Car Bomb found in Times Square

[Bob]

At the core they're resentful luddites who believe that violence is a correct response to the loss of their way of life.

I guess I agree with the first part of your statement, but I wouldn't characterize their perceptions as losing "their way of life". Rather, they believe that violence is a correct response to grievances they perceive. I also know terrorism has come in flavours others then simply Islamic extremism. Still, I don't think the term 'terrorism' should be diluted to include every single act of violence or disobedience with just a shred of political ramifications. As far as I can tell, its mainstream usage applies to acts of violence carried out in whole or in part by somewhat organized groups, or is associated ideologically with these somewhat organized groups. I know, I should probably be more specific, but I'm not some literary or semantics expert.

[Michael Hardner]

Dark enough to spook Canadians at the time. As for how dark...you must be joking.

Olive skinned ? South Asian ? Cafe au laid ? Barack ?

Should I have bonded with the locals to prove the concept of universal man and the foolishness of nationalism, even as I retired each night to my war machine flying the stars and stripes?

Why do you keep asking me what you "should" do ? It's unAmerican ! You should have planted a flag Iwo Jima style and waited for them to come to your trailer to apologize.

[Michael Hardner]

I guess I agree with the first part of your statement, but I wouldn't characterize their perceptions as losing "their way of life". Rather, they believe that violence is a correct response to grievances they perceive.

I think that it's more that they perceive a threat and see a response as necessary. People can justify these things usually as self-defense.

I also know terrorism has come in flavours others then simply Islamic extremism. Still, I don't think the term 'terrorism' should be diluted to include every single act of violence or disobedience with just a shred of political ramifications. As far as I can tell, its mainstream usage applies to acts of violence carried out in whole or in part by somewhat organized groups, or is associated ideologically with these somewhat organized groups. I know, I should probably be more specific, but I'm not some literary or semantics expert.

Well, ok, but if the Times Square guy acted alone then what is he ? There are also other examples of armies of one out there.

[Bob]

Well, ok, but if the Times Square guy acted alone then what is he ? There are also other examples of armies of one out there.

Can't we still call him a terrorist since the motivation(s) for his bombing attempt is strongly connected to the ideology of Islamic extremism? Assuming he's a "homegrown jihadist" (why do I feel stupid typing out those words?), he strongly identifies with the anti-American sentiment we see widespread among Muslim extremists, who view their religion and culture as being attacked by America and its allies (a false perception), and believes that wholesale violence is a legitimate way to address his grievance(s).

Can he not be a terrorist simply by ideological association and/or motivation(s)?

As a side note, apparently this Faisal Shezad guy did have some sort of connection to identifiable terrorist groups in Pakistan. Apparently he received some sort of "terrorist training" (again, I feel stupid typing out those words in quotations for some reason) abroad.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Bob

[Michael Hardner]

Can he not be a terrorist simply by ideological association and/or motivation(s)?

Ok... I would put the militia types in the same camp... (I was speaking figuratively but some might like to take that action literally too.)

As a side note, apparently this Faisal Shezad guy did have some sort of connection to identifiable terrorist groups in Pakistan. Apparently he received some sort of "terrorist training" (again, I feel stupid typing out those words in quotations for some reason) abroad.

Still, this seems like it was rather poorly done and not well organized.

[Bob]

Ok... I would put the militia types in the same camp... (I was speaking figuratively but some might like to take that action literally too.)

I agree, if these Hutaree Militia were planning on killing police officer and then killing people are the funeral, they definitely need to be executed or at the very least put away for a very long time. I also have no problem labelling them as terrorists.

[Guest American Woman]

....I don't think the term 'terrorism' should be diluted to include every single act of violence or disobedience with just a shred of political ramifications. As far as I can tell, its mainstream usage applies to acts of violence carried out in whole or in part by somewhat organized groups, or is associated ideologically with these somewhat organized groups. I know, I should probably be more specific, but I'm not some literary or semantics expert.

Again, I think targeting civilians is a big part of the definition of what's referred to as terrorism. The goal of killing civilians is different from the goal of the individuals that have attacked the government/government workers. Not that that's right, of course, but it is different, and that's my only point. I know of no other group mentioned whose members consider it their duty, a good thing, to target and kill mainstream civilians, including babies and children.

[Michael Hardner]

Again, I think targeting civilians is a big part of the definition of what's referred to as terrorism. The goal of killing civilians is different from the goal of the individuals that have attacked the government/government workers. Not that that's right, of course, but it is different, and that's my only point. I know of no other group mentioned whose members consider it their duty, a good thing, to target and kill mainstream civilians, including babies and children.

As I pointed out to you here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16309&view=findpost&p=538738

The OK City Bomber blew up a daycare centre. And a government worker IS a civilian.

Why differentiate ?

I would even say that the workers at the Pentagon were civilians as they weren't standing army personnel.

Are you trying to say that Flight 97 wasn't a terror attack ?

[WIP]

Again, I think targeting civilians is a big part of the definition of what's referred to as terrorism. The goal of killing civilians is different from the goal of the individuals that have attacked the government/government workers. Not that that's right, of course, but it is different, and that's my only point. I know of no other group mentioned whose members consider it their duty, a good thing, to target and kill mainstream civilians, including babies and children.

It's bad enough that you categorize an attack on government employees differently than an attack on civilians; I don't think anyone becomes a civil servant should face threats and harassment from crazy rightwing anarchists, and as noted the Oklahoma City Bombing is a prime example of how civilians are going to be killed in any kind of mass casualty attack....but the worst aspect of treating domestic terrorism differently than terrorist attacks by foreigners, is that they seem more familiar and therefore less threatening because they are white and have many of the same grievances that other average white citizens may share. The right wing terrorist plots and successful attacks don't get a fraction of the media attention or resources of the FBI and other police organizations that Arab terrorist plots receive.

The situation in the U.S. of allowing right wing militias to run around fully armed and conduct training exercises out in the woods is totally ludicrous. The Hutaree militia members are all out on bail; like I said before, if they had beards and declared themselves to be Muslim converts would any of them been allowed out of jail? Yet it's these whitebread militias that are going to be the greatest danger for civil unrest and terrorism in the U.S.

[Guest American Woman]

It's bad enough that you categorize an attack on government employees differently than an attack on civilians;

Why is that bad?

I don't think anyone becomes a civil servant should face threats and harassment from crazy rightwing anarchists, and as noted the Oklahoma City Bombing is a prime example of how civilians are going to be killed in any kind of mass casualty attack....

And I do think that anyone who becomes a civil servant should face threats and harassment from crazy people of any political belief?

but the worst aspect of treating domestic terrorism differently than terrorist attacks by foreigners, is that they seem more familiar and therefore less threatening because they are white and have many of the same grievances that other average white citizens may share.

Thanks for the amateur psycho-analysis, but you're way off.

The right wing terrorist plots and successful attacks don't get a fraction of the media attention or resources of the FBI and other police organizations that Arab terrorist plots receive.

Really? You have the inside scoop as to the resources the FBI and other police organizations give to these attacks? Is that why domestic incidents go unsolved, and the guilty parties aren't brought to justice? Because of the lack of resources? Oh, wait. They are.

[WIP]

Why is that bad?

Why? Because you never bothered to explain what you meant with this cryptic phrase: "Not that that's right, of course, but it is different, and that's my only point. "

So how is it different?...'it may not be right, but it's not as bad as killing a non-government worker or some similar bullshit?'..... So what constitutes a "civilian?" Is a factory worker a civilian? And how does becoming a civil servant revoke "civilian" status? And as far as killing innocent children goes, you haven't gone near the Oklahoma City Bombing, which certainly was a mass casualty attack, or the fact that most of the victims were the children in the daycare center on the ground floor.

You have underlined the double standard that's playing all over the MSM, where domestic terrorists and their supporters are treated less seriously than the foreign guy with the beard. You won't talk about right wing militias that have been caught in the planning stage, such as this Hutaree Militia in Michigan. If they're white and christian and only target government workers and buildings apparently, I guess terrorist acts are okay.....not that that's right of course!

All it takes is electing a black president and there's a 2.5 fold increase in the number of spawning grounds for right wing terrorists: New SPLC Report: "Patriot" Groups, Militias Surge in Number in Past Year

[Michael Hardner]

Why is that bad?

Most people will discriminate between military targets and civilian targets, and you seem to do the same. However, you blatantly have moved civil servants (such as IRS workers - secretaries, accountants and so on) from one column to another, apparently so that you can classify domestic terrorism differently.

It's a ridiculous and transparent attempt to redefine acts of violence based your arbitrary perception of what is terror and what isn't. Domestic terror attacks from militia groups and so forth ARE terrorism. And your refusal to acknowledge my points on this thread speaks to the emptiness of your argument.

[bloodyminded]

Again, I think targeting civilians is a big part of the definition of what's referred to as terrorism. The goal of killing civilians is different from the goal of the individuals that have attacked the government/government workers. Not that that's right, of course, but it is different, and that's my only point. I know of no other group mentioned whose members consider it their duty, a good thing, to target and kill mainstream civilians, including babies and children.

My lady works for the government...so yes, technically, she's a "government worker."

With zero say in policy, foreign or domestic; plus, she kinda hates "the government"!