KCRag Forum

What would be interesting is how the term "terrorist" is defined and how it has changed over the years. In the 60's and 70's you have the many bombings that one would call part of the anti-war movement and were aimed at targets that had some sort of tie to the military. On a rare occasion people might be killed or injured (by accident almost all of the time) but the main purpose of these bombings were to damage property. Terrorist act or political statement?

KCMax wrote:So, are mass shootings considered terrorist events? Why or why not? You can arguably kill a lot more people. I mean think if these two guys had automatic weapons on them and started picking people off. How many could they have killed? The issues is they certainly don't get away with it, and it looks like they thought they could get away with it.

Its just interesting in the wake of the discussion whether or not to call Tsarnev an "enemy combatant" or not because this is terrorism, but there was no discussion for Adam Lanza (well probably because he died), or James Holmes, or Jared Loughner. Is it because they were just perceived as crazy with no political agenda? If Tsarnev bombed people with no political agenda, just because he was crazy, is he still an enemy combatant? Does the intent matter at all if the results are the same?

Intent is probably the only thing that matters, if you define terrorism as violence intended to intimidate and further a political agenda. The number of people killed is somewhat immaterial, because the message is conveyed regardless. If someone shoots up an abortion clinic or bombs a government building in the middle of the night, everyone who arrives for work the next morning sees that, understands the meaning, and (potentially) changes their behavior accordingly. Which is pretty much the point of committing a terrorist act. Similarly, the assasination of judges and government officials in Central and South America only kills one or two people at a time, but the next person who holds that job, or who might be considering that job, has to deal with that threat.

Re: Tsarnev, if he bombed people without an agenda, then I don't think he's an EC. I think the calls for him to be tried as one - before anyone knows anything about why this was done - are based on him being an immigrant from an Islamic part of the world. If he was a white, US-born, and Christian, no one would have said that.

then I don't think he's an EC. I think the calls for him to be tried as one - before anyone knows anything about why this was done - are based on him being an immigrant from an Islamic part of the world. If he was a white, US-born, and Christian, no one would have said that

Yes, part of the reason was he is a Muslim but it was because he is a Muslim who might have ties to AQ or another group with an agenda of terror. For many pols who wanted the EC designation it was to have the ability to question him for an extended period without a lawyer to gather as much info as possible.

It might not be politically correct but who took over the planes? Who tried with a shoe? Underwear? Times Square? Personally I don't like the EC category but I do understand the call for it.

Many of the acts in that database are debatable as to whether they're "terrorist" attacks. Even acts that appear to have clear political agendas, like shooting up or firebombing an abortion clinic, aren't necessarily perpetrated by people with a political agenda. Could just be people who see an obvious / controversial target. Stuff like throwing molotov cocktails at a police station seems more likely to me to be rebellious kids venting frustration rather than someone trying to enact meaningful political change. If nobody got caught and interviewed, it's pretty hard to know what their intent was.

As far as UEC status for the surviving bomber, if the point is to be able to interrogate him without mirandizing him, there are other ways to go about it. I'd think te real impetus for making him a UEC would be to try him in a military court instead of a civilian court.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:

then I don't think he's an EC. I think the calls for him to be tried as one - before anyone knows anything about why this was done - are based on him being an immigrant from an Islamic part of the world. If he was a white, US-born, and Christian, no one would have said that

Yes, part of the reason was he is a Muslim but it was because he is a Muslim who might have ties to AQ or another group with an agenda of terror.

At the time Lindsay Graham first made his statements, we didn't know if the guys were Muslim. We only knew that they was were from a predominantly Muslim country.

chaglang wrote:Intent is probably the only thing that matters, if you define terrorism as violence intended to intimidate and further a political agenda. The number of people killed is somewhat immaterial, because the message is conveyed regardless. If someone shoots up an abortion clinic or bombs a government building in the middle of the night, everyone who arrives for work the next morning sees that, understands the meaning, and (potentially) changes their behavior accordingly. Which is pretty much the point of committing a terrorist act. Similarly, the assasination of judges and government officials in Central and South America only kills one or two people at a time, but the next person who holds that job, or who might be considering that job, has to deal with that threat.

I think I agree with this, I'm still trying to sort it out in my head. Based on this though, was Dr. Tiller's (abortion doctor murdered at church in Wichita) murderer a terrorist? Clearly had a political agenda. Murdered his victim in a very public and shocking way. But it was only one targeted victim.

Was Ted Kaczynski (sp?) considered a terrorist? I don't recall. He had a manifesto, but was also clearly crazy.

mean wrote:Many of the acts in that database are debatable as to whether they're "terrorist" attacks. Even acts that appear to have clear political agendas, like shooting up or firebombing an abortion clinic, aren't necessarily perpetrated by people with a political agenda. Could just be people who see an obvious / controversial target. Stuff like throwing molotov cocktails at a police station seems more likely to me to be rebellious kids venting frustration rather than someone trying to enact meaningful political change. If nobody got caught and interviewed, it's pretty hard to know what their intent was.

As far as UEC status for the surviving bomber, if the point is to be able to interrogate him without mirandizing him, there are other ways to go about it. I'd think te real impetus for making him a UEC would be to try him in a military court instead of a civilian court.

Bingo. And/or hold him indefinitely.

KCMax wrote:I think I agree with this, I'm still trying to sort it out in my head. Based on this though, was Dr. Tiller's (abortion doctor murdered at church in Wichita) murderer a terrorist? Clearly had a political agenda. Murdered his victim in a very public and shocking way. But it was only one targeted victim.

Was Ted Kaczynski (sp?) considered a terrorist? I don't recall. He had a manifesto, but was also clearly crazy.

I would say both of those people are terrorists. The Tiller case is interesting because there seems to be a reluctance to label people who kill abortion doctors or shoot up abortion clinics as terrorists.

mean wrote:Many of the acts in that database are debatable as to whether they're "terrorist" attacks. Even acts that appear to have clear political agendas, like shooting up or firebombing an abortion clinic, aren't necessarily perpetrated by people with a political agenda. Could just be people who see an obvious / controversial target. Stuff like throwing molotov cocktails at a police station seems more likely to me to be rebellious kids venting frustration rather than someone trying to enact meaningful political change. If nobody got caught and interviewed, it's pretty hard to know what their intent was.

I agree - some of those incidents are very debatable. And I also agree that while we can't get inside the heads of everyone who committed these acts, the targets give a good indication of what they were thinking. Why a police station? Why an abortion clinic? Those are inherently political targets that have specific meanings. Throwing an indindiary at a police station is an obviously risky proposition with clear and enormous penalites. So why not hit something else? Because there's no statement made if you shoot out the window of, say, the Dime Store. If there's nothing political about the target, that's more likely the act of simple teenage frustrations, although shooting or bombing anything is IMO is well over the line from "rebelliousness".

If someone blew up a KC Star newspaper machine with a fairly sophisticated black powder pipe bomb detonated by timer, where would you put that on the likeliness scale between "bored teenagers" and "terrorist sending a message"? Cause the particular incident I know of was bored teenagers. And they got in some fairly serious trouble, although this was pre-9/11. Post-9/11 things would have gone very differently, I'm sure.

mean wrote:If someone blew up a KC Star newspaper machine with a fairly sophisticated black powder pipe bomb detonated by timer, where would you put that on the likeliness scale between "bored teenagers" and "terrorist sending a message"? Cause the particular incident I know of was bored teenagers. And they got in some fairly serious trouble, although this was pre-9/11. Post-9/11 things would have gone very differently, I'm sure.

That's interesting. I would put that closer to "terrorist sending a message", based on the effort and risk that goes into making a bomb with a timer, but I don't really consider the Star (or any major American newspaper) much of a political target. Why did they choose the Star building, instead of just throwing it at some other building in the area?

It's worth noting that there's also going to be a cultural bias to what does and doesn't make the list, based on the person compiling the information. In some countries, bombing a newspaper is an obviously political act, even if done anonymously.

It was a newspaper machine, not the building, but I tend to agree that my gut would lean toward terror--maybe someone who didn't like the Star's reporting on something or other, their endorsement of a particular candidate, whatever.

Just goes to show, don't underestimate the power of boredom, teen angst, and general disaffection. Also that it's really not as hard as you'd hope to make a fairly powerful bomb with a timer. Couple teenagers can do it with zero training.

mean wrote:Just goes to show, don't underestimate the power of boredom, teen angst, and general disaffection. Also that it's really not as hard as you'd hope to make a fairly powerful bomb with a timer. Couple teenagers can do it with zero training.

Seems like starting a band is a far superior outlet. Bombers don't tend to attract groupies.

I would say both of those people are terrorists. The Tiller case is interesting because there seems to be a reluctance to label people who kill abortion doctors or shoot up abortion clinics as terrorists.

What if instead of killing him the person took a baseball bat to Tiller's knees or a hammer to his hands? Still a terrorist? Same target but an act of murder makes it a terrorist act, a non-life threatening injury is not a terrorist act?

aknowledgeableperson wrote:

I would say both of those people are terrorists. The Tiller case is interesting because there seems to be a reluctance to label people who kill abortion doctors or shoot up abortion clinics as terrorists.

What if instead of killing him the person took a baseball bat to Tiller's knees or a hammer to his hands? Still a terrorist? Same target but an act of murder makes it a terrorist act, a non-life threatening injury is not a terrorist act?

Note that up above I said that I don't believe that physically injuring someone was necessary for something to be called a terrorist act. What you describe is still violence intended to intimidate and further a political agenda.

So any act that "intended to intimidate and further a political agenda" is a terrorist act? A white man who burns a cross on a black family's front yard would therefore be a terrorist instead of a person who commits a hate crime? What about a black gang that goes around and torches businesses owned by Asians? If that is the case then the number of terrorist acts increases more than tenfold.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:So any act that "intended to intimidate and further a political agenda" is a terrorist act? A white man who burns a cross on a black family's front yard would therefore be a terrorist instead of a person who commits a hate crime? What about a black gang that goes around and torches businesses owned by Asians? If that is the case then the number of terrorist acts increases more than tenfold.

According to some, low income "takers" are politically motivated. That would make nearly every robbery a terrorist attack. Is the group "Anonymous" a terrorist organization or just a group of criminals? There are a lot of grey areas in assigning that label, and I think that is fine, but the line at which you are treated as an Enemy Combatant should be pretty cut and dry.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:So any act that "intended to intimidate and further a political agenda" is a terrorist act? A white man who burns a cross on a black family's front yard would therefore be a terrorist instead of a person who commits a hate crime? What about a black gang that goes around and torches businesses owned by Asians? If that is the case then the number of terrorist acts increases more than tenfold.

Angry tea partiers showing up at Congressman meetups could be considered terrorists. Black panthers simply standing outside a voting center could be considered intimidating by some white people. I agree, that's too broad a label. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn though.

Why do we want to treat "terrorism" as something different from ordinary criminal behavior?

aknowledgeableperson wrote:So any act that "intended to intimidate and further a political agenda" is a terrorist act? A white man who burns a cross on a black family's front yard would therefore be a terrorist instead of a person who commits a hate crime? What about a black gang that goes around and torches businesses owned by Asians? If that is the case then the number of terrorist acts increases more than tenfold.

Well, what's your definition? I would say, yes, those are both terrorist acts. Explain to me how burning a cross in someone's yard doesn't terrorize them.

How's "systematic violence intended to intimidate and further a political agenda" sit with everyone? It would weed out the one-off "kids causing mischef" type of acts.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:So any act that "intended to intimidate and further a political agenda" is a terrorist act?

I think that's fair to say. I don't see any reason otherwise.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: A white man who burns a cross on a black family's front yard would therefore be a terrorist instead of a person who commits a hate crime?

Yep, that person would now be a domestic terrorist committing a hate crime. You would actually need two labels, one to categorize as terrorism, and the other to describe the crime committed. A terrorist is someone who, generally speaking, terrorizes. Are they not?

Well, what's your definition?

Not quite sure. But I wouldn't paint the definition of terrorism and terrorist with broad strokes. Do that then just about any crime could fit within the definition. Instead I would start by defining a terrorist act as anything that threatens the population as a whole, something that is not directed at just a narrow segment of our society. Not sure how I would finish it at this time but I would tend to have a limited use of the term. Much like the definition of "hate crime" is fairly narrow "terrorist" should also be.