[luke warm]

cherdano, on Jun 2 2007, 11:26 PM, said:

Everyone agrees that the German RAF (Bader-Meinhof group) was a terrorist group. I don't know whether it fits your definition, I think it does but your "definition" is so vague; anyway if it doesn't then your definition is wrong (unless you want to define a completely new term so that nobody can understand what you mean when you say "terrorist"). The group started in the early 70's, faded out in the eighties and officially declared an end to their fight in the early 90s (I believe, not sure when it was exactly).

from the (imo excellent) thread http://forums.bridge...pic=17208&st=45 where terrorist/terrorism was (first) discussed, in answer to one of richard's post i said:

Quote

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

please note the part in parenthesis ... i also posted this in that same thread:

Quote

since i haven't seen a definition (yet) of 'terrorist' that i like better than the one i gave, it's my view that courses of action based on an understanding of what drives such groups can only be implemented once the groups themselves are destroyed

and nobody at that time seemed willing to offer their own definition... for clarity, i'll again post the definition i used:

Quote

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'm not an expert on the german raf, but have the ones who made up the movement died or been destroyed? in any case, i took pains in that earlier thread to make it known that i was setting forth my opinion as to what a terrorist is and that i was willing to listen to others...

i consistently argued against winston's attempts because he kept trying to use the word 'injustice', and i feel it's too subjective a word unless it also is defined... i'll be glad to entertain a definition that includes the concept of justice once a definition is given for it

winston said:

I would only ask for truthfulness in reporting rather than hype and propaganda. Don't make out that this idiotic plot that had outdated intelligence, no explosives, and a plan that could not work because the fires would be limited in range is somehow as grand of success as stopping the attack on Pearl Harbor - which is what the U.S. attorney indicated with his ludicrous statement.

fine, but what crime should be charged (if any)? for that "retired idiot" as well as the one who plots to blow up an abortion clinic

Quote

As far as never-ending terrorism, a quick search of Google yielded this list.

i searched some of those and am not sure exactly what was going on ... you list several who seem to be from the same seed... in any case, as i've repeatedly said, my "definition" is my opinion, and i'm perfectly willing to listen to reasonable arguments as to why some (or even all) of it should be reformulated... for example, take out "...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.." if you want... but use either fundamentalist muslims or fundamentalist christians (the blowing up of abortion clinics)... do they both want life lived by their rules? what will make them stop wanting that?

fwiw, i don't think the boston tea party was a terrorist act, by (my) definition, because there was regard for the enemy and the act itself was hardly terrifying

Quote

My position is that the fundamentalist ilk are predisposed psychologically to create villains. When you are taught and believe that you are unworthy unless you accept a certain faith, the only way to elevate self image is to create a group who are inferior - sinners, heathens, non-believers.

do you consider yourself fundamentalist, winston? you certainly seem predisposed to create villains (ie bush, neo-cons, etc), although i don't know that it's a psychological problem... in any case, while ones upbringing does play a role i think it's a mistake to assume that what you were taught about christianity is what others were taught, or that we all think and act based on teachings you received

pbleighton said:

They do boil down to prejudice. Being human, we all have prejudices. There are basically two responses you can have to your own prejudices:
1. *I'm not a bigot, I'm a realist*
2. *I will try to do better*

I wish I could say I always took the second approach.

ditto

[Winstonm]

Quote

I would only ask for truthfulness in reporting rather than hype and propaganda. Don't make out that this idiotic plot that had outdated intelligence, no explosives, and a plan that could not work because the fires would be limited in range is somehow as grand of success as stopping the attack on Pearl Harbor - which is what the U.S. attorney indicated with his ludicrous statement.


fine, but what crime should be charged (if any)? for that "retired idiot" as well as the one who plots to blow up an abortion clinic

In both cases you have crimes of conspiracy - depending on the circumstances the type of conspiracy could be different. There could be conspiracy to commit arson, conspiracy to destroy public property, conspiracy to commit murder...each charge would have to be decided by the evidence available.

IMO, conspiracy to commit a "terrorist act" is a non-definition.

Quote

but use either fundamentalist muslims or fundamentalist christians (the blowing up of abortion clinics)... do they both want life lived by their rules? what will make them stop wanting that?

This is what I question - why use only these two groups? I offered an example of one dictionary definition of terrorim, which to define terrorist would only need to have added to it the qualifying statement of "One who".

It might be a good exercise to list qualities of terrorists in order to determine the best definition?
My thoughts:
1) Terrorists are a minority, else they would not need to utilize terror.
2) Terror is a tactic utilized in lieu of warfare (Meaning, if the capacity for warfare were held, warfare would be chosen over terror.)
3) Terror is used to gain some political or sociological end.

Therefore, my simple definition of terrorist would be "One of a minority group that uses the tactics of terror in lieu of open warfare in order to effect a desired change on either politics or society."

Quote

do you consider yourself fundamentalist, winston? you certainly seem predisposed to create villains (ie bush, neo-cons, etc), although i don't know that it's a psychological problem... in any case, while ones upbringing does play a role i think it's a mistake to assume that what you were taught about christianity is what others were taught, or that we all think and act based on teachings you received

Not only is the effect about how you were taught but filtered again by how you interpreted the message - clearly not universally applicable.

However, in my view there is a cult-like singlemindedness in the closed minded type of fundamentalism that exaggerates any concept that supports that view while ignoring or vilifying any concept that is disruptive to that view. A good example of this is the convoluted efforts to discredit evolution and hold onto a belief in creationism. Another would be to insist on beliefs of both Muslims and Christians that centuries-old teachings have more validity than new knowledge gained over time.

I have other villains, as well. Osama bin Laden was certainly a villain as was Suddam Hussein. The one thing I try not to do is to justify actions based on a pre-existing bias for heros.

You understand my statements filtered through your own biases - is it villification or simply perceived villification because it opposes your views?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jun 3 2007, 11:01 AM, said:

Therefore, my simple definition of terrorist would be "One of a minority group that uses the tactics of terror in lieu of open warfare in order to effect a desired change on either politics or society."

ok, we differ in a couple of things... your definition doesn't include my opinions that the fight must be an undeclared war (i do not view war in the same light) or that the terrorist uses horrifying means without regard to who the victim is... maybe those are unstated yet understood in your definition, i don't know

Quote

You understand my statements filtered through your own biases - is it villification or simply perceived villification because it opposes your views?

i'm sorry, i don't understand your use of the word vilification... i don't vilify your views at all, if that's what you're saying, and i apologize if i come across as if i do

[Winstonm]

Quote

terrorist uses horrifying means without regard to who the victim is...

Yes, that, I thought, would go without saying as a terror tactic. The target could be an embassy, a ship, or a building....who gets killed and hurt is irrelevant to the terrorist.

Quote

your definition doesn't include my opinions that the fight must be an undeclared war

See how hard it is to communicate via language - I thought I had said the same thing - to me, "in lieu of war" expresses the same semtiment as "undeclared war". It is one group against another and whether this should be termed "war" is simply a matter of semantics, is it not?

The two complaints I have of your definition revolve around the concepts that no compromise is possible and that it is neverending until one group or the other is exterminated. My personal view on this is that it is a skewed definition that tries to justify the "global war on terror" by creating the false assumption that terrorists cannot compromise and only total expungement solves the problem. However, I also recognize that I am only guessing at a psychological motivation and could be entirely wrong in that assessment. One reason I believe that any attempt to justify the "global war on terror" via a terrorist definition is that Sinn Fein and the IRA would surely qualify as terrorist groups, at least at some point in time, but I do not believe either had or has designs on ruling or must be eradicated to eliminate the threat.

Even in war, a negotiated settlement can be reached.

Quote

i'm sorry, i don't understand your use of the word vilification... i don't vilify your views at all, if that's what you're saying, and i apologize if i come across as if i do

I would never need an apology for someone expressing his own views.

So what I was saying was that you made the claim the I villify Bush, neocons, ect, while I was simply trying to point out that what you perceive as my villification may only be your impression based on your own biases - just as what I construe as your complete support for the neo-cons may be a misimpresssion based on my own biases that sees any attempts to justify their actions as support, when in fact it may be a neutral stance or simply playing devil's advocate.

From my perspective, I do not hold my views as villification of Bush and the neocons just as I would guess you do not view your opinions as blanket support of the same. I do know that when nerves are touched, people get defensive. They get defensive when they feel they are being attacked. But it may not be an attack at all. It depends on which pair of glasses we wear.

[jtfanclub]

The best example of a successful Terrorist group would be Irgun. Note that when they started it was generally believed that their success would be impossible as well.

[Al_U_Card]

I wonder if there are any records of the exchanges between Roman citizens about their dithering and arguments concerning the impending invasions of the barbarian hordes?

You can't stop one determined man but you can stop the freedom of an entire society.....so when will martial law be declared, anyway?