Terrorism: A "Controversial" Term
By haystack Posted in User Blogs — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
My morning routine includes scanning the headlines of a good 30 news-based internet sites over my first of too many cups of coffee. My closest friends and family have considered executing an "intervention" on my behalf, and have only been prevented from doing so by my reminding them that many of my RS friends probably do twice that. And, so it was this morning that I found THIS piece of news, indicating that Hamas considers the suicide bombing of Israeli citizens eating falafels an appropriate form of self-defense. A little more scanning takes me HERE and HERE where it gets a little more personal. [h/t Israpundit and Captain'sQuarters]
Remembering a diary HERE, and another one HERE, and reading through THIS, and THIS, and THIS, and finally coming across THIS, I decided I had had enough. I decided to see just WHAT the definition of terrorism actually IS, officially.
Going to Wikipedia I find that terrorism doesn't even HAVE a universally accepted definition; that it apparently is in the "eye of the beholder" so to speak. Apparently, if you are a victim of terrorism, you are inclined to define it as:
"indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard for human life."
If, however, you were so inclined as to use terrorism to further your cause, it would be considered:
a strategy of using coordinated attacks that typically fall within the time, manner of conduct, and place commonly understood as unconventional warfare.
Isn't that nice...
No one should be surprised to learn, again in Wikipedia, that terrorists themselves have a rather kinder, gentler way of defining themselves:
"those accused of being "terrorists" rarely identify themselves as such, and instead typically use terms that refer to their ideological or ethnic struggle, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla (from Spanish "small war"), rebel, jihadi or mujaheddin (both meaning "struggler"), or fedayeen ("prepared for martyrdom")."
So, as rancher and others have tried to articulate, our friends in the media, perhaps frozen by the lack of a universally accepted terminology, can't seem to call it as us "ill-informed" amateurs see it; Murder.
The notion that the term "terrorism" is controversial is a great indicator for why we are not doing well fighting against it. If one prescribes to the idea that terrorism is a form of self-defense, it becomes easier to explain away capitulating to its demands under the auspices of trying to find a balance in dealing with those who would use terrorism to further their cause(s), or defend themselves against some perceived threat.
I can't believe I have to even suggest what I consider to be patently obvious, but we apparently need to define terrorism before we can EFFECTIVELY fight to stop it. According to THIS very educational and eye-opening thesis written by Jeffery Record for the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College, we have over 100 different definitions for it within our own government. How is that possible? And, while they "seem" similar enough in context, the content variations leave plenty of loophole room for interpretation. [Author's Warning: If you read Dr. Jeffery's work, be prepared-he makes the case that we are ALL terrorists to one degree or the other. Perhaps that case can be made of any who would wage war, but make sure you haven't had too much coffee before you get to reading...]
I am deeply troubled by the "flexibility" of the interpretation and meaning behind the WORD "terrorism", and I am fearful that the fight we are waging against it is severely hampered by whose side you choose to be on in defining it.
control the debate.
This must be reasonably well understood. Otherwise we wouldn't have such confusion as to the meaning of unambiguous words and terms such as those you cite and: lie, leak, amnesty, sex, racism, hate, tax increase, spending cut, illegal, congress shall make no law,..... just for starters.
Kinda has a ring to it.
are a uniform, the target, and the motive.
If the motive is political*, and the target is a non-combatant, it's terrorism.
Targeting a uniformed foe as a civilian (or vice versa) is a war crime, but it's not terrorism as such.
Civilians targeted civilians for revenge or money is just crime.
A uniformed military force missing a military target and hitting civilians, or hitting them colaterally, is just a part of war.
---------
* I include jihad as a political motive.
that the term terrorism needs to be defined? One of the reasons I've never really trusted Bush in this whole GWOT is that what he sees as terrorism is not other see as terrorism. To many people, it's a very black and white issue. You know it when you see it and you don't need it to be defined. Any way of defining it would somehow miss the point or isn't accurate enough. BUT, if you don't define it specifically, there is no way to know that you've conquered it.
I am deeply troubled by the "flexibility" of the interpretation and meaning behind the WORD "terrorism", and I am fearful that the fight we are waging against it is severely hampered by whose side you choose to be on in defining it.
You're exactly right, it's a huge detriment to the GWOT. However, I dont think it's a liberal/conservative problem, I think we can all agree that suicide bombers do not deserve apologies nor should they ever be called freedom fighters. I just have a problem with the Bush foreign policy doctrine of preemptive strike if the term terrorist is never defined. Because then you can label someone a terrorist more freely and I think that's just a dangerous thing to do.
"I think we can all agree that suicide bombers do not deserve apologies nor should they ever be called freedom fighters"
Many times they DO in fact get apologies and are often times called freedom fighters.
We DO agree that the many interpretations and definitions floating around make it easier to manipulate the case being made FOR or AGAINST the GWOT...
Unfortunately, none of it makes it any easier to determine if you have, at the end of the day, stamped it out (which is basically impossible in the "history of mankind" context).
One of the reasons I've never really trusted Bush in this whole GWOT is that what he sees as terrorism is not other see as terrorism. To many people, it's a very black and white issue. You know it when you see it and you don't need it to be defined. Any way of defining it would somehow miss the point or isn't accurate enough. BUT, if you don't define it specifically, there is no way to know that you've conquered it...
...I just have a problem with the Bush foreign policy doctrine of preemptive strike if the term terrorist is never defined. Because then you can label someone a terrorist more freely and I think that's just a dangerous thing to do.
I'd refute your points, but they are not coherent enough to reply to!!
of my blog here as to whether the PKK were terrorists. All the responses from Kurds were adamant that they were not, one even said
by the way, you can notice that if you look on virtually EVERY Kurdish blogs you will see a link to roj tv on it... well roj tv is the tv owned by pkk and they put it right near puk and kdp tv, so you see none of the Kurds consider us terrorist, do you see them putting al-qaeda or hamas tv on it?
The use of the term "us" leads me to believe I was hearing from an actual PKK member. They also believed that the PKK attacked only legitimate military targets and not innocent civilians, which may or may not be the case. Even they recognized Hamas as a terrorist organization.
and more about the Kurds through Michael Totten and now I want to go see these people.
I still think the Peshmerga are part of the solution in Iran.
very well MAY be part of the solution in Iran, but they are severely under-appreciated in Iraq's attempts to make the acts of those who consider themselves "freedom fighters" criminal and punishable...even by death where necessary.
The Peshmerga are working on their most local and tightly knit of needs, and given a little more respect they could find themselves key players in some of the Middle East conflicts. The problem is that many outside of the M.E. continue to wring their hands and continue their ambivalent ways about the Kurds' role in a free Iraq and a Democratic Islamic culture.
It's a beautiful country and many southern Iraqis go there to find some peace and quite.
Not a description of what the war is all about and what its objectives are. Your comment is a twist on the old standard "you can't fight a war on a tactic." The war is really against Islamofascism, not against terrorism as a tactic used by anybody for any reason.
our ongoing anti-war media blitz will continue to have legs as long as it is framed™ as such.
We can't get out of our own way when we try to discuss in open terms that the conflict we face is spiritually based, and on religious and moral grounds. Those terms immediately make our MSM buddies' hair set on fire.
We need to get the terminology and it's innuendo out there, and get on with what we ALL know needs to be done.
your post was thought provoking and gave me an idea for an extended entry. If I can get the time to do the research I'll do it
MEK terrorists?
http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/mek.htm
According to some we are using them right now against the Iranian regime. Terrorist one day. Freedom fighter the next.
it is another of the endless stream of resources too few of us are aware of.
You bring up an excellent point. We seem to have a proclivity in this country (and probably every other country as well) to selectively define "bad guys" according to the purpose they may or may not serve us at any given time. Perhaps this truly IS a big part of the problem.
To a certain extent, there will always be room for interpretation, but within some broad guidelines. What Hamas, IJ, and Al-Qaida do is terrorism. Israeli defense of their nation, our attacks on the Taliban, Saddam, and Al-Qaida are not terrorism. As others have pointed out it's a question of targets (terrorists favor civilian) and purpose (ours are strategically defensive)
You say
One of the reasons I've never really trusted Bush in this whole GWOT is that what he sees as terrorism is not other see as terrorism
Does that mean you will only trust someone who can get complete consensus? Believe it or not President Bush is closer than you think to that. More people trusted Bush on this issue than Kerry, and Bush had a track record to be second guessed.
The vast majority of Americans support the GWOT and despite Democrat demagoguery and MSM disinformation haven't questioned, as you appear to, President Bush's selection of targets. He hasn't bombed a pharma factory in Sudan yet has he?
their solution to the problem: simple discard the term
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060413&hn=319
52
Bingo, no more terrorism. Ah those crafty Euros, ever vigilant, ever prepared, ever ...