What defines a terrorist?

[Joe DeFuria]

What about Timothy McVeigh. If someone had found out about his plot before he committed it, what do you think would have happened in that instance?

Recurring theme: was Timothy McViegh plotting after 9/11, and was he believed to be part of Al-Qaeda?

As far as we know, he was acting alone. Wouldn't he fit the definition of a terrorist?

Yes, he would....after having performed or at least attempted the terrorist act.

Doesn't this guy in Florida, Robert Goldstein, fit the definition of a terrorist?

Isn't that what this whole thread is about? It's definitely a gray area, and circumstances about individual cases comes into play. I know this scares you, because that means someone is actually going to have to make a judgement somewhere, instead of having a nice litmus test.

Not having actually carried out or attempted a terrorist act, and not having some affiliation or connection with a known terrorist organization should make it very difficult to "treat someone like a terrorist" in a legal sense.

I figured you would be in agreement with that, considering all of your "concern" about this administration taking all our liberties away.

Personally, I think Golstein deserves that length of time in Jail, and I consider his plotting "terrorist like" in nature. And certainly, if he actually attempted or carried out his action, that would be immediate grounds for giving him the "legal" classification of terrorist, IMO.

But I would not label him as a "legal" terrorist, (and the removal of rights that goes along with it) based on what little info we do know about this case.

 

[Natoma]

hate crime:

Osama Bin Laden -- who is Arab -- wanted to make a statement for "his people" against Israelis and Jews in light of the Gulf War terrorist attacks, according to court documents.

terrorism:

Osama Bin Laden -- who is Arab -- wanted to make a statement for "his people" against AMERICANS in light of the Gulf War terrorist attacks, according to court documents.

How is the first one different from the second? American is a term used to designate one's national affiliation. Same with Israeli.

What if it's "American and Christians?" Does it still qualify as terrorism then? Or is it a hate crime?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

But Al Qaida don't even come close in the "which bunch of terrorists has killed the most people, ever" stakes.

True, but the point is, 9/11 is certainly the largest terrorist act on American soil.

And for all the non Americans who bitch at us and say "keep your nose out of other people's business...." We have...until Qaeda made this our business. I thought that was obvious. So what's the issue here? We're butting in right now because we were directly attacked.

In a very real and tangible way, 9/11 changed our view. Do you think it shouldn't have?

Did you know that the IRA killed more people during their campaign than died on 9/11

Sure...but that wasn't Americans, or more specifically (assuming some Americans may have died in IRA attacks) the IRA wasn't about attacks on "America".

Sure Al Qaida think bigger, sure they target the US as a soft target. On 9/11 they caught you with your pants down, which is why an attack on such a scale was possible. In the global perspective none of this seperates Al Qaida from any other bunch of terrorists planting bombs and sniping or whatever. None of this makes Al Qaida special in any sense.

Al Qauda is indeed "special" to America. Again, we American's are often told to "but out" of "global things" that don't really impact us....fair enough request if it is a non hypocritical reqest. I'll be damned though, if we are expected to "but out" once we are dragged into it.

 

[MrShides]

yeah so i thought isrealite was a religion.

The key here is:

"against (insert your nation here)" <-- terrorism

"against (insert your religion here)" <-- hate crime

it all depends on who the targe was.

if i blow up a mosque becouse i'm directly pissed at arabs that's a hate crime

if i blow up a mosque while there is a peace summit between say the us and irag happening inside and my intentions where to fuck with the peace summit and not directly to attack the mosque. That is an act of terrorism

 

[Natoma]

Joe, there is a difference between accusing someone of terrorism when there is murky evidence at best, as in the case of Jose Padilla, and when looking at someone when there is *hard* *physical* evidence that shows that had they not been caught, they would have gone through with their act.

I just want to clear up a few things. Answer the following questions yay or nay if you agree or disagree so we can be on the same page:

a) If you commit a terrorist act, you are a terrorist.

b) If you conspire to commit a terrorist act, but are caught before you are able to go through with it, with hard evidence to show that you were in fact conspiring and near commission, you are not a terrorist and should be sentenced to jail for conspiracy to commit felony only.

Did I get that correct?

 

[nutball]

Did you know that the IRA killed more people during their campaign than died on 9/11

Sure...but that wasn't Americans

Nuff said.

 

[Natoma]

yeah so i thought isrealite was a religion.

The key here is:

"against (insert your nation here)" <-- terrorism

"against (insert your religion here)" <-- hate crime

it all depends on who the targe was.

if i blow up a mosque becouse i'm directly pissed at arabs that's a hate crime

if i blow up a mosque while there is a peace summit between say the us and irag happening inside and my intentions where to fuck with the peace summit and not directly to attack the mosque. That is an act of terrorism

Al-Qaeda targets christians and jews mainly. They operate in Hindu countries, but don't attack hindus. They operate in Buddhist countries, but don't attack buddhists.

So it's probably safe to say they're only targetting christians and jews. Since 9/11 was an attack on "the infidels," in Osama's own words, couldn't that be, technically, defined as the mother of all hate crimes, and *not* terrorism?

I'm trying to nail down a definitive answer to the question of "What is Terrorism." It's got to fit all the pre-conceived notions that we've got on what terrorism is, as well as fit what is going on in the world today.

Right now, the application of this term by the government, which I think we're all in agreement with, is murky and tenuous at best, which I really don't like at all.

 

[MrShides]

alqeada is "wanted" in the us for acts of terrorism. they commited terrorism when they hit the WTC. that wasn't a christ trade center or a jew trade center.

And osama is not saying..yeah i was only going after the jews and the christians ...long live america..if only they would kick out the jews and the christians i would move there!

the attack on the WTC caused civil unrest in the NATION not in a Religous group. I'm catholic by birth but i'm pretty much an athiest. Does that mean that if al-qeida lets out a desiese in the us that it will look at me and it will stop and go on to the next guy ...no...becouse it is targeted at americans.

This robert guy was attacking muslims, aiming for muslims. and if carried out causing unrest in the muslim community. I woulda been kinda pissed off about it happening but i would go to work the next day not worried about robert coming after me cuz i'm an american.

we got arabs around my house. "fuck you american" boy that piss's me off. And i tell them "yo stupid, your american to. If i go down u will go down to. Your the worst kind of muslum according to osama, your the kind that ran to America.

bottom line he may have targeted american muslums but he targeted muslims NOT all americans.

 

[DemoCoder]

The difference is one of scale. Sure, if you add up the totals, in Algeria, or Ireland, or the Middle East, more people have died (over a long period), however, what terrorist group has killed thousands of people in a single attack?

In fact, even potential scale gains more attention. Aum Shinryko didn't kill very many people, but the Sarin attack, if they had done it better, had the potential to kill thousands, or more. Aum was also researching bio and nuclear and they had the technical know-how (far more than Al Qaeda) to pull it off, since Aum was made up of geek engineers. If any one could have carried out a large scale weaponized bio-attack, it would have been them, and what's more, they caught the Japanese completely by surprise, unlike Al Qaeda, which we have known about.

That makes Aum far more scary that the IRA.


A terrorist is someone who aims to kill non-military to bring about political change, plain and simple. If Anti Abortionists, for example, were to start a campaign of blowing up clinics, killing doctors, etc, they would be terrorists, since they are attempting to bring political change by scaring people.

If environmentalist wacko groups sabotaged ski-resort lifts hoping to kill people and scare them away from "invading" mountains, they would be terrorists. (yes, it is a true story. On the west coast, one group sabotaged the cables of several lifts over the summer hoping to cause accidents which would scare people away and hurt the finances of the ski-tourism industry)

Anyone whose goal is to clandestinely kill and terrorize civilians to foment change is a terrorist. (yes, that even includes CIA operations in south america)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, there is a difference between accusing someone of terrorism when there is murky evidence at best, as in the case of Jose Padilla...

Murky according to who...you? Do you have all the information that the U.S. gov't has? Do you know if the U.S. revealing that info publically may comprimise our intillegence gathering ability itself?

Yes, as I said, I know these things scare you. And yes, you do have to have some faith the U.S. gov't just doesn't label someone as an "enemy combatant" or "terrorist" for no "hard" reason.

...and when looking at someone when there is *hard* *physical* evidence that shows that had they not been caught, they would have gone through with their act.

That is dubious statement.

There is no such thing as HARD EVIDENCE that they WOULD have been able to go through with or at least attempt the attack. It's all speculation. At least in the case where an "organization" that you are affiliated with, however, that has a history of following through on acts, it's different.

I just want to clear up a few things. Answer the following questions yay or nay if you agree or disagree so we can be on the same page:

a) If you commit a terrorist act, you are a terrorist.

Yay.

b) If you conspire to commit a terrorist act, but are caught before you are able to go through with it, with hard evidence to show that you were in fact conspiring and near commission, you are not a terrorist and should be sentenced to jail for conspiracy to commit felony only.

Nay. I thought I had made that clear.

I only agree with that if there is no found or known affiliation to a known terrorist organization which has in fact carried out or attempted to carry out acts in the past, for example, Al Qaeda. In other words, the complete statement would be:

b) If you conspire to commit a terrorist act, but are caught before it has been attempted or carried out, but there's hard evidence to show that you were in fact conspiring, you are not a terrorist if you have no known ties to, or affiliation with, a "known terrorist organization," and should be tried through normal legal channels.

Did I get that correct?

Not completely.

 

[Natoma]

I can live with your definition of what a terrorist is MrShides. However, Joe DeFuria (and correct me if I'm wrong here Joe) believes that Robert Goldstein could be correctly labeled a terrorist if he *attempted* or *succeeded* in his crime.

He also said that Timothy McVeigh should be labeled a terrorist because he attempted/went through with his crime.

That doesn't necessarily fit with your definition because McVeigh was railing against the US. Goldstein was railing against Arabs and Muslims. That inconsistency is what I want to try and clear up because frankly it's driving me nuts.

 

[MrShides]

i don't know where u read that mcviegh WASN"t a terrorist...he was ....

 

[Natoma]

MrShides:

Personally, I think Golstein deserves that length of time in Jail, and I consider his plotting "terrorist like" in nature. And certainly, if he actually attempted or carried out his action, that would be immediate grounds for giving him the "legal" classification of terrorist, IMO.

That is what I'm trying to pin down. The difference between Goldstein and McVeigh. Joe thinks that Goldstein, if he had attempted or succeeded in his plotting, would be labeled a terrorist. But you just made a definition that terrorism is only when someone is attacking a nation state or political body. Not a group of people which we define as hate crimes.

That is the disconnect that I saw when I started this thread that I'm trying to reconcile.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I can live with your definition of what a terrorist is MrShides. However, Joe DeFuria (and correct me if I'm wrong here Joe) believes that Robert Goldstein could be correctly labeled a terrorist if he *attempted* or *succeeded* in his crime.

Correct.

MrShides and I do have slightly different views of what makes a terrorist. (Though it's an interesting view.) It sounds like I more agree with DemoCoder. I'm less concerned if the desire is to bring about change in a "nation's policy", or some other "group's" policies, than I am about the manner in which it is done.

That doesn't necessarily fit with your definition because McVeigh was railing against the US.

Huh? The way I read it, that exactly fits MrShides definition precisely because he was railing against the U.S.

Edit: Changed "MrShades" to "MrShides". Sorry MrShides!

 

[Natoma]

b) If you conspire to commit a terrorist act, but are caught before it has been attempted or carried out, but there's hard evidence to show that you were in fact conspiring, you are not a terrorist if you have no known ties to, or affiliation with, a "known terrorist organization," and should be tried through normal legal channels.

Ok, that's different than what I stated in my last post when I quoted you.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That is the disconnect that I saw when I started this thread that I'm trying to reconcile.

When you started this thread you saw "no difference" between Goldstein and "other cases" except that Goldstein was Jewish. Both MrShades and myself are BOTH saying "no, that's not the only difference."

We do differ on what the important difference is, but the point is, we both see the situations as different, MORE than just the fact that Goldstein in Jewish.

In any case...what's your definition of a "terrorist", Natoma? (At what point does someone go through normal legal channels, vs. "military" ones?)

 

[MrShides]

i hear u

Goldstiens act would not be considered terrorism any more then the arab guy down the street who's van was blown up by someone.

ok...now...what is the difference between the van being blown up and the wtc.

the van blowing up didn't effect the american people as a nation

it only affected the guy down the street and the people in the immediate community. If it effected muslums across the nation...still a hate crime. becouse only 1 group is effected.

 

[RussSchultz]

Perhaps political motivation is a major factor to being declared a terrorist or not?

But when does a hate crime cross the political motivation boundary? If you're lynching black people to keep them from participating in society (voting, working, etc) is that a hate crime or terrorism?

Does it matter if people are organized or are acting on their own?

 

[Natoma]

I can live with your definition of what a terrorist is MrShides. However, Joe DeFuria (and correct me if I'm wrong here Joe) believes that Robert Goldstein could be correctly labeled a terrorist if he *attempted* or *succeeded* in his crime.

Correct.

MeShades and I do have slightly different views of what makes a terrorist. (Though it's an interesting view.) It sounds like I more agree with DemoCoder. I'm less concerned if the desire is to bring about change in a "nation's policy", or some other "group's" policies, than I am about the manner in which it is done.

That doesn't necessarily fit with your definition because McVeigh was railing against the US.

Huh? The way I read it, that exactly fits MrShades definition precisely because he was railing against the U.S.

That should have read, "That doesn't necessarily fit with your definition because while McVeigh was railing against the US, Goldstein was railing against Arabs and Muslims."

I was saying that your labeling of Goldstein as a terrorist, if he had attempted or gone through with his plots, didn't fit with MrShides definition of what a terrorist is.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I was saying that your labeling of Goldstein as a terrorist, if he had attempted or gone through with his plots, didn't fit with MrShides definition of what a terrorist is.

Correct. We both have different defintions. (See my last post)...