PDA

View Full Version : What is a terrorist?



Charlie Kondek
11th July 2003, 14:10
This could start a flame war.

What is a terrorist?

Lee Malvo and John Muhammad, the Virgina snipers, are being tried as murders AND as terrorists under new state terrorism laws. What do you think about that?

Personally, I think it's complete rubbish, on par with redefining crimes as "hate crimes." But worse: I think when we redefine what terrorism is, we broaden what are already obtuse legal enforcement powers from security agencies that should not exist in the first place.

Malvo and Muhammad are serial killers, plain and simple, no matter how much they dress up what they do as Islam or anti-government or whatever. We had a great thread around here (I'll dig for it) by a researcher into these matters on what terrorism really is and does. It said terrorists recruit or martyr themselves to recruit for legitimate armies. For whom were Malvo and Mohammad recuruiting? Were they a terrorism organization of one? By the new definitions of terrorism, one person can be a terrorist organization under himself.

Of course, what worries me, and I speak for many of us here, is how we define terrorism today and tomorrow. Today it's a pair of murderous snipers. Tomorrow it's the guns-rights people. Then, the globalization protesters. Then...

Enjoy speaking your mind on e-budo while you have the right.

Story (italics mine):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/08/national0621EDT0496.DTL

John Muhammad's lawyers file motion seeking dismissal of capital murder charge

Tuesday, July 8, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

07-08) 03:21 PDT MANASSAS, Va. (AP) --

Sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad's attorneys sought to have a capital murder charge stemming from the state's new anti-terrorism law dismissed, arguing that under the statute all potential jurors are conceivably victims.

The new anti-terror law makes a murder defendant eligible for capital punishment if the crime was intended to intimidate the public or influence the government.

Under that criterion, attorneys Peter D. Greenspun and Jonathan Shapiro claimed Monday in a motion filed with the Prince William County Circuit Court, that every resident of the county where the crime took place would also possibly be a victim.

"Given that unique charge, which draws within its reach as victims the entire population of Prince William County, we submit that it is a legal impossibility to impanel a jury, from among the citizenry at large who are the very victims described by the Commonwealth in the terrorism indictment," Greenspun and Shapiro wrote.

Muhammad is charged with two counts of capital murder -- two stemming from the Oct. 9 slaying of a man at a Manassas gas station and another for allegedly killing more than one person in a three-year period.

Last month, Circuit Court Judge LeRoy F. Millette ruled against a claim by Muhammad's attorneys that the anti-terrorism statute was unconstitutionally broad and vague.

Prosecutors have told the judge they will not try to prove that every resident of the county was intimidated by the shootings, but that Muhammad's intent was to intimidate the community as a whole. (What the hell does this mean? - CK)

Commonwealth's Attorney Paul B. Ebert said in court last week that he believed most potential jurors would be able to set aside their personal feelings and render a fair verdict.

Lawyers for Muhammad's alleged co-conspirator, Lee Boyd Malvo, also have argued against the new anti-terrorism law. Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Jane Marum Roush decided to move Malvo's trial out of northern Virginia to the city of Chesapeake, about 200 miles away, in order to guarantee a fair trial.

Malvo, 18, and Muhammad, 42, have been linked to 20 shootings, including 13 deaths, in Virginia, Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Washington, D.C. Both could get the death penalty.

David T Anderson
11th July 2003, 15:44
Well...I'd define a terrorist as a person or group of people [maybe even a government agency] that attempts to effect social and/or political change by violently attacking civilian populations. I don't think Muhammad and Malvo really qualify because they weren't really trying to effect any political or social change, aside from some kind of brainless support for Muslim anti-Americanism [and even that is questionable...I think they were 98% nuts, myself].

However I would be the first to admit that my definition is probably inadequate and open to all kinds of qualification...

Charlie Kondek
11th July 2003, 16:15
http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=16832&highlight=terrorist

1. The goal of terrorists is not to cause terror.
2. The goal of terrorists is not to get revenge.
3. The goal of terrorists is to get media coverage for their cause.
4. The goal of terrorists is to cause the government in question to act in a more controlling/repressive fashion.
4a. When a government acts in such a fashion, the membership of a terrorist organization rises.
(Supporting fact* Al-Qaeda has been quoted as saying membership has risen 50% since the invasion of afghanistan.)
4b. When membership of a terrorist organization rises, the organization will then turn to military action.

Martin Adil-Smi
11th July 2003, 22:55
Originally posted by Charlie Kondek
[B]This could start a flame war.

What is a terrorist?


Just to be difficult: ...ANOTHER MAN'S FREEDOM FIGHTER!

Vapour
11th July 2003, 23:12
Difference between terrorist and freedom fighter. May be targetting civilian? Then with this definition, state terrorism comes in. Flaming issue in Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Iain
12th July 2003, 05:14
Terrorism is the threat or use of violence against the civilian population to achieve political ends. Pretty simple really.

In my mind, the only thing dividing terrorists and freedom fighters is popular support. Methodology doesn't come in to it.

The two snipers were not terrorists. Their political agenda was -as far as I can tell- just a front for a killing spree. They seem to be your run of the mill delusional psychotic malajusted mass murderers.

John Lindsey
12th July 2003, 05:23
What about Begin and his Irgun party? Were not they behind the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946? Sure, they did call a few times to let them know that a bomb was going to go off, but IRA does that too. I think the Brits declared him a terrorist.

adroitjimon
12th July 2003, 05:41
terrorists are the catalysts of terrorism ,terror is fear which
can be used against those that are not accustomed to it to a great
affect ... when you were young wasnt there an uncle or cousin
that used to scare the holy crap out of you for what seemed to be
thier personal enjoyment???and do you remember thinking to
yourself "If I could only kill him"??? these characters are
terrorists aswell, so becareful what you lable as terrorists and
terrorism because somewhwere down the line you may be accused of
terroristic behaviors of terrible terrorism and then you
just might get yourself terrorized in the wee hours while you
sleep...by someone who was terrified by you
while they were awake.
ther's not a
staler
safe...

PHILBERT
12th July 2003, 06:46
My 11th grade History teacher said that Navy S.E.A.L.s are terrorists. Sure they try not and take out civilians, but they do strike fear into the opposing side.

Soulend
12th July 2003, 12:08
As does a B-52 overhead...guess that makes the pilot a 'terrorist' too.

elder999
12th July 2003, 20:20
Not to avoid your very worthwhile and debatable question, Charlie, but under Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the snipers are guilty of the new crime of "domestic terrorism," which is so broadly defined therein that it could easily be interpreted to include activists of any sort, such as a protest group opposed to the war in IRaq, and, by inference, the "war on terror,"- never mind murderers.....

In fact the activist groups Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front are already on an FBI list of terorist organizations, perhaps justifiably, but they are also non-profit groups whose causes American taxpayers support with tax-deductible funding.


USA PATRIOT Act, Section 802, Domestic Terrorism

the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

heatMiser
13th July 2003, 00:23
C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

I'm so glad that domestic terrorism can only occur within the boundaries of the US. I like the Giant's Causeway, and I wouldn't like to see it turned into a sheet of glass when some American law redefines nationalist and loyalist organisations as "terrorist".

adroitjimon
13th July 2003, 01:37
not to go off topic but something just struck me...but heatMiser
are you affiliated w/ the ateaseweb,com forums?its a message board
for radiohead fans if you were unaware but being one you probably
are so see ya aruond if so ...

Amir
13th July 2003, 16:03
I think one word is intended in the above messages but remains hidden:
Intent

One should separate 3 different levels of harming a civilian population:
1. By intent, killing and harming the civilian population in order to achieve your political goals.
2. As pre-known collateral damage. When the target isn't hitting the civilian population but it is well known before action some of them will probably be hit.
3. As unpredictable collateral damage. When the damage to civilian population is either minor or unanticipated (accidents do happen).

Terror (by group or Nation) belongs to the first group

While the second group is legitimate at times. It is expected of governments and "freedom fighters" to do their best to avoid it. It's when they persist in action despite their awareness of the expected collateral damage that most people rise.
Of course, sometimes a government has little choice but to select whom she prefers to be damaged: her own people of "the other side", some terrorist organizations use their own population for hiding, making it impossible to disrupt their actions with no damage to the population. But, one can expect a government placed in this situation to try and find a way out, rather then take advantage and enjoy the devastation.

Looks complicated ?
maybe that's our problem with "State Terror"

Amir