- ‹ previous
- 73 of 2798
- next ›
Defining Terrorism Down
Writing about the Ft. Hood massacre, one of Jonah Goldberg's readers offers the following: "I would say that an act which is unexpected and carried out with the intention to kill indiscriminately for the sole purpose of punishing those who do not hold your beliefs is an Islamic terrorist act." Goldberg responds:
I am very uncomfortable with the idea that I might sound like I'm trying to diminish the guy's crimes. He committed treason and murder. It was a cowardly act. If we are at war, then it was a war crime.
But I think the reader's definition of terrorism might move us into dangerous territory. In Pakistan, we launch missiles at people's homes with civilians in or around them to take out al Qaeda leadership. But I wouldn't call that terrorism. I'm just uncomfortable with the word terrorism metastasizing into "anything the bad guys do to us." Why not call what Hasan did a war crime? Terrorism is a war crime but not all war crimes are terrorism.
I think that's right, and it's nice to see some pushback from the right on this. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that Nidal Malik Hasan was (a) quite mentally disturbed and (b) motivated by religious beliefs, but that doesn't make what he did a terrorist act. Unlike, say, a suicide bomber in Jerusalem, there's hardly even a hint that he was trying to make any kind of political statement. There was no note, no videotape left behind, no explanation while he was shooting, no nothing. What kind of terrorist does that?
Are you kidding? By
Are you kidding? By definition, the sorts of people who kill innocents en masse in the name of their politics are deranged. If this isn't an act of terrorism, what would be?
What innocents?
He executed war criminals. That's not politics; it's justice. That's not derangement; it's moral character.
Reply to leafsong Killing a
Reply to leafsong
Killing a pregnant woman coming home. Killing a young 19 year old who had never been to war, killing those nurses or medical aides who try to help people suffering from the psychological aftermath of seeing war up close......? You call that "executing war criminals"? You need help.
"Unlike, say, a suicide
"Unlike, say, a suicide bomber in Jerusalem, there's hardly even a hint that he was trying to make any kind of political statement. "
Dumbest Drum Statement Ever!
Is this just willful ignorance or what?
I can buy the claims that he had some form of PTSD, but you're claiming he wasn't trying to make any kind of political statement just flies in the face of what's being reported, even elsewhere at MoJo.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/nidal-hasan-and-al-qaeda
Come on Kevin, pull your head out of your ass.
Since when is something that conflicts with...
..."what is being reported" therefore untrue or incredible? What planet have you been living on?
Goldberg opposes that
Goldberg opposes that definition of terrorism because it could be applied to Timothy McVeigh, Scott Roeder, and other far right extremists.
I doubt Goldberg was
I doubt Goldberg was thinking about McVeigh or any other Americans. When he talks about the US killing innocent civilians in Pakistan, I'm pretty sure his concern is primarily how Israel might fit into this "defining down" of terrorism with its numerous acts of targeting Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. He's not worried about the US being called a terrorist state, because there can be no consequences for our killings of innocents. So transparent that KD missed it completely.
But Kevin's argument is pretty dumb. This was pretty much a suicide mission (albeit botched in respect to the suicide part) and a political protest against an unjust war (or two). Are suicide bombers in Israel only deemed terrorists if they make videos testifying to sufficiently political motives? The rest are just depressive drama queens, I guess.
It was pretty obviously not
It was pretty obviously not a war crime. Although it was a crime, and we are at war. Words are so confusing! Who can possibly know what they mean?
"If we are at war, then it was a war crime."
Apparently Doughy Pantload has no clue what a war crime is.
Which explains a fair amount.
.
Predictable
Per Kevin, nice to see some pushback from the right on the predictable anti Muslim meme (contrast with the excreble Joe Lieberman). But disagree with comment that it was "motivated by religious 'beleifs' (my quotes). Religious delusions are not religious beliefs.
It's odd, because I believe
It's odd, because I believe exactly the opposite: all religious beliefs are religous delusions. Presumably that makes me a Dawkinsite. But I guess there is a difference between private delusion, which makes you a nut, and mass delusion, which makes you a follower of an established faith. Saints would fall somewhere in between.
Agree with you about Joe Lieberman. The guy obviously has a hatred that he isn't afraid to exploit.
Understand your position
... and would not presume to argue with you, since you are obviously entitled to your position on the nature of religious belief. However, what I was getting at was that no religion, including Islam, espouses the types of actions that Hassan took, and that those who support these types of actions in the name of Islam are in fact deluded about the tenets of the religion they claim to be promoting.
I don't think that is
I don't think that is correct. Many religions promote violence against nonbelievers both in doctrine and in deed.
"However, what I was getting
"However, what I was getting at was that no religion, including Islam, espouses the types of actions that Hassan took, and that those who support these types of actions in the name of Islam are in fact deluded about the tenets of the religion they claim to be promoting."
The leaders of the Crusades were deluding about Christianity, and all of those Islamic Terrorists were deluded about Islam.
I understand it helps you feel morally superior to all those troglodytes conservative Muslamophobe brown people haters to believe all religions, especially Islam are fuzzy widdle puppies, but perhaps you're deluding yourself about what religions say about others.
what terrorism is
Please, let's think about what the word terrorism means. Terrorist acts are acts aimed at causing terror, aimed at scaring people into some course of action the terrorists want the terrorized to take. They're also usually done in an organized fashion motivated by political ideology. I think Goldberg is right (surprising, yes), but for the wrong reason (not surprising). As Kevin points out, the guy is mentally ill and it's difficult to see what response his actions sought. He doesn't seem to have been pushing any big point about the wars, or the American way of life, etc., beyond not wanting to be sent to war. In other words, Trotsky, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that these killings were motivated by a desire to make a political point.
So, essentially what you are saying is:
This guy wasn't a terrorist, therefore he was insane. Isn't it possible for someone to do something that is not intended for mass consumption through the media? If TV pundits can't make sense of an act, is it therefore irrational? Is your mind incapable of comprehending what they fail to explain to you?
What kind?
"There was no note, no videotape left behind, no explanation while he was shooting, no nothing. What kind of terrorist does that?"
The kind that wants to leave people wondering. The kind that wants us to mistrust those around us. The kind that wants us to think that anyone could snap at any time.
That kind.
And for the matter, I think this guy is best classified as a religious nut. That's close to being a terrorist, but in the aftermath I'm glad he'll be getting prosecuted--even in Texas--rather than undergoing "harsh interrogation methods."
Disgruntled Employee
The Major was a disgruntled employee. "Gone Postal", in other words. If not for his race and religion there would be no discussion on terror, or if he was a terrorist.
Ha Ha! Thanks for defending
Ha Ha! Thanks for defending Timothy McVeigh, disgruntled former Army gone postal.
The CIA says he had at least
The CIA says he had at least attempted to make contact with al-Qaida, ABC says.
He gave a PowerPoint presentation titled "Why the War on Terror is a War on Islam," reports the NY Times.
He systematically shot 40 people.
Just what does it take to become a terrorist in y'all's book?
This isn't a guy who snapped under the strain of cognitive dissonance and shot himself, or refused to deploy and was locked up, or deserted. This is a guy who shot 40 people.
I don't know exactly how the Army should respond to the act -- and it's already getting overzealous advice from the usual suspects -- but this one's pretty lay-down.
Terrorism
"The CIA says he had at least attempted to make contact with al-Qaida, ABC says."
Since when does either the CIA or ABC tell us the truth about Al Qaida? Ever hear of Iraqi WMD's?
"He gave a PowerPoint presentation titled "Why the War on Terror is a War on Islam," reports the NY Times."
In the course of his duties, under orders from his superiors in the US military, he told the truth. Which part of that makes him a terrorist, the following of the orders or the telling of the truth? Why, it's the being muslim part, of course.
"He systematically shot 40 people."
Lord knows how unprecedented it is for Army personell to systematically shoot people. I suppose you would then agree that the people he shot are guilty of terrorism as well, yes? Or is it possible that there is a conceivable motive aside from terrorism for killing?
How can you call it a war
How can you call it a war crime? That is ridiculous. Just because we are involved in wars in 2 different countries, that means that anyone who commits murder over here is guilty of a war crime? If Hasan had committed murder against civilians in one of those war zones, then it would be a war crime. Against military people here in the U.S. who are on the same side, you would call it a war crime?
Calling it terrorism seems more appropriate. It was done against strangers apparently for religous/political reasons, so terrorism seems apt, just as it does for Timothy McVeigh, for instance.
of course it's an act of terrorism
kishkin
"there doesn't seem to be any evidence that these killings were motivated by a desire to make a political point."
He committed his murders on an army base.
His targets were soldiers being processed to go and fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
His public statements prior to the murders clearly indicated that he believed our government’s policy was wrong because it resulted in the death of Muslim believers.
He committed the murders just after receiving orders to Afghanistan.
Of course his motivation was political.
Of course it was an act of terror.
I don't think Goldberg is very precise
Goldberg: He committed treason and murder. It was a cowardly act. If we are at war, then it was a war crime.
Treason is defined in the Constitution: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
War crimes are normally crimes against the various Geneva Conventions: maltreatment of prisoners, waging aggressive war, etc, etc.
So with what we know now, I'd agree with murder, 1 out of 3.
Domestic terrorism
As used in this chapter... (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that - (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
-- FindLaw: Title 18 - Part I - Chapter 113B
Yeah, we can really trust the government to tell us
what terrorism is. Did you know that the government defined adherence to Judaism as terrorism? Not this government, another one. You know which one.
"Terrorism" means attacks on civilians
If it's not an attack on civilians, it's not terrorism. It may be evil, it may be a crime, or it may even be a war crime, but no attack on soldiers -- particularly soldiers of a country at war -- can be called terrorism
Well congratulations then,
Well congratulations then, you agree with a bunch of imams and openly revolutionary muslims that dcsuzie considers deluded about their own religion in stating that the attack on these soldiers was a justified act of war.
Here's a video of your compatriots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhHYiWCm8Gs
So the attack on the USS
So the attack on the USS Cole was not an act of terrorism?
This was an act of both terrorism and treason wherein unarmed civilians and military personnel were murdered in cold blood. It was a violation of the oath Nidal Hasan took as an army officer. Based on what Hasan has said and done, he was carrying out an act of Jihad.
Call it what you will; the fact remains that it was a terrorist act - even if perpetrated alone against both civilians and military personnel.
Hasan was a traitor, not a
Hasan was a traitor, not a terrorist.
No, the attack on the Cole was not an act of terrorism. It was a military target. I hate militant Islam as much as anyone, but let's not get too sanctimonious. The Cole attack wasn't any worse than the cruise missle and drone attacks by U.S. forces with their collateral damage.
"If it's not an attack on
"If it's not an attack on civilians, it's not terrorism. It may be evil, it may be a crime, or it may even be a war crime, but no attack on soldiers -- particularly soldiers of a country at war -- can be called terrorism"
What uniform was he wearing?
You are absolutely correct.
You are absolutely correct. Terrorism is a tactic designed to instill fear in a civilian population. Attacks on military are a different matter. IED attacks on U.S. military are not terrorism, marketplace bombings are. This is not to judge the validity of the cause that people fight for, it's obsservation about tactics.
Was Hasan was wearing an Al
Was Hasan was wearing an Al Qaeda or Taliban uniform?
Even if such uniforms
Even if such uniforms existed, he wouldn't. He was wearing a U.S. uniform. When a soldier attacks his own forces, he's called a traitor, not a terrorist.
This is a case of the blind
This is a case of the blind men and the elephant. There's a lot of flailing around trying to turn the elephant into a mouse a wall a tree and a snake.
But wikipedia up the definition for religious terrorist and domestic terrorist. That's what the evidence shows this guy became.
Just as I can expect conservatives to deny that various abortion clinic bombers are domestic terrorists, or watch them try to turn McVeigh into a liberal, it is disheartening to see so many liberals also deny that a Muslim, not a liberal, was a religious nutcake because of the bad things they think that might say about Islam.
Catholic religious terrorists, Jewish religious terrorists -- we'll talk freely about that. Muslim religious terrorists? Nope! It's how we treated him. He's not a terrorist because his target was troops and therefore they were legit military targets. He went Postal. He was a victim.
Weird.
You have it backwards, just
You have it backwards, just because an attacker is muslim, it doesn't automatically become terrorism.
World Center attacks, suicide bombers, beheadings of journalists -- all Islamic terror.
A solider firing on his own troops -- it's happen before, why now does it suddenly become "terrorism"?
Weird.
I don't think this is
I don't think this is terrorism because I'm a PC lib and a knee jerk apologist for minorities, diversity, and chamberpot immigration.
What we have here is a hate crime--Fox news reporting his Arab sounding name. Hopefully Obama will get hate speech legislation passed soon so right wing fanatics can't report inflammatory news.
This just in. More hate speech from the press:
My how quickly we forget the balloon boy
There is so much junk out there I wouldn't trust anything any MSM or blogger or politician says at this time. Remember the confusion over the balloon boy? Remember the confusion the first 8 hours after this happened?
How's about we all wait for the authorities to finish their investigation and let them determine if the guy was committing an act of terrorism in the name of Isalm or if he just went nuts or something else. Then you can all have a real rant over what this act should be parsed as.
If we wait for the facts, we
If we wait for the facts, we risk the opportunity for a good rant.
No thank you!
Extra-judicial
Extra-judicial assassinations of civilians in their homelands by foreign powers is a war crime. Leaders, such as W. Bush, B. Obama and E. Olmert, are war crimes suspects.
Extra-judicial assassinations of political leaders would be considered terrorism, regardless of who perpetrates the murders. Yigal Amir is a terrorist. Sirhan Sirhan is a terrorist. Whoever killed Diem was a terrorist, even if the assassination was done on behalf of an occupying nation.
Extra-judicial assassinations of known offenders is neither a war crime or terrorism, it is vigilantism. The man who killed the suspect accused and arrested for raping his son is a vigilante. Nevertheless, vigilantism must be considered a political act, even if it is not terrorism.
Extra-judicial destruction and murder at a political institution have to be considered terrorist acts because of the motive behind the crime. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. John Brown was a terrorist.
Attacking a group may or may not be terroristic. Baruch Goldstein was a terrorist, while James Huberty was a psychotic mass murderer.
Hasan did not attack his immediate supervisors. He did not attack Ft. Hood’s headquarters. Hasan choose to attack the SRP, where soldiers prepared to embark on their missions; missions Hasan may have considered to be war crimes. If he attacked to prevent the soldiers from committing war crimes, he was a vigilante. If he attacked to make a political statement about the soldiers’ deployment, he was a terrorist. If he attacked the soldiers to shorten the war, it would have been an act of war. Without knowing his motivation, a determination of what he was attempting to accomplish cannot be made with certainty.
No, John Brown was not a
No, John Brown was not a terrorist. He was a counter-terrorist. The terrorist situation in Kansas in 1856 was one where U.S. territory in Kansas was overrun by pro-slavery terrorists who would not allow the territory to democratically determine its status by ballot. The Brown family were reputed anti-slavery and pro-black and they were targeted by pro-slavery neighbors who were collaborating with Southern terrorists. The Browns struck preemptively and specifically to remove these collaborators. That's not terorrism. As for Harpers Ferry, it is amazing that Brown is called a terrorism (usually by whites), when the entire nation in the antebellum era was a land of terrorism for black people, the constitution, courts, and social attitudes in the north and south guaranteed the racist subordination of blacks. Terror and violence was used to enslave and steal labor and the laws of the land forced whites to abstain from helping blacks run away from slavery upon threat of imprisonment. Sounds like a fascist state, and you're calling JB a terrorist? Many people speak about JB with a certainty based upon real miseducation and lack of information. This "white" perspective of Brown is empty and works only for a perspective that assumes that the state of the nation in his day was essentially fair and stable in political and social terms.
... There was no note, no
... There was no note, no videotape left behind, no explanation while he was shooting, no nothing. What kind of terrorist does that?
Timithy McVeigh for one.
When you find yourself in a hole ...
Stop digging, Kevin.
"In Pakistan, we launch
"In Pakistan, we launch missiles at people's homes with civilians in or around them to take out al Qaeda leadership. But I wouldn't call that terrorism."
I'm still hung up on why he wouldn't...
That's political
That's political assassination, while terrorism, as its name implies, is the deliberate use of violence on civilians aimed at creating fear. U.S. drone attacks are assassination with a very blunt weapon, hence the high number of unintended deaths. But a high number of deaths is not the goal, whereas in terrorism it is.
Terror
I think it is rather hasty to assume that the predictably large number of deaths associated with aerial bombardment are not a part of the intended effect. Don't you think that people in Waziristan are aware of the hazards involved in having enemies of the US as friends and neighbors? Don't you think the authors of those attacks are aware of that effect and appreciate the beneficial impact of such terrorism on US military objectoives? Isn't the mere slaughter of muslims a graphic demonstration of the truth of the propaganda that states such people are sub-human monsters, much as the torture of muslim suspects does? Terrorism has always been part of the American way of war. There is no reason to believe that we suddenly stopped just because "terror" is the name we gave to our most recent imaginary enemy.
Don't agree, but I could be
Don't agree, but I could be wrong. I think the govt would prefer to have fewer unintended deaths because it creates more problems than it solves. Not saying that the U.S. is above terror activities -- certainly the bombing of German, Japanese, Vietnamese cities is one -- but i don't think that's the case here.
And yet you have to admit it
And yet you have to admit it does have the happy byproduct of instilling fear in a large portion of the civilian crowd...consort with Al-Qaeda and we'll shove a missile up your ass. Whether that was the military's intended goal is debatable, but the fact is there are still mass casualties among civilians resulting in fear.
And more importantly for long-term goals, a whole lot of anger.
At the risk of repeating
At the risk of repeating myself, think Israel.
Defining Terrorism Down
A lot of foolishness here today. Definitions of terrorism usually contain a reference to intention, i.e. terrorists are trying to cause an effect upon the society at large by their heinous acts. There is no sign that the mad major had any such intention.
America gave us the crime of Going Postal. Nobody argues that Going Postal is a terrorist crime. To date the evidence suggests that Major Hasan went postal in a rather effective way. Not terrorism. Get a grip America.