ratbastid

Uh hunh. But reductio ad absurdum, we can't get enough of, apparently.

powerclown

ratbastid, do you have a word for those who took part in the aformentioned events in the OP?

ratbastid

No, I told you, I reject the whole enterprise on the grounds that it's absurdly simplistic. There IS no one word that defines such a broad range of motivations and agendas. If you're looking for me to label them "terrorists", then I'll say this: they used terrorism as their technique for attempting to achive their various political ends.

The current political climate, in which it's American And Her Allies, versus The Terrorists is ridiculously simple-minded, and I won't buy into it.

I counter with this: are you willing to edit your OP to include the Boston Tea Party?

powerclown

I'm not sure I agee with your characterization of the above events as representing a "broad range of motivations and agendas", I actually think it's a quite narrow range/agenda, but thats probably for another thread...as is the issue of the Boston Tea Party, the JayHawkers, the War on Terror (ridiculous phrase), Saddam Hussein and other side issues. I started this thread simply to see how people identify those responsible for the specific events of the 21st century.

To repeat: I'm not "looking" for you or anyone to use the label of terrorist if you do not feel that they are such.

Willravel

How about this:
The people in the OP were all politically or ideologically motivated to the point of doing truely inhuman things. They are people who have, for one reason or another, lost all perspective. Do you know where it stems from? Entitlement. Every evil that man does in thsi world comes from a little voice in your head that says, "You have the right to do this", for whatever reason. The people in the OP were entitled to do what they did, and that seems a good place to start.

powerclown

Would you be able to condense that explanation (a strong one imo) into a term of your choosing?
These people who you describe as: "politically or ideologically motivated", having "lost all perspective"...is it possible for you to describe them in 3 words or less?

docbungle

I see no problem in referring to those responsible for the acts mentioned in the OP as "terrorists." Seems pretty cut and dry to me. So, now, what is your point?

__________________
Bad Luck City

tecoyah

If I were subjected to the violence and destruction in any one of these situations, I have no problem admitting I would be afraid....likely terrified. Thus....due to the politics underlying the actions of those commiting these crimes, I would easily term them terrorists.
If I was a member of the group that was responsible for the terror, I would likely call myself something else, but from my perspective they are terrorists.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Ustwo

And what would YOU call them as you are neither a victim or a member of said group?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

ok, so maybe i will play here for a minute:

consider the shift in context from the "what should 'we" do about terrorism?" thread to this (disengenously titled, but no matter) "a semantic exercize"...

in the previous thread, the frame established a sequences of usages:

the category "terrorist" was implicitly taken as adequate as a descriptor for:

1. particular types of actions in themselves

2. the actors/agents who carry out this type of action

[[at this level, the relation involved is circular: if the action is "terrorism" then the agent is a "terrorist"]]

there are also level shifts:

3. as a term that designates a particular kind of agent in the world

[[that is, as a term that designates not only the agents directly involved in a given act at the moment that act happens, but which is amaenable to generalization--in this case, adequate as a descriptor of the agents or potential agents who would carry out or are seen as potentially carrying out a type of action classed "terrorism"----or any other action--because the definition has now moved from situational to substantive. notice that the logic has changed here from induction to deduction as well--induction would derive the classification of the agent from the classification of a particular action: deduction would derive the classification of an action from the prior classification of the agent]]

so

4.as a term that would designate any action carried out by agents described/understood as "terrorist"

[[consequence of shifting from situational to substantive attribution--i am not being totally consistent terminologically, but you get the idea)]]

5. a category that---therefore----would function to orient strategic thinking coherently....[[which you can already see, if you think about, is a real problem logically from the sequences of meanings outlined above--this says nothing about the ideological content of those meanings--but for the moment, you dont need that level of critique to see the problem]]

6. as a direct object in a question involving action, presumably---so the question directs people to assume coherence, assme strategy and to derive scenarios concerning types of action.

by the time you get to 6, i would think that the problems of coherence strategically, that is of orienting action, should be obvious.
the usage simply tracks the possible usages of a noun "terrorism"--we get to watch it migrate from the result of an induction to an orientation for deduction.

at least the other thread had the advantage of posing the whoel range of problems with the usage of this term in the present ideological context. most of what i see the right doing is skipping across these various levels of meaning without seeming to be aware that they are doing it.


the other dimension of the posts i put up in the other thread had to do with the ideological content/meanings bundled together under the aegis of this signifier in this sorry time period. to really see what is at issue in this, you'd have to add information about the--very problematic--contents given to this signifier--most germaine in this context is the ways in which the term "terrorist" is used to strip away any possibility of thinking in terms of motives/causes--along with that vanishes any hope of thinking in specific ways about the adversary, if you like. there is a fairly detailed outline of this level of problems in the other thread.



the op tries to counter these critiques by shifting the register in which the category "terrorist" is to be approached.

in this case, all the op does is to present a list of actions from the past and poses a descriptive question.
that is, what do these actions have in common?

presumably the hope was to restabilize the term by reverting to the first two levels that were implicit in the other thread's framing question (what should "we" do about "terrorism"?)

as such, the op is geared toward a simple recapitulation of the process of generalization i outlined above.

so it is without interest.

that you have not thought carefully about the problem you pose, powerclown, does not make it less a problem.

but it must be a pain in the ass to find yourself trying to defend the usage of
such weak, vague terminology---particularly terminology that has been demonstrated as worthless across the actions that this administration has undertaken framed by it.
you might wonder if it is worth the effort.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

Interesting...cut & dry...
The point of this exercise was akin to an inkblot psychological evaluation - introduce a subject and ask people to express their thoughts about it.

What I find surprising here is that the majority of people perceive the same exact thing and even label it with the same word.
This wasn't a foregone conclusion, to my mind.

powerclown

Another for "terrorist".
Thanks tecoyah...silver star to you, as #5 went 4 words.

Sorry roachboy, you went 697 words too far, and without a descriptive term.
No prize this time...but thanks for your comments.

ubertuber

Terrorists, all.

I say this because they use terror as their means to an end. However, I stand by my opinion that this category "terrorist" has simultaneously become so large and so loaded that using the term doesn't really communicate too much anymore other than a visceral sense of hostility, otherness, and contempt.

I think that vagueness is why we often have threads ending up trying to discuss terrorists' motives and means and motivations. The label itself ignores all of that and is pretty useless as a result.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

nezmot

I notice that you only chose to cite attacks on civilians committed by Muslims.

What words might someone use to describe the perpetrators? Here's a list - pick which ever ones you like best depending on your point of view:
First the nouns:
Bombers, (hostage-takers), militants, extremists, freedom-fighters, martyrs, terrorists, criminals, Muslims, Arabs, Sand Niggers, Towel Heads, murderers, victims, heroes, losers, etc…
Then the adjectives:
pitiable, worthless, dangerous, fanatical, Muslim, glorious, brave, questionable, vile, despicable, filthy, desperate, principled, murderous, unprincipled, organised, disorganised, etc…

If this is purely a semantic exercise, what's it doing in Politics? Do you have a theory you'd like to expound for us? What's your point?

Which word would I use? It would of course depend on the context. I'd probably avoid the racist nouns myself, and I'd pick my adjectives depending on what it was I was trying to say about them.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I'd like to think I had more than a one-word vocabulary.

tecoyah

"Thus....due to the politics underlying the actions of those commiting these crimes, I would easily term them terrorists"


While I do understand you might feel the need to rebutt virtually everything I post Ustwo, I would ask that you at least read, and try to comprehend what it is I have typed. Your personal dislike for me is irrelevant to the topic, and serves no purpose in furthering this discussion.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Willravel

Well since 'assholes' is too vague, I'll have to go with "bombers" for most of them, and "randsomers" for number 5, I believe it was.

Ustwo

if and would

Seems a bit waffling to me but I did not get the last line which was

That part I missed and I was wrong on.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

powerclown:

so your thread is not a semantic exercize at all then.
this is evident because you cannot take seriously even the most basic analysis of how meanings are shifted across a sequence of usages, even within a single question.

so i dont know what you are doing in this thread.
it seems to have no point at all.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

tecoyah

I would think the point is obvious....it is an attempt to debase those who differ in opinion on the meaning , and overuse of the term "terrorist, as well as an opportunity for those of a particular political leaning to poke at others who disagree with this leaning. Often called a "Troll" in the internet realm, it is a means to pretend discussion with the intent of listening to yourself talk, and through manipulation of the dialogue place your opponent in a position of anger, and overreaction.
Sometimes used as a technique in valid debate, Trolling has a developed history and has become a mainstay of those who have little else to discuss, for whatever reason. Through the years many approaches have been used to quell the use of trolling on the internet, most to little avail, though the most effective to date has been simply pointing out the troll for what it is, and allowing the person who posted to feel a fool for doing so in the first place.
I have found this approach superior to the use of deletion and reprimand.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Ustwo

And I thought he did a wonderful job of showing just how deep the devide is between the left and the right on this issue.

Shades of grey and all that

But often any right wing idea posted as such is viewed as trolling on this board I'm pretty numb to the accusations made.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ratbastid

Don't worry, there's plenty of left wing trolling too. But this thread is definitely a right wing roll.

Charlatan

I don't know about you but I like my right wing rolls with butter...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Willravel

I prefer my right wings in bbq sauce, and then add the role, but I digress.

Powerclown, what is the meaning of the thread?

powerclown

I enjoy my role with a side of sole, with liberal helpings of trole.

I don't know if there was a point to this thread, other than to see if the politics board members were (or weren't) on the same page as to how we view those individuals who carry out the above acts. It's no secret here that I have a conservative take on the matter of how they percieve the individuals involved in terrorism. At times, I wonder what some people on the left are thinking when they express their thoughts on the matter...the ideas seem so foreign and out there that I wonder to myself what has happened in this person's life to plant the seeds of such anger, frustration, rebellion, alienation, etc...Regarding the subject matter, someone here had a phrase that resonated with me: Calling a terrorist a terrorist doesn't mean you have to agree on how to deal with the problem but it is the first step in figuring out what the problem is. I find this question to be very reasonable and very pertinent. I understand that others will dismiss it entirely. I appreciate the input of those who had the candor to play by the rules and post their thoughts.

ratbastid

I don't agree at all (as I suppose is no surprise by now). The word "terrorist" has lost all meaning. Its only use is as a right-wing prop to bolster assaults against human rights and political freedoms.

Calling things what they really are CAN be the first step in figuring out what a problem is and what to do about it, but in THIS case, the word "terrorist" only serves to further obfuscate the situation, and to distance America and her allies from any responsibility in the world climate that produces terrorists.

That's what the word "terrorist" has devolved into--somebody with some sort of inborn pathological anti-American desire to hurt people. That's what we're being told. What we're not being reminded of is all the American training that Osama Bin Laden received when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, how much support and partnership Saddam Hussein received before the Iranian revolution. No, those are The Bad Guys in our little black and white cowboy movie version of international affairs. And as far as conventional wisdom goes, they were born bad guys.

I say it again: in life (and CERTAINLY in politics) there IS no black and white. EVERYTHING is grey.

I'd be REALLY interested in a discussion about why so-called terrorists do what they do. What Osama Bin Laden's reasons are for his actions (and it's NOT "because he hates freedom").

tecoyah

So...if I shorten it to "Fuckin' bastardass terrorists"....can I get gold?

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Charlatan

Suck up...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Willravel

I can't speak for the other 'liberals' on the board (I don't know what I am anymore; liberal, conservative, libertarian, green, socialist...so many damned labels, each a semantics thread unto themselves), but I have had a lot happen to me that made me change from a fun loving Bush supporter to die hard anti-Bush person.

1) Bush stole the election. Durring the 200 election, I was back and fourth between Gore and Bush (I was a much more simple political animal 6 years ago). I had been raised republican, but I was pissed about the Clinton sex scandal being blown out of proportion...so I was a Republicrat. I was content to stay this way until the 200 election was dependant on a state who happened to be governed by George W. Bush's brother, Jeb Bush. I knew that Florida was a swing state, due to the fact that the news networks had beaten into my brain for 2 months, but I figured it would simpy go Gore (due to popular vote). Then that mess abou the chads and the recount happened. I took it unpon myself to look into it. I satisfied myself that the election was obviously stolen. I lost my trust in Bush, the office of the president for the next 4 years, and the process by which we vote.

2) 9/11 Go check out the stuff I posted in Paranoia if you want to know about this. Bottom line, bad stuff happened, and my trust in the MSM and government are gone.

3) The war on terror. I've posted this to death, but the gist is this war disgusts me and has convinced me that there is an empire in the womb of this democracy, and we're starting to have contractions.

4) A bunch of other crap I don't feel like listing.

I don't have a seed of anger. I have dissapointment. I have the wool pulled from my eyes. I have a need to try and fix a problem. I would like to share my understandings with others.

ubertuber

Powerclown,

With your explanations, I personally don't see your OP as a troll. This is the kind of communicating I like to read - where we try to understand why people feel differently to the way that we do, especially when their views seem incomprehensible.

I don't know if I'm liberal or conservative these days. However, I do know that I'm one of the people who resists black-and-white and doesn't like labels like terrorism. I like to think about motivations for the people who do things that we call terrorism. For me this is not an expression of liberal or conservative values - it's just interacting with the world around me in a realistic way.

In my opinion, if we don't make an effort to understand the dynamics of terrorism, the war on terror is nothing more than trying to kill "them" faster than they kill us. A real "war on terror" would address the factors that motivate such a violent expression of anger/frustration/desparation/whatever so that we wouldn't be seeing more people popping up all the time.

As I said before, I just don't think the term terrorist is very useful in those terms. It's a word that really shuts all of that kind of thinking down - the way "communist" did in the 1950's. On the other hand I do see that there are lots of people who don't want to talk about that stuff. For these people it's way more "us vs. them". I see that, but I don't really grok it. If that's what your thread is about, I'm very interested in reading you thoughts and those of others who don't agree with me.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

lusciousmunkee

I don't see how his "explanation" elevated the thread above troll-esqe. My take on it was more of the same, more of the same insulting patterns of referring to various members on this board. According to powerclown,
Most of that sentence is peppered with irrational or perjorative terms. It appears to be an advantageous point wherein he can add some flamebait without being called on it; presumably because he wants to know what these people think.

The truth of the matter is that a number of members responded how they think...after violating the "rules" that were set up to restrict their responses (despite the claim he wants to know what is ticking in their minds). In any case, ratbastid and roachboy attempted to provide some meaty responses, responses that someone actually interested in understanding the thought processes behind opposition to the use of terrorism in certain contexts would have engaged with. Instead, they were and are ignored.

When I read his commentary, I see: I didn't really have a point to this thread other than to see whether these members I see as [strange, filled with hate, or perhaps crazy] would agree with me that x,y, and z are acts of terrorism.

If you fit outside the caricature powerclown is trying to draw, then it seems like a valid point. If you are intended to be within it, then it appears to be flamebait, or at best insulting.


EDIT: well shit, I posted from my wife's computer.

powerclown

Sure.

One Gold Star to the straight-talkin' man in blue.

powerclown

I understand that...and I have no problem acknowledging the sincere motives of the anti-war brigade...it's the people who in one breath preach peace, love and understanding, and in the next breath turn into fire-breathing radical subversives advocating the overthrow of the government, or saying that people who blow up buses and subways aren't anything but what they are.

Willravel

Let me make this as simple as I can:
So called terrorists are bad.
Our government is bad.
I will do everything I can to stop both from being bad, so long as my action is legal, moral, and nonviolent.

I advocate no violence for any reason. I despise violence, no matter the source. That means I am against Bin Laden, Saddam, Hitler, Bonaparte, Stalin, Ariel Sharon...and Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Clinton, Reagen, and even Jesus Christ (Matthew in 21:12, Mark in 11:15, Luke in 19:45, and John in 2:15). Violence as a solution to any problem is beneith us all.

powerclown

I admit that aspects of the "war on terror" have been farcical. Whoever has been running the p.r. machine at the whitehouse the last 4-5 years should have been fired long ago. I don't appreciate listening to Rumsfeld say that mass looting days after the overthrow of Hussein should be rationalized away by saying people are simply "venting their naturally pent-up frustrations living under a dictator for 30 years" or that troop levels were adequate from the start.

On the other hand, I hold responsible the media outlets, journalists, politicians, etc. who are deliberately and cynically pursuing agendas detrimental to each and everything and everyone involved in any aspect of dealing with reform and/or terrorism. I believe that the people who are operating in the real world in these matters, on behalf of their country and their allies (current and potential), are fully aware of the underlying reasons for terrorism. I don't believe that these people are operating from a position of absolute ignorance or arrogance as some would have it. These are people highly educated, highly experienced, with years, decades, of working in the field of international terrorism (Richard Clarke comes to mind).

On top of this layer you have another layer of people who place no blame at all upon the perpetrators of the events such as those in the 1st post. They say of them: they hold no responsibility for what they do, they are helpless, downtrodden victims valiantly fighting the real forces of evil in the world, they have no right to meddle in their countries (overlooking the fact that they've been INVITED IN more times than not), and on down the line.

When one steps back to consider that the Industrialized World is +/-100 years old, and the Information Age ~ 30 or so - ie., an infintesimally short period of time in human existence - it stands to reason that the kinks need working out. I understand that certain groups feel their dignity has been abused, and therefore lash out. But one would think there need come a time when deals need to be made with those in power, opportunities exploited, development commenced, and self-defeating fury abandoned.

powerclown

Point taken.
I would give 2 quick, contemporary, obvious examples to the contrary: Japan & Germany post-WW2.

Transformed by violence into modern, dignified, thriving, contributing, empowered, leading societies engaged peacefully with the rest of the world, despite ethnic and religious differences.

The point is that there is, I believe, productive violence, and non-productive violence.

Willravel

They became decent countries not because of, but DESPITE the mindless violence. Violence produces pain, suffering, death, and is the exact opposite of progress. The reasons for Japan and Germany beign successful now are extremly complicated, but they do not invclude violence.

powerclown

They do what they do for 2 reasons that I can see:

1) Because they (leading religious/political leaders) are religiously and culturally intolerant. That because of their religious convictions, they DO, in fact, hate (read: are intolerant of) freedom of speech, woman's rights, alternative religious viewpoints/lifestyles, and other values inherent in democracies. While it has become almost banal to say "They Hate Our Freedoms" because Bush says it in such a retarded way, I think the underlying meaning holds true: the religious/political leaders of certain islamic societies ARE hateful and intolerant of "our freedoms". And not just ours. Can there be any denying this?

2) Believe their dignity has been taken from them. While I do believe that people feel honestly abused, I also believe that much, MUCH, lies with how these peoples' religious/political leaders choose to deal with the external world (and how the world responds). Look at how people in America express how they feel about themselves (vis-a-vis Bush's foreign policies) - what with phenomena such as "weresorryworld.com" websites, self-loathing apologists, and otherwise neutral folk suddenly feeling anxious and guilty over the decisions made by their government.

--

I'm one of those who believe the excuse of Israeli occupation and US support of Israel are nothing more than...excuses. Nothing more. The Middle East has been occupied by everyone except Groucho Marx for the last 2 millenia at least. Arabs lived with jews lived with christians with no such terrorism as we see today. Minority populations of differing ethnicities lived in peace with majority ethnicities in that part of the world for long periods of time. There was tolerance and there was acceptance.

--

While I am also growing weary of the word 'terrorist", I still think it valid to hold those committing these acts responsible. There are other, more productive ways to communicate your grievances and this is where I have no problem placing blame. While I acknowledge that the word "terrorist" has been used ad nauseum by some as a short-term political tool, I don't think the real and existing issues of terrorism should be overlooked entirely just because it's been turned into a cheap political marketing tool. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, etc. I look forward to the day when these issues are addressed with a lesser degree of hysteria and a larger degree of success - I see it as an ongoing process.

tecoyah

Extremely well stated.....and I am forced to agree.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

powerclown

tecoyah, willravel, Ustwo, Mojo_PeiPei, ubertuber, The_Jazz, Charlatan, ratbastid, docbungle, kutulu, hannukah harry: Thanks for your candid and plain-spoken assessments and descriptions. Yes, there are many ways to deal with the issues of terrorism, running the spectrum of political ideology. Yet I would hazard a guess that the majority here see the overall issue more from a similar perspective than from a different one, ie., as more a condemnation than a blessing.

The_Jazz

Powerclown, no offense, but I think that this thread was mental masturbation from its onset. You picked 10 very similar (with the exception of Beslan) incidents perpetrated by a very small minority of a group typically villified by the Western world. If you want to try to have a true discussion of what is terrorism and what isn't, you need to greatly expand your examples to allow us to explore the boundaries. Picking 10 of the most obvious examples doesn't do anything. I'd love to be a part of that discussion, but its going to take a lot of thought to try to set some parameters. Again, no offense, but you took the lazy way into this fostering this discussion.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo