So when exactly is it terrorism?

[Skeptic]

The plane crash is terrorism if you use one definition. The plane crash is not terrorism if you use another.

You are 100% correct in your observation, but the issues we are discussion are different.

1). What definition is better -- more accurate, covers more of acts of terrorism while excluding acts that are not terrorism.

2). The annoying double standard: the same folks who are screaming "terrorist! terrorist! See? SEE?! It's not just Muslims!" are also remarkably reluctant to call real Islamic terrorism (e.g., Major Hassan's killing of 13 soldiers) "terrorism".

3). True, the same double standard to a certain degree exists on the other side -- namely, rushing to call Hassan's act terrorism and this act they are less sure of.

But it is a much lesser double standard, because Hassan's act was undoubtably an act of terrorism, by any definition, while on some reasonable definitions of "Terrorism" this guy's act isn't.

I think it is terrorism, but that's another issue: certainly most violent acts of lone wolfs with personal grievances are not terrorism, but this does not mean that if it is a single person with a grievance it proves it is not terrorism. Suicide bombers probably have quite a lot of personal grievances as well, which doesn't mean they're not also terrorists, though I blame their senders more than I blame them, actually.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Bart Ross left a similar note before he shot himself in the head as he was about to be arrested for killing the husband and mother of a federal judge, but I don't recall anyone saying he was a terrorist at the time.

And it seems to me the only reason people are jumping on the "Stack is a terrorist" bandwagon is because he flew a plane into a building, just like the 9/11 attacks!1!1OMG!1!!!!

If he had walked into the office and started shooting I doubt we'd even have this thread.

Well, there was the matter of this guy at Ft. Hood who walked into an office and started shooting, and plenty of people were labeling him a terrorist. Btw, he's Muslim, just so you get the full context

 

[MattusMaximus]

Certainly this guy was a terrorist, if a lone one.

I would say:

Professor who killed three a few days ago -- not a terrorist.

This guy -- a terrorist, but a lone one.

The five soldiers arrested for poisoning the water supply, Dr. Hasan shooting up 13 people -- terrorists that are (unofficially, at least) part of the larger Jihadi organizations.

This is a good point.

I think Joe Stack would qualify as a domestic terrorist if you consider that his attack was politically motivated, with the express purpose of furthering his political ideology. In this sense, I suppose it is like Timothy McVeigh's attack in Oklahoma City, except (thankfully) without the massive body count (whew!)

ETA: And yes, based upon the investigation to this point, I think it would be safe to classify Dr. Hasan's attack at Ft. Hood terrorist in nature.

 

[ProbeX]

The Unabomber was a lone wolf, and also clearly a terrorist. He tried to kill certain scientists and tech-related people not just to end their particular work, but to scare away others from that stuff.

Right, that's basically what I was saying: that the number of instigators isn't what determines whether or not something is deemed a terrorist act.

So was this pilot's effort just also try to scare people away from whatever?

We shall never know. We can only draw a strong inference based on his behavior, including the letter he apparently left behind. Based on those things, it appears he instigated an act of terrorism.

 

[ProbeX]

i think there are current-day political reasons for not calling this pig a "terrorist". Perhaps we don't wanna make him a martyr for the Tea-Party. Better just to label him a common criminal.

Yeah, that's probably true. Of course in the end it's probably better to just stick to the basics of news reporting: tell the truth about the nature of what happened and let the chips fall where they may ... well, okay, that's what I think anyhow.

 

[gumboot]

I'm sure many of you are already familiar with the actions of Joseph Stack.

If not, here you go: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html

What I find peculiar is the way administration officials were so quick to point out that this wasn't an act of terrorism. The reluctance of government and media officials to explicitly call this 'terrorism' is documented here.

As a result, I have two main questions:

1.) Was this a terrorist act? Why or why not?

2.) Assuming that this was not a terrorist act due to lack of any evidence to prove it so, would we have been so reluctant to call him a 'terrorist' if he were an Arab/Muslim, despite similar lack of evidence?

The most broadly accepted aspect of terrorism which would cut this incident out of contention is that an act of terrorism has a wider target than the immediate victims, namely the general populace, and that the intention is to scare them into adhering to certain behaviour.

For example with 9/11 the purpose of the attacks was to scare the US population so that they would put political pressure on their government to act in accordance with Al Qaeda's wishes.

In this instance it's hard to see where the fear is being applied to the general populace. Consider:

"If you don't demand your country pulls out of the Middle-east we'll continue to ram airliners full of American civilians into buildings full of American civilians"

versus:

"If you don't demand that tax law is changed, we'll keep flying planes into other IRS offices".

That's hardly a line of reasoning that's going to produce much fear in the hearts of the average American, is it?

One of the basic principles of Terrorism is that it attempts to force political change by generating fear amongst the populace. This attack didn't appear to attempt that.

 

[WildCat]

many Palestinian suicide bombers have actual grievances with the IDF or the Israeli govt. You seem to be suggesting that if one has actual grievances with a govt. agency and targets that agency with a suicide attack, then it is NOT terrorism.

im just following YOUR logic, Cat.

Examples?

 

[WildCat]

Well, there was the matter of this guy at Ft. Hood who walked into an office and started shooting, and plenty of people were labeling him a terrorist. Btw, he's Muslim, just so you get the full context

Note that he picked random targets, and neither his targets nor the organization had done any harm, real or imagined, to the perp.

And that's a key difference - he was "avenging" the grievances of a 3rd party, certainly not his own. But it's further complicated by the fact that he attacked military targets, not civilians. However, he was not a party to any war at the time.

I think a stronger case could be made that the Ft. Hood shooting was a terrorist act than the Austin case, but as the target was military I would still be inclined to disagree. But, of course, it was certanly a case of murder.

Likewise, I don't think the USS Cole bombing was a terrorist act, though it was certainly a war crime (since the perps disguised themselves as civilians).

 

[Thunder]

Likewise, I don't think the USS Cole bombing was a terrorist act, though it was certainly a war crime (since the perps disguised themselves as civilians).

Do you think it is terrorism if a Palestinian man has his house demolished, or his son badly wounded by the IDF, and then becomes a suicide bomber against an IDF convoy or troops in a Tel Aviv bar?

what if a Palestinian has his crops or trees torn apart by settlers, and responds with a suicide attack against settlers, is that terrorism?

you seem to be suggesting that if a person feels wronged, and then in his mind reacts to that wrong, it is NOT an act of terror.

 

[WildCat]

Do you think it is terrorism if a Palestinian man has his house demolished, or his son badly wounded by the IDF, and then becomes a suicide bomber against an IDF convoy or troops in a Tel Aviv bar?

what if a Palestinian has his crops or trees torn apart by settlers, and responds with a suicide attack against settlers, is that terrorism?

you seem to be suggesting that if a person feels wronged, and then in his mind reacts to that wrong, it is NOT an act of terror.

When are you going to provide the examples I asked for? I have no interest in arguing your hypotheticals.

 

[Thunder]

When are you going to provide the examples I asked for? I have no interest in arguing your hypotheticals.

living in poverty and misery, watching your community destroyed, having to go through demeaning checkpoints daily, makes pretty much all Palestinians...victims.

as opposed to Al Qaeda terrorists, who tend to NOT be victims of anything other than their own insanity.

 

[WildCat]

living in poverty and misery, watching your community destroyed, having to go through demeaning checkpoints daily, makes pretty much all Palestinians...victims.

as opposed to Al Qaeda terrorists, who tend to NOT be victims of anything other than their own insanity.

So you cannot provide any examples?

 

[Thunder]

So you cannot provide any examples?

please provide an example of someone in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising who was individually wronged by the Nazis.

 

[GreyArea]

I think Joe Stack would qualify as a domestic terrorist if you consider that his attack was politically motivated, with the express purpose of furthering his political ideology.

I'm not so sure that the promotion of an ideology is as important as the attempt to change a government policy. In this case, I have to ask if Stack was trying to force the repeal of the 1986 tax reform piece that was described in his letter.

I think a strong case exists for Stack being classified as a terrorist, and I think the same about Richard Poplawski, William Krar, and Eric Robert Rudolph. They were trying to do much more than promote their favorite memes. They were trying to get the federal government to change its (perceived) policies, "or else".

 

[uruk]

I do not get the impression that Stack was a terrorist in the academic sense.

His suicide note was a rambling diatribe against a government agency that he felt was singling him out personally. Not once did he place blame on himself for his actions or failure which is more indicative of a pathology than anything else. The exception being that he "blames himself for falling for the indoctrination", which is still not really accepting personal responsibility for his actions. (And his diatribe is all over the place politicaly speaking. Not liberal or conservative, just a middle of the road rant.)

This, to me, means that Stacks actions are more an act of revenge than actual terrorisim. I think he uses the "to wake Americans up" aspect to give his revenge more of an act of self-sacrifice aspect than an act of revenge/suicide.

But the definititon of terrorisim usually depends on which side of the gun you are.

 

[GreyArea]

Gumboot, I think there is a case for your argument, but I think that the stronger part of the definition of terrorism is the part about violently coercing a change in government policy. The part about intimidating large numbers of a targeted civilian population could be included as a secondary definition, as with cross-burnings or the attack by Jim David Adkisson.

Should there be a different term for attempts to intimidate large numbers of a specific, targeted civilian population, with the goal of forcing their physical departure from a place or of compelling their curtailment of their cultural presence?

How much does it matter to the definition that the terrorists be non-state actors?

And how credible does the threat of future attacks have to be to for the opening attack to be considered terrorism?

For example with 9/11 the purpose of the attacks was to scare the US population so that they would put political pressure on their government to act in accordance with Al Qaeda's wishes.

I'm not so sure the emphasis is right in that. Do you really think that Al Qaeda have such high expectations of democracy? I think 9/11 was more about directly attacking the U.S. government, especially since they targeted the Pentagon and possibly either the White House or the Capitol Building. Public fear would just be a bonus.

"If you don't demand your country pulls out of the Middle-east we'll continue to ram airliners full of American civilians into buildings full of American civilians"

versus:

"If you don't pull your employees out of the Middle East we'll continue to kill large number of the civilians you're supposed to protect."

 

[ProbeX]

I do not get the impression that Stack was a terrorist in the academic sense.

?

His suicide note was a rambling diatribe against a government agency that he felt was singling him out personally.

Again, the crazy factor doesn't disqualify something as an act of terrorism. Arguably, Muslim terrorists have delusional thinking going on too.

Not once did he place blame on himself for his actions or failure which is more indicative of a pathology than anything else.

The fact that he did what he did speaks to the likelihood of pathology, but so do most or all terrrorist acts. Going out on a limb, I'd guess one or more of the thugs that instigated 911 may have had Antisocial Personality Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder or Paranoid Schizophrenia. And it seems Mr. Stack the terrorist may have had one or more of these too.

The exception being that he "blames himself for falling for the indoctrination", which is still not really accepting personal responsibility for his actions. (And his diatribe is all over the place politicaly speaking. Not liberal or conservative, just a middle of the road rant.)

So I guess the 911 terrorists didn't commit terrorist acts either by flying into buildings the way Mr Stack did, since we never heard them specifically blame themselves for their actions publically.

This, to me, means that Stacks actions are more an act of revenge than actual terrorisim.

"This is for Palestine", stated Osama Bin Laden, in one of his subsequent taped diatribes, following the 911 hits. I guess he and his ilk are simply vengeful; not terrorists.

I think he uses the "to wake Americans up" aspect to give his revenge more of an act of self-sacrifice aspect than an act of revenge/suicide.

... it's no different than the Muslim "martyrs" who sit there in front of a camera and talk about "waking the sleeping giant" prior to blowing up people in a public place, killing themselves too.

But the definititon of terrorisim usually depends on which side of the gun you are.

Not sure what this means.

 

[WildCat]

please provide an example of someone in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising who was individually wronged by the Nazis.

Perhaps you should stick to posting smiley faces when you're backed into a corner.

Or you could, you know, provide a specific example.

 

[Skeptic]

please provide an example of someone in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising who was individually wronged by the Nazis.

Oh, dear.

 

[uruk]

?

The definition you get out of a dictionary

Again, the crazy factor doesn't disqualify something as an act of terrorism. Arguably, Muslim terrorists have delusional thinking going on too.

Yea, but the type of terrorisim we are more familiar with are conducted by radical elements, such as islamic extremeists or right/left wing extremeists such as McVeigh or eco-terrorists, are much more systematic and organized. There is usually a group or organization with an organized political theme or agenda behind the terrorists or acts. These organizations recruit, indoctrinate and the terrorists perfom thier acts in the name of or furtherance of that agenda. As I mentioned before Stack's suicide note indicated that his actions were more motivated by personal revenge than a political agenda. Stack just threw in the political mumbo jumbo to make his act of personal revenge something a bit more noble or political motivated.

I think that is why the killer professor is not considered a terrorist. Her motives were personal rather than agenda based.

The fact that he did what he did speaks to the likelihood of pathology, but so do most or all terrrorist acts. Going out on a limb, I'd guess one or more of the thugs that instigated 911 may have had Antisocial Personality Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder or Paranoid Schizophrenia. And it seems Mr. Stack the terrorist may have had one or more of these too.

True, but the intention is different. A traditional individual terrorist may be pathological but his motives are still politicaly based. The act is done for an agenda greater than his personal interests.

Now, for the case of an Palistinian whose wife (or similar situation) was killed by an IDF soldier joining Hamas for the perpose of seeking revenge via suicide bombing, a fine line has to be drawn. To the Palistinan, the act is one of personal revenge, not an ideological act. To the rest of us who do not know his story, the act is on of terrorisim because of the group he has joined does these acts for idiological reasons. Does that make him a terrorist? It depends on wether you know his story or not. It's not a clear cut case. The bottom line is the same but the reasons and intentions is not.

It's like the case with the killer professor. We do not call it a terrorist act because we know the motivations were different. The bottom line is the same; a person entered into a facility and shot and killed several people. The intention was different; she killed for persoanl reasons not linked to a idealogical or political agenda.

Stack crashed his plane into the IRS building because he felt he was personaly singled out by them. He says as much in the first paragraph of his statement. The political mumbo jumbo was a red herring.

So I guess the 911 terrorists didn't commit terrorist acts either by flying into buildings the way Mr Stack did, since we never heard them specifically blame themselves for their actions publically.

Hey, just because an airplane was a weapon in both cases does not mean that the reason for doing so were similar. We do not know what the individual motivations were for each individual hijacker but we do know that the act was initiated and responsibility was claimed by a terrorist group. Therefore.....

"This is for Palestine", stated Osama Bin Laden, in one of his subsequent taped diatribes, following the 911 hits. I guess he and his ilk are simply vengeful; not terrorists.

... it's no different than the Muslim "martyrs" who sit there in front of a camera and talk about "waking the sleeping giant" prior to blowing up people in a public place, killing themselves too.

OBL is taking an idiological and political stand not a individual or particular stand. His motives are clearly politicaly and idologicaly based. He does not site any personal incidences of grievences but rather a general "Palistine" statement.

Stack did what he did out because of a personal grievance. the political stuff was just window dressing

Not sure what this means.

Terrorists usually don't consider themselves terrorist.

Guess what England called those who supported independance in some thirteen colonies a couple of centuries back.