What defines a terrorist?

[Natoma]

Back to the main topic, at least my take on it.

You have two different people suspected of conspiring to commit mass car thefts. One of them is a member of an organized crime family and the other is a loner with no record. We already have provisions to make things considerably more difficult for those we know are members of organized crime, I think the same situation should apply, only more pronounced, with terrorist plots.

You could have an individual that 'vents' by creating plots they never intend to actually carry out(although that does not seem to be the case here). If someone enlists in a terrorist organization, goes through the training and then starts working out plans to commit an act of terrorism hit threats should undoubtedly carry more weight, although that does not indicate the others should be discounted(additional weight should be applied to the member of the terror organization as removing a lone individual would in no way assure you of the plot falling apart).

I think that all cases of reported plotting of terrorism should be dealt with very seriously, for those that have no ties to a terrorist organization nor have they comitted any such acts yet, they should be treated differently then those who do have ties.

In some ways, I see it as similar to a POW when we capture an 'enlisted' terrorist. They are an active combatant by their own chosing. A person making plans with no other ties has yet to commit themselves.

What would you say about the difference between Timothy McVeigh and Robert Goldstein (the guy from florida who was plotting to blow up mosques and roughly 50 other islamic centers) then Ben?

Joe stated earlier in the thread that Timothy McVeigh is a terrorist because he actually went through with his plans while Goldstein isn't because he did not go through with his plans. I consider that distinction to be dubious at best, because if Goldstein had not been thwarted by the FBI, he would most certainly have gone through with it.

So my question to you is, both of these people, McVeigh and Goldstein, were acting alone. By your definition however, they would not be terrorists. Also, what do you think about the Unabomber? He acted alone for over 20 years. Would you not consider him a terrorist?

The reason why I think Goldstein is a terrorist is because despite the fact that he wasn't able to complete his plans, due to his arrest, his *motivation* was to cause tremendous psychological and collateral damage (lives and buildings), for religious/political reasons. That fits the profile of terrorists that we know of. The Unabomber. Timothy McVeigh. Al-Qaeda. The IRA. Aum Shinrikyo. Etc etc etc.

I don't see how with any of the definitions provided here how Goldstein does not fit the profile of a terrorist. Btw, here's a post I made earlier regarding the definition set forth by the FBI. By their definition, Goldstein is most certainly a terrorist. So my question is, why wasn't he filed as one since he was caught by the FBI?

If this had been a lone muslim, I have no doubt that he would have been charged as a terrorist, given the socio-political climate in this country which is, either subliminally or outright, anti-muslim, due to the perpetrators of 9/11.

Here's the FBI's definition of what a terrorist is:

The FBI views domestic terrorism as the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual that is based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction and which is committed against persons or property with the intent of intimidating or coercing a government or its population in furtherance of political or social objectives.

<snip>

On the national level, formal right-wing hate groups, such as World Church of the Creator (WCOTC) and the Aryan Nations, represent a continuing terrorist threat. Although efforts have been made by some extremist groups to reduce openly racist rhetoric in order to appeal to a broader segment of the population and to focus increased attention on anti-government sentiment, racism-based hatred remains an integral component of these groups, core orientations.

<snip>

Right-wing extremists continue to represent a serious terrorist threat. Two of the seven planned acts of terrorism prevented in 1999 were potentially large-scale, high-casualty attacks being planned by organized right-wing extremists.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/freeh051001.htm

It's a pretty good read. Now extending the FBI's definition seems pretty logical in terms of Robert Goldstein saying "I'm doing this against all Arabs and Muslims for the attacks on 9/11." I.e. it seems to be politically motivated revenge tactic in this "War on terrorism."

Since he is an individual and his potential act was racially/religiously motivated, and by all means he would be considered an extremist, I would think he would be considered a terrorist.

The fact that he had a list of 50 or more targets, and was going after Mosques shows that he was picking and choosing his targets with a political/religious motivation. And whether or not he said he was going after casualties, it seems to me that his civilian targets most certainly would have caused many many casualties.

So does this not fit the bill then?

p.s.: DC, your example of the eco-terrorists fits neatly into the FBI's "left wing extremist groups" definition:

Left-wing and Puerto Rican extremist groups. The second category of domestic terrorists, left-wing groups, generally profess a revolutionary socialist doctrine and view themselves as protectors of the people against the "dehumanizing effects" of capitalism and imperialism. They aim to bring about change in the United States through revolution rather than through the established political process.

Though they could also occupy the "special interest extremists" definition:

Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect more widespread political change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including, the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other political and social movements.

 

[Nagorak]

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. It basically is just a label used to villify a person on the other side of the conflict.

 

[Nagorak]

I don't see how with any of the definitions provided here how Goldstein does not fit the profile of a terrorist. Btw, here's a post I made earlier regarding the definition set forth by the FBI. By their definition, Goldstein is most certainly a terrorist. So my question is, why wasn't he filed as one since he was caught by the FBI?

If this had been a lone muslim, I have no doubt that he would have been charged as a terrorist, given the socio-political climate in this country which is, either subliminally or outright, anti-muslim, due to the perpetrators of 9/11.

It's because his name is Goldstein and not Muhammad. But, no, it couldn't be racism. I mean, how could it be, the US is perfect!

Please ignore the racist bigots who are ridiculously popular talk show hosts: http://i.timeinc.net/time/verbatim/20030421/photo/verbatim_oreilly.jpg

 

[Natoma]

Please ignore the racist bigots who are ridiculously popular talk show hosts: http://i.timeinc.net/time/verbatim/20030421/photo/verbatim_oreilly.jpg

Oh please, that's nothing.

So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person?

And they say Trent Lott was an anomaly. That the republican party had truly changed.

Btw, on a light note, here are a few other quotes that are kind of funny, if not in a morbid way.

To be very blunt - and God watch over Paul's soul - I am a 99 percent improvement over Paul Wellstone.

HONG KONG WILL TAKE YOUR BREATH AWAY.