Domestic political violence (USA)

[zenpundit]

Ken wrote:

'Whodunnit' isn't the issue, what was done is the determinant.

Ken also wrote:

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:

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.

[Bob's World]

Terrorism is in the intent, not the effect.

A man places a charge in a fuel truck, drives it to Dodger stadium to blow up a World Series crowd to make a statement for his cause, but accidentally self-detonates on a remote road and no one is aware of his true intent nor is impacted by the blast.

Another man is merely driving his fuel truck through LA to make is scheduled deliveries, and a freak electrical shortage initiates a blast killing him, and 30 bystanders, causing millions of dollars in damage and impacting the populace of S. California for months.

Which one is a terrorist? The one who terrorized or the one who intended to terrorize?

I think our current definitions are overly politicized.

President Bush left office on the one proud metric that post-9/11 "we have not been attacked." 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.

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.

[Ken White]

Terrorism is in the intent, not the effect.

Well, yes -- however one man's terror is another's 'so what...'

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?

[Bob's World]

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?

[Ken White]

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...

As to Ken's question though, of "who did he terrorize." Probably a few thousand bureaucrats.

That's the acceptable outcome. Desirable even.

Just don't terrorize Congress or they'll pass some REALLY dumb laws.

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.

[Bob's World]

I too don't think his inspiration will do much. Why? No Causation.

In America many complain about the government, but we recognize it's legitimacy and we believe in our ability to control it, vice the other way around. This is what immunizes a populace from Insurgent motivation, be it ideology, leadership, or acts like this.

Most populaces don't have anything even close to what we enjoy in America in this regard; but I assess downward trends on both of these critical metrics over the past 20 years; and that is a trend we would be wise to address sooner than later. Good COIN is done years before the acutal insurgent is ever even born.

[zenpundit]

You have neatly encapsulated why I'm deeply suspicious of experts. An ex is a has-been, etc.

"An expert is someone who has made all of the mistakes that can be made in a narrow field" - Niels Bohr

[Ken White]

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...

[Rifleman]

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.

[slapout9]

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 is why I think all the analysis of terrorism/terrorist is really missing the larger point (motive) he was a Revolutionary. He used violence to impact a specific Government Policy or Policies....that is what Revolutionaries do as in "My only regret is that I have one life to give for my country" type stuff.

[slapout9]

Man bulldozes his own home because of IRS and Mortgage problems.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqb6Z...ayer_embedded#

[William F. Owen]

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 the rabbit! As an aside, I recently I had some guy advertised to me as being a "Counter-Terrorism Expert". I fed back that I was a "Warfare Expert." - not that I am in anyway, but I am thinking of claiming to be a "COIN Expert" since it seems there is no minimum standard in that field!

When folks call themselves "Student of Warfare" I think we'll be getting somewhere.

[Ken White]

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.

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:

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...

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.