I Am Fed Up With The Way People Use The Term "Terrorist" In This Country!

[DistressedAmerican]

I get sick of the way that Americans have come to use the term "terrorist" so indescriminately in this country. It is part of the right winger frame game and we all keep playing it.

"Acts of terrorism" are political killings. They are usually military tactics used by those facing overwhelming force. Terrorism in and of itself is no more or less offensive than any use of force for political means.

The stigma that has become attached to the word "terrorist" carries many distorted connotations.

One is that they always target civilians. This is oftentimes the case and sometimes not. While all terrorists seek to influence public opinion through fear, many terror campaigns have been carried out where most attacks were preceded by warnings so people could get out prior to the attack. See the Basque separatists or the IRA for many examples of this.

Here's one such attack:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA#History

December 12, 2004: The Real Madrid Santiago Bernabéu stadium football Stadium was evacuated due to a phoned-in bomb threat in name of ETA. The bomb—expected to blow up at 9:00 p.m.—didn't explode, and the 69,000 spectators of the match under way at the time of the call were safely evacuated by the Spanish Police at 8:45 p.m.

Sometimes only infrastructure or similar targets are attacked such as in this case:

September 27, 2004: ETA militants sent a videotape to Gara, a Basque newspaper based in Gipuzkoa, in which the militants stated that ETA would continue to fight for Basque self-determination and that ETA would "respond with arms at the ready to those who deny us through the force of arms." This videotape represented ETA's first major public statement since the 11 March attacks. During the weekend preceding the videotape release, the group claimed responsibility for a series of bombings that hampered electricity transmission between France and Spain.


Another is an implied link between Islam as a religion and terrorism as an action. The right wing conflate the two concepts so thoroughly that it is flagrantly racist. But, the left enters into the same kind of dialog quite frequently. There are several classic examples like Timothy McVeigh that make it clear that terrorism as a military tactic can be utilized by just about anyone.

Terrorism is in no way an exclusively Muslim problem even within the region. The history of the Middle East is replete with terrorist acts on both sides of the ongoing conflict. In the early days, when Palestine under British control and Zionists were working to establish a state on the same land, many acts of terror were carried out by those supporting the movement. Here are just a few sources on that for those of you that are unfamiliar from Wikipedia:

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

Irgun and Lehi attacks
During the period 1937-1939, the Irgun conducted a campaign of bombings and other acts of violence against Arab civilians.
Lehi assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944.
The killings of several suspected collaborators with the Haganah and the British mandate government during The Hunting Season (1944-1945).
The King David Hotel bombing on July 26, 1946, killing 91 people. The Irgun delivered a warning to the hotel switchboard but there is disagreement over whether it was sufficiently in advance of the explosion or whether the hotel management responded effectively.
Attacked British military airfields and railways several times in 1946.
The bombing by the Irgun of the British Embassy in Rome in 1946.
The 1947 reprisal killing of two British sergeants who had been taken prisoner in response to British execution of two Irgun members in Akko prison.
In September 1948, Lehi assassinated the UN mediator Count Bernadotte, whom Lehi accused of a pro-Arab stance during the cease-fire negotiations.

Needless to say those attacks stopped when Israel was established and got a full blown army to use in in enforcing its political goals. In reality, at that point, the scale of the political killing just balloons. I can't say I think that is an improvement for the innocents on either side that are caught in the crossfire.



It is time that we all realize that "terrorism" in and of itself is nothing more than a military tactic. It is not an ideology. It does not have political goals in and of itself. In fact, it is not even the enmey. It is a tactic employed by our enemy. It is a form of asymmetric warfare that has been utilized by many different groups throughout time.

Let me make it clear that I fully support the war against Al Qaeda. I believe that Bush completely blew that effort to go oil prospecting in Iraq. I am just making a plea for a bit more discriminate use of language. Allowing the mental associations I mentioned above is playing the winger's Scapegoating and fear-mongering game.

We should not be talking about "Terrorists". We should be speaking about specific groups that pose specific threats.

This dynamic IMO is what underlies the numerous cases where "terrorists" have been killed or arrested in the apparent absence of any weapon (think London Subway Shooting and the recent Miami bust for immediate examples). In each case it is chalked up as a victory in the "War on Terror". This happens whenever we speak of "terrorists" instead of the people we are actually supposed to be at war with, Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, little progress can be shown against the people we are at war with. Bush and the wingers strengthen their grip.

They are playing us with this "fighting Terrorism" line. They are not fighting terrorism. They are fighting Al Qaeda and its affiliates. We will not wipe out terrorism. It will NEVER die. But, we may be able to wipe out Al Qaeda!

Stop playing their game. Make them define their terms and define yours.

WE SHOULD BE CONDEMNING ALL ACTS OF POLITICALLY MOTIVATED VIOLENCE!

[Swede]

1. Yeah,what does Bush have against tourists anyway?

:shrug:

[Egalitariat]

2. When was Palestine a state?****

nm

[DistressedAmerican]

3. I Should Have Been More Precise.

When Palestine was under British control (and yes they used their share of politically motivated violence in the process as well).

Pardon my lack of precision while pleading for more precision. My bad!

[mike_c]

4. I think the meaning of the OP was pretty clear....

The Palestine Mandate.

[Catchawave]

5. As a tree and bunny hugger, I've been

considered a "terrorist" for years! Such a same the word "terrorist" is so misused.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Maybe you should take a stop at the

www.soaw.org





About the School of the Americas / Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

The US Army School of Americas (SOA), based in Fort Benning, Georgia, trains Latin American security personnel in combat, counter-insurgency, and counter-narcotics. SOA graduates are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America. In 1996 the Pentagon was forced to release training manuals used at the school that advocated torture, extortion and execution. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. Lower-level SOA graduates have participated in human rights abuses that include the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the El Mozote Massacre of 900 civilians. (See Grads in the News).

In an attempt to deflect public criticism and disassociate the school from its dubious reputation, the SOA was renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in 2001. The name change was a result of a Department of Defense proposal included in the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 2001, at a time when SOA opponents were poised to win a congressional vote on legislation that would have dismantled the school. The name-change measure passed when the House of Representatives defeated a bi-partisan amendment to close the SOA and conduct a congressional investigation by a narrow ten-vote margin. (See Talking Points, Critique of New School, Vote Roll Call.)

[novalib]

7. WRONG!!!

"Make them define their terms and define yours."

WRONG!

Don't make them define their terms, and do not define yours!

Instead, ATTACK! ATTACK! and ATTACK again!

When someone says something about fighting the "War on Terror", ask them, "You mean the terror that the little children of Baghdad know every night, because of the policies you support?" or "You mean the terror that YOU inflict on the people were are holding in Guatanamo?" or "You mean the terror YOU inflict on people who want to come into the United States to work for a better life?" or "You mean the terror YOU inflict on the poor people right here in the USA?"

Just attack!

[Wetzelbill]

8. the concept of it occured during the French "Reign of Terror"

Reagan and Thatcher developed the phrase "Terror" into an art form, in order to rhetorically frame the "Good" vs "Evil" worldview. Terrorism is political or politically-inspired violence. I wrote an essay for a professor of mine, former Ambassador to Oman (also worked under Jay Garner and Bremer in Iraq for a short time, regarding the concept of terrorism as myth. I elaborated on the anthropological use of the term and that terrorism was actually political violence. He said I was a "dangerous" writer like Noam Chomsky, and that what I was doing was attempting to turn the whole idea of the War On Terror, into another way of thinking. I should say, he meant it as a compliment. (he's a Dem, opposed the current war in Iraq, didn't want to do a lot of the dumb stuff Bremer did)What I didn't tell him is the concept has been out there for quite a while. David Price and Jeffrey Sluka have written some interesting stuff about it.

But yes, you have it right. Terrorism is the wrong word to use, of course it should be condemned, but the concept of polical violence should not be reduced to a term like that. It's too important to put in black and white terms, otherwise we'll never end it.

[DistressedAmerican]

9. Maybe It's An Anthropology Thing.

That is my background as well.

The way the term is used would have gotten me some harsh comments back in my paper writing days.

[Wetzelbill]

10. I think it is from that point of view

but it is the proper way to look at it. "Terrorism" is a way to frame something in a clear cut and simple manner. However, it is a hollow term when you are looking at realistic solutions. To think of something as pure chaos and as "Terror" is to dismiss the rationale behind it, however screwed up that rationale may be. You here politicians say stuff like "Terrorism is to create terror, we must hunt down and kill terrorists, so we don't have anymore" etc. What does that mean? How do you find something that exists in chaos and has no rationale? Do we randomly hunt down and kill anybody who fits the profile -meaning race and religion - of a "terrorist?" What makes sense is to understand terrorism and why it occurs. That is political violence, right? It is the searching for the root of the problem and coming up with a solution. So it may come from thinking in anthropological terms, however, I believe it is the proper way to look at and address the concept. :)

[DistressedAmerican]

11. A bit of cross cultural perspective and some understanding of history

go a long way toward debunking these fools. Sadly, they seem to lack both.

[Wetzelbill]

12. yes exactly

Total agreement. :)