The Terrorism Thread

[freebird]

If you are bewildered by anthrax, Afghanistan, and what else that has happened since September 11, join the crowd. For the purpose of this thread, I would like to confine the discussion to Terrorism. One of the best definitions I have seen is:

Terrorism is 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. --FBI Definition

Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:
1. It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
2. It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.
3. It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
4. It is carried out by subnational groups—not by the army of a country.

Luch of the discussion centers around what motivates those who commit terrorism? Political (e.g. Red Army Faction), religious (e.g. Islamic extremism), ethnic (e.g. hate crimes), social (e.g. single-issue such as abortion, capital punishment).

Here are a few areas we should explore:

1. Should military action be taken against terrorist countries?

2. Do you feel that terrorism can be stopped? Why or Why not?

3. Should media report these acts of terrorism? Why or Why not?

4. Do terrorists use the media as a means of promoting their beliefs and opinions?

5. What impact does the media have on terrorist acts?

6. Do you feel governments should fund terrorist organizations? Why or Why not?

7. Is terrorism ever, in any situation, justifiable in this day and age?

8. What is the main cause of terrorism?

9. What individual freedoms should the public expect to give up in an effort to increase our national securtiy?

10. If total security is impossible, what is the benchmark or standard that we should expect?

11. I need information on how individuals should prepare at home for a terrorist attack. What supplies such as water, etc. are needed?

12. What information is needed about the effects terrorism has on the country of origin and the people in it?

13. How do most terrorist organizations finance their operations?

14. What effect does technology have on terrorism?

15. Do you feel that terrorism is becoming more and more of a threat to you personally?

16. Is terrorism just brutal, unthinking violence?

17. Did anything hold back terrorists from mass killing in the past?

18. Have terrorists ever used weapons of mass destruction?

19. Are religiously motivated terrorists like al-Qaeda less restrained than other terrorists?

20. What is a hate crime?

Look forward to your thoughts and input.

[Kane]

Terrorism is 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. --FBI Definition

This makes our founding fathers terrorists. I think terrorist is a BS word used to instill fear in the masses, in order to divert people's attention away from the issues being fought for and to demonize revolutionaries and freedom fighters.

With the case of Middle Eastern terrorists, I think it is an appropriate label.

But the same label is used for the IRA, whom I believe have a worthy cause: Freedom for Ireland from English rule. As I already said, our Army and militia, during the revolutionary war would have fit the FBI definition of a terrorist as well. Fundamental Christians were also the priority on the FBI watch list for terrorism around the time of the Oklahoma bombing.

With this definition of a terrorist, any free American who believes the government is trying to strip away our freedom, and then who tries to take violent action against them is a terrorist. Pretty convenient way to suppress rebellion, and to make people too afraid to stand up for themselves.

[Capulet]

I've recently mentioned it in another topic, but I think this is the perfect place to discuss U.S. involvement in the coup attempts in Venezuala, and the subsequent use of NED funds to continue funding for subversive elements still at work trying to topple the democratically elected government.

I think it'd be a great backdrop to explore how a country funds terrorist actions, the media's treament of it, and really what sort of action can be taken against the terrorist backer when they're the largest military power on the globe.

[LensmanZ313]

Let's talk about "terrorism." Let's talk about the time the United States Department of Defense planned to commit acts of terrorism (real and/or simulated) on American tourists in Cuba and blame them on the Castro government to encourage support for an invasion of the country to depose Castro. It was called Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods).

Sounds outlandish but it almost happened.

[freebird]

Kane:

That is a good point, I have to ponder on that. Most assuredly the founding fathers would have been hanged if they had lost the war.

However, I want to seperate the terrorism subject from the foreign policy issues. Most of the "terrorist's" or "criminals" on 9/11 were Saudi. Yet we did not hold Saudi Arabia to blame. Likewise I do not hold all Muslims to blame, but there are some that I do. They were there on my TV screen cheering when planes crashed into buildings here in America. We know who they are: those who pledge Jihad against the west.

I am disgusted when terrorists or those who impose Islamic bigotry and intolerance are joined by those who never hesitate to criticize Jews and Christians for their beliefs. Do they think homosexuals, Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists will escape the menace of innate Muslim hatreds that terrorists embrace?

I suspect the defender of terrorist actions will end up impaled on their own sophistry and bigotry, as they head down that road of absolute moral bankruptcy. --freebird

[freebird]

Actually Capulet can we move it to the Foreign Policy thread? Although the funding of terrorism is appropriate here.

Originally Posted by Capulet

I've recently mentioned it in another topic, but I think this is the perfect place to discuss U.S. involvement in the coup attempts in Venezuala, and the subsequent use of NED funds to continue funding for subversive elements still at work trying to topple the democratically elected government.

I think it'd be a great backdrop to explore how a country funds terrorist actions, the media's treament of it, and really what sort of action can be taken against the terrorist backer when they're the largest military power on the globe.

[freebird]

Wiki?

Lensman can we move this to the Foreign Policy thread?

Originally Posted by LensmanZ313

Let's talk about "terrorism." Let's talk about the time the United States Department of Defense planned to commit acts of terrorism (real and/or simulated) on American tourists in Cuba and blame them on the Castro government to encourage support for an invasion of the country to depose Castro. It was called Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods).

Sounds outlandish but it almost happened.

[Capulet]

[quote="freebird"]Actually Capulet can we move it to the Foreign Policy thread? Although the funding of terrorism is appropriate here.

Sounds good. It'll take me more time than I have this afternoon to compose something in regards to terrorism as a theory as opposed to specific instances of it, so give me a bit to compose something. Glancing at the list I'll probably address points 1, 4, 5, and 8 given they're either my areas of interest or mandatory to discuss said areas.

[freebird]

Cool. I am going to take a white pill, so may not be lucid for awhile. But feel free to add. Cheers! freebird

[quote="Capulet"]

Originally Posted by freebird

Actually Capulet can we move it to the Foreign Policy thread? Although the funding of terrorism is appropriate here.

Sounds good. It'll take me more time than I have this afternoon to compose something in regards to terrorism as a theory as opposed to specific instances of it, so give me a bit to compose something. Glancing at the list I'll probably address points 1, 4, 5, and 8 given they're either my areas of interest or mandatory to discuss said areas.

[freebird]

A Libertarian point of view.


A Londoner Again

BERNARD DARNTON
LIBERTARIANZ LEADER AND
WELLINGTON CENTRAL CANDIDATE

I lived in London for many years. I grew up and went to school there. I haven’t been back for many years and now Dunedin and Wellington are far more like home than London is. But when I heard the news of the Underground bombings I was a Londoner again.

My parents and siblings live and work in and around London. A quick call home confirmed that everyone was accounted for and safe, although possibly more by good luck than good judgement in one case. Fortunately, no one I know was hurt. Many other people had an infinitely worse day.

Despite the fact that London is a city of fifteen million people, almost all of whom I’ve obviously never met, twenty thousand kilometres away, and that I haven’t lived in for years, this still felt personal. The tube trains and the red double-deckers are a part of my childhood. They’re not just a transport system; they’re an iconic part of London, a central piece of that city’s culture.

Another central piece of London’s culture is the Blitz attitude - the grim determination to keep on going even in the toughest of times. It was genuinely heartening to see that Londoners haven’t lost it. Generations later most of the faces have changed but that gritty core of London’s soul, usually invisible, remains.

The people who did this and the people who support them are the enemies of everything we hold dear. Not just family and friends or symbols of a great city but the very ideas that make that city’s greatness possible.

These killers would give us a society without liberty. They would give us a society without human rights. They would give us a society where people who don’t follow their instructions are stoned to death.

They would give us a society of fear, not of respect. They would give us a society of violence, not of trade. They would give us a society of dogma, not of thought, creativity, or imagination.

The perpetrators of this atrocity must be rooted out and brought to account for their evil. So too must the ideas that made their actions possible. Only when these ideas are defeated will we be safe. The destructive, inhuman philosophy of these murderers must be replaced with a mindset that respects individuals, that tolerates freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association, and will not tolerate acts of violence against innocents.

The dead will be mourned and buried. Lovers of freedom will carry on, resolute.

http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/newsl.../Liberty40.pdf

[freebird]

Starrwriter:

Pick any, all or make up any questions pertinent to the debate. Yes, I meant nations that shelter terrorists (like Afganistan under the Taliban regime). I agree it is a small, but vocal and influential minority within Islam committing acts of violence, but a lot of Muslims standing on the sidelines watching. On a side note: don't know if you watch professional wrestling or not, don't care if you do or do not, but the Muslim character has been pulled off the show. I disagree with that, even though I thought it was in poor taste. Keep posting your thoughts! freebird

Originally Posted by starrwriter

You asked WAY too many questions to answer in one post, but I'll make a few comments:

You violated your own definition of terrorism by asking if action should be taken against "terrorist nations." I assume you meant nations that shelter terrorists (like Afganistan under the Taliban regime.)

American citizens should not give up any Constitutional rights to increase national security. This does not apply to foreign citizens living legally or illegally in the U.S. Our Constitution was not designed to protect the rights of citizens of other countries -- just as foreign countries don't protect the native rights of American citizens.

I can think of one circumstance where terrorism would be justified. If the U.S. became a military dictatorship and/or Constitutional rights were suspended, I'd be willing to make and use bombs.

The main cause of terrorism since 9/11 is religious fanaticism among a very small percentage of the Muslim population. I don't buy the argument that Muslim poverty caused it. Some of the terrorists came from poor families, but Ossama bin Laden was filthy rich.

[LensmanZ313]

America has supported terrorism in the past. Who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and was supported by money and weapons from the CIA? The Taliban.

Look at the Contras. Those thugs terrorized people for many years and were supported by the US; Oliver North knew that US intelligence agencies even used drug trafficking to finance the Contras--and some say that the CIA used opium money to finace the Afghani rebels, i.e., the Taliban.

Yes, America is guilty of state-sponsored terrorism.

[freebird]

You cannot have it both ways: one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Seriously you define according to your standards. Hey you left out Cuba (Bay of Pigs).

[Capulet]

Originally Posted by freebird

You cannot have it both ways: one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Seriously you define according to your standards. Hey you left out Cuba (Bay of Pigs).

This brings up a good point. I'm going to pull away from the Contra thing to bring it back to a more abstract (although I do agree the Contras were terrorists).

The line between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter" is very blurry. What happens when a group of people with noble intentions (like the overthrow of a dictatorship) turn to tactics such as car or air bombings to try and make their changes? Such actions require a reaction, especially from the international community if the acts are carried out against foreigners, international flights, etc.

How do we take seriously any movement that turns to illegal means to accomplish an otherwise noble goal? And how do you avoid encouraging that sort of behaviour by taking action against whatever injustive is being committed in the same timeframe as the bombings?

[Kane]

Well I don't think the original injustice should be overlooked because it was brought to light by a violent "illegal" action. At the same time, I don't think violence should be a first measure.

Take the IRA for example. They began as Ireland's Army, sanctioned by the government. Then, the Irish President signed a treaty giving control of Northern Ireland to England. At least how I understand it anyway. What were the IRA to do then? Lay down their weapons and stop fighting for an independent Ireland, simply because politics changed? They are also the victims of attacks by the English, and the new President's forces as well, even though their mission had always been a free Ireland. The world kind of ignores the fact that England took over a people that largely didn't want to be taken over, just as they have done so many times before. The media turns it in to a fight between Catholics and Protestants, but it's so much more than that. And though I am Protestant, I think I have to side with the IRA. I don't condone the killing of innocent people, but I think something has to be done, and perhaps the IRA is doing all they can.

On the other hand, I believe that all other measures must be exhausted before thinking about violence. Timothy McVeigh had an important message to convey about the American government, but as soon as he blew up the building in Oklahoma, he threw away his cause. The media didn't even care why he did it, they only cared that he killed civillians and children. We owe it to the cause we are fighting for to try peaceful means first. Raise public awareness of the problem, start an organized movement, etc. If the problem is severe enough, and it is being ignored, and there is nothing else to be done, perhaps then they could look at agressive action. Even then, however, people should try and stay away from civillian targets, and focus on military, police, and government targets. Killing non government-affiliated civillians will only hurt someone's cause.

I'm not advocating violent action, by the way, so don't come knocking on my door, Big Brother. I'm just saying, our country was built on the back of a violent uprising, but only after they had exhausted their other means. Even our founding fathers advocated violent uprising to combat tyranny. Our government is not supposed to be powerful. We, the People, are supposed to hold all the power. The government is only supposed to expedite our wishes. This is no longer how it is, now, the government holds all the power, and we are kind of just sitting here, waiting to see how they will take away our freedom next. We really need to stand up now, before it is too late, and work to accomplish a change in the way things are done. And if the government then refuses to listen, to an extremely organized movement, then all options must be considered. Just writing this, I feel like I'm going to get a visit from my friendly neighborhood department of fascism, and I shouldn't. This is America, and I should be able to say whatever I want. Remember, I'm NOT advocating violent rebellion, unless it is the will of the people against an oppressive government who refuses to step down when confronted by the majority.