Your definition. Please say, for I do not know. I never felt that feeling. I've been scared but not actually terrorized, so I don't know about that. And I'm not sure what anyone else means when they say it.
I'd say it'd have to be massive
I'd have to be ideologically motivated
I'd have to be utterly unpredictably random
I'd have to be universally contemptibly psychopathic
Id' have to require a lot of nefarious planning
Louis Jacobson writing for politifact.
Our government calls it different things
* Cabinet departments focus on civilians but State Department includes noncombatant targets, cafes and facilities of off-duty service personnel, military installations.
* FBI abortion clinics, medical research facilities, business, property damage motivated by ideology
* Homeland Security critical infrastructure and mass destruction
* Defense threat more than actual acts of violence, cites religion
That's just the government.
Peter Spiro, Temple University law professor points out our immigration policy defines it so broadly it excludes someone who gives $5.00 to Hamas' humanitarian arm. [come on, bad example there]
Steven Ratner U. Michigan law professor notes United Nations is stuck because some countries want exemptions for liberation movements.
Terrorism scholar Walter Laqueur, concludes no all-embracing definition will ever be found because there is not one terrorism, the terrorism that can be talked about is not the true terrorism, but there have been many terrorisms, by many names, greatly differing in time and space, in motivation, and in manifestations and aims. I'm sorry, he had me going there and I couldn't help making up 25% of that. You'll have to sort it yourself, but it's close.
He continues, used to be terrorism had a code of honor but nowadays it's different, everybody blowing everything up willy-nilly, nobody can make sense of it.
So now even terrorists don't want to be associated with terrorism, they want to be called freedom fighters, insurgent, revolutionary, rebel, militant, anything but terrorist.
Jacobson continues, governments like having loose definitions to broaden their options for responding and once something is labeled terrorism then hard-edge responses are justified.
And governments will deny something is terrorism because they agree with the goal.
Governments benefit from the belief that terrorism is caused by non-state actors.
Allied bombing of civilians to induce their governments to end the war is terrorism.
It's a good piece, but reaches no conclusion, alas, no definition for you, and probably supports the position of never reading an article with a ? in the title.
This concludes the brief synopsis, a word meaning "general view" that came from a stem synoran "to see altogether", the syn part meaning "together"
This concludes the etymology of the word synopsis.
Etymology is the study of the origin of words
This concludes the definition of etymology.
83 comments:
Meade is a terrorist here.
Names for the royal baby.
My bet is Mohammed.
The terrible twos.
That's what the movie needed.
I haven't seen it but I gather there is no terroist.
Years ago, before the Madrid bombing, Pedro would have put in a terrorist.
Poor old Derrida was a philosophical terrorist, according to the old school.
Quine couldn't contain his dislike.
somehere Sir,
But most say this is not an accident, rather a case of arson.
In this story the word terrorism does not appear. There must have been some ingredients missing apparently.
Organized crime had a code of honor. Nice business you have here.
Modern terrorists want news coverage.
Women are necessary to make it pay the networks to cover it.
WWII bombings went without news coverage and needed to do actual damage to get anywhere.
Once beaten twice shy.
When everyone's a terrorist, no one is.
Sexty Grunt said...
Meade is a terrorist here.
Yes. Meade lives in Sexty's head rent-free. Sexty is terrorized.
In Women on the Verge Almodovar put in a scene of a woman (duh) describing her encounter with a terrorist. It is the best scene in the movie. the actress got it just right.
Candela y Los chiitas
Sorry it doesn't have subtitle, it is very funny.
In those days, terrorism, terrorist could be portrayed comedically. Not today.
Terror firma.
He who fling mud lost ground.
It's the war on admiration.
You are on dry land. You made it there somehow.
You're a big girl now.
We need more attention to the just word, as the French say.
One of the being-cool parts of late 007 Bond is asking for favors from former KGB adversaries and getting it.
War without hatred is not coldheartedness.
One could look for parallels.
Is Althouse/Meade the KGB and but the cold war is over.
Who is Obama.
Poor old Quine made the mistake of saying Derrida used such nonsense as logical phallusies.
The mistake was that Derrida never said that.
This makes you look like an idiot.
The other problem, if you look for nonsense to quote in Derrida, is that if you write it out, it makes sense.
One reason to read Derrida by copying it out.
Off the top of my head, as opposed to off with my head, a child is born and I don't know his name yet.
Off the top of my head there are two types of terrorist those that don't call ahead and those that call ahead.
If I have that correctly, there was only one description for both. Terrorist.
Oh no... is the imprecision thing again.
Rent-free is all you can afford, you broke-ass bum.
LOOSERS!
Derrida on terror
What appears to me unacceptable in the ``strategy'' (in terms of weapons, practices, ideology, rhetoric, discourse, and so on) of the ``bin Laden effect'' is not only the cruelty, the disregard for human life, the disrespect for the law, for women, the use of what is worst in technocapitalist modernity for the purposes of religious fanaticism. No, it is, above all, the fact that such actions and such discourse _open onto no future and, in my view, have no future_. If we are to put any faith in the perfectibility of public space and of the world juridico-political scene, of the ``world'' itself, then there is, it seems to me, _nothing good_ to be hoped for from that quarter. What is being proposed, at least implicitly, is that all captialist and modern technoscientific forces be put in the service of an interpretation, itself dogmatic, of the Islamic revelation of the One. Nothing of what has been so laboriously secularized in even the nontheological form of sovereignty (...), none of this seems to have any place whatsoever in the discourse ``bin Laden.'' That is why, in this unleashing of violence without name, if I had to take one of the two sides and choose in a binary situation, well I would. Despite my very strong reservations about the American, indeed European, political posture, about the ``international terrorist'' coalition, despite all the de facto betrayals, all the failures to live up to democracy, international law, and the very international institutions that the states of this ``coalition'' themselves founded and supported up to a certain point, I would take the side of the camp that, in principle, by right of law, leaves a perspective open to perfectibility in the name of the ``political,'' democracy, international law, international institutions, and so forth. Even if this ``in the name of'' is still merely an assertion and a purely verbal committment. Even in its most cynical mode, such an assertion still lets resonate within it an invincible promise. I don't hear any such promise coming from ``bin Laden,'' at least not one in this world.
``Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides'' _Philosophy in a Time of Terror_ p.113
Idea for a play.
A terrorist finds AA.
American Airlines is defunct. So, maybe is not AA.
What is it? it can't be a comedy.
There is no more comedy.
Terrorism is politics by nihilists.
To me a terrorist is some one who commits violence against noncombatants and bystanders for the purpose of creating terror in the minds of the public, for what ever reason. I have given this a lot of thought because of the claim that one man's terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I think this is not a valid point of view. Although some freedom fighters may also be terrorists, they needn't be. Real freedom fighters attack targets that can shoot back and take care to avoid civilian casualties. Terrorists don't care, or go out their way to kill civilians.
If we accept the Jihadi point of view that they are at war with Western Civilization and moderate Muslims, Then when they attack civilians, they are not so much terrorists as war criminals.
What is terrorism?
Death by thousand cuts.
"American Airlines is defunct"
Should've sought their higher power. instead, they failed to keep altitude and air speed. Must've had some Obama-like at the stick.
I would say that terrorism requires:
A) Force or threat of force
B) By illegitimate political actors
C) Against undeclared combatants [this can include military personnel during non-declared war]
D) With the intent to force/coerce political change.
Though, this may be too broad.
I say deliberately targeting civilians and noncombatants is what makes it terrorism. If civilians and noncombatants get in the crosshairs of a drone attacking a mid- to high-level AQ representative, that may be immoral, wrong, unethical, even murder, but wouldn't call it terrorism.
Terrorist aren't interested in landing.
The Hillary transition team will be a joke.
"Terrorist[s] aren't interested in landing. "
Exactamente.
Someone should one day put together a book of Lem-isms. Terse wisdom, humble goodness.
I don't recall that the IRA had suicide bombers.
They also tended to call.
I forget what settled it, or who won, or what it was about.
Probably having to listen to royal baby birth watches.
Hearne's law: Whenever there's a stink in the media about something, it's there because some charity or politician wants it there.
Thanks for that correction Meade.
Precision is a good thing.
Oh oh there I go with terse wisdom again.
According to the town crier announcing the royal baby birth, there will be six more weeks of bad weather.
Probably having to listen to royal baby birth watches.
Does he have a name yet?
Butch
Precise is cutting.
Premise is sending.
Chip Ahoy...
Wow...excellent post.
That is really a lot to mull over.
Maybe basically all I can do is describe how I have come to define it.
Terrorism always involves civilians.
Terrorism always evolves, invents--breaks norms, laws and boundaries.
Now--this particular sentence needs bitch slapped backwards, forwards and sideways--
Governments benefit from the belief that terrorism is caused by non-state actors.
That's not a "belief" that has been proven by example over and over again.
First you have to define--"what is a state?"
Then you have to segue to--"what is a legitimate state?"
Then you have to accept that there will be exemptions.
I think the better question to ask--the more fruitful pursuit is not to get bogged down in the "lawyerly" and ask what is the definition of terrorism--the better question would be--
"what makes terrorism successful?"
Modern terrorists want news coverage.
********
There is a symbiotic relationship.
Without modern media terrorists would not be able to spread fear.
(1) I broke with tradition and saw the first "Lord of the Rings" at the movie theater.
It was right after the terrorist attacks on 9-11.
One of the advertisements for "coming attractions" was some movie where dark, ethnic Lesley Snipes chained white, not-too-ethnic Linda Fiorentino to a park bench and menaced her from a distance with a sniper rifle and some kind of communications system.
Bad timing, was the general consensus, I believe.
(2) "One ought not speak of halters in a hanged man's house."
-- Miguel de Cervantes
I'm in the Pacific. time zone..cripes.
meant to say--
you have to accept that there will be exceptions.
There is a symbiotic relationship.
Without modern media terrorists would not be able to spread fear.
I don't know. I get the point about the untrustworthy media but people have no doubt employing terrorism tactics forever, even in tribal units.
The use of unconventional tactics whose primary value is instilling fear in the targeted group. Most often targets civilians, but not exclusively. (i.e. Khobar Towers.)
I don't know. I get the point about the untrustworthy media but people have no doubt employing terrorism tactics forever, even in tribal units.
*******
True, but the Information Age has made terrorism all the more successful.
Speaking of "terror" and the press.
Drudge has one of his picture scenes where it looks like the pope is getting shot at.
Althouse will probably catch it, if she hasn't already.
Like racism, terrorism has become a cottage industry. There are a lot of useful idiots in politics and statecraft all around the world who enrich themselves by employing these perpetrators to their own ends. Besides, it is a way to keep the little people occupied while big people loot in plain sight. A second name for it should be pseudo-political grievance industry -- enough to rile little people up but never to solve it. They are not interested in solving the underlying issues because that would kill their goose that lays the golden eggs.
OT, but Instapundit has been offline for updating for me since last night, anyone else?
Terrorism is war without rules of engagement.
There are no constraints against attacking civilians (sometimes that's the whole point, but I don't think that's by definition.)
There are no representative governments that can negotiate the peace.
These are the reasons that it is barbaric and should be intolerable among civilized nations.
OT, but Instapundit has been offline for updating for me since last night, anyone else?
Not only is he updating, but it looks like he's added ... comments!!!
Terrorism is an "ism," that is, an ideology, and it is an ideology of instilling terror and fear in people and populations, with the intention of prompting some political change, by the use of violence usually against innocent civilians and non-combatants, but sometimes also against unsuspecting military targets during peacetime or otherwise under non-combat conditions.
C Stanley you know I don't disagree but what I'd like to see is someone make the best possible argument FOR terrorism, and then rebut it. IMO you can't simply say "There's nothing to the terrorists' rationalization," you have to at least attempt to prove it.
Google instapundit and change your bookmark. The old address doesn't link correctly to the new one.
Not only is he updating, but it looks like he's added ... comments!!!
Is true.
Insta has opened comments.
Funny thing about Insty this morning is I can get to individual posts, but the main page gives me a "working on the blog" message."
The crowd is too big at PJ.
Commenting there is like trying to shout things in a stadium full of people. And most of the things that get said are inane. There never can be any real discussion started.
Ace is even worse in that regard.
Phx- interestingly I was thinking of doing just that but honestly was a bit concerned that I'd get angry pushback if it seemed that I was justifying terrorism (esp because I'm not well known around here and people might take it the wrong way.)
In short, I can easily see why people living in certain parts of the world resort to terrorism. It is the mindset of powerlessness needing to acquire and wield power to change one's conditions.
But aside from that being insufficient to clear the moral hurdle, the point that I raised is relevant to this, I think: that without a government to negotiate peace, terrorism is a dead end for change. It becomes, like the Palestinian situation, in my opinion, an end instead of a means.
There is something to be said for more choices isn't there?
I'm not shouting them from this rooftop but they are there, they exist and if something is going to be said the more places available to say them at the better.
In short, I can easily see why people living in certain parts of the world resort to terrorism. It is the mindset of powerlessness needing to acquire and wield power to change one's conditions.
Among the problems with that, though are that those who enable the people actually doing the terrorizing typically do not lack power. Zawahiri, bin Laden, for example were wealthy. They use those in desperate circumstances to attain their goals, and do everything they can to keep people in horrible circumstances so they've got an ever ready supply of suicide commandos. If those who finance terrorism wanted to end those terrible circumstances for the palestinians and others, it would be easy enough. They just don't want to.
Never forget, Yasser Arafat was a billionaire.
True, Patrick, but wealth doesn't equal power.
I certainly agree though, that the leaders of terrorist movements tend to build their own power bases and need to keep others impoverished and miserable in order to maintain their own status. That was the "ends not means" part of my comment.
True, Patrick, but wealth doesn't equal power.
That's exactly right. Arafat's billion $ does not equal empowerment for the Palestinians, even if he wanted it to.
That's exactly right. Arafat's billion $ does not equal empowerment for the Palestinians, even if he wanted it to.
Right, but do you think he has any real incentive to change the system? Why mess with a good thing? Do you think he was serving the Palestinians? I do not.
It is the same as with people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They make their money by exploiting racial tension, some of which exists, some of which doesn't. If it all magically disappeared, what would they do?
PHX's first comment didn't convince me, but his second one did. Advantage: PHX! ;)
Patrick- in both of those cases, I think you have to separately examine the motivations of the hustlers and the hustlees. I have a litttle more sympathy for the latter, and also think that if anything productive can come from understanding our enemies it is more instructive to look at those who are led to do these things rather than the leaders who are self serving.
The first people to use the term "terrorists" were Robespierre and his friends in the French Revolution (Reign de Terreur), but primitive warfare has always relied on terror, so it's as old as man himself.
Any strategem that involves using fear induced by a threat or act of violence to destroy some one else's resolve is technically terorism.
it is more instructive to look at those who are led to do these things rather than the leaders who are self serving.
I agree. They just need to get better leaders. Of course, that's not limited to them!
If Insty later closes comments and some enterprising reader creates an alternative commenting site will it cause Ms Helen to climb to the top of Crazy Mountain?
I sure hope not because she seems like a nice lady.
But I've been fooled before so who knows.
PHX's first comment didn't convince me, but his second one did. Advantage: PHX! ;)
Don't make me have to say it a third time.
Great post, Lem. Not much to add after all the chewing by the commenters. Just wanted to encourage you to with the blog.
Just caught myself, congrats to Chip...
And Lem...
Rabel, Rabel...your face is a mess.
Sorry if you heard that one already. New to me
Rabel said...
If Insty later closes comments and some enterprising reader creates an alternative commenting site will it cause Ms Helen to climb to the top of Crazy Mountain?
I sure hope not because she seems like a nice lady.
Any woman who can wear a T-shirt that says, "Death. Been there, done that.", has lots of sand in her craw.
"Sorry if you heard that one already. New to me"
No I hadn't and I am greatly disappointed in myself for not thinking of it.
Hot Tramp would be a great internet name. Inga, are you listening?
There was a splinter IRA group in London during the Battle of Britain. Even while the Luftwaffe were dropping their heavy bombs, the IRA faction was planting pipe bombs in telephone booths. You've got to admire their optimism.....I wonder if terrorists ever consider the examples of Iraq and, now, Syria before strapping on their bombs. It doesn't seem like an effective tactic. Or perhaps the utter craziness and hopelessness of these countries inspires more suicide bombers.
Terrorism is the leading cause of terrorism.
Terrorism is a force multiplier tactic.
That's what it is.
We've changed the definition to be something closer to guerrilla warfare or what amounts to spectacular vandalism. You see... in a case of spectacular vandalism (yes I just made up that term) the destruction is the end goal and purpose. And maybe part of that is to make people afraid... of YOU. In the case of guerrilla warfare the destruction and tactic is for the biggest bang for an underpowered buck... so a bomb or a raid or whatever is also the end goal, or at least part of the goal of winning.
Terrorism, OTOH, has as it's main purpose a method of psychological warfare that turns the opposing power (usually of the state) against itself. Instead of being afraid of the perpetrators, the purpose is to turn opinion against the target. Hearts and Minds. The idea is to provoke an intemperate response. Everyone's heard me say many times that the purpose of 9-11 was to provoke the US president (who was portrayed overseas by our "loyal opposition" as dangerously unstable) into ordering an atrocity. It really didn't matter what that atrocity was, but bombing Mecca would have been the best *from the terrorists point of view*. Hearts and Minds.
(Some people were upset that Bush went on his "Religion of Peace" podium after, but this is why. The force multiplier tactic was to force the US into an international posture as an enemy of Islam. When your enemy wants you do to something, you do the opposite. Bin Laden never got his Global Army to usher in Islamic global dominance... he got an insurgency and bombs strapped to the mentally ill.)
The original terrorists... the Weather Underground, Charles Manson, Baader Meinhof, etc., did their murders, planted their bombs, kidnapped their victims... in order to trigger an uprising against the State. The message was "the State can't keep you safe" and when the State tried by putting soldiers on the street or cracking down, the state, being the state, would stomp around indiscriminately in jack boots. Manson so much as said that he was framing blacks for the Sharon Tate murder so that the jack booted thugs would attack the black community as a whole and blacks would finally DO something and rise up!
Because you have to get your army from somewhere and in general terms populations (even in the middle east today) are simply not interested in *being* your army.
So what you try to do is get your enemy to nuke Mecca.
"I have given this a lot of thought because of the claim that one man's terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter."
We've got a term for "freedom fighters" that use tactics suited to a small force opposing a large force. We call this guerrilla warfare. There may be local violence and intimidation and some really nasty stuff to force assistance from the population, but it's one force fighting another force.
Domestic terrorists no doubt think of themselves as freedom fighters, but they attack innocents in order to provoke ever more oppression by the State. The idea being that if conditions can only be made BAD enough, that other people will finally realize what they (being more enlightened) have already discovered is true.
Non-domestic terrorists... pretty much the same thing.
Interesting, Synova. I can't help noticing how frequently that tactic is now used rhetorically in our politics; ie, throwing speech bombs to rile up opposition.
Now that Obama is president there is no chance that is going to happen, because Obama is very smart. He didn't get that Nobel peace prize to license him to launch wars. Hillary, the next president, is smatter.
Wait a minute.
Shouldn't garage be here saying this. At least his hart is in it.
As our future president once said...
What difference, at this point, does it (anything) make?
Terror is a tactic. Without looking up the history of the word, I'd say "terrorism" is a modern word describing groups that seem to have little more about them beyond terror tactics. Yet we don't speak of Soviet "terrorism" but Soviet "terror."
To me, the larger question has to do with the progressive shedding of principles of just war. As a result, there is a good deal of hypocrisy about these issues. The U.S. is against terror; but our government was willing to use torture. Not the same, I agree, but on a sliding scale of ends-justifying-the-means reasoning.
I don't know that "just war" is a useful concept. Everyone thinks they are justified, even in a territory grab. What could be more "just" than a religious war to save the world? And hindsight never quite looks like the future looked when the decisions were made.
What's been lost is the notion of a reciprocal understanding of rules of war leaving us with one side that has no expectations of humanity whatsoever and the other side is held to the highest expectations of humanity... AND no one is allowed to point this out or they're pro-torture.
About the most Islamaphobic, racist statement I can think of is looking at American behavior and criticizing it by saying "But we're better than that." Who bothers to hold Al Qaeda to task for being human beings? Ask... why not?
In the simplest, most general terms, an "underground" blows up strategic targets and "terrorists" attack civilian populations... waiting to blow the Americans up when they're surrounded by children... that sort of thing.
When the US starts water-boarding civilians in order to "encourage" civilian populations to be on our side if they know what's good for them... then I'll reconsider the possibility of hypocrisy.
That probably sounded really harsh.
I just wish that people (not speaking to you Fr. Fox, but in general terms) would be honest about what war is. And the nature of war doesn't change if the cause is bad or if the cause is good. It involves a whole lot of killing people and breaking things. The Just War or Good War is every bit as horrific and violent as the cleansing progrom or religious civil war or War of Aggression. The impact and horror in *any* situation would be smallest if people refused to fight back and just let the bad guy, or the good guy, get it done and over.
It's never the case that if it's a Just War that reality is going to be transformed into "Bring out the Comfy Chair!"
I also wish that people, any people, would start being honest about "sanctions" which are simply war and misery by other means meant to discomfort a population to the point they force a change in government.
Post a Comment