Terrorism: The Most Meaningless and Manipulated Word

[thegodfather]

Terrorism: The Most Meaningless and Manipulated Word

By Glenn Greenwald

Published 02/20/10

Yesterday, Joseph Stack deliberately flew an airplane into a building housingIRSoffices in Austin, Texas, in order to advance the political grievances he outlined in a perfectly cogent suicide-manifesto. Stack's worldview contained elements of the tea party's anti-government anger along with substantial populist complaints generally associated with "the Left"(rage over bailouts, the suffering of America's poor, and the pilfering of the middle class by a corrupt economic elite and their government-servants). All of that was accompanied by an argument as to why violence was justified (indeed necessary)to protest those injustices:

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the "great" depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn't it ironic how far we've come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn't have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it's "business-as-usual" . . . . Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.

Despite all that, The New York Times' Brian Stelter documents the deep reluctance of cable news chatterers and government officials to label the incident an act of "terrorism," even though -- as Dave Neiwert ably documents -- it perfectly fits, indeed is a classic illustration of, every official definition of that term. The issue isn't whether Stack's grievances are real or his responses just; it is that the act unquestionably comports with the official definition. But as NBC's Pete Williams said of the official insistence that this was not an act of Terrorism: there are "a couple of reasons to say that . . . One is he’s an American citizen." Fox News' Megan Kelley asked Catherine Herridge about these denials:"I take it that they mean terrorism in the larger sense that most of us are used to?," to which Herridge replied: "they mean terrorism in that capital T way."

All of this underscores, yet again, that Terrorism is simultaneously the single most meaningless and most manipulated word in the American political lexicon. The term now has virtually nothing to do with the act itself and everything to do with the identity of the actor, especially his or her religious identity. It has really come to mean:"a Muslim who fights against or even expresses hostility towards the United States, Israel and their allies." That's why all of this confusion and doubt arose yesterday over whether a person who perpetrated a classic act of Terrorism should, in fact, be called a Terrorist:he's not a Muslim and isn't acting on behalf of standard Muslim grievances against the U.S. or Israel, and thus does not fit the "definition." One might concede that perhaps there's some technical sense in which term might apply to Stack, but as Fox News emphasized: it's not "terrorism in the larger sense that most of us are used to . . . terrorism in that capital T way."We all know who commits terrorism in "that capital T way,"and it's not people named Joseph Stack.

Contrast the collective hesitance to call Stack a Terrorist with the extremely dubious circumstances under which that term is reflexively applied to Muslims. If a Muslim attacks a military base preparing to deploy soldiers to a war zone, that person is a Terrorist. If an American Muslim argues that violence against the U.S. (particularly when aimed at military targets)is justified due to American violence aimed at the Muslim world, that person is a Terrorist who deserves assassination. And if the U.S. military invades a Muslim country, Muslims who live in the invaded and occupied country and who fight back against the invading American army -- by attacking nothing but military targets -- are also Terrorists. Indeed, large numbers of detainees at Guantanamo were accused of being Terrorists for nothing more than attacking members of an invading foreign army in their country, including 14-year-old Mohamed Jawad, who spent many years in Guantanamo, accused (almost certainly falsely)of throwing a grenade at two American troops in Afghanistan who were part of an invading force in that country. Obviously, plots targeting civilians for death -- the 9/11 attacks and attempts to blow up civilian aircraft -- are pure terrorism, but a huge portion of the acts committed by Muslims that receive that label are not.

[Kibble]

You must have never heard of the term "Insurgent". Being deployed to Iraq in 2003 and 2006 as an Infantryman, I never called the Iraqi enemy "Terrorists". I called them "Insurgents". The network of military intelligence also uses the term "Insurgent". A terrorist is one who inflicts harm to express a point of view.

Any race can be a terrorist.

I agree with your points.... but it is only a small percentage of uneducated civilians who label every muslim criminal a "Terrorist".

I just don't want you to be under the impression that every American throws the word "terrorist" around like candy at a parade

[Kratos]

The liberals are actually refering to him as "the tea bag" terrorist (for the tea party thing the right did). So, just because it wasn't assigned immediatly, you can't assume he isn't given the term.

When they announced he wasn't a terrorist it was at the instruction of the FBI, who had the goal of calming the american public so they could go about their day. Do, I agree with it? Not really, i think they could have been more specific. But anyway, until the media is privy to all the information of an unfolding story such as #1 was it a deliberate act, #2 was there a political motive or is this some hospital escaped crazy person off their meds...the term terrorist can not yet be applied.


I think articles like this are knit picking, overly PC and further motivate racial divide by giving vindication to those who feel racially oppressed.

Really it wasn't nessicary to label him as a terrorist until we had the information to do so. Now we do, and he is.

[thegodfather]

The liberals are actually refering to him as "the tea bag" terrorist (for the tea party thing the right did). So, just because it wasn't assigned immediatly, you can't assume he isn't given the term.

When they announced he wasn't a terrorist it was at the instruction of the FBI, who had the goal of calming the american public so they could go about their day. Do, I agree with it? Not really, i think they could have been more specific. But anyway, until the media is privy to all the information of an unfolding story such as #1 was it a deliberate act, #2 was there a political motive or is this some hospital escaped crazy person off their meds...the term terrorist can not yet be applied.


I think articles like this are knit picking, overly PC and further motivate racial divide by giving vindication to those who feel racially oppressed.

Really it wasn't nessicary to label him as a terrorist until we had the information to do so. Now we do, and he is.

BigKuntry....Thank you, but I did not write the article. I agree with some of your points. I would much prefer the term "Enemy Combatant" to "Insurgent." But now we're just talking semantics I suppose.

Kratos. I think this article misses a LARGER point in general. Terrorism is a TACTIC OF WAR, it is not a person or place. Labeling people as "terrorists" is quite meaningless. I think calling it guerrilla warfare aimed at civilians is an appropriate definition of what the tactic encompasses. But for instance, when two men pilot a boat filled with explosives and detonate it into the side of one of our Naval ships, it is not an act of terrorism, it's an act of war, and those people are enemy combatants, not terrorists. The deliberate and purposeful targeting of civilians is necessary to be labeled a "terrorist," and while that term was applied to those men who committed that act, it was not appropriate given the situation. The overall point of the article is that the term is misapplied in more situations than not.

[Kibble]

BigKuntry....Thank you, but I did not write the article. I agree with some of your points. I would much prefer the term "Enemy Combatant" to "Insurgent." But now we're just talking semantics I suppose.

Kratos. I think this article misses a LARGER point in general. Terrorism is a TACTIC OF WAR, it is not a person or place. Labeling people as "terrorists" is quite meaningless. I think calling it guerrilla warfare aimed at civilians is an appropriate definition of what the tactic encompasses. But for instance, when two men pilot a boat filled with explosives and detonate it into the side of one of our Naval ships, it is not an act of terrorism, it's an act of war, and those people are enemy combatants, not terrorists. The deliberate and purposeful targeting of civilians is necessary to be labeled a "terrorist," and while that term was applied to those men who committed that act, it was not appropriate given the situation. The overall point of the article is that the term is misapplied in more situations than not.

Bingo bro, couldn't have said it better

[Kratos]

Terrorism is a TACTIC OF WAR, it is not a person or place. Labeling people as "terrorists" is quite meaningless. I think calling it guerrilla warfare aimed at civilians is an appropriate definition of what the tactic encompasses. But for instance, when two men pilot a boat filled with explosives and detonate it into the side of one of our Naval ships, it is not an act of terrorism, it's an act of war, and those people are enemy combatants, not terrorists.

Yeah, but enemy combatants of who?
I mean, I think the point is to take legitimecy away from the group by using the word.
Prior to the attack on the cole all targets of Al Queda had been civilian...with the exception of the foiled plan to kill Clinton.
So is it not fair to then call them a terrorist group...i.e. a group of people that uses terrorism.
So, you have a group of people who plan and carry out terrorist attacks. Not that it isn't possible to be a member of Al Queda and not do so I would suppose.
Can such a group be capable of an act of war?
act of war 
–noun
an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

now, I guess a group other than a country could create an act of war, but also bombing an embassy would also classify as both terrorism and an act of war? no?

Not saying the language of how we use the word terrorism is perfect...but I'm not sure why you oppose it either. What bothers you about the impropper use of the word?

[thegodfather]

Yeah, but enemy combatants of who?
I mean, I think the point is to take legitimecy away from the group by using the word.
Prior to the attack on the cole all targets of Al Queda had been civilian...with the exception of the foiled plan to kill Clinton.
So is it not fair to then call them a terrorist group...i.e. a group of people that uses terrorism.
So, you have a group of people who plan and carry out terrorist attacks. Not that it isn't possible to be a member of Al Queda and not do so I would suppose.
Can such a group be capable of an act of war?
act of war 
–noun
an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

now, I guess a group other than a country could create an act of war, but also bombing an embassy would also classify as both terrorism and an act of war? no?

Not saying the language of how we use the word terrorism is perfect...but I'm not sure why you oppose it either. What bothers you about the impropper use of the word?

I think you're splitting hairs here Kratos. A bombing of an embassy I see as an act of war with CIVILIAN COLLATERAL DAMAGE. For instance, we, the United States have attacked numerous targets within Iraq which resulted in significant civilian casualties. So, is the United States engaged in both an act of warfare AND terrorism? Of course not, definitionally, we would say that civilian casualties are a part of warfare. So therefore, when an alledged "terrorist" attacks an embassy resulting in numerous civilian casualties, how is it appropriate to label it as strictly an act of terrorism, and not warfare?

So long as the target itself is not strictly civilian, and has some military purpose, then I don't think it can appropriately be labeled an act of terrorism. One could even posit, that perhaps, almost all targets can be considered to have military significance, such as infrastructure, power plants, ports, etc. A suburban neighborhood would obviously have no military significance, however, targets relating to infrastructure,power,shipping, etc, could all be deemed to have a military significance, and therefore attacks on those places should not be deemed terrorist, but enemy attacks.

You're also attempting to justify the labeling of these people as terrorists because they don't hale from a specific country. Well of course not, they are smart, and they know that they have absolutely no chance of fighting the US military in a traditional battelground scenario involving two sides. Therefore, they engage in a slow and deliberate campaign of guerilla warfare against the United States. I would even say that we have given them what they want, from their continued attacks on targets in the United States, we placed even more US soldiers&civilians in THEIR LAND, making us even easier targets for their campaign.

To understand the complications and intracacies of the Middle Eastern situation, one must make an analgous situation with which to try and identify with the feelings of the people in that region. Imagine for a second, that Saudi Arabia, looking out for their best interests, established a large military base in your hometown, on land your family has owned for a thousand years. Imagine Saudi Arabia's military troops driving through your town on a daily basis, and at times a few troops doing criminal acts with no accountability. Imagine also that Saudi Arabian military planes fly through your country on a daily basis. Furthermore, imagine that members of your family live in a state next door to yours, and that state is at war with Mexico. Yet, Saudi Arabia funnels tons of weaponry and money to Mexico, to help them kill your family members in the adjoining state to yours. I ask you, how would you feel, and how would you respond if this continued for 40 years?

[Kratos]

So long as the target itself is not strictly civilian, and has some military purpose

an embassy is a symbol and tool of diplomacy
no military pourpose or mission

no strategic advantage to attack, except to invoke fear
it is without question an act of terrorism.

[FranciscoG]

So when can we start racially profiling white males?



Look Kratos you were right about your points, racial profiling is needed to keep us safe, my ***** ass liberal bull shit is just wrong.

So when is the party gonna get started it?

[FranciscoG]

The new face of terrorism...

[Kratos]

You're also attempting to justify the labeling of these people as terrorists because they don't hale from a specific country. Well of course not, they are smart, and they know that they have absolutely no chance of fighting the US military in a traditional battelground scenario involving two sides. Therefore, they engage in a slow and deliberate campaign of guerilla warfare against the United States. I would even say that we have given them what they want, from their continued attacks on targets in the United States, we placed even more US soldiers&civilians in THEIR LAND, making us even easier targets for their campaign.

To understand the complications and intracacies of the Middle Eastern situation, one must make an analgous situation with which to try and identify with the feelings of the people in that region. Imagine for a second, that Saudi Arabia, looking out for their best interests, established a large military base in your hometown, on land your family has owned for a thousand years. Imagine Saudi Arabia's military troops driving through your town on a daily basis, and at times a few troops doing criminal acts with no accountability. Imagine also that Saudi Arabian military planes fly through your country on a daily basis. Furthermore, imagine that members of your family live in a state next door to yours, and that state is at war with Mexico. Yet, Saudi Arabia funnels tons of weaponry and money to Mexico, to help them kill your family members in the adjoining state to yours. I ask you, how would you feel, and how would you respond if this continued for 40 years?

no, it has nothing to do with from where they hail.
it has to do with the acts themselves...for the most part they are attacking civilians and falling under the exact definition of terrorism. They are getting around the rules of engagement by not hailing from a specific country...but the acts are what they are.

I think you're kinda spilling hairs...I mean we don't have to call them terrorists but we have to call them somthing.

Would it make you feel better if they said on the news, "the plane crash does not appear to be jihad related."

then muslims everywhere would cry out "we're not all jihadists"

the word is not important

with this last part, idk, has nothing to do with the word, but rather your sympathy for the cause. I don't like our position in the middle east, I never pretend to. But, you and I have some differnces in how we see the region and its problems. At some point you may change your views, I know over the years I have.

I think the best thing we can do is tighten our borders to immigration from islamic countries. That's the only way this conflict won't go on long after the oil is gone. I see an ultimate win for Islam honestly...I'm not even joking even though I'm about to sound like a nut job. A couple hundred years I see Europe becoming almost totally Muslim. Possibly even the United States. But that doesn't mean I want to fight a pre-emptive war either. I'm pretty sure I can squeek out a lifetime before the planet goes to shit, so that's what I'm aiming to do. I'm all about energy independence (not the dumb ass way Obama is doing it), and I feel we have good options for that. I also trust the free market, and oil isn't going to be cheep forever. Israel will die, I give it about as long as the oil.


the way I see it, once the oil is gone, the most militant countries in the middle east turn into basically central Africa...then nobody gives a damn except maybe UNICEF.

Take away Israel and oil, they'll still hate us. Maybe more then ever. I think this is where you and I differ on the politics. You see the conflict as cause and effect.

anyway I'm just rambeling at this point...I guess what I'm saying is
What's in a name Godfather? Terrorist, islamic freedom fighter...whatever you call these people, it's going to carry a stigma.

[thegodfather]

an embassy is a symbol and tool of diplomacy
no military pourpose or mission

no strategic advantage to attack, except to invoke fear
it is without question an act of terrorism.

That may be what their original intended purpose is to YOU. However, historically, embassies have been used as hubs of spying and information gathering. Take for instance during the Manhattan project when the Soviet Unions lead spy managed an entire network of spies from the Russian embassy. He escaped to the Soviet Union, but then returned as a diplomat some years later (Who interestingly enough, was instrumental in thwarting the Cuban missile crisis). Embassies have always been used by countries for espionage efforts, which I would say, makes them a very serious military target in one way or another.

[thegodfather]

no, it has nothing to do with from where they hail.
it has to do with the acts themselves...for the most part they are attacking civilians and falling under the exact definition of terrorism. They are getting around the rules of engagement by not hailing from a specific country...but the acts are what they are.

I think you're kinda spilling hairs...I mean we don't have to call them terrorists but we have to call them somthing.

Would it make you feel better if they said on the news, "the plane crash does not appear to be jihad related."

then muslims everywhere would cry out "we're not all jihadists"

the word is not important

with this last part, idk, has nothing to do with the word, but rather your sympathy for the cause. I don't like our position in the middle east, I never pretend to. But, you and I have some differnces in how we see the region and its problems. At some point you may change your views, I know over the years I have.

I think the best thing we can do is tighten our borders to immigration from islamic countries. That's the only way this conflict won't go on long after the oil is gone. I see an ultimate win for Islam honestly...I'm not even joking even though I'm about to sound like a nut job. A couple hundred years I see Europe becoming almost totally Muslim. Possibly even the United States. But that doesn't mean I want to fight a pre-emptive war either. I'm pretty sure I can squeek out a lifetime before the planet goes to shit, so that's what I'm aiming to do. I'm all about energy independence (not the dumb ass way Obama is doing it), and I feel we have good options for that. I also trust the free market, and oil isn't going to be cheep forever. Israel will die, I give it about as long as the oil.


the way I see it, once the oil is gone, the most militant countries in the middle east turn into basically central Africa...then nobody gives a damn except maybe UNICEF.

Take away Israel and oil, they'll still hate us. Maybe more then ever. I think this is where you and I differ on the politics. You see the conflict as cause and effect.

anyway I'm just rambeling at this point...I guess what I'm saying is
What's in a name Godfather? Terrorist, islamic freedom fighter...whatever you call these people, it's going to carry a stigma.

It is cause and effect. The CIA even acknowledges this and has a term for it, its called "blowback." Actions have consequences. The grievances against us are for our continued presence and interference in middle eastern affairs. Might does not make right. I'll give more attention to this post later, I'm pressed for time.

[Kratos]

It is cause and effect. The CIA even acknowledges this and has a term for it, its called "blowback." Actions have consequences. The grievances against us are for our continued presence and interference in middle eastern affairs. Might does not make right. I'll give more attention to this post later, I'm pressed for time.

That's OK, you can skip the justification for terrorism post. I've already heard it all. Although we agree on many things, we just aren't going to on this one.

Is the word incorrectly used? IDK, maybe. Does it matter? I don't think so.

[Kratos]

That may be what their original intended purpose is to YOU. However, historically, embassies have been used as hubs of spying and information gathering. Take for instance during the Manhattan project when the Soviet Unions lead spy managed an entire network of spies from the Russian embassy. He escaped to the Soviet Union, but then returned as a diplomat some years later (Who interestingly enough, was instrumental in thwarting the Cuban missile crisis). Embassies have always been used by countries for espionage efforts, which I would say, makes them a very serious military target in one way or another.

In his testimony, al-Owhali claimed that the Nairobi embassy had been targeted because it was a lightly guarded, "easy target." Not because america was spying. They are off limits as a military target. Sure if the Russians bombed the US embassy, it would result in war...same as if they bombed a shopping mall...it's an act of terrorism regardless.

But if you have a problem with that example, how about the first bombing of the world trade center. I'm pretty sure that was a terrorist attack.

[Kratos]

So when can we start racially profiling white males?
?

I'm fine with that, search white guys who look suspicious and have written long anti-gvmt manifesto's to the IRS.

But also profile nigerians with ties to Al-Queda with bombs in their underwear.

Profile anyone who looks acts or has done something suspicious rather then waste time on the person who doesn't.

Pull over the group of white kids cruising through compton and see what they're up to. Anything out of the ordinary.

Idk what your obsession is with white people.

[FranciscoG]

^^ You honestly do not see a problem profiling a whole group of people based on race? I mean really!

So you have no problem with being strip searched upon entering a federal building just because you fit the profile or being denied a pilot´s license cause another white male was a terrorist?

[thegodfather]

In his testimony, al-Owhali claimed that the Nairobi embassy had been targeted because it was a lightly guarded, "easy target." Not because america was spying. They are off limits as a military target. Sure if the Russians bombed the US embassy, it would result in war...same as if they bombed a shopping mall...it's an act of terrorism regardless.

But if you have a problem with that example, how about the first bombing of the world trade center. I'm pretty sure that was a terrorist attack.

There is no justification for terrorism. However, you propose a world in which the United States can commit no wrong. I am simply not naive enough to believe that our actions and the ways in which we have wronged countries in the middle east, have no effect on emboldening terrorist groups and their supporters. I am not sympathetic to their cause in the slightest, I am simply proposing that we acknowledge that our actions have contributed significantly to creating enough "blowback" (hatred for our actions) to motivate people enough to blow themselves up to kill us. If you believe, like many of the neo-cons(not saying you are one), that these terrorist groups hate us "Because we are free and prosperous," then there is absolutely no hope of ever ending this cycle of violence.

You know whats funny, many of the pundits refer to people who can admit that America has made mistakes as a group who "Blame America first!" I do not believe that to be true, but perhaps those same pundits are part of the group who "Blame America NEVER!" To be able to move forward with a foreign policy debate, you have to first come to terms with the fact that our actions in other countries have real consequences, and that we have not always been right in all of our actions. The Constitution lays a clear and concise guideline for foreign policy, and nowhere in the entire document does it mention having military bases in 140 of 190 countries. Nor does it state that America is the police force of the world who should intervene every time there is a powerful dictator in power somewhere around the world.

[Kratos]

^^ You honestly do not see a problem profiling a whole group of people based on race? I mean really!

So you have no problem with being strip searched upon entering a federal building just because you fit the profile or being denied a pilot´s license cause another white male was a terrorist?

Yes, I do, you never seem to listen.
I'm saying race can be used as a componet of profiling...not as the sole basis for a profile.

[Kratos]

I am simply proposing that we acknowledge that our actions have contributed significantly to creating enough "blowback" (hatred for our actions) to motivate people enough to blow themselves up to kill us..

If we did nothing to offend them, the movement would be much slower.

[thegodfather]

If we did nothing to offend them, the movement would be much slower.

Perhaps if we followed the guidelines of the Constitution and did not involve ourselves in the affairs of other countries (Middle East and Israel most of all) then we would not experience such problems.

And on a side note I'd like to point something out. President Bush and others justified the war in Iraq saying that we were "liberating" these people from a despotic dictator. Out of 190 countries throughout the world, roughly 48-50% are under some form of totalitarian government. Should we invade those countries? North Korea actually HAS weapons of mass destruction, and Kim Jong Il is a more brutal dictator than Saddam could have ever aspired to be. We sat by and allowed about 1 million people to get slaughtered in Rawanda with fu**ing MACHEDES. Yet, Saddam kills a few thousand Kurds and makes a few tons of mustard gas, and we beating the war drum into high heaven. Talk about misplaced priorities.

[Kratos]

Perhaps if we followed the guidelines of the Constitution and did not involve ourselves in the affairs of other countries (Middle East and Israel most of all) then we would not experience such problems.

And on a side note I'd like to point something out. President Bush and others justified the war in Iraq saying that we were "liberating" these people from a despotic dictator. Out of 190 countries throughout the world, roughly 48-50% are under some form of totalitarian government. Should we invade those countries? North Korea actually HAS weapons of mass destruction, and Kim Jong Il is a more brutal dictator than Saddam could have ever aspired to be. We sat by and allowed about 1 million people to get slaughtered in Rawanda with fu**ing MACHEDES. Yet, Saddam kills a few thousand Kurds and makes a few tons of mustard gas, and we beating the war drum into high heaven. Talk about misplaced priorities.

I'll commit to we would not experience such problems at this time.

Iraq is the fvck up of all fvck ups. There is no mission. There is no conclusion.

Afghan goes back to the day we went in the day we leave.
The people in charge of the choice to go to war, are in the business of going to war.

We're pumping the oil pretty fast.
The peace agreements we're trying to broker for Israel are bullshit, and aren't going to help the US position or Israel's survival.

What I would do and hope this is what we're doing (has to be like 20-30 years down the road when we have some kind of energy alternatives to oil):
keep stalling and propping Israel up, letting them expand their borders marginally so they can be defensable.
Then make an executive decision to cut all ties. aka if they're attacked, we don't give a fvck.
make them unpopular in the media, and decide to take a neutral position.
at that point hopefully they have a chance in hell of surival. I support their right to exist, and hope they can last. But, we're paying a heafty price and it isn't our responsibility to pick and choose what countries live and die.
beyond that, long term we just can't afford them financially, I'm not one for giving into terrorist attacks...it's just costing us a buttload.
hopefully Iran can chill for awhile, a war with them would be so freakin stupid when we can't win anywhere in the middle east.