Domestic political violence (USA)

[Rifleman]

I believe violent acts should be considered either criminal acts or acts of war regardless of motivation and aims. I don't see "terrorism" as a useful classification for violent acts either foreign or domestic. I see terrorism as a tactic, not a useful legal definition.

I don't think the US or our allies should be engaged in a so called "Global War on Terror." I think we should be engaged in a war on militant Islamic organizations.

After the Pearl Harbor attack, the US declared war on the nation of Japan. We didn't declare war on tactics and techniques like Japanese Naval Aviation or Japanese air raids.

[Bob's World]

Under current definitions, which I believe have been heavily shaped to define the current threat, no, it is not terrorism.

A quick google takes one to ABOUT with several definitions. In 1937 it was terrorism according to the League of Nations:

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public."

And it may meet the current FBI definition:

"The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

And certainly it is under the Arab Conventions of 1998; which ironically have about the lowest standard for what qualifies as terrorism. The cynic in me would say it is because it really flies in the face of Arab culture to have to work too hard at anything...:

"Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources."

[slapout9]

I believe violent acts should be considered either criminal acts or acts of war regardless of motivation and aims. I don't see "terrorism" as a useful classification for violent acts either foreign or domestic. I see terrorism as a tactic, not a useful legal definition.

I don't think the US or our allies should be engaged in a so called "Global War on Terror." I think we should be engaged in a war on militant Islamic organizations.

After the Pearl Harbor attack, the US declared war on the nation of Japan. We didn't declare war on tactics and techniques like Japanese Naval Aviation or Japanese air raids.

Rifleman, your right to a point...........he was a Revolutionary and he was willing to pay any price to make his point. Bob Dylan recently played at the White House singing some of his songs but I bet he didn't play this one. The Tea Party was an act of Revolution.............most people seem to forget that. H. Rap Brown said "Revolution is as American As Apple Pie." The 70's are coming back and most ain't old enough to remember the Revolutionary groups that existed then or they have forgotten them. The New Breed will be a lot tougher and smarter. So much for my weekend analysis have to go do my "honey do list"

album: Band of the Hand Soundtrack

lyrics

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

Down these streets the fools rule
There's no freedom or self respect,
A knife's point or a trip to the joint
Is about all you can expect.

They kill people here who stand up for their rights, The system's just too damned corrupt
It's always the same, the name of the game
Is who do you know higher up well.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

The blacks and the whites,
The idiotic, the exotic,
Wealth is a filthy rag
So erotic so unpatriotic
So wrapped up in the American flag.

Witchcraft scum exploiting the dumb,
Turning children into punks and slaves
Whose heroes and healers are rich drug dealers Who should be put in their graves.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

Listen to me Mr. Pussyman
This might be your last night in a bed so soft. We're not pimps on the make, politicians on the take, You can't pay us off.

We're gonna blow up your home of Voodoo
And watch it burn without any regret
We got the power we're the new government,
You just don't know it yet.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

For all of my brothers from Vietnam
And my uncles from World War II,
I'd like to say that it's countdown time now
And we're gonna do what the law should do.

And for you pretty baby,
I know you've seen it all.
I know your story is too painful to share.
One day though you'll be talking in your sleep.And when you do, I wanna be there yeaahhh.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
Band of The Hand
It's Hell Time Man
Band of The Hand
It's Hell Time Man
Band of The Hand
It's Hell Time Man

The Studio Version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JLoO1S3-QE

[zenpundit]

Ken wrote:

"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."

So, if a bomb explodes in the marketplace, and the media of a regime suppresses the information ( and thus, the spread of fear) the bombing isn't an act of terrorism?

[Ken White]

So, if a bomb explodes in the marketplace, and the media of a regime suppresses the information ( and thus, the spread of fear) the bombing isn't an act of terrorism?

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...

It would also be helpful to know if the news of the bombing, though suppressed, leaked out and instilled a sense of terror resulting in behavior modification of the masses or elements thereof. That will not affect the determination of intent to commit a terroristic act it will merely indicate its success as an action...

[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?

[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.