Define terrorism

[Gimel]

Did you know that the United Nations has a counterterrorism committee? It is safe to say that if the terrorists know, they have not had much reason to care. The committee's chairman, Spanish Ambassador to the UN Inocencio F. Arias, wants to change this.

Next week, Arias will request that the mandate of the committee be changed so that it may make binding recommendations on UN members. Until now, the committee has relied on self-reporting in response to questionnaires. "We are going to make the lives of terrorists more and more difficult," says an assistant to Arias.

It is nice to see that, after 9/11, the UN at least wants to look like it is doing something about terrorism.

<snip>
The problem is, as a UN Counter-Terrorism Committee official put it, "We are in charge of fighting something that we cannot define." Every country in the world, including those that support terrorism, is willing to say it will fight terrorism with all its might. They get away with this by claiming that they support "legitimate struggle."

<snip>

Blowing up men, women, and children in an Israeli cafe or bus is not terrorism, but "struggle."

It should be obvious that, no matter how binding the committee's powers, if states can simply define away their support for terrorism, there will be no violators to sanction.

Authoritarian Arab regimes, in fact, will continue to take credit for crackdowns against their own opponents as part of the war against terrorism.

<snip>

How is it possible to hold countries that are financing terrorism accountable when they can claim that what they are doing is not only acceptable, but a virtuous activity protected by the UN Charter?

Surely there is a majority among the nations of the world that is willing to state that terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilians, regardless of cause.

<snip>

Currently, the CTC is an embarrassment and a continuing reminder of the UN's irrelevance to combatting the greatest threat to peace and security of our age.

This fact, however, should not be accepted as a given and the UN written off. Instead, the US should push to define terrorism in the UN.

If the US wins, it would be an important victory; if the US loses, the UN will be further exposed as part of the problem and any US decision to avoid working through it will be further justified.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1068355974561

[La_Serpiente]

1. That's a pretty hard definition

I agree that the UN could play a integral part in combating terrorism. However, we also have to realize what is "good" and what is "bad" and that's the hard part.

[bluesoul]

2. Oh my

more BS from JPost :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. How so?

How is trying to define terrorism BS?

[Aidoneus]

31. Magistrate's version is better, but..

"the terrorists <whatever>", stripped of all rhetoric and false acts & pretensions of objectivity, at the base level means "I don't like that guy". I prefer that, and would use bribes and violence to force others to stick to it rather than the recital of venom and euphamisms, because it is more simple and honest.

The Israeli media bosses & politicians don't like Arabs, so they speak endlessly about "Arab terrorists". Syria doesn't like Israel either, so you can read about "Israeli-Zionist terror" at SANA in a similar fashion.. it's a tedious and predictable mechanism that's best left to professional twits & well-paid propagandists.

[denverbill]

3. The US can't define it either.

After all, the US was supporting terrorists in Nicaragua and Afghanistan when they were ruled by 'unfriendly' regimes. It would be quite a kick in the nuts for Bush I and Reagan to be jailed for financing terrorism.

[bluesoul]

4. And how about

state terrorism? It exists as well...

[BushCutters]

5. Good grief!

Currently, the CTC is an embarrassment and a continuing reminder of the UN's irrelevance to combatting the greatest threat to peace and security of our age.

This fact, however, should not be accepted as a given and the UN written off. Instead, the US should push to define terrorism in the UN.

How does one reconcile the above 2 paragraphs with the following?

Blowing up men, women, and children in an Israeli cafe or bus is not terrorism, but "struggle."

Methinks it's time for a 3rd incarnation of a body (1-League, 2-United, 3-?) of nations...

[Gimel]

8. A snippet

The reference to suicide bombers in Israel is an example in the article used to show how the definition can be misused. Without a definition that includes all violence against innocent civilians, the CTC will remain at the mercy of political powers.

[bluesoul]

9. I agree!

ALL violence against civilians is the problem. Regardless of their nationality, religion or race...

[BushCutters]

10. Right.

And the U.N. isn't doing a positive thing about it.

IMHO, we need a new "U.N." just as much as we need a new President here in the US!

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. The UN

The current UN is virtually worthless and I don't imagine a new incarnation would be any different.

[brainshrub]

6. When Dean and Bush have a debate I would LOVE to hear the

canidates definition of terrorism.

[mmm]

7. Palestinians are fighting for a just cause

they are fighting as best they can, the only way they can.
I would respect them less if they did nothing.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

17. Good question

Wonder what the answers here would be...

[BushCutters]

13. Did you write "...just cause" or

just because?

The Israelis are fighting for a tiny piece of land in a mass of hostile territory; they are literally fighting for survival; as Golda Meir once said, we have an advantage because we have nowhere else to go!

[The Magistrate]

14. They Are Not Fighting The Only Way They Can, Sir

Events have demonstrated the members of the various armed irregular Arab Palestinian bodies are perfectly capable of engaging and killing soldiers. If they did so routinely, they would deserve great repect. As it is, these organizations choose to deliberately aim their actions toward the indiscriminant killing of enemy civilians. That is indisputeably a crime of war, and for it, they deserve nothing but condemnation and contempt.

[bemildred]

18. I predict this will be a long thread.

I believe I will go see what else is going on.
:hi:

[The Magistrate]

22. Indeed, My Friend

"Let ten thousand flowers bloom! Let one hundred schools of thought contend!"

[forgethell]

26. But they are fighting unjustly

As long as they target civilians, then their cause is unjust, immoral, and wrong. The end does not justify the means.

[The Magistrate]

33. The Problem With That, Sir

Is that it works both ways. A just cause, pursued by unjust means, is not thereby rendered an unjust cause, any more than unjust means are made worthy by a just cause. The questions are seperate. This is, in fact, a great portion of the tragic predicament of the people of Arab Palestine: they have legitimate aspirations, that ought to be fulfilled, and have not been, because they have largely been pursued, by an incompetent leadership, committed to the use of criminal means.

[forgethell]

34. yes

a just cause is rendered unjust by the means used to pursue it.

Furthermore, their "aspirations" to kill all the Jews & throw Israel into the sea was never "just", or legitimate, to begin with.

but it doesn't matter. The more urgent need, and moral problem, is to stop the slaughter of israeli civilians. Only then can any legitimate issues with the Arabs be addressed.

[The Magistrate]

35. No, Sir, It Does Not

That proposition is unsupportable, without acceeding also to the proposition that unjust means are rendered worthy by a just end, for they identical propositions, save that one reads left to right and one right to left, so to speak. A just end may well fail of accomplishment, owing to the unjust means used in pursuit of it, but that is seperate and pragmatic consideration.

The aspiration of the people of Arab Palestine for a state of their own, and for a peaceful existence without concern over further annexation of their land, is certainly a legitimate one, and one that can be readily accomplished without "killing all the Jews and throwing Israel in the sea." Such hyperbole gains you no more than it does Hamas.

To close with a small word of advice, Sir: in speaking of war, leave the word, and the concept, of moral, outside the entrance. It has no more place within than does a six year old in a brothel. War comes about when reason fails, and disputes are put to the judgement of naked force: law may have some role, but morality has none.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. Well said, sir

Left to right or right to left, either way.

[forgethell]

42. if their aaspirations

were simply to live in peace in their own lands, they could have had that long ago. They chose differently, and are suffering the consequences. Yes, the means they use taint and poison their entire cause.

[The Magistrate]

44. That Is Not So Simple A Proposition To Support, Sir

Time does not permit me to closely engage the whole history of the matter, and in any case, the thing may be safely left to my friends across the aisle....

[forgethell]

55. I agree

time does not permit this to be argued at length. We shall have to agree to disagree about who is right, and who is wrong on this question. But the complexities don't really matter. What matters is that Israel will NEVER be kicked out by the Arabs. Their blind hatred prevents them from using effective methods to achieve their goals. Also, they may be fighting for "justice", although I strenuously disagreee that their cause is just, but the Israelis are fightng for their lives. If the Israelli government wasn't basically decent at the bottom, they would long ago have taken the steps to solve the problem, from their perspective. Steps that I am very much afraid will be taken eventually anyway, as the Palestinians leave them no other avenue to acheive their own survival.

I may be wrong, but that is the way that I see it.

[bluesoul]

56. If those

steps are taken, then they will lose all the credit they ever had from before... I wouldn't wish for such things....

[forgethell]

57. No one does.

But I have a question. what good has all the "credit" they've gotten for being decent human beings done them?

[Gimel]

47. hyperbole in war

While I am loath to contend with your words, Sir....

I have a theory that the means, when pursued to their extreme, may pervert the cause, even though it has justice on it's side. In fact, the end could have been achieved by now if the means were not the issue.

[The Magistrate]

50. The Means Used, Ma'am

May certainly prevent success. Generally, the more brutal the means, the stiffer the resistance raised in response, and the more difficult it is to overcome. There is also this: the methods used can debase those who employ them, and turn them from good men doing hard things to hard men who will do nothing else.

We are in agreement that, had different methods been employed by the leadership of the Arab Palestinian people, not only in the present day, but perhaps even many decades ago, this conflict might well have been settled in a manner acceptable to both peoples.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means...to you

So, do you respect them when they murder civilians? Do you respect them when their terrorists target babies?

[Scott Lee]

11. Terrorism is an oppressive act

Terrorism defined is "the act of forcing compliance through the threat of violence". To be in the position of forcing compliance most often puts one in the "oppressors" camp - in other words, the powers that be.

I would say that threatening to bulldoze homes, arrest or kill family members, missile whole households, are TERRORIST acts.

Is responding to this terrorism, terrorism itself? You could make that case. But it begs the question - would suicide bombing terror exist without the "terror" that instigated it?

[BushCutters]

16. The terror that instigated it

was the "terror" of the creation of the State of Israel itself in 1948. The Arabs have been trying to wipe Israel off the map ever since.

[Gimel]

19. Your definition

To define terrorism as a threat of violence to achieve compliance is way too broad.

"the act of forcing compliance through the threat of violence"

That would include any police officer trying to arrest a criminal, and most of international negotiations today.

[La_Serpiente]

21. You raise a good point

it shows that defining terrorism is already a big mess.

Defeating terrorism isn't solved by establishing a denotation of the word. I think it is much more complex that that AND there must be a certain set of criteria to look at it.

I agree that the UN should take on terrorism, but let's do it the right way.

[forgethell]

27. does that make the IRS

a terrorist organization? Can we shoot tax collectors? Is bulldozing a house morally equivalent to blowing up infants in the streets?

[Jack Rabbit]

39. No, that doesn't make the IRS a terrorist orgnaization

Some would consider theft morally superior to murder and others would consider bulldozing a house because somebody's fifth cousin is a ciminal morally superior to blowing up infants in the street. I would tend to agree with both propositions: all four acts are wrong.

[La_Serpiente]

15. Well

sure, there is the example of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, but what about other ones? What if a state supported a so called "opposistion group" in another country when they really are creating terrorism there? What if the a group is labeled as a terrorist group when really they are trying to gain freedoms in their country?

I think that there should be discrestion on the committee. I don't know the answer, but it better be pretty balanced.

There also has to be a way where one powerful country (or countries) can abuse the committee for their own deeds.

[The Magistrate]

20. Terrorism, Ms. Gimel

Is a meaningless term, as commonly used, where it denotes violence of which the user disapproves, and hopes others will disapprove of as well. To say that it acquires distinct meaning because it is violence aimed to cause fear and anxiety will not suffice: all use of violence intends to cause terror in surviving witnesses to it.

Those persons generally called terrorists are simply private individuals who have arrogated to themselves the use of violence towards political ends, that is traditionally a prerogative restricted to the sovereign. It is thus, really, a sort of trade-union dispute, at bottom, with the card-carying united against scabs and unliscenced contractors.

Some of these private groups, indeed, most of them, use violence in ways that are criminal under the laws of war. Some of the state powers opposing them do so as well.

[Gimel]

23. A solution should be found

If the problem is mearly semantic, then new terminology can be created. If people say there are "good" terrorists and "bad" terrorists that is one thing. What the UN should do is try to set up a distiction of what the world can allow. The Geneva Conventions seem to apply only to organized armies. Terrorists get let off the hook because they are rather ad hoc groups. Then they try to gain recognition as legitimate entities, and even as governmental organizations.

[The Magistrate]

24. My Own View, Ma'am

Is that where armed bodies commit crimes of war, in whatever cause, they should be refered to as war criminals, and stigmatized and if possible prosecuted as such.

Certainly no one should defend them on the ground they do so in a just cause. There is a legitimate place for non-state actors in some circumstances, but no legitimate place for criminal ones, just as all states have a right to defend themselves, even against a just opposition, but not by criminal means.

[bluesoul]

25. Even if they

claim to be doing it in "self defense"...

[RuB]

32. This?

A majority of Palestinians continues to support suicide attacks against Israeli civilians
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=29003

[Classical_Liberal]

40. The majority of Israelis would support transfer

. This stuff is just ugly on both sides. Though soldiers and citizens of the Israelis state may think they are fight for survival in fact Sharon is using this for another land grab, and does thing which are likely to cause more terrorism. Israelis grow the settlements both in peace and in war. There is no positive incentive for the Palestinians to change given how the Israelis act.

[forgethell]

43. What peace has there been

that the Israelis grew anything in? They have been in a state of hot or cold war since t heir birth.

[Classical_Liberal]

53. There was peace for a very long time before Sharon went to

the Temple Mount. The settlements were never stopped.

[RuB]

59. How can there be peace with someone who advocates your destruction?

Lack of rock throwing? Going to a temple that is historically the property of Israel is worth the Palestinians inflicting all this death? Is that what your saying? Simply going to a temple is justification for all this death? Is that the kind of world you want?

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Incentive

Well, since the Palestinians want a state and need Israel's help to accomplish that objective, it seems to me THEY are the ones who need to stop terrorism.

[Classical_Liberal]

54. They have stopped all violence before

The settlements still expanded more. The Israelis have never let up on them even in good times.

[RuB]

58. Not because its the right thing to do, because its not.

The only support 'giving' Arafat and his cabal territory for a state because their babies are being murdered and they hold the lives of their children over property. Not other reason than that. With the resolve of the U.S. I hope Israel rejects any attempt of those whose aim is the destruction of Israel. Peace through righteous means is the only just peace. If the Palestinians want war then mobilize the Jordanian Palestinians and go to war with Israel's army not defencless little babies.

[DuctapeFatwa]

36. Terrorism is any resistance or opposition to bush or sharon regimes

There may be some countries who need a little more "persuading" to get it in writing like that, but that is the definition in actual practice.

bush decreed, "You are with us or you are with the terrorists," astonishing millions who until that moment had thought terrorism was a BAD thing.

[BushCutters]

45. WWGS?

What would Ghandi say?

"Terrorism is NOT any resistance or opposition!"; one can resist and oppose without deliberately targeting innocent civilians and only one side of this equasion does not target innocent civilians.

[DuctapeFatwa]

48. Unfortunately, Gandhiji does not make or implement US policy.

And what matters is not what you or I think it is, but the facts on the ground as decreed by the regime.

[BushCutters]

49. Yes, but

didn't Gandhi say something like even if it doesn't matter, even if it's just a small thing, we must go ahead and do it anyway? Don't sell us short - IMHO - both of us and our thoughts do matter.

[DuctapeFatwa]

51. Yes, and the little kid throwing crabs back into the sea :)

And we should, because it will matter very much to each one of those crabs.

But we should also be aware that those forces who do not want to crabs to get back in the sea consider both crabs and us to be terrorists :P

[number6]

37. effective and ineffective terrorism.....

effective terrorism of empires and states, like dropping nukes
on civilian cities to accomplish a goal, wiping out villages
with 500 lb bombs ....

ineffective terrorism.....blowing up caf'es, resturants, buses,
hijacking planes, crashing-blowing up planes, or ships...

usually ineffective for political gains.

[Classical_Liberal]

41. Terrorism is deliberate attacks on civilians whether it

be by a government or an insurgent. However neither Israel, Hamas or the PLO will probably like that definition. Sharon should serve time for the Lebonese massacres and Arafat would serve time for Munich.

[IndianaGreen]

52. You do it to me, it is terrorism.

I do it to you, it is self-defense.

Any questions?