Who is a terrorist?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443324404577591380551150116.html

As a disclaimer I should not have to add, but the inevitable shitstorm that would follow if I do not do this means I have to, all instances of someone shooting to death someone else are deplorable and morally wrong. Murder is murder is murder.

That being said, this incident is evidently both being investigated as and called an act of terrorism, as is the shooting by Major Hassan at Fort Hood, but the incident where that one guy flew a plane into an IRS building and the other guy shot up the Sikh Temple are not called that one T-word. So my question is this: what is terrorism and what is not? Why is it that in one case shooting someone in cold blood is a terrorist act but callously going into a movie theater or a house of worship is not? And why is it that fanatics flying planes into building is terrorism when it's for a pseudo-medieval sect of Islam but not when it's motivated by an extreme loathing of paying taxes? Is terrorism about the actual deeds themselves, or is it merely a word that happens to apply only to some?

Personally I'm becoming convinced that terrorism has never really had a meaning, and that the word is simply a disparaging word used by some to refer to acts done by people and movement they don't like, and excused when it comes to ones they're more sympathetic toward. Just as the tendency to machine-gun civilians is a war crime when done by the Republican Guard but not when done by the US Army, so is it that terrorism is ultimately just a particular rhetorical device, a hollow term with no meaning in itself.

Comments

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

You are just now getting this?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I actually made a post about the gap between terrorist and freedom fighter a long ways back, so it's not that I'm just "now" getting it, so much as asking a different question.

[404.livejournal.com]

Definitions of Terrorism

Terrorism by nature is difficult to define. Acts of terrorism conjure emotional responses in the victims (those hurt by the violence and those affected by the fear) as well as in the practitioners. Even the U.S. government cannot agree on one single definition. The old adage, “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter” is still alive and well. Listed below are several definitions of terrorism. For the purposes of the Terrorism Research Center, we have adopted the definition used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.

—Brian Jenkins

Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.

—Walter Laqueur

Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.

—James M. Poland

Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics.

—Vice-President's Task Force, 1986

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

—FBI Definition

Didn't mean to hit the comment button just yet, but all the definitions I have seen involve politically motivated violence against non-combatants.

So if someone expressly uses violence/force/coercion against people undeserving of it, then they are terrorists.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

The FBI definition is the one we generally used in PoliSci classes. I do find it amusing that your last-line summation leaves out the most important part of those definitions, though - that the violence is politically motivated or designed to cause political or social change.

[404.livejournal.com]

I shortened it greatly, but I did include "politically motivated" as part of my definition, not as part of my terrorist definition, and since I don't have a paid account I can't edit it.

But I would say that violence against noncombatants for a political motive is terrorism, and those people practicing it are terrorists.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was referencing the last line, which I thought was overbroad. The rest of your post is spot-on, though. Terrorism has a broadly-accepted and sufficiently detailed definition to be a term worth using.

[404.livejournal.com]

Noncombatants are undeserving of violence.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

She fits your definition, which shows how hard it is to define. Muggers also fit. And school bullies.

[404.livejournal.com]

I forgot to add politically motivated. Can't edit it now.

But no, she's not a terrorist because she is dumb and pushed her friend in the pool, killing her iPhone, she's a moron who didn't own up to it and get her a new phone and has to endure the shame of having judge Judy yell at her for ten minutes..

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Even that though. If a NBP is threatening to hit republican voters outside a polling station, or even in fact hitting them, I don't see that as terrorism.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) The most useless as this would imply wars are terrorism.

2) A dubious standard as illegitimate use of force is both vague and there is no existent enforcement agency.

3) Strategic bombing is the grey area here, as well as those elements of modern warfare that rely on intimidating the masses for the purpose of tactical and strategic advantage.

4) Again wars qualify as this. Especially gunboat diplomacy, which is the grey area.

5) See number 3. If a strategy or a strategic force uses lethal force against non-combatants for the political purpose of ending a war, this qualifies as terrorism under these definitions. Most people would not like that word applied to the likes of Curtis LeMay or the current leadership of the US Air Force.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Investigators were trying to determine whether he is mentally ill, and if the motive for the alleged attack might fall under the legal definitions of domestic terrorism, a hate crime or something else

That's not quite the same thing as investigating it as a terrorist attack, nor is anyone in your linked article calling it a terrorist attack. And I believe it's Obama's Justice Department at the moment.



And why is it that fanatics flying planes into building is terrorism when it's for a pseudo-medieval sect of Islam but not when it's motivated by an extreme loathing of paying taxes?

In the former, about 3000 civilians were purposely killed. And the perpetrators belonged to what's commonly referred to as a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda). An organization that plans fatal attacks on civilians would fit the definition of "terrorist organization". A person or group of people who dion't like paying taxes would not. Unless of course they kept going around blowing up civilians.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So the US Air Force and US strategic air power, which plans fatal attacks on civilians by virtue of merely existing, do not qualify as terrorist groups?

[di-glossia.livejournal.com]

Terrorism is the incurring of fear through violence with the intent to persuade some entity to take up or benefit the terrorist's usually political agenda. The main difference between it and other types of murder-related violence is that terrorism is used to further an agenda other than revenge for a personal wrongdoing. If the terrorism is officially sanctioned, it's usually mass murder. If the motivation is revenge and involves an ex-employee, it's mass murder or spree killing, which differ mostly in the time frame of the murders. If the person receives sexual gratification from the murder, you're moving into serial killer territory.

Joseph Stack was attempting to take revenge on the IRS for his many disputes with the service. The intent of his violence was not to get the IRS to see his side but rather to use violence to make a final stand. The shooting at the Sikh Temple is being called terrorism (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/10/us/wisconsin-temple-shooting/index.html) by no less than the Attorney General of the United States. This case is confusing because, asfai, although his motives can be guessed at by his being a white supremacist, no evidence is available for what his motives actually were.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"Terrorism is the incurring of fear through violence with the intent to persuade some entity to take up or benefit the terrorist's usually political agenda. "



I'd probably qualify you definition of to be specifically 'violence against civilians' but the above image still raises a valid question none-the-less. Hiroshima was a deliberate attack on a civilian population in order to cause fear according to a political agenda.

It was a lot more effective because the death toll was a lot higher but that difference would only suggest that terrorists main mistake has been not thinking big enough (I'm not sure most of what we call terrorism has really played to anyone's advantage, regardless of intention)

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

And when the Japanese surrounded Singapore and shelled the civilian population with the ultimatum that they wouldn't stop until the British surrendered, that was terrorism too?

Granted it wasn't a very nice thing to do, but a war was going on (or was just stating in that case) and that act was being carried out by a state. Random wackjob organizations should not be given such powers of state. It's bad when countries target civilians, it's far worse when we allow everyone to do it.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

Targeting civilians in order to create fear and panic seems a reasonable definition of terrorism to me.

At the very least, it ought to be a war crime.

[di-glossia.livejournal.com]

If the terrorism is officially sanctioned, it's usually mass murder.

Terrorism is typically a tool of the weak, used to make the terrorists seem more powerful than they are. When states come into play, it's acts of aggression or war.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

By my definition, terrorist(s) evoke terror, and usually it's intentionally.

For example, the 9/11 hijackers scared an entire nation into being fearful, alarmed and otherwise terrorized.
Wis. Sikh temple shooter has frightened Sikh's all over the USA, essentially terrorized them.
Col movie gunman terrorized the theatre that night and consequentially movie goers everywhere.

I believe that for the most part a terrorist actions are intended to terrorize not just their victims and witnesses, but to frighten even those far enough removed from the incident to be considered reasonably safe. I mean a movie patron in NYC shouldn't reasonably fear a theater. A Sikh in Hawaii shouldn't fear a shooting rampage at his temple. And while we understand logically that an Al Qaeda attack harming you and your loved ones is extremely unlikely, it not only frightens some people, but some of us are prepared for an attack.

I don't care if there are political, racial, or whatever bullshit motivations. Non-political terrorism is still terrorism.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

I mean a movie patron in NYC shouldn't reasonably fear a theater. A Sikh in Hawaii shouldn't fear a shooting rampage at his temple.

You're right about the first, but not about the second, unless in the second you're meaning ideally instead of practically.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So are militaries terrorist organizations?

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Depends. My definition is confirmed by dictionary definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist) that a terrorist is a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
Motivations (political or otherwise) of terrorists have little to do with this label.
Terrorism is what they do (or what they advocate) not why they do it.

Do militaries terrorize? Sometimes they do.
So when a military terrorizes a people or place, are they terrorists? Hmmmm, this gives me pause to think.
I hate to view our military as a sometimes terrorist organization.
And after thinking about it, yes, and I'll tell you why with the hindsight that 60+yrs brings.

While war is always frightening, even terrorizing, when American GI's stormed Nazi occupied France it was a scary time.
But while bombs bursting and bullets flying was still scary to the French, they welcomed the being free of Nazi's.
Nazi occupation was certainly terrorizing. Being set free was scary but not entirely terrorizing.
Terror was not used by Americans as a weapon against the French, only toward the Germans.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

There is no legal qualifier for terrorist acts as far as I know, but it seems most commentators use it to mean "propaganda of the deed", a symbolic crime which serves no other purpose but to strike at the foundations of the system. In the examples you gave, the 2 terrorist acts were specifically against government personnel and the one that didn't qualify was against innocent civilians who had no specific political association.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Who's not calling the temple shooting terrorism? That's how it's been reported here.