target. And you just stand and watch what is happening as if hypnotized. Now that's what I call 'shock and awe'. Stukas rule!

 

 

 

SUCK IT ALLIES!!!

Edited October 12, 2005 by Hildegard

[metadigital]

Hilde, time for the noctural dose now, I think ...

[Hildegard]

Hilde, time for the noctural dose now, I think ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was only joking, but you're right, I am rather and could use some extra sleep. But then again 'Return of the King' and 'Troy' is on TV "

[Lucius]

Hilde, time for the noctural dose now, I think ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was only joking, but you're right, I am rather and could use some extra sleep. But then again 'Return of the King' and 'Troy' is on TV "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wasn't it you who once told tales about incoming MiG's? "

[Hildegard]

Hilde, time for the noctural dose now, I think ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was only joking, but you're right, I am rather and could use some extra sleep. But then again 'Return of the King' and 'Troy' is on TV "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wasn't it you who once told tales about incoming MiG's? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, but that was real life, this thing with stukas is a joke....but when I think of it, maybe the experience 'helped' me write it