Crime:terrorism::pain:unbearable agony. It’s not just a description of a quality: it’s a description of a degree. Again, you’re unlikely to consider a teenager who writes “die yuppies die!” to be a terrorist, despite her attempt to scare people and thus influence public policy; what she’s doing is too trivial to count as terrorism.
I alluded to this before, but I should address it head-on. As I said before, someone who bombs a researcher’s house while he’s in it is, no question, a terrorist. As for the person who threatens a researcher? I’m conflicted. they’re obviously worse than the nobody’s-home-arsonist, but I’m not sure that they rise to the level of terrorist. I’d really prefer to keep that term for the iconic cases of people who attempt to kill civilians in order to change public policy, since that’s pretty much what all folks think of when they think of the term “terrorist.”
I strongly disagree that the most serious difference is of scale. If our country were to be hit by one of two waves of political crimes–one in which every SUV would be set afire, but nobody was injured, and the other in which ten innocent civilians were murdered–I’d far rather we suffer the first wave. The difference between targeting property and targeting people is a difference of kind, not of degree.
(Home viewers: am I therefore claiming that targeting property is okay? Of course not, no more than weirddave is claiming that tree-spiking is okay simply because it’s not a type of pedophilia).
When those members take that drastic action, I will absolutely call them terrorists. The hypothetical ALFer who hypothetically takes that action is a hypothetical terrorist.
I’m not convinced that this point is accurate (it seems to me that there’s been a wave of environmentalist arson and no deaths), but if it’s accurate, it’s the strongest point in favor of considering these arsonists terrorists. Y’all might be able to change my mind about political arsonists. I really doubt you can change my mind about folks who commit property crimes, no matter how great the scale, when these property crimes carry a negligible risk to human life.
Well, perhaps like lynching vs. murder it’s a way to get Federal Law Enforcement involved instead of relying on local police. Personally I feel that they are trying to instill terror into people to stop doing things.
MILLER and KIDCHAMELEON- Sorry about my crap code and grammer, will try to do better. MILLER- Not trying to persuede, just discuss.
One aspect of this thread that seems underdiscussed is the idea of “state sponsored” terrorism. What is the difference if your house burns downs because of army bombs vs. a terrorist? Both seem to be terrible and designed to instill fear and destroy property. Violence always so inelegant, too simple. What about the electronic acts of civil disobiedience? Also with the fear and destruction.
Also I have to say it “One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter”
Just ask Hamas.
A question: Have any of you seen the movie “The battle of Algiers”?
And the relevance of this to the debate at hand is what, exactly? If I agree with the idea that there’s no moral difference between a soldier and a terrorist, how does that reflect on the actions of violent enviromentalist groups? If I disagree with that premise, how does it change anything?
Miller, for me to understand where you’re coming from, I wonder if you’d be willing to describe the triflingest crime that you would characterize as terrorism, and what you believe ought to be the appropriate penalty for it? I don’t want to strawman your position.
The smallest crime I’d classify as terrorism would be sending someone a death threat because of their membership in some group. If you send an anonymous letter threatening someone with death because they are a jew, or a biologist, or black, or an American, or pro-choice, or whatever, that’s terrorism, because the threat isn’t just to you, it’s to the whole group.
If you send someone a death threat just because you hate them personally, or because you want money, or they might testify against you, or some such, that wouldn’t be terrorism.
Threatening someone personally would be a worse crime, because a threat made in person is much more credible than an anonymous threat.
Before we continue, am I right in thinking that you consider threatening to beat them up because of membership in a group, or threatening to slash their tires for the same reason, to be lesser crimes? If so, would you classify actually beating them up or slashing their tires to constitute terrorism?
Mearly trying to see if terror is equivocal in your estimation. Or to put it another way, do the politics behind the action change it’s basic nature of instilling terror? Political violence when done by governments seems to get a free pass, whereas rebels/insurgents/terrorists get slammed. All seem equally reprehensible(sp?) in the effects they achieve to me.
catsix and I have had our differences in the past, but in this case, I thought her post was spot-on. It’s only through sheer dumb luck that no one has gotten hurt so far.
For godsakes, what do you think these people are doing by firebombing clinics and property? Perhaps, oh, to terrorize?
I meant lesser crimes than terrorism–as I said, I was asking for the triflingest crimes that you’d consider to be terrorism. So slashing someone’s tires because they belong to a certain group could constitute terrorism for you?
The second part of the question is this: what would you consider to be the appropriate penalty? I believe I understand Weirddave to call for the death penalty for all terrorists. Do you agree?
The Google adverts on my screen are for the FBI, Criminal Justice Degrees, and a Global Terrorism Course. Generated by keywords in this very thread. Go Google…
<snip>Who gives governments a free pass on terrorism? And what does this have to do with enviromental terrorism?</snip> MILLER-
The definition of what constitutes “terrorism” is politically determined; and therfor highly volitile.
The facts of the crimes determine it’s degree of criminality, the politics determine the words of it’s current definition. Again- langauge is fluid, and constantly being recreated in different value settings/contexts.
The free pass? How about the Saudis? Or Isreal? Iran? Syria?
Terror is terror is terror. Violence is cyclical and I believe we as a species can and must do better than to go around blowing ourselves all up.
Every where is right here in every person.
People are smarter than that. We have this chance to do it right.
We must stop the anger from controling the world.
The environment is us, and we it.
If terrorism is narrowed to include only: (1) a physically harmful act against a person or group of people meant to influence policy or behavior; or, (2) a credible threat of a physically harmful act against a person or group of people meant to influence policy or behavior; then I am ok with the definition. But, if you lump in the destruction of property which does not serve as a (1) a physically harmful act against a person or group of people meant to influence policy or behavior; or, (2) a credible threat of a physically harmful act against a person or group of people meant to influence policy or behavior; then I think you’ve gotten a little broad. In other words, as has been mentioned, by bombing an “unoccupied” building or setting a car on fire, the arsonist creates an uncontrollable destructive force that could reasonably pose a credible physical threat to those nearest the car/building. If this arson is done to influence behavoir or policy, I think it’s terrorism. However, it is possible to harm property yet present no reasonable threat to anyone’s safety – I don’t think setting fires falls into this category, but slashing tires certainly might. At the same time, slash a targeted individual’s tire and leave a note intimating forthcoming physical harm, you’re back in terrorland.
Honestly, I’m not sure I’m even okay with #2 (although I appreciate the backup!) When OBL sends a videotape threatening future attacks against the US, that doesn’t seem to me like an act of terrorism, although it’s the act of a terrorist. It’s so profoundly different from actually killing someone that I’d like to give it a separate category.
Hmm, maybe. ObL’s threats are pretty damned credible, but when he releases a tape, the media talk of “Tape warns of imminent terrorist attack,” not, “Tape is terrorist attack.” I’d rather label such threats as threats of terrorism, I think, and recognize that threats of terrorism can spread terror and are a vital weapon in the terrorist’s arsenal. The distinction seems to me a useful one.
Hmm. In light of whole bean’s post, I might not. My position is that there has to be some sort of a credible threat to the health or safety of a person for it to qualify as terrorism. A violent act against a piece of property can be reasonably interpreted as a threat against the owner of that property. Painting a swastika on a synagogue would definitly fall under that definition, as would an overtly violent act like arson. I’m not certain if simply slashing someone’s tires would be threatening enough to qualify. Certainly, the act accompanied by any sort of note would tip it over the line, and other circumstances might be taken into account, as well, such as if the vehicle is personal property or a work vehicle, or where the vandalism is committed. Slashing the tires on a company van in the company parking lot could go either way. Slashing the tires on an employee’s car while it sits in their drive way at home implies a level of personal threat (“I know where you live”) that could tip it over the line. The distinction for me between terrorism and other crimes is that the goal is to make the victim fear for their safety. Something as wantonly violent as arson or planting a bomb make the targets legitimatly fearful of their lives, even if there is no overt threat and an effort made to make sure the target is vacant. Something wholly non-violent (say, stealing the sparkplugs from a lot of SUVs, as opposed to setting them on fire) would fall outside the definition of terrorism.
I’m opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances, so that’d be a no. In a broader sense, I don’t think “terrorism” is a crime in and of itself. I’d say it should be treated like hate crimes are, and call for harsher penalties or longer sentences than the same crime committed for non-terror reasons would entail.
Well, we are discussing terrorism, not killism or hurtism. The operative intent here is to create a climate of fear among the victims, so OBL’s videos warning of future attacks would definitly count, in my view. Killing someone isn’t what makes a person a terrorist. Killing someone* to intimidate someone else* is what makes it terrorism. But the killing isn’t the necessary component: the intimidation is, and it can be achieved by other, non-lethal means.
See, it seems to me that the essential part is that you:
Attempt to kill one or more civilians
in order to intimidate a government or broad group of people
into taking your favored course of action.
Without all three components, it just doesn’t seem like terrorism to me. Have you ever heard anyone refer to one of ObL’s tapes as an act of terrorism?