What defines a terrorist?

[Silent_One]

Stvn wrote:

As far as the Saudi-Taliban thing, keep in mind how much longer Saudi Arabia has been controlled by the same ruling class, same laws, same customs; the Taliban were but a blip.

The leanth of time a repressive goverment has been in power is irrevelent to the reason I took issue with your statements. You stated that "Saudi Arabia's treatment of women makes what the Taliban did look like child's play." That is simply not true. The Taliban were just as suppressive (if not more so) of women's rights as SA. Both are brutal. But at least in SA there is schooling for girls and women into the higher education, including a university. Women in SA can work with some restrictions. They can teach in classes that have women students. They can own stores (although men run the stores out front). In SA women have to wear a viel not a barqa.

To be fair, there is an indication that they have been improving, but they have recently been under more media & public scrutiny since 9/11. Hopefully this will continue

.
Agreed. SA has become more progressive in resent years.

I do not pretend to know everything about Saudi Arabia, so if you have any information that contradicts the information i have presented i would be very interested in reading/seeing it.

As I said I'm no expert either (a employee of mine is as he's form there). As for additional information here are a few:
[
http://mosaic.echonyc.com/~onissues/su98goodwin.html

Until the Taliban came to power, Saudi Arabia was the most oppressive country on earth for women, and many of the Taliban's restrictions are rooted in that hardline Gulf state's gender apartheid. Saudi Arabia has also been financially supportive of the Taliban and the religious schools in which they are indoctrinated. "We have long regarded the Saudi kingdom as our right hand," says the head of the Taliban governing council.

http://rawa.false.net/rules.htmTaliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the:

1- Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul.

2- Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.

4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors.

5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls' schools into religious seminaries.)

6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe.

7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).

10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).

11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.

12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice).

13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman's footsteps.)

14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.

15- Ban on women's presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.

16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.

17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.

18- Ban on women's wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are "sexually attracting colors."

19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.

20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place.

21- Modification of all place names including the word "women." For example, "women's garden" has been renamed "spring garden".

22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.

23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.

24- Ban on male tailors taking women's measurements or sewing women's clothes.

25- Ban on female public baths.

26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated "males only" (or "females only").

27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa.

28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women.

29- Ban on women's pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops.

Lastly, welcome to the boards!

 

[pascal]

Lastly, welcome to the boards!

True, wellcome to the board Stvn.

 

[Sxotty]

What would you do DC if another country attacked the US and brutally annexed us? There are two sides of the coin in any conflict. And frankly considering what was done to the Chechens, I don't consider them fighting for their homeland, terrorism.

That is what people say to justify the palestinians but there is no excuse. If you target the civilian populace you are a terrorist. If your cause is justified can be debated, but you are still a terrorist. Why are they to afraid to fight a real army anyway? guerilla warfare can be used to fight an army. Terrorism is for people who realize the fight is not really worth it. Any group of people who were actually determined could fight a long resistance against an army look at checnya, look at afganistan, the russians had better tech and still are not suceeding. The reason this hasn't happened in Iraq. is the people don't want it really.

 

[Stvn]

Until the Taliban came to power, Saudi Arabia was the most oppressive country on earth for women, and many of the Taliban's restrictions are rooted in that hardline Gulf state's gender apartheid. Saudi Arabia has also been financially supportive of the Taliban and the religious schools in which they are indoctrinated. "We have long regarded the Saudi kingdom as our right hand," says the head of the Taliban governing council.

I stand corrected. Although this quote (and the page it came from) do not paint Saudi Arabia in a much better light.

The way i read it, the Taliban got all their ideas and inspiration to be the most oppresive country on year for women, from Saudi Arabia.

Thats almost worse.

The leanth of time a repressive goverment has been in power is irrevelent to the reason I took issue with your statements.

It may be irrelvant to the reason you took issue, but I see it as very relvant to the sub-topic in question.

If you were to look at the amount and severity of the attrocities commited by Saudi Arabia over time (certainly it gets worse the father back you go), they would far outway the short blip in time and space that the Taliban occupied.

I think that if you were being repressed/oppressed/abused, the difference of a few days/months/years/generations would be very important to you.

Lastly, welcome to the boards!

Thanks! Good to be here, i have a feeling this is going to be fun.

 

[Stvn]

Why are they to afraid to fight a real army anyway?

I highly doubt fear plays a role in this.

guerilla warfare can be used to fight an army.

But in order to fight guerilla warfare you still need a level of military organization, and a certain amount of funding/arming from a source. In the case of the Palestinians, the Israeli grip is so tight that it is hard for the Palestinians to engage in totally inocuous commerce/business/organization, forget about something military. And not to leave out the Palestinian Authority either, they are responsible too for the oppresion of their own people.

Terrorism is for people who realize the fight is not really worth it.

I strongly disagree with this. IMO, people who engage in terrorism are usually incredibly disillusioned and see no other way but to engage in this type of warfare. More often than not, they are the pawn of someone else's political agenda, but I do not think that people who are willing to die for their cause (by any means nessecary) think that their fight is not really worth it. In fact i think the opposite is more true.

Any group of people who were actually determined could fight a long resistance against an army look at checnya, look at afganistan, the russians had better tech and still are not suceeding. The reason this hasn't happened in Iraq. is the people don't want it really.

The Russian army and the whole Russian military/industrial infastructure was crumbling for years before the collapse of thier government as a whole, partially because of how thin it was stretched by these conflicts you mention. The Russian people (the ones fighting that is) had no commitment to the cause for which they were fighting, they just had no choice. Afganistan was to Russia as Vietnam was to America (on some levels, obviously not all levels).

-stvn

 

[Stvn]

To get back to the original topic (sorry Natoma).

I think Goldstien is definetely a terrorist.

The fact that he was going to blow up Mosques and Muslims, and happened to be Jewish is as irrelevant as it is that Mohammed Atta was Egyptian and killed (or participated actively in the killing of) over 2000 people from some 60+ countries and uncounted religious backgrounds.

They are both terrorists in that they did or planned to use acts of violence to strike terror in a civilian population.

What the American government and its judicial system (and almost more importantly the American media) choose to label Mr. Goldstien or Mr. Atta, is more motivated by politics and Neilsen ratings than some driving need for correctness in definition. In the end, the dead and the families they leave behind care not.

Not to be too campy, but this quote, while overused, is always relevant, timeless even. Just substitute the names of the countries and the groups for whatever you like, and you have a timeless portrait of man's inhumanity to man.

In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.
 
Martin Niemoller 1892-1984

(some more info on Niemoller)

http://internet.ggu.edu/university_library/if/Niemoller.html

a version with a new twist (courtesy of the Southern California ACLU)

http://www.janrainwater.com/htdocs/Rohde.htm

-stvn

 

[Natoma]

I knew you'd have fun if you just got a little prodding to come to this board stevan. And you didn't believe me at first..

I'm mainly waiting for MrShides and Joe (and anyone else in particular who had an opinion on what defines a terrorist) to respond to the definition of a terrorist that the FBI provides, and how Goldstein should definitely be labeled a terrorist by their official definition.

I don't really have much to say about Saudi Arabia and the Taliban. Don't know much on the subject of women's oppression other than "Them A-Rabs are bad. Umma bad A-Rabs."

 

[MrShides]

ok guys this is what i came up with while eating dinner last night.

Every person tried in a civilian court is allowed trial by jury. If the Prosecutor or judge felt they could not get a conviction for terrorism then they would go for the hate crime angle.

the thing is if he was NOT found guilty of terrorism then he would have gone of scott free.

'nuff said

 

[Natoma]

To get back to the original topic (sorry Natoma).

I think Goldstien is definetely a terrorist.

The fact that he was going to blow up Mosques and Muslims, and happened to be Jewish is as irrelevant as it is that Mohammed Atta was Egyptian and killed (or participated actively in the killing of) over 2000 people from some 60+ countries and uncounted religious backgrounds.

They are both terrorists in that they did or planned to use acts of violence to strike terror in a civilian population.

What the American government and its judicial system (and almost more importantly the American media) choose to label Mr. Goldstien or Mr. Atta, is more motivated by politics and Neilsen ratings than some driving need for correctness in definition. In the end, the dead and the families they leave behind care not.

Exactly. Now I have to admit, when I first heard about this, my *gut* reaction was "he's not a terrorist. he's a crackpot." But I began thinking about it in terms of what he was planning to do, and compared it to what has happened in the past with people being "disappeared" by our government *cough* enemy combatant *cough*. It's the same situation, but the only difference I saw in terms of planning, planned casualties, property damage, motivation, etc, was that one person was jewish and the other people rounded up were muslim.

I think that maybe there is a hardwired social "forgiveness" factor built in. We don't hear about the atrocities inflicted upon the Palestinians by the Israelies in the news, and even when we do, it's quickly shirked off. But we always speak about the "innocent" israelies who suffer day in and day out with the suicide bombings/murders in their cities.

Never are both sides completely shown, and I think it might go back to our natural "defensiveness" of jews being the "picked upon" and muslims being the "aggressors." But now I'm trying to get into psychology when I only took it for one semester in college.

 

[Natoma]

ok guys this is what i came up with while eating dinner last night.

Every person tried in a civilian court is allowed trial by jury. If the Prosecutor or judge felt they could not get a conviction for terrorism then they would go for the hate crime angle.

the thing is if he was NOT found guilty of terrorism then he would have gone of scott free.

'nuff said

But that's the point. There was physical evidence all over his house. There were manifestos that showed explicitly what he had intended to do, what he was planning, as well as why. It was clear that he was trying to terrorize the muslim/arab community out of vengeance, "for his people."

If that doesn't yell, scream, and moan of incriminating, closed-book case, I don't know what does. :?

Again, from my initial post:

A jewish man, Robert Goldstein, pleaded guilty in Florida to attempting to blow up a local mosque. He got 12.5 to 15 years in prison.

Goldstein -- who is Jewish -- wanted to make a statement for "his people" against Arabs and Muslims in light of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to court documents.

If Goldstein were a Muslim who plotted to blow up buildings, he would have faced a much harsher sentence, said Ahmed Bedier, communications director of the Florida office of the Council of American-Islamic Relations.

"This appears to be a double standard," he said. "This sentence also sends a message that it just might be worth the risk to attack American Muslims."

They also found a typed list of 50 Islamic worship centers in the Tampa Bay area and Florida, court records state.

Investigators discovered an arsenal in the home at 9209 Seminole Blvd., including two light antiarmor rockets, handguns, a 50-caliber rifle and homemade bombs.

"OBJECTIVE: Kill all 'rags' at this Islamic Education Center -- ZERO residual presence -- maximum effect," the plan read.

Altaf Ali, CAIR's executive director in Florida, said he had hoped the prosecutors would treat the case with "more seriousness," given the potential damage posed by the plot.

"We wanted them to treat this as a domestic terrorist cell," Ali said. "These are not tough enough sentences for what they planned to carry out."

How is all of this, as well as what we don't know, not incriminating enough to pursue a charge of terrorism?

 

[MrShides]

no no u don't understand how a jury works.

The defense and prosecution picks the jury. It would be easy to pick one with a bunch of people like me that sez that this is a hate crime and not terrorism.

 

[Natoma]

My point with all this is that people have been "disappeared" by our government with far less incriminating evidence, and most certainly much murkier links to terrorism, *without* due process. They're simply held in custody either for questioning (indefinitely), or as enemy combatants (indefinitely). On top of that, many are paraded in front of the media as "alleged" Al-Qaeda operatives. And you know what happens when the media says "alleged."

It's more , nudge nudge "they're guilty" *cough* *cough*.

I just do not agree with the seeming double standard here.

p.s.: It should be noted that I don't agree with *any* suspension of due process for american citizens, but since our government sees fit to do this to muslim citizenry who they even sniff of being terrorists, why not expand it to the whole nation? I mean, fair's fair right? Or is it ok as long as it's "them muslims" and no one else? (that last statement was tossed in for flair, not inflammation. )

 

[MrShides]

the people the US kicked out..where on VISAS not citizens. We have not kicked out any actual citizens as far as i know.

The people that are citizens (another guy down the block from me for instance) went through court and all that and he ended up admitting everything.

 

[Stvn]

It would be easy to pick one with a bunch of people like me that sez that this is a hate crime and not terrorism.

Since when is a hate crime not terrorism?

The lynching of African Americans in the Southern US is terrorism, and a hate crime. It is meant very specifically to instill fear in a civilian population and to enforce/impose a political agenda .

Most "hate crimes" are commited by young poor uneducated & impressionable youth (mostly male) in bad economic situations who feel they are somehow downtroden or their lives made difficult by those whom they attack. Most arian groups talk alot about how "immigrants and non-americans" are stealing jobs and money from "good god-loving americans".

Funny thats not that far from what most Islamic terrorists feel I'm sure (transposed to their POV of course).

If someone paints anti-semetic remarks and swastika on a Synogouge, it is meant to instill fear in that group. Sure there is no blood split, but terrorism is a more psychological weapon in the end anyway.

-stvn

 

[Natoma]

Yes, that is happening. However, you must not have heard about the mass detentions that occurred in California, as well as terrorizing activities that have occurred in muslim communities in Florida. These are citizens who have been detained in some cases.

There's also the case of an intel programmer who gave a donation to a charity a few years ago that was supposed to give money to help feed children in the middle east. It turns out that charity might have terrorist ties. This guy is a citizen of this country, but he's been disappeared without contact with a lawyer or his family, for over a month now.

That means that if I give money to some charity thinking I'm doing good, but it turns out to have terrorist ties, I can be detained indefinitely by the US government until they see fit to release me. *Without* due process. The mere thought of that frightens me greatly.

This stuff is most certainly happening to the citizenry of this nation.

p.s.: I'm getting the URLs on that Intel programmer.. they've had a few articles on it in Wired.com... I'll edit in a couple of minutes.

[EDIT]Here they are:

Ex-Intel VP Fights for Detainee

A website urges federal authorities to release an intel programmer held on thin evidence of ties to terrorism. Former intel Vice President Andrew McGeady says his friend and colleague has "been disappeared."

Intel coder not going anywhere

For the last couple of weeks, Hawash has been held at a federal prison in Sheridan, about 50 miles south of Portland. Hawash, a 38-year-old American citizen of Arab descent, was arrested by the FBI's Terrorist Task Force on the morning of March 20 as he appeared for work at Intel.

[/EDIT]

 

[Natoma]

Just wanted to add. I have an arabic name (some people would say muslim. actually i have been asked this question).

But anyways, I was born in this country. I've never even touched Islam in my life. That was my birth name. Lets say I gave money to a charity that I didn't know had terrorist ties.

The government could track me down, see my "muslim" name, my donations, hell, they could find my post history on Beyond3d and "surmise" that I'm an "enemy combatant" because I aided and abetted terrorists through the charity and vehemently oppose a lot of the policies of the bush administration.

Or at the very least, hold me indefinitely as a "material witness" in the case, like they're holding this intel programmer, without access to a lawyer or my family. I most certainly have no wish to become one of the disappeared, but it is something that could most certainly happen, through no fault/guilt of my own.

People take for granted their liberties because it's not happening to them. They think "Oh whoever gets taken away must deserve it." Or "If you're not guilty, why worry?"

And that's simply hogwash.

 

[DeanoC]

That makes Aum far more scary that the IRA.

I hope you didn't mean that. I somehow doubt that somebody actually involved in 9/11 or the Aum attack was any more scared than I was, when involved in an IRA bomb in London as a child.

All terrorist attacks are as bad as each other. The Harrods bombing was no less an act of terrorism than 9/11. 9/11 was more effective in the lives it effected but in terms of fear (what terrorism is really about) it had the same effect.

Lets not start making the IRA out as freedom fighter who weren't really that bad, they killed and maimed thousands over a period of 40 years. In many ways they make organisation like Al Queda look like amateurs (the IRA are always careful not to alienate the money men).

 

[Deflection]

Most "hate crimes" are commited by young poor uneducated & impressionable youth (mostly male) in bad economic situations who feel they are somehow downtroden or their lives made difficult by those whom they attack.

Funny you should mention this. I was listening to a talk show that had an "expert" commentator on. When asked about why anti-americanism and terrorism was increasing in the Middle East he shrugged off all the normal reasons you hear. He basically pointed to the high rates of unemployment among young males. I do not know the statics myself, but it is an interesting perspective about world turmoil in general.

 

[Legion]

That is what i have heard as well Deflect.

These young males have been incouraged by groups such as the PLO to do their attacks for them.

 

[Sabastian]

What are "hate crimes" are they actions, thoughts or simply the vocalisations of hatefull thoughts or some mix of all the mentioned above? Define "hate crimes" please.