Terror attack in Austin Texas

[bloodyminded]

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

"Moral equivalency" is more or less a meaningless term.

And surely you're not disputing Western involvement in terrorism?

[Gabriel]

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

I guess I wasn't completely clear in my post, but yes I am Jewish. My being Jewish is a big reason why I've been more aware of terrorism for a longer period of time than the average citizen, given the fact that Jewish people have been the the prime targets of Islamic terrorists for decades around the world. You still haven't addressed anything I've said substantively.

[Gabriel]

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.

I feel like we're going off onto a tangent. Let's try to narrow the focus specifically to the term "terrorism" and its meaning in a contemporary context. Perhaps you reject the very premise of my previous statement that the term "terrorism" depends on context? I'm also not a big fan of the "war on terror", as terror is a somewhat ambiguous concept. The same problems rise with the "war on drugs" and other "wars" against social ills.

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

You're too smart to suggest that conservatives in contemporary Canada or the USA have any meaningful commonalities with conservatives in Afghanistan or Iran. Let's not pretend that somehow a Canadian or American conservative in 2010 is in favour or restricting women's freedoms and rights in any way comparable to the restrictions we see in many parts of the Middle East. Let's not pretend that there is some serious overlap between the perspectives of political and economic freedoms held by Western conservatives and conservatives in Saudi Arabia. Let's be serious, not ridiculous.

[bloodyminded]

I feel like we're going off onto a tangent.

You're probably right.

Let's try to narrow the focus specifically to the term "terrorism" and its meaning in a contemporary context. Perhaps you reject the very premise of my previous statement that the term "terrorism" depends on context? I'm also not a big fan of the "war on terror", as terror is a somewhat ambiguous concept. The same problems rise with the "war on drugs" and other "wars" against social ills.

I just composed two replies and then deleted them. Let me think on this a while. I"m trying to avoid unnecessary rhetoric and get to the heart of my problems with the general paradigm.

You're too smart to suggest that conservatives in contemporary Canada or the USA have any meaningful commonalities with conservatives in Afghanistan or Iran. Let's not pretend that somehow a Canadian or American conservative in 2010 is in favour or restricting women's freedoms and rights in any way comparable to the restrictions we see in many parts of the Middle East. Let's not pretend that there is some serious overlap between the perspectives of political and economic freedoms held by Western conservatives and conservatives in Saudi Arabia. Let's be serious, not ridiculous.

That's a fair point, actually. I guess I get peeved at all this "the left" criticism, which I believe is way overblown and way overused. For example, if the Islamists were admirers of Lenin, I have little doubt how this would be used as a weapon by the political right to continue the attempted discreditation of the left in general.

That said, I get your meaning.

[GostHacked]

I guess I wasn't completely clear in my post, but yes I am Jewish. My being Jewish is a big reason why I've been more aware of terrorism for a longer period of time than the average citizen, given the fact that Jewish people have been the the prime targets of Islamic terrorists for decades around the world. You still haven't addressed anything I've said substantively.

Ah, I understand. Because you are Jewish you understand terrorism more than others. I am not Jewish. I am agnostic. I don't subscribe to any religion because I don't have a need for it. But when you are born into a religion you kind of inherent the hate from a certain group of people. In your case Muslims.

I have lived my life in Ontario, and have not seen terrorism first hand. I don't know what you have witnessed personally so I can't say. So before I answer your questions I needed to understand where you are coming from.

I'll do you the favour or replying to those specific questions in another post.

[Gabriel]

If I'm ever guilty of gross oversimplifications, please call me on it. I know I sometimes use terms like "leftists" to describe a group of people with a particular position on a particular issue, but I hope it is understood that I am describing fringe folks (who I am sometimes concerned are quite a large group of people!). For example, when I rant about leftists who are anti-business and anti-market, I hope it's understood the type of people that I'm talking about. One thing I don't do enough is rant about the "far right" and their silliness. This may send the message that I identify with the "far-right", as the term is understood by sensible people. Perhaps sometimes the meanings behind my posts are lost in translation, and folks who identify with "the left" feel that I am denigrating them. If I am doing this, then I apologize as it's not my intention.

I feel like I'm already rambling somewhat nonsensically, but at least I hope that my opinions on the definition of terrorism, and what acts do and don't belong under its categorization has been well-explained. In short, this Stack person who flew his plane into the IRS building cannot be accurately described as a terrorist.

As an aside, I saw on Fox News today (yes, I subscribe to the news package from Rogers!) that Janet Napolitano has stated, on-the-record, that the Fort Hood shooting was indeed connected to terrorism. I guess the government is a little slower to recognize the realities that most of us knew within the first day of the story breaking. It's also quite a departure from the current administration's aversion to the use of the term "terrorism". I don't think I've ever heard Obama or his crew use that term. This story looks like a first. This occurred to me as I was reading your post on state-definitions of terrorism.

[Guest American Woman]

"Moral equivalency" is more or less a meaningless term.

And surely you're not disputing Western involvement in terrorism?

I think this is what most people think of when speaking of "terrorism:"

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it...

The duty to kill civilians. When has the western world ever set out to kill civilians? When has that ever been considered the duty of our nations?

I think ultimately "terrorism" has come to mean the purposeful targeting of civilians, the desire to kill them, and doing it: men, women, children, elderly, babies. Doesn't matter. It's good to kill them.

[Gabriel]

Ah, I understand. Because you are Jewish you understand terrorism more than others. I am not Jewish. I am agnostic. I don't subscribe to any religion because I don't have a need for it. But when you are born into a religion you kind of inherent the hate from a certain group of people. In your case Muslims.

I have lived my life in Ontario, and have not seen terrorism first hand. I don't know what you have witnessed personally so I can't say. So before I answer your questions I needed to understand where you are coming from.

I'll do you the favour or replying to those specific questions in another post.

Gosthacked,

I never said that because I'm Jewish that I necessarily understand terrorism more than others. Those are your words, not mine. What I said was that my Jewish upbringing lead me to be more interested in the affairs of Israel and of Jewish people worldwide, and that this lead to me being more aware of terrorism than the average citizen - given the obvious reality that Jewish interests have been a prime target for terrorism associated with Islam for decades. In no way does me being Jewish somehow propel me onto some podium of expertise regarding the subject of terrorism. I don't understand terrorism "more than others" simply because I am Jewish - what I said, very clearly, was that I've been ahead of the learning curve of the Western media with respect to broader commonalities among worldwide terrorist incidents. Where CNN reports the Beslan hostage crisis as an incident exclusively connected to the Chechen/Russian conflict, I saw connection to broader global terrorism with a strong Islamic element. There is a lot of overlap between global terrorist incidents and the organizations that perpetrate these violent acts than the mass media seems to realize. Watching CNN, you'd think the only terrorist organization out there is Al-Qaeda.

I don't even want to get into a religious discussion. You're agnostic? Cool. I'm largely secular myself. Don't assume that all individuals who identify themselves as Jewish are necessarily believers. It is also beyond offensive to suggest that I hate Muslims simply because I am Jewish. I am surprised you posted that comment with such ease. Have you any idea how ridiculous and ignorant you are making yourself look by stating so matter-of-factly that Jewish people are naturally raised to hate Muslims?

Even more bizarre, your inquiry into my personal experiences almost seems to be a paternalistic way of suggesting that perhaps your flawed perception that I hate Muslims is somehow justified. In other words, it's alright for someone to hate Muslims if they've undergone certain experiences. "There, there.... maybe you've been assaulted by a group of Muslim bandits.... now I understand why you hate Muslims". What is this, some underhanded way of accusing me of being a bigot simply because I am aware of a strong Islamic component among many contemporary terrorist organizations?

You're really showing your true colours, it seems. What a pathetic display of your ignorance: you must be shocked that a Jewish person like myself doesn't hate Muslims! I must be one of the "good" ones!

Edited February 24, 2010 by Gabriel

[DogOnPorch]

I think this is what most people think of when speaking of "terrorism:"

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it...

The duty to kill civilians. When has the western world ever set out to kill civilians? When has that ever been considered the duty of our nations?

I think ultimately "terrorism" has come to mean the purposeful targeting of civilians, the desire to kill them, and doing it: men, women, children, elderly, babies. Doesn't matter. It's good to kill them.

Exactly.

[M.Dancer]

Terrorism is the specific and deliberate targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal.

There is no equivilent action by western states in modern history that has used this tactic.

[Michael Hardner]

Terrorism is the specific and deliberate targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal.

There is no equivilent action by western states in modern history that has used this tactic.

Ok. The difference between the targeting of civilians during war (as happened during world war II) is that it's done to achieve a military goal then ?

It may be that 'terrorism' denotes that brand of violence as you define, but only after WW2 or maybe Vietnam. I don't know where I would cut off the time, but it seems to be recent - post Israel anyway.

[M.Dancer]

Ok. The difference between the targeting of civilians during war (as happened during world war II) is that it's done to achieve a military goal then ?

Quite...

It may be that 'terrorism' denotes that brand of violence as you define, but only after WW2 or maybe Vietnam. I don't know where I would cut off the time, but it seems to be recent - post Israel anyway.

The only perpetrators of terrorism during WWII were germany and Russia. We didn't round up Italians or Iraqis at random and hang them for acts of sabotage...The kind of terrorism that is the normal mind set of the third world died in the franco anglo west in first world war.

[DogOnPorch]

Ok. The difference between the targeting of civilians during war (as happened during world war II) is that it's done to achieve a military goal then ?

It may be that 'terrorism' denotes that brand of violence as you define, but only after WW2 or maybe Vietnam. I don't know where I would cut off the time, but it seems to be recent - post Israel anyway.

The Irish were at it long before WW2.

[M.Dancer]

The Irish were at it long before WW2.

I am refering to of course state sponsored or state effected terrorism.

Naploleanic france comes to mind....Imperial Germany and their march through the low countries...Spain...

[bloodyminded]

Good Christ.

This is in answer to American Womnan, DogonPorch, and M. Dancer.

Of COURSE the West has been directly complicit in the terroristic attacks on innocent civilians...and not only in the context of war (since that's being summoned as a breezy justification.)

The West is entirely culpable in terrorism.

Intentionally culpable.

It's not even a debatable matter.

And you ALL know this. Why the pretence?

I don't think I have to spell the examples out, do I?

If we can't have honest debates--because pride or nationalism or doublethink or whatever the hell it is gets in the way....well, that's very frustrating.

Edited February 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

Good Christ.

This is in answer to American Womnan, DogonPorch, and M. Dancer.

Of COURSE the West has been directly complicit in the terroristic attacks on innocent civilians...and not only in the context of war (since that's being summoned as a breezy justification.)

The West is entirely culpable in terrorism.

Intentionally culpable.

It's not even a debatable matter.

And you ALL know this. Why the pretence?

I don't think I have to spell the examples out, do I?

If we can't have honest debates--because pride or nationalism or doublethink or whatever the hell it is gets in the way....well, that's very frustrating.

I too can only shake my head and wonder why these people would believe that western states do not use tactics like terrorism to promote their agendas in other lands, either directly or by proxy, through funding and training. Either they are naive, deluded or paid shills. In this case I'll go with the latter

[Shwa]

Of COURSE the West has been directly complicit in the terroristic attacks on innocent civilians...and not only in the context of war (since that's being summoned as a breezy justification.)

I think what they are referring to is a different brand of terrorism. Sure the West has been involved in small 't' terrorism, rapes, murders, burning villages, bombing civilians, sponsoring death squads and such, but that is much different from the capital 'T' Terrorism. You know with the car bombings, planes into buildings, anthrax and Terror Levels.

Small 't' terrorism isn't really terrorism because it is justified through the negation of the human qualities of 'the other' through ideology. Killing 'the other' in this context is no worse than euthanizing dogs or getting rid of herds of cattle because of Mad Cow Disease. Capital 'T' Terrorism however is simply not playing by the rules. I mean anthrax for gawdsakes, that is just Terrible! (BTW, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols don't count because, even though they were "West" they were crazy-West. Everyone knows that.)

On the other hand, the re-branding of Terror for commercial purposes has given a boost to the graphic arts industry through the urgent need for eye catching Terror logos, Terror news graphics and more informative Terror Threat Level meters. Anyone know if there is an app for that yet? Synchronize your iPhone with Homeland Security. Now that'd be cool!

[BubberMiley]

By that logic, the guy who had sex with your wife deserved to get shot.

[M.Dancer]

I too can only shake my head and wonder why these people would believe that western states do not use tactics like terrorism to promote their agendas in other lands, either directly or by proxy, through funding and training. Either they are naive, deluded or paid shills. In this case I'll go with the latter

Myself I invest in tinfoil...sells well for your kind

[Sir Bandelot]

Myself I invest in tinfoil...sells well for your kind

You have wasted your investment. Aluminum foil is transparent to magnetic fields

[GostHacked]

I don't even want to get into a religious discussion. You're agnostic? Cool. I'm largely secular myself. Don't assume that all individuals who identify themselves as Jewish are necessarily believers. It is also beyond offensive to suggest that I hate Muslims simply because I am Jewish. I am surprised you posted that comment with such ease. Have you any idea how ridiculous and ignorant you are making yourself look by stating so matter-of-factly that Jewish people are naturally raised to hate Muslims?

You may want to read it again. I said that you inherent a hate from Muslims because you are Jewish. No where did I say you hated Muslims. I'll admit I was wrong to assume you understand terrorism more than others.

Even more bizarre, your inquiry into my personal experiences almost seems to be a paternalistic way of suggesting that perhaps your flawed perception that I hate Muslims is somehow justified. In other words, it's alright for someone to hate Muslims if they've undergone certain experiences. "There, there.... maybe you've been assaulted by a group of Muslim bandits.... now I understand why you hate Muslims". What is this, some underhanded way of accusing me of being a bigot simply because I am aware of a strong Islamic component among many contemporary terrorist organizations?

Again, never said you hated Muslims. You have misconceptions as I do it seems. And I never inquired about personal experiences.I just asked if you were Jewish.

You're really showing your true colours, it seems. What a pathetic display of your ignorance: you must be shocked that a Jewish person like myself doesn't hate Muslims! I must be one of the "good" ones!

/facepalm

[eyeball]

Terrorism is the specific and deliberate targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal.

There is no equivilent action by western states in modern history that has used this tactic.

Personally I think our indifference to the victims of the dictators the West employs is even more terrifying. Our practice of rendition is equal to kidnapping.

[Gabriel]

You may want to read it again. I said that you inherent a hate from Muslims because you are Jewish. No where did I say you hated Muslims. I'll admit I was wrong to assume you understand terrorism more than others.

Here is the quote from your earlier post - "But when you are born into a religion you kind of inherent the hate from a certain group of people. In your case Muslims." Aside from the grammatical error (using 'inherent' instead of 'inherit'), your point is quite clear. You're clearly stating that I have inherited a hatred of Muslims because I was "born into" Judaism. In other words, Jewish people necessarily hate Muslims. Why don't you just admit it and move on? There's nothing more pathetic than watching a fool fall all over himself and try to massage his statements into something more palatable.

Again, never said you hated Muslims. You have misconceptions as I do it seems. And I never inquired about personal experiences.I just asked if you were Jewish.

Again, yes you did. Are you so oblivious to the very words you type in here? In all seriousness, I really don't care what you think or say. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous your comments are.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Gabriel

[M.Dancer]

Our practice of rendition is equal to kidnapping.

Really? Can you link to the ransom notes then?

Personally I think our indifference to the victims of the dictators the West employs is even more terrifying.

Your personal opinion is duly noted and ignored. Care to list the dictators we are employing and their so called victims?

[GostHacked]

Here is the quote from your earlier post - "But when you are born into a religion you kind of inherent the hate from a certain group of people. In your case Muslims." Aside from the grammatical error (using 'inherent' instead of 'inherit'), your point is quite clear. You're clearly stating that I have inherited a hatred of Muslims because I was "born into" Judaism. In other words, Jewish people necessarily hate Muslims. Why don't you just admit it and move on? There's nothing more pathetic than watching a fool fall all over himself and try to massage his statements into something more palatable.

Wrong again. I said FROM a certain group, not FOR a certain group. And yes I had the wrong word, I meant inherit not inherent.

Edit .... i should have said this instead.

I said you inherited a hatred FROM a certain group. I should have put more emphasis on FROM.

Edited February 25, 2010 by GostHacked