"Terrorism"

[Nick]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8522746.stm

But it's ok, don't worry, you wont have to nail your children to the basement, it was, ultimately, like the detroit airline incident, the act of one man.

(I'll give you a tenner if you can spot the difference in their skin colours though)

[Winnow]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8522746.stm

But it's ok, don't worry, you wont have to nail your children to the basement, it was, ultimately, like the detroit airline incident, the act of one man.

(I'll give you a tenner if you can spot the difference in their skin colours though)

That was just some loony upset with the IRS. I'm sure Ireland has the occasional potato farmer flip out and kill people with their potato peelers. Same thing.

[Spang]

FUCK TEABAGGERS!

[Sueven]

This was something that I immediately thought about as well. Everyone seems unified that this is not terrorism-- cable news, commentators, Barack Obama.

Why isn't it? When I first heard about it, I thought "oh my gosh, domestic terrorism."

Timothy McVeigh didn't have a "nexus" to other terrorist groups either, does that make him not a terrorist?

Why is this not-terror?

[Kaldaur]

Indeed. When I heard Robert Gibbs make the distinction, I thought to myself, "What qualifies? Trying to destroy institutions important to our society? Check. Using planes to kill our citizens? Check."

I don't see where the breakdown occurs. If bin Laden didn't train them, I guess they don't count.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Why I don't necessarily view it as terrorism, although just because of his history with the IRS I think it could kind of be lumped in there. The real reason I would argue against labeling it as a terrorist act was that it was a lone person acting on their own without any ties or aspiring to have ties to an extremist group. The reason the Detroit incident was labeled pretty much across the board as being terrorism, that clown tied himself to Al Quieda, was a foreigner attempting to blow up a domestic flight, and was directed specifically at completely innocent people. This toolbag with the private plane attacked an organization that he was having specific issues with.

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

[Zaelath]

I still want to know what kinda of person sits around worrying about terrorism in the west. You have a better chance of dying from being struck by lightning than terrorism, do these people go outside?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Maybe it is because we sit around worrying about it and are vigilant is the reason we don't have more incidents?

[Kaldaur]

He did attack an organization...an organization with hundreds of people working in the building. This strikes me as a disregard for non-combatants inside.
Besides, we have long considered Timothy McVeigh an example of domestic terrorism, and he was a man on a team of two. How is an attack on a government building with a car bomb considered terrorism but a man flying a plane into a government building not considered terrorism? Once again, I think we're placing too much emphasis on the terrorist's reasons for the attack, when instead we should be focused on the results of the attack. That would squarely lump this into a terrorist plot and attack.

[Leonaerd]

It's only terrorism if the aggressor possesses abundant natural resources.

[Zaelath]

Maybe it is because we sit around worrying about it and are vigilant is the reason we don't have more incidents?

Ah, the age old elephant repellant argument.

Do you honestly think you were "vigilant" about terrorism for the 100 years leading up to 2001? Certainly every country has taken some basic security precautions at their airports ever since it became prevalent, but that is quite literally nothing compared to the level of "vigilance" you accept as warranted now.

A comparable reaction would be if the Government were to mandate that all cars must have a GPS enabled speed limiter such that it was impossible to ever exceed the speed limit, which would drive the price of all new cars up by $2000 and require a $5000 retrofit if you wanted to keep your old car, and you became a cheerleader for that program.

Given automobile accidents cause more than 40,000 deaths a year in the US alone and speed is always blamed, surely you can get behind that program.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

If they could do that without tracking a vehicle and lessened the cost, I would be all about that. The rampant speeding and and aggressive driving is a huge pet peeve of mine.

[Sueven]

The Detroit bombing attempt was undeniably terrorism; he was sent on a mission by al Qaeda.

The Fort Hood shooting is a better parallel, I think. My understanding is that, while the shooter there had communicated with extremists, he acted alone. Am I wrong on this?

Lloyd Dogget (Texas Congressman) called it terrorism, so I guess I wasn't alone in being confused.

[Zaelath]

If they could do that without tracking a vehicle and lessened the cost, I would be all about that. The rampant speeding and and aggressive driving is a huge pet peeve of mine.

But, the point is the cost and the privacy issues are exactly why I think the "War on Terrorism" is an over reaction that's costs outweight it's benefits... </hijack>

[Kwonryu DragonFist]

[Spang]

That's fucking hilarious!

[Aslanna]

Why does he take his shirt off?

[Sueven]

To show how hard he is, duh. Don't you take your shirt off before you slap someone out of their chair?

[Sylvus]

Indeed. When I heard Robert Gibbs make the distinction, I thought to myself, "What qualifies? Trying to destroy institutions important to our society? Check. Using planes to kill our citizens? Check."

I don't see where the breakdown occurs. If bin Laden didn't train them, I guess they don't count.

What if the guy had walked into the IRS building with a gun, shot two people and then killed himself? Is that terrorism? Is the fact that he used a plane what bumps it up from "disgruntled person with nothing left to lose committing murder-suicide" to "domestic terrorist"? The fact that he damaged property in addition to taking lives?

Who cares about the semantics of it, really, is that important? The guy did a horrible thing, and he's not much of a threat to repeat that (or any) act. What changes about the situation if we call it terrorism or not?

Those aren't rhetorical questions, I honestly don't understand. Was the point to illustrate that not all terrorists are muslims? Of course they aren't, I've never heard anyone suggest that.

[Sueven]

A few things:

Regardless of what you may have heard people suggest, the idea that "terrorism" means "violence by Muslims" becomes a lot stronger when the same act is deemed "terrorism" when it's committed by a Muslim but not when it's committed by a non-Muslim.

If he walked in with a gun and started shooting? Yes, it would still be terrorism. This is precisely what Nidal Malik Hasan did at Fort Hood, and there's no real debate about whether that was terrorism.

Why is it important what we call it? Well, it is mostly semantics. But language can be important. Large parts of the Muslim world are convinced that our "war on terror" is actually a war on Islam. If we claim to be fighting a war against terror, but we save our outrage and our action for only those acts of terrorism that are committed by Muslims, we reinforce the notion that Islam is our true target. That does great damage to our actual military goals and our hopes for the future of the Middle East.

This is why I'm glad that officials these days are talking about a war against al Qaeda, or a war against the Taliban. These are discrete, identifiable entities, as opposed to an abstract concept like "terror" that many Muslims simply interpret to be a cloak for our actual target, which they see to be their religion and their culture.

[Leonaerd]

Terrorism has a loose definition (by design, perhaps), which is fun because you can draw your own conclusions... and my take is that terrorism is illogical, routine, widely (within context) supported destruction against certain type of target, the likes of which is likely to continue for some time. Some muslims, Hitler and gang rapists are terrorists. That religion happens to be the most common terror medium is hardly surprising, given the batshit insanity that religions thrive upon, combined with the scope of influence.

Motive plays a big part. I can only think of a few reasons that would cause a group to support despicable acts. Suicide bombing to kill in the name of religion reeks of terrorism. So does sending troops to die in a war in an effort to make money. But that's how it goes.

[Nick]

In fairness, as you were all well aware, this was a cheeky post designed to instigate an eloquent debate on the semantics of the word "terrorism."

I'm actually surprised to see it was largely taken in that sense.

Which brings us, as has been discussed, to consider the semantical farce that has surrounded the word. I guess I'm not surprised that most VV'ers did get that.

But yeah...so ultimately... isn't that weird?

[vn_Tanc]

If it isn't an act designed to force a political change then it isn't terrorism in my opinion it's just random violence. Maybe tis guy thought he'd change the tax laws through this action? Perhaps he should have followed the tried and true method of throwing tea into the harbour instead.