what is terrorism?

[RidonKs]

my image, not the author's


tell us professor

The Reign of Terror by Tomis Kapitan

(i can't quote the whole essay unfortunately but here are a few key passages)

This is merely the latest example of a powerful rhetoric centered on the word "terrorism" that has shaped -- and continues to shape -- popular conceptions about contemporary political conflicts, making it difficult to speak intelligently about their real sources.

If individuals and groups are portrayed as irrational, barbaric, and beyond the pale of negotiation and compromise, as this rhetoric would have it, then asking why they resort to terrorism is viewed as pointless, needlessly accommodating, or, at best, mere pathological curiosity. Those normally inclined to ask "Why?" are in danger of being labeled "soft" on terrorism, while the militant use the "terrorist" label to blur the distinction between critical examination and appeasement.

[QUOTE]

[MavsSuperFan]

To me its an attack meant to cause fear in order to promote the cause of a non-state actor.

Its very similar to an act of war, which to me is the same thing by a state actor.

[RidonKs]

To me its an attack meant to cause fear in order to promote the cause of a non-state actor.

Its very similar to an act of war, which to me is the same thing by a state actor.

i agree except i see no reason for the distinction you are making. if we are being perfectly honest with ourselves, we know that 'terrorism' is a much dirtier word than 'war'. thats why there is a 'just war theory' but no 'just terrorism theory'. there is a reason for the popular conception that terrorism can only apply to non-state actors... it's because the state actors responsible for most of the terror in world history do not want such a dirty word associated with their crimes.


here are a few official definitions we can probably agree on

“the unlawful use of force and 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”

The use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public, or a section of the public; made for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; and it involves or causes

both of these are more or less agreeable definitions in my opinion.

yet have a quick look at the wikipedia page for "Definitions of Terrorism". the definition that the article quotes -- and that you agree with since it uses your same state/nonstate distinction -- comes from the US State Department.

now why the hell is so much thought being poured into defining this term?

most likely because in order to make the official definition of a widely used and widely (mis)understood term like terrorism apply only to your al-qaeda's and pkk's and muslim brotherhoods, and not to your reagan administrations (mid 80s) and your begin israeli governments (early 80s), you need to tweak and refine and 'sophisticate' it to the point where it no longer makes any sense. which is exactly what happens and exactly why the public is so confused about what terrorism actually is... even though they know what it is on pure intuition because its not a particularly complicated concept.

all of this also helps to explain why somebody like saaaay nelson mandela was on the us terrorist list up until i think only a few years ago.

[MavsSuperFan]

i agree except i see no reason for the distinction you are making. if we are being perfectly honest with ourselves, we know that 'terrorism' is a much dirtier word than 'war'. thats why there is a 'just war theory' but no 'just terrorism theory'. there is a reason for the popular conception that terrorism can only apply to non-state actors... it's because the state actors responsible for most of the terror in world history do not want such a dirty word associated with their crimes.


here are a few official definitions we can probably agree on




both of these are more or less agreeable definitions in my opinion.

yet have a quick look at the wikipedia page for "Definitions of Terrorism". the definition that the article quotes -- and that you agree with since it uses your same state/nonstate distinction -- comes from the US State Department.

now why the hell is so much thought being poured into defining this term?

most likely because in order to make the official definition of a widely used and widely (mis)understood term like terrorism apply only to your al-qaeda's and pkk's and muslim brotherhoods, and not to your reagan administrations (mid 80s) and your begin israeli governments (early 80s), you need to tweak and refine and 'sophisticate' it to the point where it no longer makes any sense. which is exactly what happens and exactly why the public is so confused about what terrorism actually is... even though they know what it is on pure intuition because its not a particularly complicated concept.

all of this also helps to explain why somebody like saaaay nelson mandela was on the us terrorist list up until i think only a few years ago.

State actors are usually more legitimate with a wider base of support. Also they are easier to hold responsible for their actions in the sense that they cant hide.

War is a very dirty word

'just terrorism theory'

We disagree I think just terrorism could potentially exists. And if my biases were different might even be common.

Eg. Arguably our founding fathers were terrorists.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I am somewhat sympathetic to the Kurdish PkK and the former IRA

many people (not me) are sympathetic towards hamas

What one considers a just war/terrorism is entirely based on one's biases.

Eg. probably there were many germans that thought hitler was fighting a just war. Many japanese that felt conqueroring china was just, many russians that think moving troops into eastern ukraine is just, etc.

[RidonKs]

Eg. probably there were many germans that thought hitler was fighting a just war

funny you should bring that up. know what the nazis called the resistors in paris and italy and across the rest of europe? why terrorists of course. the word has a very long history.


you misunderstood me. i invoked the hypothetical "just terrorism theory" not to suggest it can't exist, but to point out that it doesn't exist and to demonstrate that the reason it doesn't exist is because 'terrorism' is too dirty of a word. you can't put it next to something like 'justice', people will be too confused. of course 'war' is a dirty word too... especially compared to 'cottage cheese'. but academics and pundits and politicians and analysts and average joes all accept wholeheartedly that there can be such a thing as 'just war' and that such a compound concept is perfectly reasonable. none of them would say the same thing about 'just terror'. because between the two, terrorism carries with it far more emotional baggage. that is all of course merely in my opinion and i have no evidence to bank on but my own experience. disagree if you would like and disregard the next paragraph if u do.

if it is the case that terrorism and war are two sides of the exact same coin divided solely into whether the actor carrying out the violence has status or nonstate status, it seems oddly troubling that one should carry more baggage than the other. compiled with the fact that most of the violence throughout history and certainly in the past century has been wrought by state actors makes these observations even more unsettling.

What one considers a just war/terrorism is entirely based on one's biases.

that's just another way of saying everybody has an opinion and nobody can be wrong. i really hate that fking word "bias". it is used solely to excuse opinionated argumentation with no substantial basis or empirical evidence.

[shlver]

https://www.globalpolicy.org/compone...154/26773.html

Last month, Scott McConnell caught up with Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice. Pape has found that the most common American perceptions about who the terrorists are and what motivates them are off by a wide margin. In his office is the world's largest database of information about suicide terrorists, rows and rows of manila folders containing articles and biographical snippets in dozens of languages compiled by Pape and teams of graduate students, a trove of data that has been sorted and analyzed and which underscores the great need for reappraising the Bush administration's current strategy. Below are excerpts from a conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American.

Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.

TAC: Does al-Qaeda have the capacity to launch attacks on the United States, or are they too tied down in Iraq? Or have they made a strategic decision not to attack the United States, and if so, why?

RP: Al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the United States in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence. The document says that al-Qaeda should not try to attack the continent of the United States in the short term but instead should focus its energies on hitting America's allies in order to try to split the coalition.

What the document then goes on to do is analyze whether they should hit Britain, Poland, or Spain. It concludes that they should hit Spain just before the March 2004 elections because, and I am quoting almost verbatim: Spain could not withstand two, maximum three, blows before withdrawing from the coalition, and then others would fall like dominoes.

That is exactly what happened. Six months after the document was produced, al-Qaeda attacked Spain in Madrid. That caused Spain to withdraw from the coalition. Others have followed. So al-Qaeda certainly has demonstrated the capacity to attack and in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. Al-Qaeda is not weaker now. Al-Qaeda is stronger.

TAC: What do you think the chances are of a weapon of mass destruction being used in an American city?

RP: I think it depends not exclusively, but heavily, on how long our combat forces remain in the Persian Gulf. The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack

Very interesting interview I found on google.

[Patrick Chewing]

According to President Barack Hussein Obama, nothing is terrorism.


Just some rambunctious youths.

[MavsSuperFan]

funny you should bring that up. know what the nazis called the resistors in paris and italy and across the rest of europe? why terrorists of course. the word has a very long history.


you misunderstood me. i invoked the hypothetical "just terrorism theory" not to suggest it can't exist, but to point out that it doesn't exist and to demonstrate that the reason it doesn't exist is because 'terrorism' is too dirty of a word. you can't put it next to something like 'justice', people will be too confused. of course 'war' is a dirty word too... especially compared to 'cottage cheese'. but academics and pundits and politicians and analysts and average joes all accept wholeheartedly that there can be such a thing as 'just war' and that such a compound concept is perfectly reasonable. none of them would say the same thing about 'just terror'. because between the two, terrorism carries with it far more emotional baggage. that is all of course merely in my opinion and i have no evidence to bank on but my own experience. disagree if you would like and disregard the next paragraph if u do.

if it is the case that terrorism and war are two sides of the exact same coin divided solely into whether the actor carrying out the violence has status or nonstate status, it seems oddly troubling that one should carry more baggage than the other. compiled with the fact that most of the violence throughout history and certainly in the past century has been wrought by state actors makes these observations even more unsettling.

that's just another way of saying everybody has an opinion and nobody can be wrong. i really hate that fking word "bias". it is used solely to excuse opinionated argumentation with no substantial basis or empirical evidence.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

funny you should bring that up. know what the nazis called the resistors in paris and italy and across the rest of europe? why terrorists of course. the word has a very long history.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Terrorism is not that much dirtier to me than war. I know it is to most people.

if it is the case that terrorism and war are two sides of the exact same coin divided solely into whether the actor carrying out the violence has status or nonstate status, it seems oddly troubling that one should carry more baggage than the other. compiled with the fact that most of the violence throughout history and certainly in the past century has been wrought by state actors makes these observations even more unsettling.

The difference between a state and a non-state is significant imo. State actors often have much more legitimacy and almost always have a wide base of support. Non-state actors can easily hide and are sometimes a single person or a small group. Eg. the Boston bombers. States cannot hide and are easier to hold responsible for their actions.

After 9/11 al-qaeda hid and it was very hard for the united states to exact retribution/what we consider justice.

After pearl harbor imperial japan did not hide. The United states was fully aware the leadership of the empire of japan was located in Tokyo

Germany committed many atrocious acts of war. Their leadership's location was known to everyone.

[Nanners]

I always find it strange when people say the terrorists want to "take our freedom".

In response to terrorism we came up with things like the TSA, the Patriot Act, our massive NSA spy programs... we have given up our freedom willingly due to terrorism.

Does that mean the terrorists are winning?

[MavsSuperFan]

I always find it strange when people say the terrorists want to "take our freedom".

In response to terrorism we came up with things like the TSA, the Patriot Act, our massive NSA spy programs... we have given up our freedom willingly due to terrorism.

Does that mean the terrorists are winning?

Its an idiotic talking point no serious politician actually believes. islamic radicals primarily want us to abandon our interests (supporting pro american dictators and israel) in the middle east and as a secondary goal for islam to dominate the world.

[Nanners]

Its an idiotic talking point no serious politician actually believes. islamic radicals primarily want us to abandon our interests (supporting pro american dictators and israel) in the middle east and as a secondary goal for islam to dominate the world.

isnt that taking away freedom?

[MavsSuperFan]

isnt that taking away freedom?

Not in the way we are currently doing so, we are being very secular in how we are violating the civil rights of citizens

[Nanners]

Not in the way we are currently doing so, we are being very secular in how we are violating the civil rights of citizens

lol, well said.

[SCdac]

Good examples: OKC Bombing, Boston Marathon bombing, 9/11, bombings at abortion clinics, the suicide-bombings we see in various parts of the middle east. ISIS burying women and children alive in radical jihad, Hamas kidnapping and murder of 3 teenagers in Israel, or farther back the Munich massacre by a different radical palestinian organization. Just in general, kidnapping civilians for some kind of ideological/nationalistic/political reason I consider terrorism. Westgate Mall terrorism in Kenya was quite clearly terrorism. Many countries all over the world have harbored, bred,or experienced terrorism in some way, could go down the list and it's alot...(thinking America or Israel are the sole root to global terrorism is so myopic and farcical I'm not gonna even address it). Can't discount how brainwashed and/or psychotic and/or devoted to violence these folks or organizations really are and that's not exclusive to any nationality or religion.... wide-scale continuous or semi-continuous killing, conquering or invasion of land in wars, ethnic cleansing, murderous dictatorship, etc, I'm hesitant to plainly call "terrorism". Hesitant to call the Iraq or Afghanistan war "terrorism" even though a fringe amount of our troops raped and consciously killed civilians. The word loses it's meaning if you chose to apply it to everything.... How a governing body responds to terrorism on a macro or micro level, and militarily, is almost a completely different topic/thread imo. I'm as angered about NSA, TSA, etc, as the next person but shit i've been debating about proper balance of security and freedom for over a decade with my family and friends and will probably continue to my whole life. Countless discussions about adverse effects of drone strikes and civilian casualties in war... Meaning, I don't think perpetually keeping our government in check automatically equates to "terrorism doesn't exist".

[RidonKs]

(thinking America or Israel are the sole root to global terrorism is so myopic and farcical I'm not gonna even address it)

Meaning, I don't think perpetually keeping our government in check automatically equates to "terrorism doesn't exist"

neither the other nor i said anything of the sort

your post is all well and good tho, besides those two misrepresentations of what i said. i disagree with some of it -- not the fact that mcveigh was a terrorist but the fact that the war in afghanistan wasn't terrorism. i can go into that in a bit of depth if you'd like.

but mostly i was hoping posters exactly like yourself and mavssuperfan, well-read well-meaning posters who i happen to disagree with, would read the essay and respond. it's a very thorough piece.