|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 30, 2015 12:04:17 GMT -5
When asked if the Colorado Springs terror attack would be called a terror attack, Senator Cruz offered this sensibsle and thoughtful response: Multiple murder, horrific, evil. Naah. Doesn't sound like real terror to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 13:17:08 GMT -5
Depends, as always, on one's definition of terror. I guess I'm sort of a purist, in that I lean toward defining terror in the terrorism sense as an act of violence aimed at a seemingly random (that is, chosen for the impact value, rather than to halt or interrupt policy, process, etc.) target with the goal of unsettling the general populace &/or making said general populace pay attention to one's grievances. By that definition, 9/11 was definitely a terrorist act. The Paris attacks were terrorist acts. The Boston Marathon bombing was a terrorist act. Charlie Hebdo ... not so much, because the publication was targeted for specific perceived bad acts. Ditto, from what we can tell, for Planned Parenthood in Colorado.
Admittedly, that's only one definition. I'm not necessarily correct. While I'm basing my thoughts on several decades of paying attention to political extremism (admittedly more by the radical left than the radical right, not that we see any of the former anymore, or so it seems to me), no one died & left me an expert. There's lots of gray area here; it's not as if there's some line of demarcation between "political murder" & "terrorist attack."
Of course, one obvious problem with my view is that the very concept originates with the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, which was very much focused on specific (alleged) wrongdoing.
(Another obvious problem is that if my viewpoint means I'm agreeing with Republican presidential hopefuls & their ilk in any way, shape or form, at the very least I need to be taken out & remonstrated with.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 13:28:03 GMT -5
In fact, I didn't realize quite how gray an area this is until I came across the following quotation on Wikipedia just now --
It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, 'Political Terrorism: A Research Guide,' Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definitions of terrorism in an effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schmid was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on". Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt.
In attempting to come up with certain necessary elements for terrorism to have occurred, Bruce Hoffman, the scholar who wrote the preceding paragraph, offered one -- conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) -- that would seem to rule out apparently lone gunmen like the Planned Parenthood attacker. Then again, there's the recognized concept of "lone wolf" terrorism ...
My head hurts. I want to go lie down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 30, 2015 13:37:14 GMT -5
In fact, I didn't realize quite how gray an area this is until I came across the following quotation on Wikipedia just now -- It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, 'Political Terrorism: A Research Guide,' Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definitions of terrorism in an effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schmid was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on". Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt.I'm sooo confused now with Dan quoting Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I still have faith in him |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 13:39:04 GMT -5
It's more meta than that. I'm quoting Wikipedia quoting Bruce Hoffman. Whoever he is. (Apparently he wrote a book called Inside Terrorism, which I don't think I've read. He also appears to be the director of the Center for Security Studies and director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, as well as former director of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at Scotland's University of St. Andrews. I have to admit that those credentials sound much more impressive than my own "Classic Comics Forum Old Curmudgeon," but one works with what one has.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 30, 2015 14:01:26 GMT -5
So the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon isn't terrorism because it wasn't random? It was an attack on an organization that actually planed specific harm to terror groups.
The guy who attacked Planned Parenthood may have been a "lone wolf" in the sense that he didn't get specific orders from Carly Fiorina or Ted Cruz. But he's part of a chain of anti-Planned Parenthood attacks and rhetoric, and he targeted a specific organization. Did he pick Planned Parenthood out of the blue? Was he mad at them because he went in to get change for a dollar and they refused him?
Seems unlikely. Perhaps he targeted Planned Parenthood because of months of inflammatory hate speech by various conservatives individuals and groups? I'd say it's very likely that he was inspired by organized groups even if he isn't officially listed as a member.
If the current definition of terror makes some people squeamish about including lone wolves who act on the hate speech they hear on FOX News and on conservative talk radio, I'd say it's way past time to broaden the definition a little.
The meanings of words change all the time in order to make the definitions a little more useful. I really don't see the utility of a definition of "terrorism" that includes the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and excludes the Colorado Springs attack.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 14:23:38 GMT -5
Was the U.S. military targeting al Qaeda before 9/11? I have no idea, & apparently I'm not adept enough at Google to find out a good answer in a couple of minutes. I do know the so-called War on Terror wasn't mentioned until the following week.
Otherwise, you're as free to define terrorism as I am, as I do believe I tacitly acknowledged a couple of posts back. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 30, 2015 18:35:21 GMT -5
My take has always been simple : a planned and not specifically announced attack on non-combat individuals or buildings, intended to instil "doubt" in the current legitimate "authority" from the locals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 2, 2015 10:40:20 GMT -5
Donald Trump's terrorism solution: Take out their familiesIt's a "politically correct" war because we aren't targeting enough women, children and old people. But what could be more politically correct that a GOP politician pandering to his base by calling the opposing position "politically correct" even when it makes no sense? But I forgot. It's not politically correct to call it "political correctness" when it's something a Republican said. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 2, 2015 11:57:48 GMT -5
So, he basically condones terrorism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 2, 2015 15:20:50 GMT -5
So, he basically condones terrorism. Oh, my, no! It's not terror if the US does it. (Unless it involves the tyranny of providing health care to millions who didn't have it before.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2015 15:30:38 GMT -5
Now nutjob gunmen are shooting the developmentally disabled? Jesus goddamned christ. As if anyone needed further proof that in many ways this is the most psychopathic nation on Earth. I swear to god, ISIS (not a nation per se, of course) is an oasis of morality in comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 2, 2015 15:36:48 GMT -5
What a friggin disgusting thing... Yes Donald, please, more guns!!! Turtles all the way down...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2015 15:41:46 GMT -5
But I'm sure it'll turn out to be some sort of false flag operation created to justify the seizure of guns from the stalwart patriots who have turned their homes into arsenals. Just like Sandy Hook was.
I guarantee you there'll be lunatics arguing that on Facebook.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 2, 2015 18:06:45 GMT -5
I'm watching this very closely. I live about 40 miles away from San Bernardino. I've only been there once or twice, but I know a few people from there.
|
|
