What makes a terrorist?

[Ping898]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Technology/story?id=3204939&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312


The Earth Liberation Front, for all intensive purposes is not a nice group, it seems they have committed more than 1100 acts of vandalism and arson. (I admittedly have no clue what their message is) The FBI calls them terroist (a lot of other US gov orgs do too). However, one interesting point is that with all their acts they have never killed a person, though I don't know about maiming or otherwise serverely injuring or minorly injuring. Is this group full of terrorists? Are they on the same page as the Muslim Jihadist's (sp?)? Should their prison sentenses be longer than someone who randomly commited these acts for the heck of it?

A radical environmentalist who admitted to setting fire to an SUV dealership, a tree farm and a police station was declared a terrorist yesterday and sentenced to 16 years in federal prison
....
Since their arrests last year, members of the cell, who called themselves "the family," have all pleaded guilty to charges of arson and conspiracy. They have insisted, however, that they would fight at their sentencing hearings the "terrorist enhancement" procedures that could increase their prison terms and land them in supermax prisons.
....
The government said that combination of intimidation and coercion is what makes it terrorism, and the fact that no one has died is not the real issue.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Anyone who stands against the West in any manner.
Sean

 

[Flying Crane]

Anyone who stands against the West in any manner.
Sean

I would add to this: "anyone who stands opposed to the pursuit of unlimited personal wealth and rampant materialism and out of control capitalism and disregard for those who are trodden underfoot in this process."

But maybe that is really what the West stands for in the first place...

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I think they are terrorist, and it's only a matter of time before they kill. As far as the sentencing goes, hell, the person who does it for the heck of it should spend as much time in prison as if it were an act of terrorism.

Jeff

 

[MA-Caver]

From Dictionary dot com...

ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Seems to me these guys fit the bill. It would also go for animal rights activists who throw paint onto fur coats and protest outside various restaurants with gross pictures of butchered animals. Or those who chain themselves to trees to prevent loggers from cutting them down (as if that'll work ), but it also applies of course to IRA, PLO and other radical factions not necessarily exclusive to Islamic extremists.

No, according to the definition provided you don't necessarily have to walk into a building and blow yourself up or start spraying an MP-5 or an Uzi to qualify as a terrorist. When you go around scaring people and destroying property in the name of a cause ... whatever the hell it may be, it's terrorism.

There are more peaceful ways to get your message across, just some folks don't have the patience or temperament to wait until they are heard. Call it, spoiled brat I want attention NOW syndrome.

So how long before they start re-defining small acts of protest into acts of terrorism? That's the question I think should be addressed.

 

[Flying Crane]

From Dictionary dot com...


Seems to me these guys fit the bill. It would also go for animal rights activists who throw paint onto fur coats and protest outside various restaurants with gross pictures of butchered animals. Or those who chain themselves to trees to prevent loggers from cutting them down (as if that'll work ), but it also applies of course to IRA, PLO and other radical factions not necessarily exclusive to Islamic extremists.

No, according to the definition provided you don't necessarily have to walk into a building and blow yourself up or start spraying an MP-5 or an Uzi to qualify as a terrorist. When you go around scaring people and destroying property in the name of a cause ... whatever the hell it may be, it's terrorism.

There are more peaceful ways to get your message across, just some folks don't have the patience or temperament to wait until they are heard. Call it, spoiled brat I want attention NOW syndrome.

So how long before they start re-defining small acts of protest into acts of terrorism? That's the question I think should be addressed.

And let us not forget the CIA in this list. The biggest, most effective, best funded, State-supported terrorist organization in the world...

 

[Xue Sheng]

There are books and studies that discuss this and I had to read a few (but its been awhile), I need to go look at a couple to answer this question fully but one of the big differences between what defines a terrorists and what defines and extremist is killing.

Also there have been multiple academic and law enforcement discussions on the definition of a terrorist and there are a few out there that are accepted and they are all not the same.

 

[jks9199]

A terrorist is anyone who will use force or the threatened use of force to obtain their political, social or economic goals, without regard to other more legitimate channels to achieve those goals. Terrorists select their targets for shock value, symbolic value, or for the fear that will be caused by an attack on that target, not by the legitimate military/guerilla worth of the target.

The line between terrorists and legitimate freedom fighters is a fine line -- but there's a distinction that you can make, even if you don't agree with the freedom fighter's cause. Terrorists select their targets and means of attack for shock value and the terror they cause; freedom fighters will strike to disrupt their foe's organization or support, minimizing innocent or uninvolved casualties. Throwing tea into the harbor is a freedom fighter's act, as was (arguably) the bombing of the USS Cole (military target, not civilian). The attacks on various discos in Europe, on abortion providers in the US, or on the World Trade Centers were acts of terrorism.

 

[michaeledward]

I thought that the ELF went to great measures to ensure that no human life is jeapordized by their activities. I think that it is not "only a matter of time before they kill", as posited by SFC JeffJ.

Vandalism is not terrorism.

The root of 'terrorist' is terror. While I might get angry about a group spiking the tires and smashing the glass on my shiny new H3. I am not going to be afraid of going out of my house, or riding in a vehicle because someone has vandalized personal property.

And while an argument can be made that by executing acts of vandalism, there could be unintended consequences that create personal harm; the coast of New Jersey was recently jeapordized by a flare dropped from a fighter jet on a training mission. Does that qualify as terrorism? Of course not. It was an accidental activity.

You want terrorism, you have go on the annual 6th grade school trip in Tennessee.

 

[Sukerkin]

Some good comments and insights expressed so far, ladies and gents :tup:.

I particularly felt that jks's paragraph did a fine of job of trying to offer a manageable definition (sorry mate, the Rep Gnomes said 'No!' ).

FC's comment on the CIA is one that I actually think has some truth to it (or at least their being the sponsors of terror). Being an arm of the government tho', I don't think that they can, technically, be called terrorists when they're on American soil.

 

[Makalakumu]

FC's comment on the CIA is one that I actually think has some truth to it (or at least their being the sponsors of terror). Being an arm of the government tho', I don't think that they can, technically, be called terrorists when they're on American soil.

Sure it can, when the CIA or any government does it does it, it's called State Terrorism.

Here's a short list of the CIA's handiwork.

And then there is False Flag Terror. For a brief history of false flag operations, click here.

 

[Flying Crane]

Sure it can, when the CIA or any government does it does it, it's called State Terrorism.

Here's a short list of the CIA's handiwork.

And then there is False Flag Terror. For a brief history of false flag operations, click here.

Bingo. Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of who is doing it to whom. It isn't just what "others" do to the US.

It's important to realize the activity that the CIA has engaged in around the world, as sanctioned by the US government. Many of the political hotspots around the globe where "terrorist" activities are happening, such as the Middle East, have a long history of US involvement often thru clandestine CIA activity. They have actively sought to destabilize and topple elected governments and install puppet governments that are more receptive to US political and economic interests, even when these puppet governments have proven to be brutal and repressive to their own people. And the methods they have used easily fit anybody's definition of "terrorism".

Many of the "terrorist" acts against the US can be traced to this history, and are really in retaliation for the bullying way our own government has acted towards other nations for many decades. If you push someone hard and long enough, as the US has done repeatedly, eventually they will stand up and push back. They may not have the resources to do it "conventionally", so they push back using whatever methods they can.

 

[Sukerkin]

I didn't say I didn't agree, chaps, I just said that under the definitions discussed I thought you couldn't call them terrorists :lol:.

I'm painfully aware of the allogated and proven instances of the CIA getting up to all kinds of unpleasantness.

The really big one for me, as an outlander, is their role in the American targeted drug trade. I recall seeing a recorded lecture on this by a retired LEO and, having a degree in Economics, I can vouch that at least that side of his argument stands up .

 

[Flying Crane]

I didn't say I didn't agree, chaps, I just said that under the definitions discussed I thought you couldn't call them terrorists :lol:.

I'm painfully aware of the allogated and proven instances of the CIA getting up to all kinds of unpleasantness.

The really big one for me, as an outlander, is their role in the American targeted drug trade. I recall seeing a recorded lecture on this by a retired LEO and, having a degree in Economics, I can vouch that at least that side of his argument stands up .

Understood, altho I believe whole-heartedly that they SHOULD be called for what they are. We here in the US tend to think of ourselves as the global "good guys", which I think is incredibly naive and living in denial. I think we should recognize the CIA for what they are, and not sugar-coat it.

As they all say in the Twelve Step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous: admitting to yourself that you have a problem is the first step in conquering that problem. We need to do just that same thing as a nation, and maybe then we can change our course for the better.

Looks like I am leading this thread off the original topic of the Earth Liberation Front. Didn't mean to do that, but it seemed relevant.

 

[Sukerkin]

It does add an extra element to the threads flow but doesn't entirely derail it (we can soon lift it back on the tracks ).

If the core question is about what the prision sentencing structure should be for acts that are described as terrorism, even tho' a rational viewpoint says they are not, then how does the role of government sanctioned 'terrorist' acts undermine the whole concept?

 

[Flying Crane]

It does add an extra element to the threads flow but doesn't entirely derail it (we can soon lift it back on the tracks ).

If the core question is about what the prision sentencing structure should be for acts that are described as terrorism, even tho' a rational viewpoint says they are not, then how does the role of government sanctioned 'terrorist' acts undermine the whole concept?

well, it certainly creates a great big double-standard and is hypocrisy to the extreme, and of course the really frustrating part is that those responsible for making these decisions, and carrying out the actions, will never be held accountable because the government will never let that happen.

 

[Steel Tiger]

The Earth Liberation Front has published guidelines for action. These guidelines say:
Any direct action to halt the destruction of the environment and adhering to the strict nonviolence guidelines, listed below, can be considered an ELF action. Economic sabotage and property destruction fall within the guidelines.[10]

1. To inflict maximum economic damage on those profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment.
2. To reveal to, and to educate the public about the atrocities committed against the earth and all species that populate it.
3. To take all necessary precautions against harming life.

This is the same organisation that in 1998 fire-bombed the Vail ski resort causing $12 million dollars damage. The rebuilding "...used more logs than were cut for the [original] expansion." So in this case they have actually increased the amount of damage to the natural environment in the pursuit of their cause.

The FBi has noted that there is a frightening tendency for this organisation and others like it to use incendiary devices. Such devices are disturbingly indiscriminate and could easliy do a lot more damage than intended.

They say that they take precautions against harming life. But terrorism is not defined by the taking or harming of life but by the instilling of terror. Taking Vail as an example, their actions will make people thinking of going on a skiing holiday think twice because there is a chance of being killed in a fire. Surely that is terrorism.

Vandalism is vandalism, but burning down an SUV dealership and a ski resort are acts of vandalism but out and out destruction. And it is destruction designed, not to make people aware of the plight of the Earth, but to frighten people away from dealerships and resorts. In short terrorism.

 

[Rich Parsons]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Technology/story?id=3204939&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312


The Earth Liberation Front, for all intensive purposes is not a nice group, it seems they have committed more than 1100 acts of vandalism and arson. (I admittedly have no clue what their message is) The FBI calls them terroist (a lot of other US gov orgs do too). However, one interesting point is that with all their acts they have never killed a person, though I don't know about maiming or otherwise serverely injuring or minorly injuring. Is this group full of terrorists? Are they on the same page as the Muslim Jihadist's (sp?)? Should their prison sentenses be longer than someone who randomly commited these acts for the heck of it?

Terrorist cause terror.

What could be more terror then watching your house or property burn, even if someone makes sure you are not in it to die.

It is terrorism.

 

[FearlessFreep]

'Terrorist" is like "Low-Fat"

It means whatever the user, who is trying to illicit an emotional response, wants it to mean at that moment.

 

[michaeledward]

They say that they take precautions against harming life. But terrorism is not defined by the taking or harming of life but by the instilling of terror. Taking Vail as an example, their actions will make people thinking of going on a skiing holiday think twice because there is a chance of being killed in a fire. Surely that is terrorism.

I would ask that you show one person who has not taken a vacation in Vail because they were afraid of some crackpots burning down a building.

One documented case.

Betcha can't.

Terrorist cause terror.

What could be more terror then watching your house or property burn, even if someone makes sure you are not in it to die.

It is terrorism.

Watching your house burn would be horrifying, not terrorizing. When you watch your house burn, are you afraid of owning the next house? It is vandalism; not terrorism.

As FearlessFreep has indicated, if we allow the word to be defined as any bad act, soon the word will mean nothing.

Terrorism is what the George Bush inflicts when he tells David Gregory that "They are a threat to your children, David." ... Such statements are intended to instill fear of taking any action.