Domestic political violence (USA)

[zenpundit]

This is really an argument regarding parameters. I think Ken is taking a far too narrow view of what constitutes "terrorism", historically speaking.

Certainly, well-organized, highly ideological, methodical and frequently state-sponsored groups that engage in assassinations, hijackings, bombings and murder of civilians to further political objectives should be considered terrorists. The Marxist and Left-revolutionary nationalist groups of the 1960's-1980's from the Baader-Meihoff Gang, FALN, IRA and the PLO factions fit this model but they are not the only kind of org that can engage in terrorism.

While terrorism as a tactic has a very long pedigree - ancient Athens celebrated Harmodius and Aristogeiton as democratic martyrs for assasinating the tyrant Hipparchus - the term's meaning has evolved. The first modern terrorists were Jacobin agents of the Committee of Public Safety like Joseph Fouche enforcing a revolutionary terror against hapless clergy and other "enemies".

Later 19th century terrorists were primarily anarchists, acting in small cells like the Russian People's Will or as solitary assassins and bombmakers. Their ideology was ill-defined, their strategy virtually absent as they advocated "the propaganda of the deed". This tradition continued well into the 20th century with the Left S.R's trying to kill Lenin and itinerant anarchists attempting to kill Mussolini, A. Mitchell Palmer and FDR. Ethnic criminal organizations such as the Sicilian Black Hand and the Irish Molly Maguires also made liberal use of terrorism to buttress their efforts at extortion and influence in their communities.

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.

[Ken White]

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...

[Armed Liberal]

Joining the debate late, but led here from Zenpundit's link. I'll apologetically take a moment to disagree with much of what ZP says; the Committee on Public Safety was an organization of the State - chartered by the National Assembly. If their actions were terrorism, then so are the actions of every brutal dictatorship in the world - so, in fact, are the actions of every state that uses deadly force to enforce state policy.

I'll suggest that there are two phenomena here - one is what I've been calling the phenomenon of "muckers" (after John Brunner) - people who because of some anomic defect simply decide that killing people - sometimes lots of people - is the only way to scratch some psychic itch. We're rich in them in the West, for philosophical reasons that are interesting to explore, but a sidebar.

One is the growing acceptance, in the face of new standards of behavior in warfare that explicitly attempt to restrain military behavior, of non-state violence.

Some of the non-state actors are political participants within a state (Sri Lanka, the Taliban) some are transnational movements (currently the one that is active and attention getting is based on a modern interpretation of fundamentalist Islam - Islam crossbred with modern European philosophy).

I'll suggest a kind of "occam's razor" in distinguishing muckers from terrorists; if there are policy issues at stake - even irrational ones, we are probably talking about terrorists, even if they are lone wolf or self-initiated terrorists.

Muckers have no addressable complaints - as the Austin pilot didn't, the Washington state trooper murderer didn't. And they had no social network supporting and encouraging this kind of violence.

The Aryan Nation bank robbers in the 1980's? terrorists. Random cranks who go off and spout inchoate rage against the government and the system? Not so much, I'll argue.

So it seems dangerous to define terrorism down to the level of someone like this...


Marc

[zenpundit]

"Joining the debate late, but led here from Zenpundit's link. I'll apologetically take a moment to disagree with much of what ZP says; the Committee on Public Safety was an organization of the State - chartered by the National Assembly. If their actions were terrorism, then so are the actions of every brutal dictatorship in the world - so, in fact, are the actions of every state that uses deadly force to enforce state policy"

Yes, that however was the point of origin for the concept of terrorism and "Terrorists", as a state agency, propagators of "the Terror" during the French Revolution, though the tactic is ancient (see LaQueur, Voices of Terror). The Jacobins and the Paris Commune were the heavy historical influence on Lenin's ideas of revolutionary violence ( along with the theories of Sergei Nechaev). Terrorism later became associated with groups and individuals which is how we use it today but "state terrorism" has never disappeared, we just call it something else.

[Ken White]

I'm sure some will think so. Seems like not a terrorist, simply yet another nutter...

[slapout9]

SPLC special report on the rise of hate groups. Up 244% for 2009


http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...e-on-the-right

[Schmedlap]

SPLC special report on the rise of hate groups. Up 244% for 2009


http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...e-on-the-right

I heard an equally credible report from an equally credible group (though on the other side of the political spectrum) claiming that left-wing politicians want to destroy our way of life. Panic! If someone reports it, it must be objectively true!

[slapout9]

I heard an equally credible report from an equally credible group (though on the other side of the political spectrum) claiming that left-wing politicians want to destroy our way of life. Panic! If someone reports it, it must be objectively true!

I never really understood the differance between left wing and right ring hate groups.

[Ken White]

SPLC special report on the rise of hate groups. Up 244% for 2009

Only way to keep those grants and donations coming in...

[bourbon]

Only way to keep those grants and donations coming in...

Exactly, the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center is notoriously sleazy. I am very skeptical about the information put out by the SPLC.