Not the correct parameter...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zenpundit
Using a narrow organizational definition of terrorism pretty much eliminates most of the historical examples on which the concept of terrorism itself is based. More often than not, terrorism reprsents an inarticulate but violent political gesture that is not connected to a methodical, sequential, plan to tople the state.
I agree with the last clause but disagree with the first. 'Whodunnit' isn't the issue, what was done is the determinant.
More precisely, the intended effect of what was done (Terror, like other things can fail to achieve a goal) is the defining factor. If the effort by a single actor or a group, organized or not, is intended to provoke a mass or target group reaction then it's terror. If it is a violent act or series of them intended to make a statement, political or otherwise it may or may not be a terroristic act but if it does not provoke a sense of terror or fear in a target population, then it rarely will really be an act of terror.
If it is an action by a deranged individual or collection of them and achieves no significant effect or fearful reaction by a targeted population other than locally, it's a nut or a few doing something stupid and usually wasteful.
I agree with Rifleman. What you call something is important due to human perception triggering reaction. Overuse of the 'terror' tag has sorta cheapened it. As we can see... :D
Contradictions proving the point....
Ken wrote:
Quote:
'Whodunnit' isn't the issue, what was done is the determinant.
Ken also wrote:
Quote:
Tell me who made and who exploded the bomb and for what purpose, then describe the actual damage done and I might be able to answer that...
and also:
Quote:
Seems to me that is true and thus we're describing abberant actions that do not reach a threshold of inspiring terror
Now, I do not disagree that these different and conflicting standards of determining whether an act was terrorism could be useful yardsticks. To me, there's more than one kind of terrorism in the world and multiple causation acting as catalyst for that behavior with terrorists aiming for different objectives.
Pre-9/11, few counterterrorism experts would have counseled airline passengers and crew to resist hijackers because the idea that hijackers would suicidally fly the plane into buildings was not considered to be probable behavior, as the experts were working from the Western and Third World Marxist revolutionary group model to which al Qaida does not fit.
I see terrorism as more of a spectrum phenomena than a neat categorical box.
Neither, Bob. One was an accident, the other failed. C'est la vie...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zenpundit
Pre-9/11, few counterterrorism experts would have counseled airline passengers and crew to resist hijackers because the idea that hijackers would suicidally fly the plane into buildings was not considered to be probable behavior, as the experts were working from the Western and Third World Marxist revolutionary group model to which al Qaida does not fit.
You have neatly encapsulated why I'm deeply suspicious of experts. An ex is a has-been, etc. :D
Quote:
I see terrorism as more of a spectrum phenomena than a neat categorical box.
Totally agree, thus my agreement with Entropy that it's an eye of the beholder thing and with Bob's World that our current definitions are overly politicized. I also agree with Bob on this:
Quote:
To imply that one is only a terrorist if they are linked to AQ or some similar foreign organization that regularly employs terrorist tactics to seek its political goals is as obscene as it is absurd.
therefor I'm glad I implied no such thing... :D
Nor do I think anyone here did that though I acknowledge others on all facets of the political spectrum have. That's why I believe the term to be over used and urge caution in its application.
the road to hell is paved with 'em...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Terrorism is in the intent, not the effect.
Well, yes -- however one man's terror is another's 'so what...'
Quote:
This is a record that Politicians want to keep intact; if not in fact, then by simply defining what are clearly terrorist acts, like the last two Texas events, out of that realm.
Mmm, not IMO. Hasan, yes and I agree; the Austin IRS Fly-In not so much. As you say, it's the intent. Who do you think he was trying to terrorize?
You imply a "scale" and "success" criteria
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Well, yes -- however one man's terror is another's 'so what...'Mmm, not IMO. Hasan, yes and I agree; the Austin IRS Fly-In not so much. As you say, it's the intent. Who do you think he was trying to terrorize?
Which I don't see in many of the definitions. Not saying there isn't something to that. I think the SWJ community is a fairly sensible lot on these things, but also recognize that it is not a respresentative slice of America either (lest one feel either too good or too bad about some of the responses they receive to their thoughts posted here)
Valid points on a subjective topic.
But I am biased. I think "counterterrorism" is a mission set that does far more damage than good. In name alone it shifts the focuse to attacking the symptoms of problems; and away from the problems themselves. It also shifts the focus and funding to those organizations that engage those symptoms and away from those who are mandated with addressing the problems, thereby accentuating their previous failures that facilitated the rise of terrorism to beging with. A viscious circle.
Now we have a State Department that does Counterterrorism and Nation Building as what appears to be its new primary purpose in support to the Defense Department. Sad.
What we really need is a State Department that looks beyond states, but is focused on the diplomacy and policies needed to mitigate the need for such symptomatic approaches.
I guess I'm just irritated with our nation's approach to everything related to terrorism these days and it makes me grouchy. Sorry.
As to Ken's question though, of "who did he terrorize." Probably a few thousand bureaucrats.
More important question: Who did he inspire?
I understand the argument and I still disagree...
I can see terrorism as a tactic. I can also see it as an effect - did someone get real scared because someone else was threatened or killed? Well, then they were terrorized, weren't they?
I still don't think it's a useful legal definition, regardless of the perpetrators motive or intent. We have crimes. We have acts of war. We even have war crimes. What else is needed?
What useful purpose does debating whether or not an act of violence or intimidation should be called domestic terrorism serve? Is it not enough to call it murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, arson, property destruction, stalking, etc.?
I see the term "terrorism" as Wilf seems to see terms like manuever warfare, 4GW, OOTW, etc. It's a hip term for an ancient tactic/effect that serves no useful purpose and diverts attention away from the essence of what's really going on.
That's a totally acceptable outcome...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
I guess I'm just irritated with our nation's approach to everything related to terrorism these days and it makes me grouchy. Sorry.
Not a problem, as Bill would say, I feel your pain. Now you know why I'm grumpy and have been for forty plus years... :D
Quote:
As to Ken's question though, of "who did he terrorize." Probably a few thousand bureaucrats.
That's the acceptable outcome. Desirable even. :cool:
Just don't terrorize Congress or they'll pass some REALLY dumb laws. :rolleyes:
Quote:
More important question: Who did he inspire?
Most likely no more than a few copycats who may or may not be successful, more or less. As I believe Slap will agree, that factors into a lot of criminal acts.
That recognition of legitimacy and belief in our ability to control it
may be changing: LINK. I saw another poll but cannot find it wherein IIRC, about 60+ % of the people thought that they were not in control of the government while about 60+ % of the Political class (whatever that is...) thought the people were in control. That is not a good transposition because it giver the pols carte blanche to keep doing what they're doing -- which generally is not good. :(
So your point about a downward trend is valid and, as you say, good COIN is done BEFORE there is a problem...