Terror attack in Austin Texas

[eyeball]

...it isn't so much what a terrorist DOES that makes him a terrorist to a certain degree, it's what ideology he subscribes to.

Clearly. One ideology's terrorist is usually another's freedom fighter.

[Gabriel]

I think this is a pretty clear example of a bigoted double-standard in dealing with terrorism.

If this guy was Muslim, and his suicide notes contained references to Christians being the source of America's problems instead of references to "elites" - you can bet your house there'd be an uproar similar to the Fort Hood shooting and Christmas Day bombing.

As it stands, this registered barely a blip.

Which illustrates that it isn't so much what a terrorist DOES that makes him a terrorist to a certain degree, it's what ideology he subscribes to.

I've heard this opinion thrown around, and I completely disagree. The term "terrorism", as far as I'm concerned, has evolved over time to refer to acts of violence carried out with political/ideological/religious motivations. Of this I'm sure you, I, and all of us agree. The term "terrorism" has also evolved, however, to describe violent acts carried out by groups and/or individuals who can be connected to a broader organization/association/ideology with a history of carrying out violence. Considering that this Stack loser was definitely the "lone wolf" with respect to his act (his suicide note clearly indicates that his almost exclusively a personal vendetta, and that he wasn't part of some broader group of people), although he may have considered himself a sort of martyr for other disaffected Americans with similar gripes against the government. Put more simply, without this Stack loser being connected or associated with a broader organization/ideology/religion that is known to participate in terrorism, his act cannot be described as a terrorist act.

Although Stack did carry out his violent act with semi-political motivations, he is not associated with a broader organization/ideology that has a history of violent behaviour. We're not seeing anti-government leftists who hate the elite flying planes into IRS buildings on any sort of regular basis. Stack wasn't in contact with other individuals or groups who advocate for violent resistance against perceived injustices or inequalities. He "lone wolf" status is a large part of the reason that this act cannot be accurately described as terrorism.

The Columbine mass murderers were not terrorists, the Dawson College shooter was not a terrorist, the Virginia Tech murderer was not a terrorist. The Fort Hood murderer, however, WAS a terrorist - he subscribed to an ideology and held religious/political/social opinions that mirrored many terrorist organizations' views/position (i.e. Al Qaeda). Nidal Hassan was, therefore, connected to a greater collective, which allows us to categorize him as a terrorist. This is to say nothing of Hassan's links to terrorist-supporters and advocates, showing a tangible connection to terrorism beyond simply his ideological sympathy with contemporary terrorists and their motivations. What I am trying to illustrate here is what criteria must be met by an individual or group of people engaging in violence in order to categorize them as terrorists. Simply engaging in acts of violence doesn't make someone a terrorist, we must examine their motivations and associations.

It seems to me that people who want to label these incident as examples of terrorists are intentionally trying to water down the definition of "terrorism" to be more all-encompassing - perhaps rooted in some perverted politically correct motivation to take the heat off of the strong Islamic element associated with most contemporary terrorism. Clearly there is a not-so-subtle relationship between contemporary terrorism and specific groups of Muslims with their own perspectives of their own religion. This is simply a fact of life, as politically incorrect as it may be. You're certainly right that if this man's first or last name had been Muhammad, we would certainly be suspicious of links to terrorism - which we don't have to apologize for.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Gabriel

[eyeball]

I've heard this opinion thrown around, and I completely disagree. The term "terrorism", as far as I'm concerned, has evolved over time to refer to acts of violence carried out with political/ideological/religious motivations. Of this I'm sure you, I, and all of us agree. The term "terrorism" has also evolved, however, to describe violent acts carried out by groups and/or individuals who can be connected to a broader organization/association/ideology with a history of carrying out violence.

Where I live in BC police inform us that people who sell pot are terrorists. In Alberta Greenpeace protesters are called terrorists. The term has clearly lost whatever rational meaning it used to have.

[Gabriel]

Most likely because a significant number of people haven't declared war against the elite and aren't going around attacking them the way the extremist Muslims who are part of the jihad are.

Single, isolated incidents don't get the coverage that multiple, connected incidents do.

You said it much more succinctly than I did!

[Gabriel]

Where I live in BC police inform us that people who sell pot are terrorists. In Alberta Greenpeace protesters are called terrorists. The term has clearly lost whatever rational meaning it used to have.

It hasn't lost its meaning to me.... perhaps it has to you. Have you got any proof that there are public officials describing local drug dealers as terrorists?

I think some Greenpeace protestors can accurately be described as terrorists, or, at the very least, as bandits. It fits the criteria I laid out above, as they belong to a broader organization that has a history of engaging in violence (of course the violence they engage in is hardly comparable to contemporary terrorists like Al Qaeda and the Taliban). Perhaps some Greenpeace people should be labelled as "light" terrorists, as they engage in smear campaigns, property damage, and mild assault.

[bloodyminded]

I've heard this opinion thrown around, and I completely disagree. The term "terrorism", as far as I'm concerned, has evolved over time to refer to acts of violence carried out with political/ideological/religious motivations. Of this I'm sure you, I, and all of us agree. The term "terrorism" has also evolved, however, to describe violent acts carried out by groups and/or individuals who can be connected to a broader organization/association/ideology with a history of carrying out violence. Considering that this Stack loser was definitely the "lone wolf" with respect to his act (his suicide note clearly indicates that his almost exclusively a personal vendetta, and that he wasn't part of some broader group of people), although he may have considered himself a sort of martyr for other disaffected Americans with similar gripes against the government. Put more simply, without this Stack loser being connected or associated with a broader organization/ideology/religion that is known to participate in terrorism, his act cannot be described as a terrorist act.

Although Stack did carry out his violent act with semi-political motivations, he is not associated with a broader organization/ideology that has a history of violent behaviour. We're not seeing anti-government leftists who hate the elite flying planes into IRS buildings on any sort of regular basis. Stack wasn't in contact with other individuals or groups who advocate for violent resistance against perceived injustices or inequalities. He "lone wolf" status is a large part of the reason that this act cannot be accurately described as terrorism.

The Columbine mass murderers were not terrorists, the Dawson College shooter was not a terrorist, the Virginia Tech murderer was not a terrorist. The Fort Hood murderer, however, WAS a terrorist - he subscribed to an ideology and held religious/political/social opinions that mirrored many terrorist organizations' views/position (i.e. Al Qaeda). Nidal Hassan was, therefore, connected to a greater collective, which allows us to categorize him as a terrorist. This is to say nothing of Hassan's links to terrorist-supporters and advocates, showing a tangible connection to terrorism beyond simply his ideological sympathy with contemporary terrorists and their motivations. What I am trying to illustrate here is what criteria must be met by an individual or group of people engaging in violence in order to categorize them as terrorists. Simply engaging in acts of violence doesn't make someone a terrorist, we must examine their motivations and associations.

It seems to me that people who want to label these incident as examples of terrorists are intentionally trying to water down the definition of "terrorism" to be more all-encompassing - perhaps rooted in some perverted politically correct motivation to take the heat off of the strong Islamic element associated with most contemporary terrorism. Clearly there is a not-so-subtle relationship between contemporary terrorism and specific groups of Muslims with their own perspectives of their own religion. This is simply a fact of life, as politically incorrect as it may be. You're certainly right that if this man's first or last name had been Muhammad, we would certainly be suspicious of links to terrorism - which we don't have to apologize for.

As recently as the 1990's, the "official stance"--meaning, by definition, the declarations of the leadership of the United States of America (a crucial point unto itself)--was that "State terrorism" was the greatest global threat. This was a continuation of the Reagan formulation in which Libya was poised to destroy all that was good; and of course the Sandanistas, whom we were informed by Reagan were "two days driving time from Texas." (This was said with a straight face, too.) Now of course, a country like the United States lecturing about "state terrorism" is a joke of catastrophic perversity, but leave that aside for now.

"Terrorist" has been subtly altered in meaning in direct correlation with geopolitical changes and policy alterations. This is not to say terrorism isn't real; obviously it's real.

But the argument you're positing, while pretending to some sort of clarity, is in truth one about ownership of connotation. "Terrorist" has a frightful connotation...even if a specific terrorist act is objectively less horrible than some other criminal act. Some disaffected Muslim could commit a murderous act for all sorts of psychological reasons...but if, under the current climate, he wrote some disjointed piece about "Jihad", without any real clue about his own motives, without any comprehension of Islam, and without any affiliation to any radical group...you'd call him a "terrorist." This is convenient for general demonization, but it doesn't fly if we bother to think about it for more than six seconds.

At any rate, "terrorism" far predates the narrow parameters in which you wish to confine it.

The people you claim are "water[ing] it down" are actually adhering more closely to the word's meaning. It is your wish to co-opt the term that is the real change here.

I could just as well say that terrorism is a conservative phenomenon--using your argument--because the Islamists are arch-conservatives.

(And incidentally, I note well that this rather interesting point--the Official Enemy's peculiarly right-wing stance--is always ignored, even though it's an elephant in the room.)

Edited February 24, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

It hasn't lost its meaning to me.... perhaps it has to you. Have you got any proof that there are public officials describing local drug dealers as terrorists?

Nothing I can link to but several local kids have reported police telling them when they buy pot that they're providing funding to terrorists. Surely you've also heard provincial and federal government officials say the same thing about drug traffickers. It's also been made quite clear that knowingly funding terrorists - being apart of their network in other words - is equal to terrorism itself. I have no reason to doubt these same officials have encouraged this general attitude to trickle down through society.

I think some Greenpeace protestors can accurately be described as terrorists, or, at the very least, as bandits. It fits the criteria I laid out above, as they belong to a broader organization that has a history of engaging in violence (of course the violence they engage in is hardly comparable to contemporary terrorists like Al Qaeda and the Taliban). Perhaps some Greenpeace people should be labelled as "light" terrorists, as they engage in smear campaigns, property damage, and mild assault.

What would you call a country that props up a bloodthirsty dictator who amongst other things terrorizes their citizens? This certainly fits any criteria I've ever heard of what constitutes being part of a network of terror. Given the sheer size of some country's that do this, "light" is hardly the term I would use to describe the damage they've contributed to.

Edited February 24, 2010 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

I've heard this opinion thrown around, and I completely disagree. The term "terrorism",.......

No terrorism is terrorism and it should be classified as such. Because no one mentions terrorism for that case, no one thinks it's that big of a deal. But when your single Fort Hood shooter goes on a rampage, it is considered terrorism.

Does it make each attack ok? Absolutely not. Should it be treated as criminal, 100% yes.

--------

--------

Now most people have the wrong definition of terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Since there is no consensus on what actually is classified as terrorism, the term should be dropped altogether.

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[11] One form is the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.[12]

[Shady]

But when your single Fort Hood shooter goes on a rampage, it is considered terrorism.

Are you ignoring his connections to Al Qaeda and specifically his communications with Imam Anwar al-Awlaki?

[Gabriel]

Hey bloodyminded,

I reject your opinion. You seem to be suggesting that somehow words don't evolve over time, or don't have different meanings in different contexts. You intentionally obfuscate the definition of "conservative", for example, by describing hardline Islamists are "conservative". Of course they are conservative, but only in the context of their society. Clearly the term "conservative" means different things in different places and at different times. You seem to intentionally ignore that.

As I've said, language evolves over time. Not all words and terms are static. Terrorism is one of the words that has evolved over time, but I still believe the core of it has probably remained consistent for quite awhile. Are you disputing my assertion that terrorism, contemporarily, describes acts of violence carried out by individuals or groups who are connected to a broader organization or group of organizations (that subscribe to particular ideologies, whether they be political and/or religious and/or social and/or economic, etc) with an established track record of participating in violence? As far as I'm concerned, this reality is indisputable. Therefore it simply makes no sense to describe this Stack loser as some sort of terrorist. When anti-government leftists who rant against perceived oppression from the "elites" and "corporate America" coalesce into some sort of more cohesive unit or group of units who participate in regular violent acts (such as flying small planes into IRS offices), then we can accurately categorize this Stack loser as a terrorist. Until that time, he's no more than a dangerous criminal.

As far as the USA's position on the definition of "terrorism" (specifically, the list of organizations defined as "terrorists"), who cares? I'm giving an honest, and accurate, assessment of the term. I'm not basing my opinion on governmental perspectives.

[Gabriel]

Nothing I can link to but several local kids have reported police telling them when they buy pot that they're providing funding to terrorists. Surely you've also heard provincial and federal government officials say the same thing about drug traffickers. It's also been made quite clear that knowingly funding terrorists - being apart of their network in other words - is equal to terrorism itself. I have no reason to doubt these same officials have encouraged this general attitude to trickle down through society.

Well, that's different than describing local drug dealers as terrorists. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour and be more accurate with your language. Considering that Mexico (and some other South American countries like Columbia) is having serious issues with domestic terrorism associated with drugs, there's some truth to the statement that purchasing drugs may be supporting drug dealer terrorists in some South American countries. Drug traffickers that murder police officers, civilians, and engage in a whole bunch of other violent acts can certainly be described as terrorists. I don't see how "...knowingly funding terrorists - being apart of their network in other words - is equal to terrorism itself." Are you talking about Bush's "with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric? Bush wasn't talking to your local drop-out pot dealer when he said those words.

What would you call a country that props up a bloodthirsty dictator who amongst other things terrorizes their citizens? This certainly fits any criteria I've ever heard of what constitutes being part of a network of terror. Given the sheer size of some country's that do this, "light" is hardly the term I would use to describe the damage they've contributed to.

What are you talking about? I used the term "light" to describe the violence and property damage that some Greenpeace members engage in.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Gabriel

[GostHacked]

Are you ignoring his connections to Al Qaeda and specifically his communications with Imam Anwar al-Awlaki?

If the Fort Hood shooter had been part of a Christian or Catholic group committing acts of terrorism then it would still be considered terrorism. Unfortunately, that is not how it would be played out on the media, but that is obviously not how some see it.

[Gabriel]

No terrorism is terrorism and it should be classified as such. Because no one mentions terrorism for that case, no one thinks it's that big of a deal. But when your single Fort Hood shooter goes on a rampage, it is considered terrorism.

Does it make each attack ok? Absolutely not. Should it be treated as criminal, 100% yes.

--------

--------

Now most people have the wrong definition of terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Since there is no consensus on what actually is classified as terrorism, the term should be dropped altogether.

Wow, you completely ignored everything I said. "Terrorism is terrorism" seems to be the substance of your argument. Am I supposed to agree with that? That's not an argument, that's just a nonsensical statement. If you're not going to give me enough respect to even read my post and address the points I've made, why should I bother even responding to you?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your suggestion is that we drop the term "terrorism" altogether simply because there is some dispute as to its appropriate use? Welcome to the world of political language and dialogue. This has been going on for centuries. Various people will have differing opinions as to the definitions of various terms, this is sometimes completely legitimate. Other times, there is an intentional misrepresentation of particular terms for a dishonest political agenda. I view this discussion as an example of that - certain people, for disingenuous politically correct purposes, want to broaden the definition of terrorism in order to lessen its contemporary association with particular ideologies (i.e. Al Qaeda and its Islamic component). It satisfies your sensibilities to have the term "terrorism" be so all-encompassing to the extent that this Stack loser can be categorized as a terrorist. Of course this is possible in some people's minds, as long as they ignore the points I made above. If you want to ignore context and reality, go for it, describe this guy as a terrorist. For those more sensible individuals, we'll reject your description of this criminal and his crime as a "terrorist act".

There are many examples of people/groups intentionally misrepresenting terms or trying to redefine them to advance their own political agenda. Whether it be an Ann Coulter book railing against liberals/Democrats or a Michael Moore book trying to redefine conservatives/Republicans, it happens all the time... and it's happening in this very thread.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Gabriel

[GostHacked]

As far as the USA's position on the definition of "terrorism" (specifically, the list of organizations defined as "terrorists"), who cares? I'm giving an honest, and accurate, assessment of the term. I'm not basing my opinion on governmental perspectives.

Actually you are basing your assessment of the term because of the government perspective. They are the ones who gave you that perspective in the first place.

[bloodyminded]

Hey bloodyminded,

I reject your opinion. You seem to be suggesting that somehow words don't evolve over time, or don't have different meanings in different contexts. You intentionally obfuscate the definition of "conservative", for example, by describing hardline Islamists are "conservative". Of course they are conservative, but only in the context of their society. Clearly the term "conservative" means different things in different places and at different times. You seem to intentionally ignore that.

As I've said, language evolves over time. Not all words and terms are static. Terrorism is one of the words that has evolved over time, but I still believe the core of it has probably remained consistent for quite awhile. Are you disputing my assertion that terrorism, contemporarily, describes acts of violence carried out by individuals or groups who are connected to a broader organization or group of organizations (that subscribe to particular ideologies, whether they be political and/or religious and/or social and/or economic, etc) with an established track record of participating in violence? As far as I'm concerned, this reality is indisputable. Therefore it simply makes no sense to describe this Stack loser as some sort of terrorist. When anti-government leftists who rant against perceived oppression from the "elites" and "corporate America" coalesce into some sort of more cohesive unit or group of units who participate in regular violent acts (such as flying small planes into IRS offices), then we can accurately categorize this Stack loser as a terrorist. Until that time, he's no more than a dangerous criminal.

As far as the USA's position on the definition of "terrorism" (specifically, the list of organizations defined as "terrorists"), who cares? I'm giving an honest, and accurate, assessment of the term. I'm not basing my opinion on governmental perspectives.

I think it is based on governmental perspectives, because it aligns perfectly with the shift in governmental perspectives. Your premise is that connotation is more important than denotation...so that you promptly rewrite the denotation based on the notion that "words evolve over time." I certainly agree that they do...but "evolving" so that they fit into the paradigm of contemporary foreign policy by the world's superpower is hardly the normal, organic evolution of words.

Like I said: the "evolution" is pretty convenient. "State terrorism" is the most serious type--when theri is conflict with states. Substate network terrorism becomes, according to you, the only proper definition of "terrorism" as soon as this becomes the stated focus of a superpower and its allies.

I think this view is entirely politicized.

Edited February 24, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

Are you talking about Bush's "with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric? Bush wasn't talking to your local drop-out pot dealer when he said those words.

He was talking to the entire human race. I ask again, what would you call a country that supports a bloodthirsty dictator? What criteria does this fit?

What are you talking about? I used the term "light" to describe the violence and property damage that some Greenpeace members engage in.

Okay, so how would you describe the violence and damage that some of our allies engage in?

[GostHacked]

Wow, you completely ignored everything I said. "Terrorism is terrorism" seems to be the substance of your argument. Am I supposed to agree with that? That's not an argument, that's just a nonsensical statement. If you're not going to give me enough respect to even read my post and address the points I've made, why should I bother even responding to you?

No go ahead and insult me, and yet reply to my post.

From my understanding of terrorism is that it is not the act itself, but the threat of the attack. To create terror and make you scared about an attack. When the attack happens, it now moves beyond terrorism.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your suggestion is that we drop the term "terrorism" altogether simply because there is some dispute as to its appropriate use?

Yes.

Welcome to the world of political language and dialogue.

This is specifically the reason I would have the term dropped.

This has been going on for centuries. Various people will have differing opinions as to the definitions of various terms, this is sometimes completely legitimate.

So it's relative terrorism.

Other times, there is an intentional misrepresentation of particular terms for a dishonest political agenda.

Another reason it should be dropped.

I view this discussion as an example of that - certain people, for disingenuous politically correct purposes, want to broaden the definition of terrorism in order to lessen its contemporary association with particular ideologies (i.e. Al Qaeda and its Islamic component).

So the definition of the term has changed because of political climates? That does not sound wise to me.

It satisfies your sensibilities to have the term "terrorism" be so all-encompassing to the extent that this Stack loser can be categorized as a terrorist. Of course this is possible in some people's minds, as long as they ignore the points I made above. If you want to ignore context and reality, go for it, describe this guy as a terrorist. For those more sensible individuals, we'll reject your description of this criminal and his crime as a "terrorist act".

Sensible? As soon as the Fort Hood shooter was Muslim (and the name was withheld for a day or two) terrorism was then thrown around. And it was instant. If he was not muslim, but possibly part of another terror group, like IRA or Tamil Tigers it would not play out the same way.

There are many examples of people/groups intentionally misrepresenting terms or trying to redefine them to advance their own political agenda. Whether it be an Ann Coulter book railing against liberals/Democrats or a Michael Moore book trying to redefine conservatives/Republicans, it happens all the time... and it's happening in this very thread.

And that is done on both sides it seems.

[Gabriel]

Actually you are basing your assessment of the term because of the government perspective. They are the ones who gave you that perspective in the first place.

I can't continue this conversation with you... it is too inane. How arrogant do you have to be to tell ME how I came to my opinion this matter? Let me tell you something that you're unaware of, many of us, particularly Jewish persons, have had terrorism on our radars much longer than modern Western media. I was aware and concerned about terrorism, particularly terrorism associated with Islamic elements, much earlier than 9/11/01. Sure, I was much younger then, but I was raised in a household with a much more sensitive radar for this kind of stuff - I was aware of the broader unity between events like the USS Cole boat bombing, the Budyonnovsk hospital terrorism, 9/11, and the many suicide bombings in Israel (to name a hanful of the hundreds, if not thousands of terrorist events that have been executed in the past few decades associated with terrorist organizations with a strong Islamic element) much earlier than CNN or Fox News picked up on it (they still seem largely clueless about it!).

Edited February 24, 2010 by Gabriel

[Gabriel]

I think it is based on governmental perspectives, because it aligns perfectly with the shift in governmental perspectives. Your premise is that connotation is more important than denotation...so that you promptly rewrite the denotation based on the notion that "words evolve over time." I certainly agree that they do...but "evolving" so that they fit into the paradigm of contemporary foreign policy by the world's superpower is hardly the normal, organic evolution of words.

Like I said: the "evolution" is pretty convenient. "State terrorism" is the most serious type--when theri is conflict with states. Substate network terrorism becomes, according to you, the only proper definition of "terrorism" as soon as this becomes the stated focus of a superpower and its allies.

I think this view is entirely politicized.

Why don't you just spell out what I think you're trying to say - that countries like the USA and its allies should also be described as terrorist organizations? If that's what you're implying, then I wholly reject that assertion - and it's not a discussion I feel like participating in. If that's not what you're implying, then my bad.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Okay, so how would you describe the violence and damage that some of our allies engage in?

The same thing we would call the violence and damage that Canada engages in.

[Gabriel]

Gosthacked - If anything, the mass media walked on eggshells with the Fort Hood massacre with respect to connecting it terrorism. The media I watched (and I consume a lot of media) was filled with "experts" proposing all sorts of explanations for his behaviour that had nothing to do with terrorism. The most ridiculous explanation I saw in the mass media was that he had somehow suffered from PTSD, and when it was revealed that Nidal Hassan hadn't ever been in combat, there was a suggestion that somehow he had suffered from PTSD by proxy - through hearing the stories of hardship from his patients during his professional work as a psychiatrist. I'll tell you honestly, when I heard that the suspect's name was "Nidal Hassan", my instincts strongly told me that this was an Islamic terrorist. I know I wasn't alone. I won't apologize for that assumption, either. After all, it turned out to be correct as more and more information was made available about this murderer - his actions and his convictions.

As a side note, a funny side note, I saw an Arabic video on Youtube (by some "self-reporter") who explained that Nidal Hassan had likely been the victim of mind-control, a la Manchurian Candidate style, and had been manipulated by the American government (with Mossad) in order to foster anti-Islamic sentiment within the country.

There may be a sensitivity among the public towards Islamic terrorism that manifests itself when an Arab/Muslim engages in criminal activity, but you wouldn't know that by watching most mainstream media, who walked on eggshells regarding the Islamic terrorist connection.

[Gabriel]

Apparently, Nidal Hassan was likely the victim of brainwashing!

[GostHacked]

I can't continue this conversation with you... it is too inane. How arrogant do you have to be to tell ME how I came to my opinion this matter? Let me tell you something that you're unaware of, many of us, particularly Jewish persons, have had terrorism on our radars much longer than modern Western media. I was aware and concerned about terrorism, particularly terrorism associated with Islamic elements, much earlier than 9/11/01. Sure, I was much younger then, but I was raised in a household with a much more sensitive radar for this kind of stuff - I was aware of the broader unity between events like the USS Cole boat bombing, the Budyonnovsk hospital terrorism, 9/11, and the many suicide bombings in Israel (to name a hanful of the hundreds, if not thousands of terrorist events that have been executed in the past few decades associated with terrorist organizations with a strong Islamic element) much earlier than CNN or Fox News picked up on it (they still seem largely clueless about it!).

I am going to take a while guess and say you are Jewish, correct?

[bloodyminded]

Why don't you just spell out what I think you're trying to say - that countries like the USA and its allies should also be described as terrorist organizations? If that's what you're implying, then I wholly reject that assertion - and it's not a discussion I feel like participating in. If that's not what you're implying, then my bad.

No, I reject this way of talking about nations period, as it's always a promiscuous simplification. I reject the idea that Libya was a "terrorist nation," or that Iran is a "terrorist nation." They have been invovled in terrorism, to be sure.

But yes, of course the US and its allies have been involved in terrorism. That shouldn't even be a controversial assertion. That doesn't make these countries "terrorist organizations."

If countries resorting to terrorism makes them terrorist organizations, then the term "terrorist" is even less useful than I thought.

Which is why I reject the self-aggrandizing idea that this righteous entity called "The West" is fighting a "war on terrorism."

I reject the formulation itself. I believe it's a way of talking past the extremely complicated situation we are in.

Of course they are conservative, but only in the context of their society. Clearly the term "conservative" means different things in different places and at different times. You seem to intentionally ignore that.

Really? They seem awfully conservative by Western standards, too.

Edited February 24, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

But yes, of course the US and its allies have been involved in terrorism.

Oh goody, I was waiting for some leftwing moral equivalency. I know, I know, we're no better than Libya and Iran.