State of Fear

[The Germanator]

The biggest wrong with the word "terrorist" is that it more describes a "style" of warfare rather than an actual enemy. We're specifically fighting Afghanis? Great! We're specifically fighting Iraqis? Great! We're fighting Saudi Arabians! Great! We're fighting our own citizens? Great! Individuals who plan these attacks don't belong to any one group, which makes it so difficult. It's why attacking whole countries has been hard for me to swallow. I understand individuals harbor to certain countries, but that's why it's always been tough for me to handle specific WARS on Iraq and Afghanistan...

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

The biggest wrong with the word "terrorist" is that it more describes a "style" of warfare rather than an actual enemy. We're specifically fighting Afghanis? Great! We're specifically fighting Iraqis? Great! We're fighting Saudi Arabians! Great! We're fighting our own citizens? Great! Individuals who plan these attacks don't belong to any one group, which makes it so difficult. It's why attacking whole countries has been hard for me to swallow. I understand individuals harbor to certain countries, but that's why it's always been tough for me to handle specific WARS on Iraq and Afghanistan...

I see what you're saying (and what Typh is saying), but that leaves us in a very sticky situation. What about nations that harbor terrorists, or like in the case of Iran, even fund and arm them (but claim ignorance)? Terrorism isn't a people, but an unlawful and unprotected style of warfare intended to force political action by creating fear not in a government, but in a constituency. It is, quite honestly, aimed directly at democracy (dictatorships wouldn't care if their people were terrorized) and that makes it even more dangerous because it has the potential to create environments that encourage people to remove their own freedoms to protect themselves.*

In the end, even if you fight terrorism as a police action, you are still fighting a very specific type of combatant with distinct political motives. Whether you call it terrorism or not, there will be a name applied, and eventually that name will have the same stigma "terrorist" has today. I suppose I don't see the point or abolishing the name.

*By the way, this is another example of why the Constitution is such a brilliant document. It grants inalienable rights that people can't vote away.

ANGRIST: Sorry I hijacked this thing. What is the major reason given for terrorism in your country? We hear so much about Islamic extremists and Irish separatists that other motives and examples get lost. I'm curious.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I see what you're saying (and what Typh is saying), but that leaves us in a very sticky situation. What about nations that harbor terrorists, or like in the case of Iran, even fund and arm them (but claim ignorance)? Terrorism isn't a people, but an unlawful and unprotected style of warfare intended to force political action by creating fear not in a government, but in a constituency. It is, quite honestly, aimed directly at democracy (dictatorships wouldn't care if their people were terrorized) and that makes it even more dangerous because it has the potential to create environments that encourage people to remove their own freedoms to protect themselves.*

In the end, even if you fight terrorism as a police action, you are still fighting a very specific type of combatant with distinct political motives.

I watched a documentary the other week on Timothy McVeigh (OKC Bomber), and it was actually very interesting. First of all, he was the only American I've ever heard referred to as a "terrorist". Which is okay. Equality and all that.

However, to touch on what you said about "Terrorism is aimed at Democracy", I say that quote isn't accurate. McVeigh started planning his act of terrorism to try incite a militia revolt of a country he deemed to be in a tyrannical federal government (based on his view of the Waco Seige - I believe it was).

Also, the end of the documentary really frustrated me because it basically ended with an old woman saying "Americans just don't do that sort of thing" - and it's that level of ignorance I dislike.

But I was also going to say the problem I have with a "war on terrorism" is you can't fight terrorism. Terrorism isn't a country, or an area. It's a blanket name for rebels and militias from multiple countries all around the world who do terrible acts in order to try get a 'point' of their specific group across. "Terrorism" has been happening for hundreds of years. Fighting terrorism begets more terrorism. Now, clearly this doesn't mean leaving it alone will do nothing. But you can't go to war with an entire country just because of some pissed off dude from that country attacked you. That would be like a Civil War breaking out after the McVeigh bombing.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

However, to touch on what you said about "Terrorism is aimed at Democracy", I say that quote isn't accurate. McVeigh started planning his act of terrorism to try incite a militia revolt of a country he deemed to be in a tyrannical federal government (based on his view of the Waco Seige - I believe it was).

Isn't the act of inciting a armed revolt against a democratically elected government an attack on democracy? I fail to see the difference.

Also, the end of the documentary really frustrated me because it basically ended with an old woman saying "Americans just don't do that sort of thing" - and it's that level of ignorance I dislike.

Well, outside of a few notable exceptions, Americans DON'T do that sort of thing. I'm not sure how her comments are ignorant. Canadians don't either, or a number of other cultures/nations, and we certainly do not tolerate such groups living among us (knowingly).

Contrary to current political rhetoric, not everything is the same for everyone, everywhere.

[Typhoid]

Isn't the act of inciting a armed revolt against a democratically elected government an attack on democracy? I fail to see the difference.

The difference is he didn't view it as a democracy. He wasn't doing it to attack democracy. He was doing it to (in his mind) overthrow a 'tyrannical dictatorship that kills it's own people and lets them die'.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

The difference is he didn't view it as a democracy. He wasn't doing it to attack democracy. He was doing it to (in his mind) overthrow a 'tyrannical dictatorship that kills it's own people and lets them die'.

... because he did not agree with the actions of a democratically elected government. His "point of view" is meaningless. His actions compared to an objective view of reality are what should be measured.

No one is going to say "I hate democracy" regardless of their disputes, but his actions tell us this fact.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

... because he did not agree with the actions of a democratically elected government. His "point of view" is meaningless. His actions compared to an objective view of reality are what should be measured.

No one is going to say "I hate democracy" regardless of their disputes, but his actions tell us this fact.

Saying it's an attack on democracy itself just because the governing body of the country it took place happens to be democratic is as equal a stretch as saying the OKC bombing was an attack on city planners, and 9/11 was an attack against skyscrapers and building codes.

I don't see how his [since this is what we're talking about now] actions of blowing up a building because he viewed the government killed its own people as an attack on democracy. If anything, it's an attack on the country, or those in charge. Not the government-style that country has. And no - an attack on a democratic country, or democratically elected officials is not an attack on democracy. He didn't want to overthrow the type of government, just wasn't impressed with those in charge.

But we should stop this.
It's entirely off-topic.

[Angrist]

Originally Posted by Professor S

ANGRIST: Sorry I hijacked this thing. What is the major reason given for terrorism in your country? We hear so much about Islamic extremists and Irish separatists that other motives and examples get lost. I'm curious.

I don't know what reason is given for the terrorism in our country. Perhaps that's because nobody here has tried to blame something/someone for what happened.
In 2002 political party leader Pim Fortuyn was murdered. He was very anti-immigration. He was not killed by a muslim, nor was he killed for being anti-immigration. He was killed by a guy from my study town (Wageningen), because Pim Fortuyn was also pro-fur. The murderer was smart and educated. My town apparently 'harbors' left extremists (we do have a lot of hippies here).
So it was just 1 guy who thought it was better for the country if Pim Fortuyn died.

In 2004 Theo van Gogh was killed by a muslim extremist with both the Dutch and Maroccan nationality. Apparently Van Gogh had insulted the islam, I didn't really follow the news.

In 2009 eight people were killed by a anti royal family guy who drove in on a crowd close to the royal family.

Animal rights organizations also use terrorism from time to time. They torched a butchery, threw in windows of a McDonalds, liberated animals, threatened people, etc.

Other than that, there have been several arrests of muslims, but no actions of terrorism. I guess we're too sober to start blaming everything/everybody.

[Professor S]

While all of those things are awful, I would not consider most of them terrorism, except for the Animal rights examples. Other than that they seem like assassination attempts or just flat out homicide.