Straying from the poetry for a jaunt in politics.
Published on September 18, 2005 By Death_By_Beebles In War on Terror
College life has presented me with a few wonderful courses, one of which is "International Relations and Politics" This class has a required text based on the history, motivations, definitions and actions of terrorists and terrorism. I'm citing it down in the bottom, but I'd like to share some of my learning with a little bit of opinion on the side.


As the second term of George W. Bush's presidency moves forward past the "end" of the war in Iraq, and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and all focus is pointed now at the victims of Katrina, I find a few of my recent observations disturbing. What I see these days in our "War on Terror" is that some people are not even sure what terrorism is. Sure, they can buttonhole certain people like Osama Bin-Laden or Idi Amin and can pick out organizations like al-Queda or the IRA, but can they really define terrorism? So, to see if you can define terror, let me give you a quick two question quiz.

Do you know who Idi Amin was?

Raise your hand if you don't know (Googling him after the question doesn't count). Then lower it, because none of us can see you, and you're scaring the guy sitting next to you at the hot spot. I'd invite you to take a look at his actions in Africa. Learning a little bit of history probably won't hurt you.

(Now for the real question)

Were the actions at Columbine terrorism?


Indeed, it is a loaded question, but the true answer here is no. The answer is no, not because the violence isn't "violent" enough, or the deaths weren't "enough", but rather because although terrorism has a very broad base of thought in American public view, it is actually a specific type of act. A car bombing, although killing many civilians, can be considered a non-terrorist act. So, in that vein, what is a terrorist, and what is a terroist act?

Terrorism is not a broad term. Although it encompasses many different actions, each terrorist act has to have four specific qualifications to even be considered terrorist. Terrorism is an act of violence with a political motive or goal, perpetrated against innocent persons, and is staged to be played before and audience whose reaction of fear and terror is the desired result. Under this working international definition of terrorism, a carbomb specifically laid out to kill American soldiers at a cafe or restaurant is not terrorism, but rather an act of guerilla warfare, because terrorism has to be perpetrated against innocent persons.

Keeping that in mind, what is a terrorist? Obviously, a terrorist is a person that uses terrorism to further their gains towards a political acheivement. But, in that case, how many terrorist acts make a person or group a terrorist? For instance, organizations like the Earth Liberation Front and Persons for the Equal Treatment of Animals have attacked and destroyed animal testing facilities. These groups are not considered terrorist organizations, but have commited terrorist activites to swing a political opinion. The question then becomes "What is a terrorist?" A terrorist is a person that uses terrorist activites to help their politcal stances, and ironically enough, are only given Terrorist status by the people they terrorize. The people decide who is considered a terrorist by the amount of violence that they was a public can tolerate.

That all being said, I find it troubling that we as a nation can not define terror and yet we're at war with it. The Patriot Act, which limits the rights of all American citizens, is in place largely due to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th and yet the majority of the United States does not know what terrorism truly is. Random terror is a daily occurance in the Middle East. Tyrants continually terrorize their own people. If we as a nation do not know what we are up against and how it acts, then how can we defeat it?


Sources:

Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century - 4th ed., Combs, Cindy C.


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Sep 19, 2005
Which came first, the occupation or, as you imply, the "unruly" Palestinians?


Considering that the Arabs fought four wars with the goal of completely destroying Israel, I would argue that the "unruly" Arabs came first.

Then came some of them, newly renamed as Palestinians (a term previously used to refer to Jews), and remained "unruly".

I think to argue that Arab attacks on Israel from Gaza and the West Bank that happened BEFORE the occupation are a result OF the occupation goes a bit far; don't you agree?
on Sep 19, 2005
Considering that the Arabs fought four wars with the goal of completely destroying Israel, I would argue that the "unruly" Arabs came first.

Then came some of them, newly renamed as Palestinians (a term previously used to refer to Jews), and remained "unruly".

I think to argue that Arab attacks on Israel from Gaza and the West Bank that happened BEFORE the occupation are a result OF the occupation goes a bit far; don't you agree?


You are conflating two different things.

1. The Arab nations; and
2. the Palestinians.

You can not hold the Palestinians accountable for what Arab nations (which have effectively turned their backs on them) have done in the past.

If you honestly believe that the term Palestinian only referred to Jews pre-1948, then I don't feel that it is in my best interest to continue this conversation. We will get no where if we do not even agree on basic facts about the region. And it seems clear to me that we do not.
on Sep 19, 2005
To me terrorism is a way to influence people to think the way you want to, instill fear to control you.


That's too broad a definition there MM as it can be applied to any act or demonstration conducted by a person or group you disagree with. Are people who sit outside abortion clinics yelling threats and obcenities at workers terrorists? How about those KKK members who burn crosses and march around in their hoods... That certainly instills fear in minorities and is an attempt to influence people to their way of thinking. What about those who protest homosexuality through yelling speeches of fire and brimstone, or those who simply are so hateful/afraid of it that they themselves become violent in an attempt to drive undesireables away from where they live? Is all of that terrorism?

A definition as broad as yours MM opens the door to a great deal of abuse... And the people dishing out that abuse could easily change, changing the target at the same time.
on Sep 19, 2005
people who sit outside abortion clinics yelling threats and obcenities at workers terrorists? How about those KKK members who burn crosses and march around in their hoods


I would argue that yes, both groups are terrorist--the abortion clinic case is touchy, but when you factor in the killing of abortion clinic doctors--you can easily argue them into the realm of "terrorism."
on Sep 19, 2005
To me terrorism is a way to influence people to think the way you want to, instill fear to control you.

All the above are aided by violence of any kind, threats,included.


That's too broad a definition there MM


ya gotta put the two sentences together zoo..
on Sep 19, 2005
I would argue that yes, both groups are terrorist--the abortion clinic case is touchy, but when you factor in the killing of abortion clinic doctors--you can easily argue them into the realm of "terrorism."


Nonviolent protest will always never fall into the realm of terrorism. That is why the right to peacefully assemble is one of our constitutional rights. But yes, there have been conservative organizations that have used terrorist action against abortion clinics.

As for the KKK burning a cross on someone's lawn, sure it is violation of privacy, trespassing, and hate crime, but it is not terrorism. Terrorism has to be violent. Otherwise it's just protest.
on Sep 19, 2005
The fact that it is hard for the PA to control its own people is a problem for Israel. It is in fact the reason why Israel kept the areas occupied for so long.

AS LONG and UNTIL the Arabs don't give up their dream of destroying Israel and throwing all the Jews in the sea, Israel doesn't really have many options.

Letting the Arabs kill all the Jews is NOT an option. I do agree that it would solve the problem though.


This makes no sense in response to my previous post. Do you believe that the death of the Israelites would truly solve the problem for PA? In fact, this would only destroy any chance the PA would have for independence. Please clarify your views, as I'm not really understanding what you are trying to accomplish with this statement.
on Sep 19, 2005
As for the KKK burning a cross on someone's lawn, sure it is violation of privacy, trespassing, and hate crime, but it is not terrorism. Terrorism has to be violent. Otherwise it's just protest.


The KKK lynched people. Burning a cross on the lawn was a bit of a "we're out to get you" message to make people tremble in their boots wondering when their time was coming. Talk about using fear to heighten your ability to acheive your goal--the KKK was a leader in this field.
on Sep 19, 2005
I'm not saying that the KKK has not engaged in terrorist activities. I'm saying that burning a cross isn't a terrorist activity. There is a big difference there. I do not approve of what they do in any respect, but terrorism is a very specific thing, and a lot of activities of protest organizations like the KKK are not terrorism.

I'd post more, but I have class.
on Sep 19, 2005
I'm not saying that the KKK has not engaged in terrorist activities. I'm saying that burning a cross isn't a terrorist activity.


I think that this is where the definition you are using is too narrow. To say that this act isn't terrorism simply because it does not use violence seems to be missing the point of the act--which is to hint at future violence should the message that the KKK is delivering not be received.

KKK was a secret terrorist organization engaged in violent campaigns against former slaves and whites sympathetic to them. More recently (the 1960s) they helped to "disappear" civil rights workers. The act of burning the cross is a warning of something worse to come. It is a textbook case of terrorism.
on Sep 19, 2005
I think your definition would be more accurate if it read:

Terrorism is an act, or the threat (implied or otherwise) of an act, of violence with a political motive or goal, perpetrated against innocent persons, and is staged to be played before an audience whose reaction of fear and terror is the desired result
on Sep 19, 2005
You are conflating two different things.

1. The Arab nations; and
2. the Palestinians.

You can not hold the Palestinians accountable for what Arab nations (which have effectively turned their backs on them) have done in the past.


Yes, I can. If the Palestinians don't distance themselves from what the (other) Arab nations have done, they are just as guilty. They are free to send a strong message that they are against such measures, but I guess that would mean removing Israel from the map of Palestine most Palestinian parties have in their symbols.

I also believe that those Germans who actively or quietly supported Hitler are to blame for what the Nazis did. And if it was common opinion in Germany now that what the Nazis did was right, I would say against Germans what I say against Palestinians.

They are free to change that. But I cannot, without lying, change what I am saying about the matter.

That the (other) Arab nations have also turned their backs on the Palestinians, that only makes their behaviour worse, not better. But what exactly do you mean by "have turned their backs"? When exactly did the (other) Arab nations support the Palestinians (as opposed to simply murdering Jews in their name)?

If you honestly believe that the term Palestinian only referred to Jews pre-1948, then I don't feel that it is in my best interest to continue this conversation. We will get no where if we do not even agree on basic facts about the region. And it seems clear to me that we do not.


What do you mean "only"?

But now that you mention it, can you find a document from before 1967 (and, alternatively, before 1948) that refers to Arabs in Palestine as a people named "Palestinians"?
on Sep 19, 2005
Do you believe that the death of the Israelites would truly solve the problem for PA?


Not necessarily for the PA, but certainly for the Arab nationalists.

In fact, this would only destroy any chance the PA would have for independence.


I agree, Israel is their best and only chance for independence.

Please clarify your views.


http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=73057

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=75062

Hope that clarifies.
on Sep 19, 2005
Here's what i think "terror" is:

Terror is kidnapping reporters, harmless aid workers and peripheral diplomats, chaining their hands and feet, making them lie on the floor and recording the proceedings as they sobbingly beg for their lives while standing around them, aiming rifles at them and courageously wearing a towel to hide your face from justice-seekers.

Terror is killing innocent men, women and children for political gain or to send a simple message. You might want to reference Hitler, Stalin Mao Tse-Tung and Saddam here; they were masters of institutionalized terror.

Terror is fighting against a portion of civilization that moved on into the 21st Century, while you, because of your backward culture and repressive religion, stayed behind in the Dark Ages.

That's terror. It's an abomination that deserves to be squashed like a bug, and all its purveyors gutted and hung by their intestines.
on Sep 19, 2005
What do you mean "only"?


You said Palestinian referred to Jews--which implied that it "only" referred to Jews. Hence my statement that if you believed this than we were not working from the same set of facts.

Pre-1919 more than 90% of the population in what we refer to as "historic Palestine" or "pre-mandate Palestine" was Arab and less than 10% was Jewish. These people were Palestinians. If you want to check it out, look at page 21 of this document.Link


That said, I have learned that if you can't agree on basics of the situation, debating the situation in the Middle East is a lot like banging our head on a brick wall--it hurts a lot and doesn't accomplish a lot of good. I respect your right to your own opinion--but I do not see either of us changing our minds by continuing this argument.
4 Pages1 2 3 4