the meaning of 'terrorism' in the west post-9/11

.

thx pal

LBI this unnecessary tbh you're p much wrong afaics. This stuff is always terrorism, is always called terrorism.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

Yes, more appropriate in a separate thread. The FBI definition seems fairly straightforward.

Feel a bit weird getting into this discussion on this thread, but as another non-US person, the definition of terrorism always has and always will include natural citizens. The concentration on non-domestic terrorism is an act of propaganda, not a changing of definition.

― emil.y, dinsdag 16 april 2013 0:24 (45 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I am sorry. And you are probably right, this is not the thread/time for it. I do not mean any harm.

But never has the definition of terrorism, especially regarding USA, been very clear. Ever since 9/11 "terrorism" seems to have been something exclusively attributed to foreign people/Muslims, through American eyes. Which is why this is such an interesting question.

But you are probably right Emily, in that it is too soon, this is not the time.

― Le Bateau Ivre, Monday, April 15, 2013 6:29 PM (12 seconds ago)

is it drones

Apologies to all involved –– I copied that comment from the Boston Marathon Explosion thread.

Ever since 9/11 "terrorism" seems to have been something exclusively attributed to foreign people/Muslims, through American eyes.

You're basing this on numbers of Americans who are stupid enough to respond to polls.

thats true but it doesnt really make a difference to muslims who actually live here

If we can switch 'west' to 'US' in the headline then I can go back to ignoring it.

Concerning the definition of 'terrorism', from the link I posted above:

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and 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” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

The FBI Divides Terrorist-Related Activities into Two Categories:

* A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
* A terrorism prevention is a documented instance in which a violent act by a known or suspected terrorist group or individual with the means and a proven propensity for violence is successfully interdicted through investigative activity.

Note: The FBI investigates terrorism-related matters without regard to race, religion, national origin, or gender. Reference to individual members of any political, ethnic, or religious group in this report is not meant to imply that all members of that group are terrorists. Terrorists represent a small criminal minority in any larger social context.

Ever since 9/11 "terrorism" seems to have been something exclusively attributed to foreign people/Muslims, through American eyes.

"Exclusively" is strong, but I do think that "The War on Terror" as terminology to describe what's mostly been U.S. action against al-Qaeda and other Islamic outfits has probably created certain connotations.

I think the answer is that the FBI has certain criteria to classify acts as terrorist, but the way the news media and some politicians refer to things differ according to biases. I think a lot of people feel that terrorism is terrorism regardless of who is involved, and that non-terrorist acts can be perpetrated by groups that are perceived as hostile, but that's definitely not the most vocal demographic.

Ok... Didn't realize I was the 'bad guy' all of a sudden for just speaking my mind. Perhaps it was "too soon". But I nNever intended to be "that person"...

i think ppl were more offended by the deliberate ignorance than the timing tbh

You're not speaking your mind, you're shoving words in our mouths.

LBI this unnecessary tbh you're p much wrong afaics. This stuff is always terrorism, is always called terrorism.

― the gowls are not what they seem (darraghmac), dinsdag 16 april 2013 0:28 (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This was what I was wondering about, if the above statement was right or not. But it was the wrong time, wrong thread, wrong moment...

you're not speaking TOO SOON. it's STILL HAPPENING, for godssakes.

LBI, I don't think you're a bad guy, but it was an insensitive derail into semantics that many people asked to stop. And I say this as someone who participated in the discussion too, so I'm also culpable here.

So you thought posting stuff like "Boom. Stone cold truth." on a thread regarding an explosion with casualties was appropriate. Okay.

You're not speaking your mind, you're shoving words in our mouths.

― Dr. Adorbius (mh), dinsdag 16 april 2013 0:38 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Uhm... I am "shoving words" in your mouths? WTF?

More info:

http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizations/militant-extremists-united-states/p9236

Ppl overreacting tbh, but yeah lbi <3 ya but you were a bit stoneheaded

it's pretty obvious to call any act of mass public violence an act of terrorism in a basic sense (in that "terrorizing" is most likely a primary goal) the problem is when wolf blitzer et al make a point to call it "an act of terrorism" the subtext sounds like "it was middle eastern radicals". since 9/11 american culture/media/perception-in-general has made that association, and when big-network media people use the word i generally assume their intention is to make everyone think of al qaeda. basically making a big point over calling something "terrorist" or not is either unnecessary (because duh) or assumptive (bc of the connotation). that's my read anyway

yeah. what's interesting is that once that shift has been made, domestic acts of terrorism get talked about in other ways

To whom does that sound like "it was middle eastern radicals"? Certainly not everybody.

It would be silly to deny that there are a great many US citizens who would be quick to agree that "terrorism" means "muslims blowing up bombs". Other definitions do not cross their minds. Certain conservative loudmouths like Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio megaphones encourage this ignorance.

It would be just as silly to deny that post-9/11 a great many US politicians are among those who think this way, so this sort of ignorance has a quasi-official existance. But there's no good reason to give in to this ignorance or to concede one inch of legitimacy to it.

Quick, think of a terrorist. Whats he look like? xp

we need a new word. how bout "scaryism"

He?

Ever since 9/11 "terrorism" seems to have been something exclusively attributed to foreign people/Muslims, through American eyes.

sorry, that one just rubbed me the wrong way. Some Americans seem to have a strong willingness to believe foreign-borne terrorism is the only terrorism, but making the step that it's exclusive and a standard American stance is offensive.

Aimless otm

Quick, think of a terrorist. Whats he look like? xp

am I supposed to have an answer for that? because I don't.

Aimless's last post otm, too

most recent terrorist in the US to me would be that idiot who attacked a sikh temple

the s/he is a real pita to bother with on a phone aimless, behave

we can talk about how the media coverage of terorrist events have changed without conceding that that definition is the controlling one on ILX

or the FBI

Ya obv enough crut- but there's a large section of the population could agree on a rough sketch like

xp yeah sorry again crut, dayo otm not *you* you, the general you

General crut

in fact, here: nobody on ilx believes that terrorism is exclusively perpetuated by foreign, non-US parties. got it? good. okay let's go

I don't think I subscribe to this idea of a general "you" or "we"

to answer 乒乓's question from the other thread, i don't think mass shootings are called terrorism because the motivation is usually purely (sometimes inscrutably) personal rather than broadly political.

oh yeah, rough population sketch would be some weird caricature of a middle eastern dude. but a loud minority or vague profile isn't the same as "americans," imo

I had a real headdesk moment when the first visible comment on a nytimes article about the events in Boston had a North Korea conspiracy theory

btw: http://i.imgur.com/sS0F3Cr.png

xps
At this time it was clearly a deliberate act of extreme violence. The existance of multiple bombs confirms the deliberation. The extreme violence is equally evident. But Wolf Blitzer has no grounds for calling it "terrorism" yet, because no motive can yet be attributed to this act and terrorism requires a certain, relatively narrow set of motives to qualify as terrorism.

to answer 乒乓's question from the other thread, i don't think mass shootings are called terrorism because the motivation is usually purely (sometimes inscrutably) personal rather than broadly political.

― goole, Monday, April 15, 2013 6:53 PM (44 seconds ago) Bookmark

yeah but oftentimes the motivation was sourced from political and ideological movements, no?

the norway shootings were broadly reported as a terorristic act, right?

ime the defining characteristic of terrorism is knitted jumpers

most recent terrorist in the US to me would be that idiot who attacked a sikh temple

― Dr. Adorbius (mh), Monday, April 15, 2013 6:49 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah like... when a white supremacist does this, it's categorized as... a lone white supremacist. sort of ignoring all the ideological motivations, that are usually p obviously on the surface!

The local and international press reaction to the 2005 bombings in Trinidad and the more recent ones in Dnepropetrovsk was interesting. They looked very much like terrorist attacks and caused horrific injuries to random civilians but nobody ever claimed responsibility for them so nobody really could agree on whether it was "terrorism" or not.

To whom does that sound like "it was middle eastern radicals"? Certainly not everybody.

― LADIES ONLY PHYCHIC NIGHT (crüt), Monday, April 15, 2013 6:46 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no, not everybody, but my point is it's not just who's on the receiving end. if glenn beck is using the word i know what he's really trying to get across with it. when big media guys (regardless conservative/liberal/whatever) make a big question out of it i tend to think they're working with the same definition.

- david frum

people must reserve the right to define the actions of the states that supposedly rule them as similarly criminal, evil and depraved.

You make a good point that the word is prejudicial. It is so because it is a word used by the powerful to define a powerless enemy into a position of moral depravity for fighting back against their benevolent rule. However, warfare in all its forms involves the use of violence and very frequently involves the cold-blooded use of violence as an instrument of terror. The powerful do this more often than the powerless do. That's how it usually works.

If the word has any use at all, in my opinion, it is not as a term of hate or moral indignance, but just as a political "term of art", defining a type of violent poiltical action that is resorted to in despair of any other type producing results. If it cannot be used in that sense, then it becomes merely a term of hatred like hun or jap or gook.

"despair" sort of a bathetic description. from weakness, sure. but "despair" -- eh, depends.

okay, that's an interesting point. i was proceeding from an acceptance of the word's condemnatory qualities (which do seem ineradicably inscribed at this point) to an insistence that its moral force be equally available to all, regardless of access to power and "legitimacy". i think it's a bit naive to think that it could be reduced in the here and now to a value-neutral term of art, but agree that this would be preferable.

xp

a bit too much thinking going on in that 2nd sentence

kinda amazed neither of you have gone for the reagan quote yet

Contendo more otm about terrorism including state actors tho.

so you agree that acts of terror should be responded to as acts of war instead of criminal acts then? i got a war in afghanistan to sell you if so

yes because clearly if someone argues a word applies to multiple situations then in all cases there is a single response because hey, same word!

lol, words.

^^ good thread summary

so you agree that acts of terror should be responded to as acts of war instead of criminal acts then? i got a war in afghanistan to sell you if so

uh, you're pulling that out of the air. how a government chooses to respond to what it perceives as aggression will vary case by case. so does how i feel this or that government ought to respond. neither has much to do with whether i personally class the actions of the KKK as crime, terrorism or despotism. why not all three?

for what it's worth, i'm inclined to consider america's drone strike program terrorism by the logic i was laying out earlier.

you know, much as i hate to side with the likes of david frum

so you see no difference between say d-day and the adreatine massacre and (to bring it back to what prompted the thread) andrew cunanan?

Wait what where did Andrew cunanan get involved here

lol irl. love the assumptive leap there. i'll have you know that i can name at least four differences between d-day, the adreatine massacre and andrew cunanan. three if you don't count their names.

i recognize a distinction between war and terrorism, though i'd argue that states can (and often do) commit acts of terrorism during wartime. i don't consider cunanan a terrorist. i suspect you are on drugs.

fwiw, i hope they're real damn good

dayo and le batreau was arguing that there was no difference between killing sprees and terrorism and the only reason ppl like jake holmes and andrew cunanan aren't called terrorists is because they're white, not because their crimes don't fit the definition of terrorism. it's the same nebulous 'i think killing is bad and terrorism is bad and i don't care who does it therefore they're all the same'.

Ardeatine guys. R before the D.

he started it

dayo and le batreau was arguing that there was no difference between killing sprees and terrorism and the only reason ppl like jake holmes and andrew cunanan aren't called terrorists is because they're white

cool, but i'm not saying anything like that. not so far back, i drew a clear line between the violent acts of disturbed individuals working alone (even when they seem to be politically motivated) and organized, sustained, collective efforts of the sort we typically call "terrorism".

the distinction gets shaky when we consider the likes of anders breivik, but there's always gonna be gray areas.

contenderizer i noted above that while the definition of terrorism (which i think necessitates non-state actors and targets among other things) is useful for thinking about causes and solutions that there are certainly situations (ardeatine massacre, operation gladio) where the distinction feels like a technicality. in these cases though i would argue that a distinction should still be made (call it despotism or a war crime) because even here there isn't a moral equivalence, it is far more evil and depraved for a state to conduct this kind of action. w/ state sponsored terrorism the boundaries become more nebulous still, for example it makes far more sense to regard the 86 berlin bombing or the bombing of pan am 103 as the action of the libyan govt than the actions of timothy mcveigh as the actions of the arizona govt and in the case of state sponsored terrorism you could argue for an approach that regards terrorism as a criminal act w/ criminal investigations and trials and as an act of war w/ diplomacy, sanctions, and war hypothetically i guess. and in cases like the weathermen where the actions are so specifically targeted directly at the state i'm not sure terrorism is a an accurate enough or good enough definition either, 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' - reagan.

someone had to do it

anyway, i get you. you wanna define the term rather narrowly. while i accept your definition (it's sensible and widely accepted), i'm not sold, and see it as troublesome in certain regards (laid out upthread). which leaves us, i hope, not hurling left field hyperbole back and forth across the fence.

fwiw in case it hasn't been made clear (and i can understand how it might not have been) do agree that the way 'terrorism' has been used post 9/11 increasingly more and more loosely to the point that you can have bush's secretary of education call the nea a terrorist organization has been despicable at best and in the wake 9/11 amoral and unamerican. by george w. bush's definitio of terrorism he is a terrorist. and so if someone wanted to argue that post9/11 the meaning has been changed or that the term is meaningless i might fear you're right but argue you're not in the hopes that tomorrow or eventually you won't be.

springs eternal, etc

Greenwald:

The reaction to the Boston attack underscored, yet again, the utter meaninglessness of the word "terrorism". News outlets were seemingly scandalized that President Obama, in his initial remarks, did not use the words "terrorist attack" to describe the bombing. In response, the White House ran to the media to assure them that they considered it "terrorism". Fox News' Ed Henry quoted a "senior administration official" as saying this: "When multiple (explosive) devices go off that's an act of terrorism."

Is that what "terrorism" is? "When multiple (explosive) devices go off"? If so, that encompasses a great many things, including what the US does in the world on a very regular basis. Of course, the quest to know whether this was "terrorism" is really code for: "was this done by Muslims"? That's because, in US political discourse, "terrorism" has no real meaning other than: violence perpetrated by Muslims against the west. The reason there was such confusion and uncertainty about whether this was "terrorism" is because there is no clear and consistently applied definition of the term. At this point, it's little more than a term of emotionally manipulative propaganda. That's been proven over and over, and it was against yesterday.

The interesting part of that Greenwald article: this FAIR report from 1995:

"In the wake of the explosion that destroyed the Murrah Federal Office Building, the media rushed — almost en masse — to the assumption that the bombing was the work of Muslim extremists. 'The betting here is on Middle East terrorists,' declared CBS News' Jim Stewart just hours after the blast (4/19/95). 'The fact that it was such a powerful bomb in Oklahoma City immediately drew investigators to consider deadly parallels that all have roots in the Middle East,' ABC's John McWethy proclaimed the same day.

"'It has every single earmark of the Islamic car-bombers of the Middle East,' wrote syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer (Chicago Tribune, 4/21/95). 'Whatever we are doing to destroy Mideast terrorism, the chief terrorist threat against Americans, has not been working,' declared the New York Times' A.M. Rosenthal (4/21/95). The Geyer and Rosenthal columns were filed after the FBI released sketches of two suspects who looked more like Midwestern frat boys than mujahideen."

A link to the full Greenwald article here

These are exactly the kinds of horrific, civilian-slaughtering attacks that the US has been bringing to countries in the Muslim world over and over and over again for the last decade, with very little attention paid.

exactly

though i wil rep for greenwald some of the time, that is just sententious pleb-bait

Josh Marshall otm:

The media was listening for that word yesterday because they identified it as a potential source of a future, contrived political controversy; reporters were acting as opposition researchers for the people they cover, and identified a sin of omission. Like the inverse of when Obama said the private sector was “doing fine” and the press corps zeroed out everything else he said in the same press conference....

...But I do have a strong sense that most major media outlets typically distinguish terrifying violence from violent terrorism by examining motive. No political or ideological motive? Not terrorism. You might disagree with that distinction, but it’s been pretty consistent. It’s why everyone feels comfortable calling the Unabomber a terrorist, but not the perpetrators of the Sandy Hook massacre.

Sorry I also lolworthily conflated the IRA in with the middle east in my muddled sentence there unintentionally hahaha. oops.

There were connections there

A shady post-colonial web - which we look forward to welcoming Scotland to!

Am I wrong for wondering how many bars will be serving Irish Car Bombs in Boston, next St. Patrick's Day?

there was a debate over calling Breivik a terrorist, which was interesting because precisely it had to do with tying what he did to broader far-right/fascist types or just insisting he was a single deranged individual.

re: Josh Marshall - I'm a little skeptical that someone finding The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Adam Lanza's room would change the terminology to terrorist, I suspect it's closer to what DJP was saying about guns vs bombs.

Munich Olympics massacre was unquestionably terrorism and was all guns and kidnapping.

Indeed, and once upon a time hijacking planes was all the rage

yeah, was just thinking about both those examples. america's popular conception of terrorism in the late 20th was at least as concerned with masked assailants toting automatics and (especially) hijacking planes as it was with anonymous bombings. oddly, post-9/11 it's all about IEDs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWJRCGKvOHA

terrorism is such a value-laden & propagandistic term that it should probably be abandoned by ppl of integrity. u can think about causes & operational responses and such based on a sort of checklist of factors without bringing terrorism into it.

but nearly all experts―even the most scholarly or incisive who talk frankly about the difficulty, almost the absurdity, of defining "terrorism"―find a way to retain the term in the end because, i conjecture, your work suddenly loses status if it repudiates the term. it is less useful and important to the state, the academy is less funded, u are less influential. will anyone even read your book if it's not called "inside terrorism" or "nuclear terrorism" or "terrorism: how to respond" or "essays on human rights and terrorism" or "explaining terrorism" or something about counterterrorism (tho u can maybe guess which is least enthusiastic about the term)

there are probably well-known causes & operational responses to spree shootings too. issues around happy, carefree parents, valued, well-trained teachers, v good accessible shrinks, guns & ammo that're hard to get and stored certain ways and so on. but when your discretionary spending in a given year is 57% military, 5% health, 5% education etc., well

but nearly all experts―even the most scholarly or incisive who talk frankly about the difficulty, almost the absurdity, of defining "terrorism"―find a way to retain the term in the end because, i conjecture, your work suddenly loses status if it repudiates the term. it is less useful and important to the state, the academy is less funded, u are less influential. will anyone even read your book if it's not called "inside terrorism" or "nuclear terrorism" or "terrorism: how to respond" or "essays on human rights and terrorism"

that's an interesting point. i agree, but think the word also has a moral and emotional accuracy that we find hard to relinquish. we use it not to blandly describe the facts, but to express feelings about them. both those feelings and the language we use to describe the acts that trigger them directly correspond - accurately, even precisely - to terrorism's intentional violation of the social fabric. terrorism attempts to terrify, to destabilize, to rob "ordinary citizens" of their sense of safety and separation from the crisis (whatever it may be). it's hard to imagine that people in general would choose to describe such a thing in dispassionate terms. terrorism earns its name. it explicitly attempts to.

Greenwald:

That the Boston Marathon bombing was "an act of terrorism" is now unchallengeable conventional wisdom. Without my adopting it all: Ali Abunimah has an excellent analysis examining whether the evidence exists to make this claim and what is revealed by the embrace of this conclusion.

Similarly, Alan Dershowitz was on BBC radio yesterday and, citing the lack of clarity about motive, said (at the 3:15 mark): "It's not even clear under the federal terrorist statutes that it qualifies as an act of terrorism."

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/obamas-rush-judgment-was-boston-bombing-really-terrorist-act

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0173gzn#programme-broadcasts

imo, the only real difference between convicting this kid as a criminal and convicting him a a terrorist would be that if he were convicted as a terrorist then the FBI and Homeland Security could claim "a win" against terrorism and partly justify their massive anti-terrorism budgets. In practical terms he's either getting a whole series of consecutive life sentences or else the death penalty, and those outcomes are indistinguishable to the public at large.

http://aslanmedia.podbean.com/2014/03/14/intersection-ep29-march-14-2014/

Remi Brulin on Operation Condor, American and international discourse on "terrorism," all the good stuff.

I don't want to clog up the other thread with this so this thread seems like a better place for it. Initially I was reticent to consider the Charleston shooting a terrorist attack - though I have since changed my mind. The initial reason I wasn't sure though was because of how I understand the meaning of terrorism. Which is to say that I fundamentally understand it as a political tactic of non-State actors against a State. It targets civilians in an attempt to frighten them into changing the policies of their State because it can't fight the State on traditional grounds. This is super clear in the case of Timothy McVeigh (who literally targeted civilian employees in a government building), or attacks on civilians in Israel (which are intended to fight the State of Israel itself). It's less clear to me in the cases of the recent Charlie Hebdo attack (which didn't seem designed to send a message to the State itself, but rather to private actors) or the Charleston shooting. Especially the latter which, if you read it as a piece (as some would like to) w/ the recent anti-black police violence, or w/ the confederate flag, is not just not anti-State but may even represent a sort of extension of the State itself. Though Counterpunch folks like to use the term State terrorism, ultimately the term in my eyes has to refer to non-State violence targeting civilians. As I said - I've since changed my mind and primarily bc it seems like the legal definitions for terrorism are not quite as interested in who the violence is ultimately meant to persuade.

Actions targeted at civilians with a view to changing state policy would be an excessively restrictive definition which would, for example, exclude groups instigating intercommunal violence in India or sectarian violence in the Middle East.

last week's NYT Mag excerpt of forthcoming book on Awlaki was a good one. Guy seemed ready to stay in US and be a mass-media imam until he got wind that FBI had all his hooker assignations in their file.