Yasir Arafat dies, world peace has a chance....

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:56 am

murder is against the law, yet we have such a thing as "justifiable homicide"

bottom line for me...

killing is bad, yet sometimes a neccesary evil.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:59 am

but by that logic maybe bin Laden and Hamas and all of them are just as right. i'm not saying i condone their actions, but your statement opens them a very wide door.... no, rather, it blows the door to smithereens.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:06 am

Simply Joel wrote:murder is against the law, yet we have such a thing as "justifiable homicide"

bottom line for me...

killing is bad, yet sometimes a neccesary evil.

out of curiosity, when do you know if it's justified? or necessary? who decides?

CoworkerLurker · Post by **CoworkerLurker** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:12 am

Rian Jackson wrote:CWL, i kinda think that terrorism, in the violent sense, is scaring the shit out of civilians by threatening or taking their life or health by force in order to get what you want.

which, of course, not only includes the likes of bin Laden, but also the US and Israeli governments.

I tend to agree with your definition, Rian (although the folks at Webster's might phrase it differently). It certainly makes the most sense etymologically (although along those lines, you don't really even need to narrow it down to "civilians").

It's just that I don't believe that people who insist on condemning "terrorist acts" mean to include the actions of the U.S. government- they don't mean to use the word in such a purely etymological way.

I suspect that the working definition of terrorism is:
"the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature, when it's performed by people I don't like, and/or against people I identify with"

But no one wants to admit that, either, or concede that the definition they use depends on the person using the word.

That's why I keep asking people about this, because there's something I'm missing, and maybe thoughtful smart logical people can show me what it is.

CoworkerLurker · Post by **CoworkerLurker** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:19 am

To review, so far we have the possible potential definitions:

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature

But that seems to describe acts that aren't terrorism.

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature, performed after the year 1950 (or 1960, or 1970, or some other chosen date)

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature, that is not already against the law

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature, when it's performed by people I don't like, and/or against people I identify with

Can anyone agree to any of these definitions, or perhaps point me to one that works better?

I just want some guidance on how to tell whether an act is terrorism or not, so I know just what people mean to condemn.

CoworkerLurker · Post by **CoworkerLurker** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:22 am

One more I missed:

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature, except when it's justifiable

Although this one seems to beg far more questions than it answers.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:07 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/ ... 51,00.html

"I told him that I did what I'm supposed to; anyone who enters a firing zone must be taken out. [The commander] always says this," he said.

The army has already been accused of carrying out an unwritten policy of shooting unarmed civilians who enter a closed security zone in Rafah

Sgt Taysir told the army investigators he had opened fire at Mr Hurndall because the Briton was on the edge of the security zone, carrying a weapon and wearing camouflage clothing.

In fact, he had not entered the closed zone, had no gun and was wearing a bright orange jacket.

The [Israeli army] fires freely in Rafah."

The prosecutor then asked: "After that, you also reported that the man fired in the air and at you, right? Why did you report that he fired at you?"

The sergeant replied: "Because I had already fired

Hurndall's mother wrote:"We remain extremely concerned about the culture in which the soldier was functioning," she said. "It seems from what he's said that he was following orders, that he was doing what he was told to do and what other soldiers are told to do."

on another note, holy fuck, i just discovered there are businesses in Israel that officially only hire Jews! fuck!

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:19 am

Rian Jackson wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:murder is against the law, yet we have such a thing as "justifiable homicide"

bottom line for me...

killing is bad, yet sometimes a neccesary evil.
out of curiosity, when do you know if it's justified? or necessary? who decides?

a couple of discussions on jusitfiable homicide (most of which against):
http://www.trosch.org/wri/ohl-rebu.htm
http://www.forerunner.com/chalcedon/X00 ... homic.html
http://www.textfiles.com/politics/wijustice.txt
the last one said this...

"The State of California finds it fairly straightforward to
define justifiable homicide for the private individual.
According to the California Department of Justice's booklet
\California Firearms Laws 1991\, "The killing of one person by
another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt
to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, \provided\ that
a reasonable person in the same situation would believe that: a)
the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-
threatening crime; b) there was imminent danger of such crime
being accomplished; and, c) the person acted under the belief
that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or
another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and
life-threatening crimes."

For the private person -- or even the police officer -- the
instant the threat ends, the grounds for justifiable homicide
end."

now, onto neccesary...

in my personal case... when my safety becomes threatened.

who decides? i know who decides in my surroundings. yet, i believe you were being rhetorical in nature.

all good points, and certainly deserving of further discussion... 'cause when you are talking, usually you ain't shooting

CoworkerLurker · Post by **CoworkerLurker** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:25 am

Whoa, there, Joel- if you rely too much on that California law to back you up, you come dangerously close to justifying Palestinian terrorist acts. If you rely on your personal guideline, you get even closer.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:59 am

CoworkerLurker wrote:Whoa, there, Joel- if you rely too much on that California law to back you up, you come dangerously close to justifying Palestinian terrorist acts. If you rely on your personal guideline, you get even closer.

merely providing examples.

CoworkerLurker · Post by **CoworkerLurker** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:14 pm

That makes more sense to me.

How did "justifiable homicide" make its way into this discussion?

CoworkerLurker · Post by **CoworkerLurker** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:03 pm

I finally followed Joel's link, which provided me with another potential definition of terrorism:

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature, perpetrated by small groups or individuals

Now, I am at a loss to see why the same actions would be reprehensible or not based on the size of the group that perpetrated it. I'm having trouble seeing a moral difference. However, this would indicate that the shooting of Tom by the Israeli soldier, assuming the intent to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature, would be terrorism only if perpetrated by him individually or by a small group within the army. Not terrorism if the entire Israeli government is behind it.

Perhaps only nations have the authority/license to use violence and fear to change/influence others, to target civilians and such.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:44 pm

Regarding using the yardstick of the past to judge the actions of the present: keep in mind that one of the British generals who witnessed the Boston Tea Party referred to the perps in that bit of history as "terrorists." Myself, I think he was a pompous ass and that if he were alive today, and saw the events of 9/11 — or even the massacre of 110 Japanese tourists at the Temple of Karnak in Luxor — he'd retract his statement and apologize profoundly. Hammas and the Taliban make the Boston Tea Party look like the Cacophony Society.

Clarification on the "cynical authority figure" reference: My definition of that is a leader-type who believes in his cause so much he's willing to let everyone else but him die for it. Sound military tactics if you think about it but still less than estimable. For a long time after 9/11, I actually reserved my bitterest empathy for the hi-jackers themselves, because they got suckered into believing they'd go to their vision of Heaven for doing what they did.

The concept of murder as a means to spiritual ascendance is sick, by anyone's standards.

CoworkerLurker · Post by **CoworkerLurker** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:34 pm

Diane- you're giving good descriptions and explanations, but I'm looking for a definition that would help someone decide whether an action was terrorism or not.

Hmm- do you suppose that British general meant something a little different than we do, when he used the word "terrorist"? That's the kind of thing I want a handle on- what do people mean, how can you tell what's included (and maybe even why)?

I'm not sure if a "cynical authority figure" applies only to terrorist groups. A commander-in-chief, or even a general, almost never risks his own life, and almost always risks the lives of others. Only the really cynical ones, however, do so lightly, or carelessly. Is this kind of leader necessary for a terrorist group? Can a terrorist group have a leader that risks his own life as much as those of others? Would such a group fail to be terrorist?

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:36 pm

Definition of justifiable homicide:
(from the "tastes like chicken, does not taste like chicken metaphyscial philosophy")

"If the person or persons shooting taste like chicken, and they are shooting someone that does not taste like chicken- it is justifiable."

"If the person or persons shooting do not taste like chicken, and they are shooting someone that does not taste like chicken- it is terrorism."

"If the person or persons shooting taste like chicken, and they are shooting someone that tastes like chicken- it is edible genocide."

"If the person or persons shooting does not taste like chicken, and they are shooting someone that tastes like chicken- it is dinner."

Ifins y'all are still confused, I'm available for public speaking.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:42 pm

CoworkerLurker wrote:Hmm- do you suppose that British general meant something a little different than we do, when he used the word "terrorist"?

I have no doubt he was using a different yardstick altogether. I even conjecture that he was using the term spuriously, even rhetorically. Unless you're in the water next to the boat, a bunch of crates being tossed overboard isn't going to hurt anyone, and it's not that great property damage anyway. Contrast that with the British army burning Washington D.C. to the ground in the War of 1912.

I'm not sure if a "cynical authority figure" applies only to terrorist groups. A commander-in-chief, or even a general, almost never risks his own life, and almost always risks the lives of others. Only the really cynical ones, however, do so lightly, or carelessly. Is this kind of leader necessary for a terrorist group? Can a terrorist group have a leader that risks his own life as much as those of others? Would such a group fail to be terrorist?

It certainly doesn't end at terrorist groups, so that's shaky ground. However, the CAF we'll call him, seems to be a common point in all terrorist groups so while it's not a unique, catch-all element, it's certainly a consistent one.
Let's go back to the schoolyard bully/terrorist analogy:
Terrorists seem to work on a subjective agenda rather than an objective one. Armies have objectives: take out that bridge, take out that missile silo, capture that city, round up a bunch of rascals that have harmed us and the rascals who support them. Even, Gods help me, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has an objective: land. Terrorist groups are all after intangible stuff: we're going to attack you because you're not like Us.
I'm running against the character limit, continuing...

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:04 pm

Continuing "Schoolyard Bully/Terrorist"...

So let's take an example. I used to be a taxidermist and my parents ran a meat plant. A certain group called the Animal Liberation Front started to harass and bully us because we were engaged in a business that they found offensive. Me sewing deerskins together over a heavy-duty styrofoam form and my dad grinding meat down for hamburger didn't affect the individual members adversely, it did not prevent them from leading their lives as individuals and didn't interfere with their day-to-day live-thrive-survive realities. Their beef was ideological: just like Osama's beef with the U.S. up to that point was one of ideology. Sure, Tipper Gore and I certainly don't see eye to eye on many points, but I'm not going to blow up her house. It's called, "Live and let live." (Wish Ariel Sharon would take that bit of programming on board)

So, back to the schoolyard bully. Go up to the kid on the playground that's picking on the other kids, and ask him, "You just tore that kid up. Can you tell me exactly what that kid did to you to deserve getting bloodied at your hands?" Likely he'll sneer, shrug and say something like "He's fat/he's always whining/he looks weird" basically, "He's not like me. He offends me." This is subjective. Ask another question: "It's a big playground, it's a big school, you have plenty of other things to do, did you ever consider just getting on with your life and leaving him alone?"

People are always saying that kids act like beasts because they inherit the prejudices of their adults. I think it's the other way around, it's BASIC human animal nature to be intolerant, vicious towards non-conformists, to victimize for reasons like, "You're different." I see it in my horse's pasture, he picks on the pinto because it's different. The test of an adult — a well-adjusted, enlightened adult — is to grow past that basic urge.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:18 pm

Now let's do some more semantics here. Bullying and what's generally referred to as "terrorist actions" are pretty far apart. Like I said, schoolyard bullying is the root, it's the base level. Take it one step higher: social stratification, "class system," et alia. This is bullying on a societal level: a creation of "an underclass" that is ostracized, repressed and held down for whatever reasons. Could be objective, like skin colour, could be ideological, like heterosexuals versus homosexuals. The recent resounding passages of laws abolishing gay marriage is an example of societal bullying on ideological grounds.

Now let's throw a little bit of skewed thinking into the mix. I remember one night when my abusive and borderline psychopathic boyfriend threatened to gut my cat and rub her guts in my face in order to win an argument we were having. Anyone would say this is aberrant behaviour, at the very least it is disgustingly childish behaviour. Let's take that up a step in analogy: blowing up a busful of tourists in order to get the attention of the powers-that-be to make one's point is a more intense, vicious and DEFINITELY aberrant and anti-social behaviour. Why? Because...my ex didn't have the wit to sit down and talk rationally, calmly and maturely, he resorted to violence and threats. This was terrorism on a domestic level.

So here's the chain: "You're brown-and-white, I'm going to pick on you"
=> "You're fat, I'm going to pick on you" => "You're homosexual, I'm going to deny you your rights" => "Agree with me or I'll gut your cat!" => "You guys are a bunch of assholes, ours is the only right way and we're going to blow up your house to prove that point."

Is that more workable?

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:26 pm

Errata: the absuive boyfriend/terrorist analogy. Ex didn't have the wit to sit down and rationally work out our difference and come to an agreement, and terrorist factions, for whatever reasons, either can't or won't come to the diplomacy table to air grievances and talk them out and attempt to come to a civilized, rational and workable solution where they possibly have to compromise but don't lose life, limb, property or other tangibles conducive to basic day-to-day survival in the process.

Unfortunately many terrorists don't survive long enough to be psychiatrically evaluated but I'm betting they'd have similar psychological profiles to such social aberrations as wifebeaters.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:59 pm

Does this include Israeli soldiers who sniper shoot Palestinian kids and US interrogators who use torture?

CoworkerLurker · Post by **CoworkerLurker** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:37 pm

Jesus, Do'T. I'm looking for a skeleton frame and you're giving me everything hanging on the frame, and a whole bunch hanging on that. It's a lot to think about, and it'll take me a while to see what's going on with the frame, through all the rest.

CBA- a good question. I can't tell yet who Diane thinks of as terrorists in the Middle East, although I suspect that her definition qualifies lots of people. There are lots of bullies in this world.

Do'T- awesome thoughts on where the attitude comes from, and how it might manifest itself. It'll take me a long time on that road before it gets me being able to pick out what's terrorism and what's not, though. I think it's worthwhile to approach it that way. Don't mind me while I work it from another direction first, though- I'm not forgettmg your road. I'm just taking an easier way, first.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:44 pm

Cowboyangel: Yes, I would count torture as terrorism on the same level as extended domestic violence and spousal abuse is terroristic. I also count slavery as a low-level type of terrorism, in that it is societal bullying which can be a gateway.

As for the Palestinian...the free-shoot zones that have been described in the Gaza are the same as the free-fire zones in Viet Nam, which I consider definitely terroristic. The sniper was probably told by his superior, "Curfew is on now, shoot anything that isn't behind a closed door."

One point I haven't touched on...is when you have terrorists, bonafide terrorists working and hiding within a civilian population. They unfortunately don't have a tattoo on their forehead that says, "Hey, I'm a terrorist!" I remember stories about 9-year-old kids in Belfast, Northern Ireland who had no hands because they were burnt off, because the kid didn't know how to hold a molotov cocktail right. Al Qaeda used to train kids for recruitment into their ranks, so it stands to reason that terrorist groups can and do recruit children. The order handed down to the sniper was tactically and militarily sound, the reality when the smoke cleared was a horrible SNAFU. But, terrorists aren't labeled. I'd lay at least as much blame on the terrorists who create that kind of paranoid climate where the assassination of innocent children is enabled.

Don't take that to mean that I'm apologizing for the Israeli army and that particular sniper. I don't, in any way, shape or form.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:03 pm

CWL: Sorry, I'm doing the best I can

One does have to dig through skin and muscle to get to the bone.

I attempted to avoid pointing fingers at any one group because I know the terrorism world doesn't begin and end with Al Qaeda and Hammas and ALF, and not all terrorism comes from the Mid East and the tactics and ideologies aren't exclusively Islamic. In fact, Al Qaeda pretty much flaunt the Laws of Jihad as outlined in the Qu'ran: the laws say you cannot destroy buildings, you cannot kill old men, pregnant women or children, you cannot destroy a place of worship (one of the towers had a mosque on one of its floors and there were 100 people in there worshipping at the time of the attacks), you cannot destroy a tree with a single green leaf on it.

Using that benchmark, I'd say that any terrorist organization that says they're fighting to protect Islam and Muslims and are doing it in the name of Jihad, are lying through their teeth. The massacre at Karnak back in '97 was a sacrilege to both the Kemite deities enshrined there and to Allah.

CoworkerLurker · Post by **CoworkerLurker** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:43 pm

Hey, Do'T- I'm doing the best I can, too. I'm just not keeping up very well.

Getting back to the bare-bones questions:

Hmm- if you define terrorism as threats and violence against civilians, then bombing an army post does not qualify as terrorism.

In fact, soldiers, by that definition, can't die in terrorist acts, except by "getting caught in the crossfire", so to speak.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:06 am

Yes, that is where I generally draw the line. And it's historically supported. Read Sun Tzu: warfare is supposed to be between opposing armies and leave the civilians and statesmen out of it as much as possible. Sun Tzu states that politicians make bad soldiers and soldiers make bad politicians. History supports this: witness Idi Amin and Generalissimo Francisco Franco.

My guess is that the so-called "terrorist strikes against army bases" is journalistic rhetoric — button-pushing to get people in a lather. As for the "terrorists" — who the hell knows? Their logic is twisted to begin with, maybe they're trying to confuse the issue and bait the Dragon into hitting civilians so they can turn around and say, "Hey, the army is oppressing you, this is an occupation! Kick them out so we can have you all to ourselves."

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:43 am

cowboyangel wrote:Does this include Israeli soldiers who sniper shoot Palestinian kids and US interrogators who use torture?

nope. they are cases of criminal activity, in both cases illegal orders were given and followed... but, you know, CA, you were never in the military so you would have never been taught the ethics of combat.

but hey, what do i know.... sitting in all those ethics classes... some people didn't learn, and then you have criminal behavior and a method to stop it.

are the insurgents you beleive are so gallant, exercising any restraint, have any higher authority checking their excesses? you know, kidnappings, beheadings, intimidation of the local populace, roadside bombs, using religious buildings as fighting positions...

nope. however, the US Armed Forces, and apparently the Israeli who brought the sniper up on charges, do have a higher authority doing a check and balance on their activities.

so, before you get on your witch hunt, which witch should you be hunting?

and which one is protecting your way of life, whether you choose to admit that fact or not?

CoworkerLurker · Post by **CoworkerLurker** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:28 am

Before getting into the "which witch" question, I'd like some help on the more limited "what is terrorism" question. Seems to have been abandoned, but I'm still hoping we can pick or create a working definition.

Here are some attempts at a definition (don't forget to check the following post). And then I added another possibility with some potential.

Can anyone help me on that "terrorist act" definition problem? Can we at least agree to eliminate some of those possibilities?

It's just that I don't think that any discourse on terrorism will be well served by "it can't be defined, but I know it when I see it".

I don't think the war on terrorism will proceed very well if people are running around saying, "This action must be condemned as an act of terrorism because I say it is!" and, "This action should not be condemned as an act of terrorism because I say it isn't!"

How can we fight it effectively if we don't know what it is?

What am I missing?

How can we tell?

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:16 am

So, some more questions:

1) What about the actual pointed aims of 'terrorist' groups? Once again, I'm not agreeing with them or their tactics by saying this, but most people that our media and government has tried very hard to rope into the 'irrational bully' catetgory have stated aims. Now, their ways of going about it are not always honorable, but there are reasons for what they do. There doesn't seem to be a whoel lot of difference between the kinds of aims that 'legitimate' armies support and those that 'terrorists' support - although the terrorists are almost always the ones with fewer means, less power, fewer weapons. And they often seem to operate at greater danger to themselves. Maybe this is another definition. More power and weapons = army. Less = terrorist. Suicide bombings are recognised by many as the military tactic of the underclass.

2) What about cases where the 'criminal behaviour', as Joel puts it, is not isolated to one individual, but prevalent throughout the ranks? And what about situations where these people who are pegged with criminal activity, so to speak, are never actually brought to justice? The only reason that Tom's case has gotten this far is that he's not an Arab. But as for those Arabs who have the same things happen to them, there's never even a blip on the Israeli government's radar. The 13 year old school girl who got horribly shot up by the platoon commander or whatever - remember, some decent soldiers under him ratter him out - well, the dude got off. Easy. Just like that.

3) fuck, i can't recall.

but DOT, my sense of it is that most Jihadist organisations actually have an aim of liberation, with the religious rhetoric as something of a prop. I suspect there's a wide range to which this is accurate, but it bears keeping in mind.

Look at Hizbollah's history for a good example.

CoworkerLurker · Post by **CoworkerLurker** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:30 am

Simply Joel wrote:however, the US Armed Forces, and apparently the Israeli who brought the sniper up on charges, do have a higher authority doing a check and balance on their activities.

As I recall, and as Rian hints at, in Tom's case, the matter only received Israeli attention and legal action as the result of his British family's huge investigative effort and relentless hounding of Israeli authorities. I don't think it was instigated by Israelis. Other cases have been brought up by Israelis, to their credit.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:15 am

This is an article from today that my buddies Bruce and Rob were interviewed for...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/o ... ams29.html

you don't get the map, unfortunately...