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 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Sep 19, 2005
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.


I am sick and tried of sources who speak of Arabs losing their homes to Jews. I have read that the Arab nations actually called for the Palestinians to leave Israel, and they left. But even if they were expelled, the Jews of the Arab world were expelled as well. And so where millions of Germans from Poland and Russia. None of these events, except the Palestinian exodus, are constantly mentioned in the media.

Had the United Nations not given the land to the Jews, I am sure the Jews of the Arab world would have been subject to the same measures as the Kurds and Christians in Sudan and other minorities. There would be no criticism of Israel, because there would be no Israel, and very few Arab Jews.

You are right, we cannot agree on the basics. A few weeks ago I have decided to accept no source that is not neutral (as defined here: http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=77490). I thus didn't read your report.pdf and make no comment as to its validity. It could be correct, it could be propaganda, it could be both. The title picture seemed to suggest propaganda (poor Palestinians) rather than a neutral source.
on Sep 19, 2005
Ok, now I did look at page 21 of that document anyway. It's not a source (because it was written in our time, not back then) and the population table refers to the people as "Arabs", not "Palestinians".

Perhaps we could agree on the basics if you accept that I didn't say that only Jews were called Palestinians and I never said that the majority of Palestine was Jewish before 1948 either?
on Sep 19, 2005
I am sick and tried of sources who speak of Arabs losing their homes to Jews. I have read that the Arab nations actually called for the Palestinians to leave Israel, and they left. But even if they were expelled, the Jews of the Arab world were expelled as well. And so where millions of Germans from Poland and Russia. None of these events, except the Palestinian exodus, are constantly mentioned in the media.

Had the United Nations not given the land to the Jews, I am sure the Jews of the Arab world would have been subject to the same measures as the Kurds and Christians in Sudan and other minorities. There would be no criticism of Israel, because there would be no Israel, and very few Arab Jews.

You are right, we cannot agree on the basics. A few weeks ago I have decided to accept no source that is not neutral (as defined here: Link). I thus didn't read your report.pdf and make no comment as to its validity. It could be correct, it could be propaganda, it could be both. The title picture seemed to suggest propaganda (poor Palestinians) rather than a neutral source.


Ok, now I did look at page 21 of that document anyway. It's not a source (because it was written in our time, not back then) and the population table refers to the people as "Arabs", not "Palestinians".

Perhaps we could agree on the basics if you accept that I didn't say that only Jews were called Palestinians and I never said that the majority of Palestine was Jewish before 1948 either?


You said:
Palestinians (a term previously used to refer to Jews)


You did not say, "Palestinians, a term previously used to refer to Jews and Muslims alike."

Maybe I am being pendantic, but I don't think so.

Also, if you are going to admit that you didn't even read the source, don't go off on me about how sick you are of hearing about Arabs losing their homes to Jews. Besides the point that it was irrelevant, it also happens to be fact.

Like I said, our differences are irreconcible--there is no real point of carrying this discussion any further. We do not agree about what happened in 1948, we are unlikely to agree about what is happening now.



As for that document not being a source, that's silly. It is of course a source; it is not, however, a primary source.
on Sep 19, 2005
The rich wage war
The poor wage terrorism
on Sep 19, 2005
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.


Do not equate abortion clinic protestors (terrorists) with conservatives.

You are right, we cannot agree on the basics. A few weeks ago I have decided to accept no source that is not neutral (as defined here: Link). I thus didn't read your report.pdf and make no comment as to its validity. It could be correct, it could be propaganda, it could be both. The title picture seemed to suggest propaganda (poor Palestinians) rather than a neutral source.



I have read your linked article. I'll tell you what with your list you 're going to have a VERY narrow view of things. And if that's the way you "really" feel then why even bother to comment on these types of articles?
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 would beg to differ on that. Protests as long as they are not violent are fine and "legal" and in no way can they be considered a terrorist act as long as they "stay" non-violent.
Cross burning on the other hand is VERY illegal to start with.
on Sep 20, 2005
I would beg to differ on that. Protests as long as they are not violent are fine and "legal" and in no way can they be considered a terrorist act as long as they "stay" non-violent.Cross burning on the other hand is VERY illegal to start with.


As I already said. It's very illegal. But very non terrorist.
on Sep 20, 2005
We do not agree about what happened in 1948, we are unlikely to agree about what is happening now.


Which part exactly do we disagree about? What have I said about events in 1948 that you disagree with? What have you said about events in 1948 that I said I disagree with?


As for that document not being a source, that's silly. It is of course a source; it is not, however, a primary source.


It's not a source at all. It's merely a document. It's certainly not a source for the claim you made because it did not say that the Arabs in Palestine in 1948 were commonly called "Palestinians". The document referred to them simply as "Arabs".

That's why it's not a source.

A news paper article of the time speaking "Palestinians" as "Arabs in Palestine" would be a source. A document referring to such an article would be a secondary source.

But a document not referring to anything and a population table that doesn't call Palestinians what you claimed they were called is NOT A SOURCE.

It's quite possible that Arab Palestinians were referred to as Palestinians before 1948 or 1967. It's also possible that Jews were not. But your document is not a source confirming either possibility.

Many people were expelled from their homes because of the Arab wars against Israel. But to blame Israel for that (implying that the Arabs are not guilty of the same even though their countries were not under attack), is propaganda, nothing else.

I would find the Palestinian exodus a lot more tragic had the Arabs not called for them to leave Israel and had they not participated in the war against the Jews. (I call it a war against the Jews because Jews that were not Israeli citizens were also targets of the Arab war machine.)
on Sep 20, 2005
have read your linked article. I'll tell you what with your list you 're going to have a VERY narrow view of things.


Why? Because I am interested in sources that mention both Jews and Arabs and their fortunes rather than just one side? How does that result in a very narrow view?

Is it not true that a narrow view would be to learn only about either the one or the other but never about both?

If I only read sources that mention only Jewish refugees, would I not be as narrow-minded as someone who only reads sources that mention only Arab refugees?

And if that's the way you "really" feel then why even bother to comment on these types of articles?


What does "really" in quotes mean?

I bother to comment probably for the same reasons as those who feel differently (i.e. types 1 and 5 on my list): because I occasionally learn something and occasionally change somebody else's perception of the world.

Why do you bother to comment on articles?
on Sep 20, 2005
The rich wage war
The poor wage terrorism.


Bin Laden is rich.

The poor tend to be slaughtered rather than slaughter.
on Sep 20, 2005
As I already said. It's very illegal. But very non terrorist.



But you never addressed this:

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.


I think it is very hard to argue that the KKK is not a terrorist organizaton.
on Sep 20, 2005
I think it is very hard to argue that the KKK is not a terrorist organizaton.


I believe I did address that by saying that the KKK has performed terrorist acts. I can not say that they are terrorist because the people that they terrorize must make that assertion. In my mind, they are a terrorist group, just like any other violent racial segragist group, but to assert what I'm getting at, I"ll quote my article.

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 as a public can tolerate.


on Sep 20, 2005
I believe I did address that by saying that the KKK has performed terrorist acts. I can not say that they are terrorist because the people that they terrorize must make that assertion. In my mind, they are a terrorist group, just like any other violent racial segragist group, but to assert what I'm getting at, I"ll quote my article


So if a group is successful in killing all of their victims, they aren't terrorist because the people that they terrorized are no longer alive to make that assertion? Seems a bit suspect to me.
on Sep 20, 2005
Bin Laden is rich.

The poor tend to be slaughtered rather than slaughter.


VERY well said.....very well.
on Sep 27, 2005
So if a group is successful in killing all of their victims, they aren't terrorist because the people that they terrorized are no longer alive to make that assertion? Seems a bit suspect to me.


That's not it at all. If you think they're terrorist, and a group of people holds to that belief, then they can be and are labeled as a terrorist group. What I'm trying to say is that terrorists have to be defined by the people. International bodies of law and states can't define terrorists, especially when the group being acused are using guerilla warfare. Things are very subjective and dicey.
4 Pages1 2 3 4