What is Terrorism?

[kopfhorer1]

Is it terrorism when a gang of criminals hijacks passenger jets and rams them into office buildings? Or when a collection of sociopaths hijacks our government and then uses its military to invade a country under false pretenses?

(Shit, I just know I'm gonna end up in Gitmo for saying this!)

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

"One mans hero is another mans terrorist."-sadly I can't remember who wrote that.

Precisely because Terrorism functions under the pretext of nationality. As long as our race is divided and not working together as a whole, then a patriotic hero from one nation might be a reviled villain in another.

An IDF Tank Pilot who fires a shell into a house occupied by Palestinians can be honored by Israel (and condemned by the Arab world) for the same reasons a Muslim who blows himself up on a city street filled with women and children can be honored by Pakistani's or Afghan's (and condemned by the Western World).

We as a race are at each others throats more often than not due to the arrogant and vain consequences of people who don't apply wisdom to their knowledge and thus abuse their power and thus make choices which cause pain and suffering to others.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

Is it terrorism when a gang of criminals hijacks passenger jets and rams them into office buildings? Or when a collection of sociopaths hijacks our government and then uses its military to invade a country under false pretenses?

(Shit, I just know I'm gonna end up in Gitmo for saying this!)

Both aren't really Terrorism. Instead, they are the result of choices which disregard the fact that they'll cause pain and suffering to others.

As for Gitmo...there's always a insanity defense. ^_~

 

[Powertickle]

An IDF Tank Pilot who fires a shell into a house occupied by Palestinians can be honored by Israel (and condemned by the Arab world) for the same reasons a Muslim who blows himself up on a city street filled with women and children can be honored by Pakistani's or Afghan's (and condemned by the Western World).

That is an ethically repugnant comparison.

An IDF tank pilot will be honored by Israelis if he shot at a house which he believed was occupied by gunmen and militants who fired on his fellow soldiers. Not a single Israeli applauding the tank pilot, assumes the gunner intentionally sought out defenseless innocent civilians, and slaughtered them in a rage of revenge.

Can you say the same about the praise given to shaheeds? Does anyone cheering them truely believe they aimed at military targets? Does anyone cheering them truly believe they tried their best to avoid civilians?

A fanatic militant intentionally seeks out a bus of innocent civilians going about their lives, or a teenagers visiting a nightclub on a Saturday night. That person is celebrated as martyr for completely different reasons, and his ethical compass is completely different from that of an Israeli tank pilot. Even a careless pilot. Their basic motivation is completely different.

There is over 200 years of ethical thought and writing on the subject of war and conflict. This brought about tactics and strategies meant to decrease civilian death and damage. This brought intentional limiting of means and strategies of war, to make war less gruesome. This is the moral foundation on which all modern armies are based on.

This foundation shared by most world nations, is utterly rejected, mocked and abused by the likes of Hamas, Al-Qaeda and Hezbullah, for whom the end always justify the means.

So don't go comparing a trained tank pilot, aiming at what he believes is a source of enemy fire, to a brute intentionally seeking out the largest possible amount of unsuspecting civilians.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

So don't go comparing a trained tank pilot, aiming at what he believes is a source of enemy fire, to a brute intentionally seeking out the largest possible amount of unsuspecting civilians.

I'm curious. Are you suggesting that the tank pilot (due to his firing in self-defense at a house which results in not only the death of the attacker but also a innocent family) is more in the moral right than the suicide bomber?

 

[Powertickle]

im not saying that islam isnt imperialistic, but that the greatest imperialism is and always has been capitalist. which has produced a far greater number of terrorists. its the fact that we are not democracy loving people is why the terrorism you are so concerned with exists. radical islam didnt come from a vacuum it was nurtured by capitalist imperialism and when the capitalists couldnt use them anymore they were dumped like a ton of bricks, now they are feeding of other imperialism mainly israeli and the us. so the point is still to end imperialism.

They certainly were nurtured by "capitalist imperialism". They used the newly acquired freedom and status that western "imperialism" allowed, went to get a western education, examine life in a free liberal country, and then decide how much they resent it.


Let's examine the life of one, Sayyid Qutb, one of the main thinkers behind 20th century muslim radicalism, and the man who practically pushed them to take arms.

From Wikipedia:

Sayyid Qutb (Arabic pronunciation: [ˈsajjɪd ˈqʊtˁb]) (October 9, 1906[1] – August 29, 1966) was an Egyptian author, educator, Islamist, poet, and the leading intellectual of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and '60s.

...
He has been described by supporters as a great artist and martyr for Islam, but by many Western observers as one who shaped the ideas of Islamists and particularly of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.

...
This turning point resulted from Qutb's visit to the United States for higher studies in educational administration. Over a two-year period, he worked in several different institutions including what was then-Wilson Teachers' College in Washington, D.C. and Colorado State College for Education in Greeley, as well as Stanford University. He also traveled extensively, visiting the major cities of the United States and spent time in Europe on the return journey to Egypt.

On his return to Egypt, Qutb published an article entitled "The America that I Have Seen." He was critical of many things he had observed in the United States: its materialism, individual freedoms, economic system, racism, brutal boxing matches, "poor" haircuts, superficiality in conversations and friendships, restrictions on divorce, enthusiasm for sports, lack of artistic feeling, "animal-like" mixing of the sexes (which went on even in churches), and lack of support for the Palestinian struggle. He noted with disapproval the sexuality of American women:

the American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it.

And American taste in music:

“Jazz” music is (the American's) music of choice. This is that music that the Negroes invented to satisfy their primitive inclinations, as well as their desire to be noisy ...

One of the most popular of his books,[citation needed] Social Justice in Islam (1948), also reflects his critical attitude to the West.

Yeah sounds like he was really oppressed by capitalist pig-dogs to me.


So what did he do with this new found knowledge?

Return to Egypt

Qutb concluded that major aspects of American life were primitive and "shocking", a people who were "numb to faith in religion, faith in art, and faith in spiritual values altogether". His experience in the U.S. is believed to have formed in part the impetus for his rejection of Western values and his move towards radicalism upon returning to Egypt. Resigning from the civil service, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1950s[21] and became editor-in-chief of the Brothers' weekly Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin, and later head of its propaganda section, as well as an appointed member of the working committee and of its guidance council, the highest branch in the organization.

Imagine how oppressed he must have felt after visiting America.

Note, I don't hold the view whole of Islam is bad. I just think that the view that this whole mess is somehow only to blame on evil western imperialism is a scapegoat people use to avoid making harsh calls, and calling out things that are wrong.

 

[Powertickle]

I'm curious. Are you suggesting that the tank pilot (due to his firing in self-defense at a house which results in not only the death of the attacker but also a innocent family) is more in the moral right than the suicide bomber?

Yes he is a obviously more in the moral right.

Because moral right is not measured in body counts. It is measured in the motivation and intention. Who are you targeting, what precautions do you take, what are your red lines.

Even in court you have degrees between murder 1 and accidental killing.

Excuse me for stretching the reality a bit, but you wouldn't compare a stray shot by a policeman in a firefight, to the zodiac slaughtering people. I certainly don't claim the IDF is the legal police force in reality, but it is a legally mandated military adhering to international rules of war, that tries to target enemy combatants. Which is several degrees different from a homicidal suicide bomber.

 

[Powertickle]

I'm not trying to present the IDF as an absolute saint. Decisions to shoot at people are always bad, and are usually taken with partial information often in split second decisions. People taking those decisions are often average joes, and sometimes worse. Every army has its shares of mistakes, due to battle conditions, faulty drills and poor decisions. There would always be violations by incompetency, recklessness, and plain old bastard soldiers/generals.

But those are still the exceptions from the norm, and the basic underlying motivation is that you try to shoot bad guys and minimize civilian casualties.

Those norms are not shared by Hamas or Al-Qaeda.

 

[Breygon]

I'm curious. Are you suggesting that the tank pilot (due to his firing in self-defense at a house which results in not only the death of the attacker but also a innocent family) is more in the moral right than the suicide bomber?

A) I must point out Powertickle's location.

B) I don't think the gunner would be so much "Morally" right as right in a "What else could you have done?" kind of way. The gunner (provided he was simply responding to a legitimate threat, and NOT acting out of vengance) would be trying to keep the body count down; more importantly, keep himself and his comrades OFF the KIA list.
The same can't realisticly be said about the suicide bomber who blows up a nightclub or streetcorner.

 

[Breygon]

... the basic underlying motivation is that you try to shoot bad guys and minimize civilian casualties.

Or, perhaps even more so, minimise or outright your self or your friends from being casualties.

"It's all about the guy next to you." - age old soldier's maxim (sp?)

 

[PurpleStyle]

I'm curious. Are you suggesting that the tank pilot (due to his firing in self-defense at a house which results in not only the death of the attacker but also a innocent family) is more in the moral right than the suicide bomber?

It would be wise not to judge the Jews on the actions of a single tank driver; especially against those of scumbag suicide bombers. (Not that I'm saying you did, just keep my heritage in mind, and my pacifism :stickout ) That said, the suicide bombers are victims as much as they are perpetrators. They were sucked into their ridiculous Muslims beliefs that cause them to be enemies of the free world. While I can't condone the actions of a single IDF soldier that makes a mistake; I will stand by Israel as they're surrounded by these deluded halfwits.

Succinctly; nobody is in the moral right in unprovoked attacks.

 

[Journia]

Maus.

 

[august spies]

They certainly were nurtured by "capitalist imperialism". They used the newly acquired freedom and status that western "imperialism" allowed, went to get a western education, examine life in a free liberal country, and then decide how much they resent it.


Let's examine the life of one, Sayyid Qutb, one of the main thinkers behind 20th century muslim radicalism, and the man who practically pushed them to take arms.

From Wikipedia:

Yeah sounds like he was really oppressed by capitalist pig-dogs to me.


So what did he do with this new found knowledge?


Imagine how oppressed he must have felt after visiting America.

Note, I don't hold the view whole of Islam is bad. I just think that the view that this whole mess is somehow only to blame on evil western imperialism is a scapegoat people use to avoid making harsh calls, and calling out things that are wrong.

I dont really care about "the life of one". there will always be fanatics. the issue at hand here is a relevant following. not so much in the 60s but it certainly began taking off in the 80s and is reaching a peak now. imperialism, whether the shah in Iran, supporting the islamists in Afghanistan against their secular state (yes prior to the russian invasion), alliances with the unholy saudi monarchy, etc.. lets get real, even your government supported hamas as a counter to the more secular PLO.

Currently your occupation for the settlers (which i conveniently pay for with tax dollars) is extremely harmful to the US and intensely fuels radical islam not just in Palestine but everywhere.

You should be doing everything you can to end the occupation, many Israelis are, from refusing to serve in the occupied territories or working with Palestinians against the occupation.

 

[Powertickle]

I dont really care about "the life of one". there will always be fanatics. the issue at hand here is a relevant following. not so much in the 60s but it certainly began taking off in the 80s and is reaching a peak now. imperialism, whether the shah in Iran, supporting the islamists in Afghanistan against their secular state (yes prior to the russian invasion), alliances with the unholy saudi monarchy, etc.. lets get real, even your government supported hamas as a counter to the more secular PLO.

Your response sounds a bit like "I don't really care about the details", no?

I'll tell you where I think we depart in world view. I think what you're labeling "imperialism" is actually a wide range of real-politic actions, which are standard game in the international arena. Imperalism is a wishy-washy word, used almost as often as 'terrorism'.

Most of your examples are of large countries meddling in the affairs of lesser countries. Well, it happens all the time. Meddling in the affairs of other states is what all states do. If you're gonna call states out on this, do it fairly - don't omit non western states.

Look at another example - Russia is still heavily meddling in the affairs of its satellite states, from Ukraine, to Belarus, to the Georgia, Uzbekistan and what not. Iran is meddling in the affairs of Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea, and in the 90s even in balkan states. Argentina is meddling in the affairs of its neighbors, supporting various terrorist factions. Syria completely controls the Lebanese parliament, and arms several militias in Lebanon. Why did you never mention that under imperialism? You omit any sample that does not present western states as the bad guys. That's a very partial and limited world view.

Also to factually correct you, Israel never supported Hamas. Israel supported local muslim charities during the 70s. One of the charities was headed by a man who later set up Hamas. There's a difference of 10 years between both events.

During the 1970s Israel invested alot of money into the territories. It built universities, infrastructure, roads, hospitals, as part of the belief that solving poverty and grievances reduces violence. As part of that effort Israel also supported alot of charities, most of them indeed Islamic.

But in the 70s Islamic charities were actually peaceful and "reasonable" movements. The change in their nature came after the Iranian revolution and the establishment of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, supported by Iran. This, (and Afghanistan) lead the Islamic movements to explore violent options which they sadly later embraced.

Currently your occupation for the settlers (which i conveniently pay for with tax dollars) is extremely harmful to the US and intensely fuels radical islam not just in Palestine but everywhere.

There's a weird misconception on where US aid funds go. The US government is a lot of things, but they are not suckers. The quick answer is this: Almost all US aid has to be used on US products. In other words, almost all the money Israel gets, is eventually sponsoring US companies. Its the same as if the US govt. paid money directly to US companies to keep them profitable. As a side effect, it makes Israel politically dependent of your govt. So a win for your local businesses and a win for your diplomacy. Your government does not run charities for anyone.

You should be doing everything you can to end the occupation, many Israelis are, from refusing to serve in the occupied territories or working with Palestinians against the occupation.

Refusing to serve in the territories would have little effect on the occupation.
On the contrary, I think the more peaceniks serve in the territories the better. Do you really think its better to only leave there IDF troops who are pro-occupation fanatics? The more level-headed people serve there, the better. Because it means less conflict, less flare ups, and eventually a much faster way back to negociations.

The occupation can end in one of two ways:
1) a bilateral agreement between Israel and the PA. This is problematic since both sides are already stuck at the end of their rope, and the demands are simply too far away.
2) a unilateral step by Israel where it pulls out of most territories and builds a huge wall around itself, to assure no more terrorist attacks. This step would be very problematic considering the precedent set in Gaza, which shortly turned into a threat with an ever growing missile power.

 

[Powertickle]

It would be wise not to judge the Jews on the actions of a single tank driver; especially against those of scumbag suicide bombers. (Not that I'm saying you did, just keep my heritage in mind, and my pacifism :stickout ) That said, the suicide bombers are victims as much as they are perpetrators. They were sucked into their ridiculous Muslims beliefs that cause them to be enemies of the free world. While I can't condone the actions of a single IDF soldier that makes a mistake; I will stand by Israel as they're surrounded by these deluded halfwits.

Succinctly; nobody is in the moral right in unprovoked attacks.

well put.

also mind you, many of the suicide bombers were actually not avid muslim fanatics. Many of them were in a relly big mess in their private lives and becoming a martyr was a way to save their reputation, and gain respect and funds for their family.

 

[august spies]

Your response sounds a bit like "I don't really care about the details", no?

I'll tell you where I think we depart in world view. I think what you're labeling "imperialism" is actually a wide range of real-politic actions, which are standard game in the international arena. Imperalism is a wishy-washy word, used almost as often as 'terrorism'.

Most of your examples are of large countries meddling in the affairs of lesser countries. Well, it happens all the time. Meddling in the affairs of other states is what all states do. If you're gonna call states out on this, do it fairly - don't omit non western states.

Look at another example - Russia is still heavily meddling in the affairs of its satellite states, from Ukraine, to Belarus, to the Georgia, Uzbekistan and what not. Iran is meddling in the affairs of Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea, and in the 90s even in balkan states. Argentina is meddling in the affairs of its neighbors, supporting various terrorist factions. Syria completely controls the Lebanese parliament, and arms several militias in Lebanon. Why did you never mention that under imperialism? You omit any sample that does not present western states as the bad guys. That's a very partial and limited world view.

Also to factually correct you, Israel never supported Hamas. Israel supported local muslim charities during the 70s. One of the charities was headed by a man who later set up Hamas. There's a difference of 10 years between both events.

During the 1970s Israel invested alot of money into the territories. It built universities, infrastructure, roads, hospitals, as part of the belief that solving poverty and grievances reduces violence. As part of that effort Israel also supported alot of charities, most of them indeed Islamic.

But in the 70s Islamic charities were actually peaceful and "reasonable" movements. The change in their nature came after the Iranian revolution and the establishment of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, supported by Iran. This, (and Afghanistan) lead the Islamic movements to explore violent options which they sadly later embraced.


There's a weird misconception on where US aid funds go. The US government is a lot of things, but they are not suckers. The quick answer is this: Almost all US aid has to be used on US products. In other words, almost all the money Israel gets, is eventually sponsoring US companies. Its the same as if the US govt. paid money directly to US companies to keep them profitable. As a side effect, it makes Israel politically dependent of your govt. So a win for your local businesses and a win for your diplomacy. Your government does not run charities for anyone.


Refusing to serve in the territories would have little effect on the occupation.
On the contrary, I think the more peaceniks serve in the territories the better. Do you really think its better to only leave there IDF troops who are pro-occupation fanatics? The more level-headed people serve there, the better. Because it means less conflict, less flare ups, and eventually a much faster way back to negociations.

The occupation can end in one of two ways:
1) a bilateral agreement between Israel and the PA. This is problematic since both sides are already stuck at the end of their rope, and the demands are simply too far away.
2) a unilateral step by Israel where it pulls out of most territories and builds a huge wall around itself, to assure no more terrorist attacks. This step would be very problematic considering the precedent set in Gaza, which shortly turned into a threat with an ever growing missile power.

of course, there are trillions of details in this world and i am interested in relevance not irrelevant details used to bootstrap a failed argument. That is how Glenn Beck argues.

I agree that terrorism is a wishy washy word, however i believe imperialism still has significant meaning, especially in the scholarly arena.

I understand many states meddle in the affairs of others, but not all of that amounts to imperialism. when larger dominate states such as the us, meddle in the affairs or say south america, thousands of people die and hundreds of thousands are tortured and imprisoned, billions of dollars are spent... etc. It also had no popular base and thus forced by anti democratic means. i dont think your examples or argentina or iran in saudi arabia even come close to this, but this is not to say i support that.

I live in a country and i can control what it does, if i lived in iran i would do the same, albeit under a bit more of a threat.

Israeli support for what was to become hamas is not even disputed by israeli academics and even US intelligence agencies. it is not that they gave support to one guy as a matter of good will and then this guy later and "surprisingly" became violent in some offshoot movement. This picture is blatantly false.

The simple fact is they knew who they were supporting and it had nothing to do with charity. it had to do with marginalizing the secular left, particularly in gaza, so the occupation could continue. this went on well into the 80s. here is a UPI story with some relevant quotes by direct players: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10456.htm

Not to mention the same time of this wonderful "charity" israel was brazen supporting apartheid in south africa and death squads in central america.

I know very well where my taxes go; military and infrastructure to support your occupation. i would much rather have jobs or healthcare, or even if my fellow americans enjoy being taxed, why not send the money to people who actually need it, like AIDS victims in africa.

but again we are in the present and must look to solve the future. refusing to serve in the occupation and actively participating in movement to end it, either in solidarity with palestinians or not, is the only thing that is going to save your country. as it drifts further and further into rightward lunacy the point of no return will approach.

security council resolution 242, supported by the world and the palestinians, is looking further and further from a reality and it is the only hope to solve the conflict.

 

[Journia]

wow....I rememberwhich this was just a little, awkward post.

My how it has grown!