What Makes a Terrorist?

[Winstonm]

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.

 

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

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.

[luke warm]

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 don't believe bush to be anywhere close to being a terrorist, although i also have been frightened by many of the new laws / executive decisions since 9/11... i believe our freedoms in this country have been whittled away, in the name of security, and i disagree with the concept... it will only get worse, i'm afraid

 

winston:

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.

i'm sorry winston but this puts us back at the starting point... what injustices? what is 'just'? in whose eyes? 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

[pbleighton]

"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"."

 

Again, Mike, how is this relevant to whether Bush is.. well, anything?

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

I do not think Bush is a terrorist - War criminal, yes. Delusional, yes.

 

I agree we cannot pin the blame on Bush - it was the U.S.A. that put him in office, and that is all of us who have the right to vote.

 

I originally was in favor of the war as I believed the Bush/Cheney/Powell claims of WMD, etc. I really didn't think all of them would propogate such a massive lie - I was wrong.

 

I think there is some validity to Mike's idea concerning lack of citizenship - the most formative time in life is the early years and children can be cruel - I would imagine that there is some degree of "better than you" mentality in the children due to nationalization - the parents perhaps inadvertantly instill it with jokes and inuendos.

 

I agree with Jimmy that the laws passed since 9-11 are frightening. In my view these laws are a greater threat to freedom than any terrorist group ever could be.

The fact that the laws have been passed to me means the terrorists have already won - the new Congress I hope has the nerve to undo this madness.

 

Yet I still believe that in the acts of terrorism lie a basis of injustices - injustices in the eyes of the terrorists if not the world.

 

Perhaps if I gave a homegrown example my meaning might be better understood - the Oklahoma City Murrow Building bombing by McVeigh and Nichols.

 

That bombing was carried out as a result of the perceived injustices of the actions taken by the ATF, FBI, and the federal government against the Davidians.

 

I will save time by cutting to the chase - who or why the fire started is irrelevant - the point of Waco (if you have read extensively) was a trumped up charge in order to have a huge ATF victory filmed by the media just before Congressional budgets were to be finalized.

 

It was this usage of admitedly an "odd" group via police action for political gain that is the heart of the injustice - the way to prevent a future repeat of the OKC bonbing comes in a revamping of the actions of the ATF to make certain that rights are not trampled and all citizens, no matter how odd, are treated fairly and legally. It is not the ordinary joe who needs his rights protected - it is the one who is at the edge of society who has most need of the freedoms the Constitution grants.

 

If the ATF had not been so "hell bent" on headlines before the budget there never would have been a Waco tragedy and therefore no need for McVeigh/Nichols to look for revenge.

 

This is what I mean by understanding the injustices - terrorists have a motive and sometimes that motive can be genuine, although never justifying the terrorist act.

To reduce hostility in the world, the best bet is to reduce anger, and the best way to reduce anger is to treat all in fairness.

[mike777]

I have not seen the movie but there is a French movie out there that takes this European immigrant issue to an extreme conclusion. I am not sure of the title but I bet someone can google it, Block 17?

[the hog]

"This post explains alot to those of us who thought some of the posts(not yours) were close to insane."

 

Lol. Well thats something anyway. Whether you regard Bush as a terrorist or not depends on your definition of that word. It fits mine.

 

To digress a little: What I do want you to realise is that these comments are not "Yank bashing". Quite the contrary; I count some Americans among my very good friends.

 

I feel the same way about the current Australian Govt and our current Prime Minister who over the past 10 years has totally changed the face of this country to be a mean spirited caricature of itself. The generosity and welcoming attitude of Australians is a thing of the past. Many of us are ashamed of the inhumane incarceration of asylum seekers in this country. Yes you get the government you deserve; unfortunately I have this government and I certainly did not vote for it.

[Al_U_Card]

As previously mentioned, terrorism is as much timing as it is method and reason. The use of violence or intimidation or threat or lucre qualifies the individual for categorization as a terrorist until he has "won". Terrorists only exist as long as they have yet to win. Once they have won they can be reclassified as patriots or freedom fighters or warriors or mercenaries, as you will.

[Winstonm]

Came across this and thought it might add something to this thread:

 

"Now, Bush is broadening the war’s parameters yet again, depicting the goal of his Middle East policy as defeating “radicals and extremists,” categories that are even more elastic than the word “terrorist.”

 

At a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Dec. 7, Bush said, “I believe we’re in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists.” Bush has repeated this formulation in other recent public appearances, including at his news conference of Dec. 20 when he portrayed the fight against “radicals and extremists” as a long-term test of American manhood....

 

In other words, the war against “terrorist groups of global reach,” which became the “global war on terrorism,” now has morphed into what might be called the “global war on radicals and extremists,” a dramatic escalation of the war’s ambitions with nary a comment from the U.S. news media.

 

So, under Bush’s new war framework, the enemy doesn’t necessarily have to commit or plot acts of international terrorism or even local acts of terrorism. It only matters that Bush judges the person to be a “radical” or an “extremist.” While the word “terrorism” is open to abuse – under the old adage “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” – the definition of “radical” or “extremist” is even looser. It all depends on your point of view. "

[Al_U_Card]

We all know the meaning and import of "circus maximus". What we have here is a combination of linguistic legerdemain, mysanthropic mesmerism and bilateral belligerance. Unlike another type of "manhood" this little dick continues to follow the instructions of Big Dick.