[luke warm]

very interesting thread... i see the difficulty in defining 'terrorist' because all definitions i've seen use words which themselves need further clarification... for example, winston seems to want to define a terrorist as one fighting against a perceived injustice... from my view, that won't do

for that definition to fly, we need to define 'justice'... do you see? what the terrorist (or freedom fighter, or rebel, or patriot) sees as injustice might be viewed differently by someone else... when subjective concepts are used as part(s) of a definition, there will be little if any agreement on matters... in that sense, richard's idea of terrorism as tactical in nature seems right; however, it is a tactic without a realizable strategy, without a realizable goal

my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed

i disagree with winston concerning the necessity of "understanding" the terrorist, in an historical context, unless the aim is to use this understanding to annhilate the terrorist...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Dec 28 2006, 03:01 AM, said:

my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-propulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed

Your definition is useless:. Its posturing, rather than a practical attempt to define a term.

Most people consider the IRA to be a protypical example of a terrorist organization. Hoowever, the IRA deliberately de-escalated its bombing campaigns in Britain. The political leadership of the IRA concluded that its bombing campaign would be just as effective if they focused on property damage and attempted to minimize casualties. Accordingly, the IRA began to issue warnings that it had placed bombs in a building and provided some time for evacuations.

The IRA clearly wasn't using the most horrifying means possible.
Do you consider the IRA a terrorist group or not?

[Winstonm]

Hi Jimmy. Good to see you.

You are right in that I am having trouble defining a terrorist. I am formulating the opinion though that terrorism is a tactic with political aim - that aim being as minimal as advertising the ideology or "cause".

If you consider 9-11, there was a percieved injustice by the orchestrators - U.S. involvement in the middle east and support of Israel are a couple that come to mind.

I am not of the opinion that you have a dialogue or compromise with the terrorists themselves, but if their grievance is valid wouldn't it in time reduce the threat of further terrorists acts if the grievance or "injustice" was addressed?

I wonder whether there would be reduced terror threats against the U.S. if the U.S. were actively advocating for a Palestinian state or encouraging Israel to accept U.N. nuclear inspectors? Would either action be wrong?

[mike777]

helene_t, on Dec 27 2006, 10:21 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 27 2006, 03:45 AM, said:

Weird...

I thought we were discussing a relatively specific topic:  The definition of terrorism
Somehow we seemed to have moved to generic platitudes about the cold war

Weird .. I thought we were discussing an interisting topic, namely how/why someone becomes a terrorist. Somehow we seem to have moved to a fruitless discussion about the semantics of "terrorist".

Basically, I think chrime (political or otherwise) is something hormonal. To reduce it we'll have to genetically engineer stable crops to produce androgen antagonists.

But, as Mike mentioned in one of the first posts to this thread, better integration of immigrants in Europe would be a good idea as well.

It concerns me that a response to my first post was almost nil. Helene suggests the phrase "better integration". At least that was a response but even that sounds somewhat sexist or racist or worse in some sense.

I just wonder if giving full and complete citizenship rights to any baby born in a country automatically would go aways toward reducing terrorists, however it is defined.

Otherwise you are defining a citizen in various countries by blood, religion, sex or some other category that excludes many to be born into a country as second class peoples(female) or worse thought of as subhuman or slaves.

Japan comes to mind, not just the middle east or Europe.

[luke warm]

Quote

Your definition is useless:. Its posturing, rather than a practical attempt to define a term.

well i obviously disagree... i thought it was a very practical attempt at a definition, but let's look at it closer... we'll use your ira example as a test case... i said:

"my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules..."

you said:

"The political leadership of the IRA concluded that its bombing campaign would be just as effective if they focused on property damage and attempted to minimize casualties. Accordingly, the IRA began to issue warnings that it had placed bombs in a building and provided some time for evacuations."

therefore, according to my definition, *this* incarnation of the ira is not a terrorist organization... easy, eh? now i'm not sure whether the tactics used by the ira at this time will result in any satisfying end (assuming they have one in mind)...

by the way, richard, your statement quoted above sounds authoritative... should we accept on your authority that i was just posturing, that my definition is useless? or that your opinions are less posturing, less useless?

hi winston ... you said

Quote

If you consider 9-11, there was a percieved injustice by the orchestrators - U.S. involvement in the middle east and support of Israel are a couple that come to mind.

and herein lies the problem (again, from my view only)... the perceived injustice felt by the terrorists is just that - perceived... was there an *actual* injustice? something they could point to as being *objectively* unjust? i don't think so, i think the term itself can't be used in the definition unless you first define that term... see? but i know we don't want to go down that road, as evidenced by richard's very quick rebuttal when someone mentioned 'morality' in an earlier post... by no means do we want to introduce metaphysical concepts such as justice and morality into this... it makes too many people uncomfortable

Quote

I wonder whether there would be reduced terror threats against the U.S. if the U.S. were actively advocating for a Palestinian state or encouraging Israel to accept U.N. nuclear inspectors? Would either action be wrong?

if so, not for long... that's because any stated short-term goal of a terrorist organization is an illusion... at best it is just a step toward "...life lived by his (the terrorist's) rules.."

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Dec 28 2006, 03:43 AM, said:

It concerns me that a response to my first post was almost nil.  Helene suggests the phrase "better integration". At least that was a response but even that sounds somewhat sexist or racist or worse in some sense.

I just wonder if giving full and complete citizenship rights to any baby born in a country automatically would go aways toward reducing terrorists, however it is defined.

I didn't bother to comment on your initial posting because I don't necessarily see a linkage between Europe's immigrant population and terrorism.

I readily admit that Europe has a large number of immigrants. Furthermore, I don't think that the European countries have the same experience assimilating large number of foreign nationals as does the United States. This is none-too-surprising... For a long time Europe suffered from severe population pressures. Folks were emigrating out of Europe, not moving in. More recently, we've seen some extreme demographic shifts and large numbers of people are moving in to Europe. In many cases, this is creating some very real tensions.

However, I haven't seen many incidents that I would characterize as terrorist attacks. I've seen riots like the ones that swept France last summer. I've seen murders like the one involving van Gogh in the Netherlands. I've seen a lot of fights over different legal traditions related to family law. But not many terrorist attacks.

The only real example of a terrorist attack involving immigrants that i can think of off hand were the 2004 train bombings in Madrid and the July 2005 attacks on the mass transit system in Britain. However, even here its debatable whether this was an inevitable response to integration problems in Spain/Britain or blowback arising from these country's participation in the invasion of Iraq. Regardless of the underying causes of these attacks, immigrant based terrorist attacks are dwarfed by homegrown groups such as

1. The IRA
2. ETA
3. The PKK
3. The Red Army Faction / Bader-Meinhof gang

[Winstonm]

Mike, I didn't respond to that comment for the simple reason that I am ignorant on the subject and had no intelligent (not that I ever do have) input to make.

I am not aware of Europe being a target other than Brittain.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Dec 28 2006, 04:22 AM, said:

you said:

"The political leadership of the IRA concluded that its bombing campaign would be just as effective if they focused on property damage and attempted to minimize casualties. Accordingly, the IRA began to issue warnings that it had placed bombs in a building and provided some time for evacuations."

therefore, according to my definition, *this* incarnation of the ira is not a terrorist organization... easy, eh? now i'm not sure whether the tactics used by the ira at this time will result in any satisfying end (assuming they have one in mind)...

OK

We've excluded the IRA from the set of terrorist organizations.

Lets move on to ETA. ETA could easily have built/deployed chemical munitions. Hell, I know enough chemistry to make hydrogen cyanide gas. All you to do is mix NaCN + HCL... It ain't rocket science.

Looks like ETA isn't a terrorist organization either using your definition.

More generally, I don't think that you can find many groups out there that don't possess the capacity to ratchet up the atrocities that they commit.

[Winstonm]

Quote

QUOTE 
If you consider 9-11, there was a percieved injustice by the orchestrators - U.S. involvement in the middle east and support of Israel are a couple that come to mind. 


and herein lies the problem (again, from my view only)... the perceived injustice felt by the terrorists is just that - perceived... was there an *actual* injustice? something they could point to as being *objectively* unjust? i don't think so, i think the term itself can't be used in the definition unless you first define that term... see? but i know we don't want to go down that road, as evidenced by richard's very quick rebuttal when someone mentioned 'morality' in an earlier post... by no means do we want to introduce metaphysical concepts such as justice and morality into this... it makes too many people uncomfortable

I think you are right in that morality shouldn't be the issue as I doubt anyone here condones a terrorist act no matter how it is defined (I certainly don't condone it.)

However, exteme actions of this nature are typically driven by extreme beliefs, and whether or not the beliefs have some basis seems important to me. I can't sepcify all of al-Qaeda's core complaints, but "They hate us because of our freedom" I'm positive is total BS. I know they have a problem with U.S. military in Saudi Arabia. They have a problem with the U.S. support of Israel. Other complaints I am not sure of - but I do not believe them to be nothing more than madmen intent on killing U.S. citizens for the thrill of it. There must be a purpose to the actions - even if they believe it to be a "holy" war.

If their perceived injustice is a perceived threat to fundamental Islam that is indeed a difficult injustice to understand or do much about. If, on the other hand, the perceived injustice is over Palestine or Saudi Arabia having U.S. bases or the U.S. unwillingness to chastise Israel, those are considerations that may have some merit and it seems are areas where the U.S. could help diffuse the anger by being more reaonable about the political claims - not reasonable with the terrorists themselves but acknowledging the claims as having some merit.

Seems to me if you can diffuse the original anger you leave the terrorists with no support - and with no support they must wither and eventually die out.

[luke warm]

Quote

We've excluded the IRA from the set of terrorist organizations.

well, we excluded the ira you posited, and we did so from within the framework of my definition (which is simply my opinion - i don't claim it to be the only or even correct definition)... the ira i remember would indeed fall within my definition, i think

as for the eta, i don't know much about them so you'll have to tell me whether or not they are terrorists according to my definition... are they fighting an undeclared war by using the most horrifying means possible to reach their desired end, without regard for the identity of their victims?

Quote

More generally, I don't think that you can find many groups out there that don't possess the capacity to ratchet up the atrocities that they commit.

i don't know what that ability has to do with it... whether it's a 747 into a building or a dirty bomb, it either fits or doesn't fit the definition

winston:

Quote

However, exteme [ie, terrorist] actions of this nature are typically driven by extreme beliefs, and whether or not the beliefs have some basis seems important to me.

why? strictly as an intellectual pursuit? or so you can "understand" them in order to open some sort of dialog?

[Winstonm]

Quote

winston:

QUOTE 
However, exteme [ie, terrorist] actions of this nature are typically driven by extreme beliefs, and whether or not the beliefs have some basis seems important to me.


why? strictly as an intellectual pursuit? or so you can "understand" them in order to open some sort of dialog?

No, Jimmy, so something might be done about future terrorism and future terrorists. Like I said, I do not condone any terrorist act and have stated they should be sought out and punished for their crimes. But if there is a legitamacy to their claims, I would think anyone would consider it important to understand what would drive a group to such violence and whether or not future generations could be prevented by the simple expedient of eliminating the injustices.

And it is not as if the U.S. has never been forced later to deal with a political entity that was once considered a terrorist organization - the PLO comes to mind.

I think the more intelligent approach is to term terrorists criminals rather than enemies - but even a criminal can have a valid reason for wanting change; it is the choice of actions that makes him a criminal.

Seems to me that if we could show future generations that the U.S. is open to listen to injustices and willing to help allieviate the problem while still being hard on criminals it would show that there is a better way.

To say that their cause is wrong because their actions are wrong mitigates against any peaceful long-term solution. It also absolves the U.S. of any blame, and I doubt the U.S. is as lilly-white and innocent as our leaders would have us believe.

[the hog]

Jimmy, I can tell you honestly that I and many of my friends regard the present US administration as the most frightening one this world has seen. Many of us regard Bush as a terrorist.

[jikl]

I would also add probably Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell to the list of people that should perhaps be on trial for war crimes.

Sean

[helene_t]

OK, some (including me fwiw) may say that Bush fits Jimmy's definition of a terrorist. But again, I don't think it's the kind of terrorist about whom Winston's original question was.

Quote

I just wonder if giving full and complete citizenship rights to any baby born in a country automatically would go aways toward reducing terrorists, however it is defined.

Most immigrants will aquire citizenship after five years (or after three years of marriage to a local citizen and living the country of the spouse). As for children born by new immigrants, most will aquire citizenship when they turn 18. Before they are 18, citizenship doesn't matter since you can't vote anyway so the only diference it makes are:
- Deportation. I don't recall any case of deportation of children except for refugees who have had their application rejected. But their were some riots in Denmark some years ago in relation to the deportion of an 18-year old Danish-born boy from Turkish parents who for some reason hadn't applied for Danish citizenship. So this would be a concrete case of politically motivated crime that could have been avoided by granting citizenship to babies born in the country. You can probably find some info about the case by google'ing on "Voldsmose".
- Olympic team. Few minors appear on the Olympic teams anyway.

So I don't think citizenship per se is critical. More generally, I think the lack of integration of immigrants is a major cause of crime, including politically/religiously motivated crime. I once heard a woman who was born in Ghana and had been living in L.A. as well as in Copenhagen say:

Quote

In L.A., a foreigner" is someone who just arrived and will go back to his country withing a couple of weeks. In Copenhagen, a "foreigner" is someone whose grandparents were born abroad

Integration of immigrants would require an enormous change in mentality. But I do think we are moving in the right direction. You see more and more people with Turkish (and occasionaly Arabic) surnames at universities, in business and in the media. And an increasing proportion of them are women.

[hrothgar]

The_Hog, on Dec 28 2006, 01:35 PM, said:

Jimmy, I can tell you honestly that I and many of my friends regard the present US administration as the most frightening one this world has seen. Many of us regard Bush as a terrorist.

I'm gonna need to disagree with this one:

I think that Bush is an abysmal individual and a pathetic excuse for a human being.
Furthermore, I believe that he should be put on trial for war crimes / crimes against humanity and expect that he would be found guilty if this were ever to happen.

However, I don't believe that it is accuarate to describe him as a terrorist.

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Dec 28 2006, 05:35 AM, said:

Jimmy, I can tell you honestly that I and many of my friends regard the present US administration as the most frightening one this world has seen. Many of us regard Bush as a terrorist.

This post explains alot to those of us who thought some of the posts(not yours) were close to insane. As I mentioned many times before I do think people get the government they deserve. To just blame Bush or his cronies is a cop out for the rest of us(Americans). We elected him and relected him and elected this Congress which pays for the weapons and the soldiers, in fact pays for them quite eagerly.

We, (me), deserve full blame for any war crimes or feelings that this administration is the worst in your human memory or that you have seen.

As for my previous point if full and complete citizenship is granted at birth to babies born in your country my point does not apply. If not until later, then I assume that babies and children to not have the full rights granted other children born there?

If your country does not then as I have said I think that creates two problems:
1).. to those who are born and are considered less than full citizens a sense of injustice.
2)... to those who deny full citizenship to others born there a sense of entitlement and superiority. A belief that those babies are at best second class citizens and at worst subhuman or slaves.

I do think these are 2 reasons that may lead some to terriosm. I make no claims that it is the sole reason.

[pbleighton]

"As I mentioned many times before I do think people get the government they deserve. To just blame Bush or his cronies is a cop out for the rest of us(Americans). We elected him and relected him and elected this Congress which pays for the weapons and the soldiers, in fact pays for them quite eagerly.

We, (me), deserve full blame for any war crimes or feelings that this administration is the worst in your human memory or that you have seen."

"Eagerly" is an exaggeration, but I generally agree with your point regarding collective responsibility.

However, your point is a COMPLETE non sequitur to Ron's post. How does the fact that he was elected and reelected mean that he can't be frightening and/or a terrorist? I happen to disagree with Ron's "terrorist" label", preferring instead "murderous religiously bigoted imperialist" (which I think is more accurate), but in any case our collective responsibility doesn't absolve Bush of anything.

Peter

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Dec 28 2006, 10:31 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Dec 28 2006, 05:35 AM, said:

Jimmy, I can tell you honestly that I and many of my friends regard the present US administration as the most frightening one this world has seen. Many of us regard Bush as a terrorist.

This post explains alot to those of us who thought some of the posts(not yours) were close to insane. As I mentioned many times before I do think people get the government they deserve. To just blame Bush or his cronies is a cop out for the rest of us(Americans). We elected him and relected him and elected this Congress which pays for the weapons and the soldiers, in fact pays for them quite eagerly.

We, (me), deserve full blame for any war crimes or feelings that this administration is the worst in your human memory or that you have seen.

Anyone else recall a thread titled "Defeat in Iraq?"

During the course of that thread I advanced the argument that the United States should be required to pay reparations to assist in reconstruction efforts in Iraq. (As I recall, you were rather vociferously opposed to this position). It seems strange to see you now claim that folks like Ron and I don't understand the concept of collective responsiblity.

One of the most annoying things about this whole situation is that I'm gonna get stuck paying for the screw ups that folks like you have been making. I was opposed to this cluster ***** of a war from day one. I have consistently been arguing that it was a massive mistake to invade Iraq and that it would make the situation in the Middle East much much worse.

Unfortunately, the country decided to go another way and I'm stuck living with the consequences. In theory, I could have tried to do something about this. I could have go off and tried to bullet in Bush's head or launched my own little commando attack against an Army base. However, none of this seem particularly pratical. (In actuality, I took part in some of the large protests that took place in San Francisco. I've tried to cogently present my arguments on discussion boards like this one. I gave a LOT of time and money trying to make sure that Bush lost the election in 2004. More recently I volunteered for Lamont in CT in 2006)

I'd LOVE to see some mechanism by which the costs of this war could be placed onto the idiot hawks who lead us into the Iraqi desert. In practice, the political fights involved in "assigning blame" would be far too destructive for the country. So, I'll be forced to suck it up once again and pay for your mistakes.

Some one has to act like an adult...

[helene_t]

mike777, on Dec 28 2006, 09:31 PM, said:

As I mentioned many times before I do think people get the government they deserve. To just blame Bush or his cronies is a cop out for the rest of us(Americans). We elected him and relected him and elected this Congress which pays for the weapons and the soldiers, in fact pays for them quite eagerly.

We, (me), deserve full blame for any war crimes or feelings that this administration is the worst in your human memory or that you have seen.

At least W's first election was based on fraud so only the electory system can be held responsible. As for those 49.8% (or whatever) who actually voted for the idiot, I can only say that it is not such an unusual case (Hitler, Milosevic, Putin, Mugabe, Chirac, Berlusconi, Sharon etc. were more-or-less democratically elected as well, some of them with a much larger proportion of the votes than W. got).

Besides, while it's easy to say in retrospect that it was wrong to elect Bush, maybe it wasn't that obvious before he was elected. His father didn't do that bad as far as I recall. And Reagan, about whom jokes similar to those about W. were popular ("The U.S. was governed by Nancy's astrologist") is by some seen as a succesful president.

Quote

As for my previous point if full and complete citizenship is granted at birth to babies born in your country my point does not apply. If not until later, then I assume that babies and children to not have the full rights granted other children born there?

As I said, they can't participate on the national Olympic team. afaik that's the only practical consequence of the lack of citizenship for children. It's possible that some immigrant children would "feel" more European if they had local citizenship. I'd rather see it the other way round, though: The late naturalization of immigrant children is symptomatic for European xenophobia.

[mike777]

1) Well if we are shifting the discussion I was against the vote for war as well, baring further information as I said before.
2) Though once we went in and created the mess, I was for winning(whatever that means) and not pulling out after the statue came down.
3) Helene I can only assume in most countries including the USA that a child that is a citizen and in the country has very different legal and important rights from a child who is not a citizen and in the country. Here is a simple example:
Family parents "A" are in the country illegally and their one month old baby is a citizen of the USA compared to family parents "B" who are in the country illegally and their one month old baby is not a citizen. In the USA this baby has very different legal rights.
4) As for the election, the vast majority of the country either voted for the accused war criminal Bush or did not bother to vote at all. A non cast vote is just as guilty if think the guy is a War criminal or the worst administration you have "ever seen in the history of the world".
5) Ya, you are correct in saying many(of course not all) think Regan was a truly great President but then some(Peter) think we did not win(whatever that means) the cold war.
6) Ya, I think the vast majority, almost all congressman are more than happy(eager) to vote defense pork back to their district and not cut off funds to Iraq.