What do you have to do to be a terrorist?

[Metaphor]

The Guardian thinks that the perpetrator of the Sydney siege isn't a terrorist -- and calling him one puts a 'feather' in ISIS' cap.

If taking 17 hostages, demanding to speak to the Prime Minister, and demanding an ISIS flag, and ztating your ideological cause explicitly -- that Australia is under attack by ISIS -- isn't terrorism, what is?

Astonishingly, the article claims

Monis’s demands – one for an Isis flag and another to speak to the prime minister – as well as his continuous use of social media during the siege, indicate that he was not carrying out this violence in the name of a cause but for his own selfish purposes.

Apparently, demanding a flag for the cause you support, and demanding you get to speak to the highest politician in the land, and using social media is evidence that your acts are not politically motivated.

One absurdity doth tread upon the other's heels, so quickly the follow:

Considering the short amount of time between his apparent conversion and his carrying out an attack, it appears unlikely that he could have been fully radicalised so rapidly.

Good Gaia, it makes far more sense that Monis converted because he had already been radicalised and he already believed in the cause.

It's been my experience that the converts (whether from no religion to some religion, or from one religious ideology to another) are nearly always the most zealous. It's one thing to believe something you were indoctrinated with from birth. It's another to change your religion to believe a different set of crazy fantasies.

The article hints that even if Monis were a terrorist -- it would be better to pretend he were not.

What, precisely, would Monis have to have done differently to be called a terrorist?

 

[bilby]

The Guardian thinks that the perpetrator of the Sydney siege isn't a terrorist -- and calling him one puts a 'feather' in ISIS' cap.

If taking 17 hostages, demanding to speak to the Prime Minister, and demanding an ISIS flag, and ztating your ideological cause explicitly -- that Australia is under attack by ISIS -- isn't terrorism, what is?

Astonishingly, the article claims


Apparently, demanding a flag for the cause you support, and demanding you get to speak to the highest politician in the land, and using social media is evidence that your acts are not politically motivated.

One absurdity doth tread upon the other's heels, so quickly the follow:

Considering the short amount of time between his apparent conversion and his carrying out an attack, it appears unlikely that he could have been fully radicalised so rapidly.

Good Gaia, it makes far more sense that Monis converted because he had already been radicalised and he already believed in the cause.

It's been my experience that the converts (whether from no religion to some religion, or from one religious ideology to another) are nearly always the most zealous. It's one thing to believe something you were indoctrinated with from birth. It's another to change your religion to believe a different set of crazy fantasies.

The article hints that even if Monis were a terrorist -- it would be better to pretend he were not.

What, precisely, would Monis have to have done differently to be called a terrorist?

Been a member of an organisation that tasked him with carrying out his acts of violence, for political ends.

One man who causes fear for selfish reasons is not a terrorist, just a lunatic.

That he uses the public fear of terrorists to his own ends is an indictment of the public - or more specifically, the news media that feeds on the public - not of the perpetrator who simply took advantage of the situation.

I think a case could be made for calling the actions of Rupert Murdoch, and his Daily Telegraph, during the siege, 'Terrorism' - viz. "The use of, and/or engendering of, fear in a population to attempt to further an organisation's political objectives".

Monis? Not so much. He was just a homicidal loony. His 'terrorism' died with him.

 

[Metaphor]

Been a member of an organisation that tasked him with carrying out his acts of violence, for political ends.

This seems arbitrary. Was the Unabomber not a terrorist, because he acted alone?

One man who causes fear for selfish reasons is not a terrorist, just a lunatic.

What were his reasons? His stated reasons appear political -- demanding an ISIS flag and speaking to the Prime Minister.

I agree he was a lunatic, but so are all terrorists.

That he uses the public fear of terrorists to his own ends is an indictment of the public - or more specifically, the news media that feeds on the public - not of the perpetrator who simply took advantage of the situation.

I think a case could be made for calling the actions of Rupert Murdoch, and his Daily Telegraph, during the siege, 'Terrorism' - viz. "The use of, and/or engendering of, fear in a population to attempt to further an organisation's political objectives".

It beggars belief that you think that a news organisation covering a siege is the terrorist, and the perpetrator of the siege isn't.

Was the Unabomber a terrorist?

 

[dystopian]

A terrorist is someone who uses violence against the public in an attempt to push society or government along a path that meshes with their own ideology through the fear that's created, whether as part of a larger organization or as a singular individual. Someone who commits mass murder for purely personal reasons isn't a terrorist, but someone who does it to make some sort of political point is.

Really, the problem we skeptics may have with calling people terrorists is due to the the term having been applied unevenly by political ideologues, and so we tend to be wary when the term gets used.

As to whether this particular case represented terrorism by an individual acting alone, or simple lunacy, I'll leave that for people who know more about the case to decide.

 

[arkirk]

A terrorist is someone who uses violence against the public in an attempt to push society or government along a path that meshes with their own ideology through the fear that's created, whether as part of a larger organization or as a singular individual. Someone who commits mass murder for purely personal reasons isn't a terrorist, but someone who does it to make some sort of political point is.

Really, the problem we skeptics may have with calling people terrorists is due to the the term having been applied unevenly by political ideologues, and so we tend to be wary when the term gets used.

As to whether this particular case represented terrorism by an individual acting alone, or simple lunacy, I'll leave that for people who know more about the case to decide.

I think the word terrorist may just be a one size fits all term for anybody the power elite of any country do not like and wish to associate with evil. If a terrorist is one who attacks civilian populations for political reasons, then Harry S. Truman was being a terrorist when he sent to bombers to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When the Eisenhower administration sent people into Cuba to murder that country's leader, he was not a terrorist? Or Reagan and his wars on indigenous people in central America...the U.S. was not doing it "officially." The real problem is we have world leaders who commit horrendous acts and cover them over with'state secrecy' and National Security concerns. So when a couple of crazy kids from Chechnya set up some pressure cookers and do what appears to be a totally gratuitous act of violence, we call them terrorists. Alright, they were "terrorists." So what! Who isn't a terrorist?

 

[bilby]

This seems arbitrary. Was the Unabomber not a terrorist, because he acted alone?

One man who causes fear for selfish reasons is not a terrorist, just a lunatic.

What were his reasons? His stated reasons appear political -- demanding an ISIS flag and speaking to the Prime Minister.

I agree he was a lunatic, but so are all terrorists.

That he uses the public fear of terrorists to his own ends is an indictment of the public - or more specifically, the news media that feeds on the public - not of the perpetrator who simply took advantage of the situation.

I think a case could be made for calling the actions of Rupert Murdoch, and his Daily Telegraph, during the siege, 'Terrorism' - viz. "The use of, and/or engendering of, fear in a population to attempt to further an organisation's political objectives".

It beggars belief that you think that a news organisation covering a siege is the terrorist, and the perpetrator of the siege isn't.

Oh, don't worry; I don't think that Murdoch's narcissistic organisation has anything to do with news.

And no, the Unabomber was not a terrorist. Terrorism requires an organisation, not just an individual nutter.

 

[Metaphor]

This seems arbitrary. Was the Unabomber not a terrorist, because he acted alone?



What were his reasons? His stated reasons appear political -- demanding an ISIS flag and speaking to the Prime Minister.

I agree he was a lunatic, but so are all terrorists.

That he uses the public fear of terrorists to his own ends is an indictment of the public - or more specifically, the news media that feeds on the public - not of the perpetrator who simply took advantage of the situation.

I think a case could be made for calling the actions of Rupert Murdoch, and his Daily Telegraph, during the siege, 'Terrorism' - viz. "The use of, and/or engendering of, fear in a population to attempt to further an organisation's political objectives".

It beggars belief that you think that a news organisation covering a siege is the terrorist, and the perpetrator of the siege isn't.

Oh, don't worry; I don't think that Murdoch's narcissistic organisation has anything to do with news.

And no, the Unabomber was not a terrorist. Terrorism requires an organisation, not just an individual nutter.

That appears to me to be a completely arbitrary exclusion.

The Unabomber used violence against civilians to further his political ideology. That's a terrorist in my book.

 

[Hickdive]

Had Monis simply taken hostages and the siege come to the same end then it would be major news in Australia and perhaps picked up elsewhere but ultimately it wouldn't have created the media storm it did.

Instead Monis chose to create publicity for his "suicide by cop" by pushing the media world's buttons.

His "links" with ISIS go no further than him being a sympathiser rather than an active member carrying out terrorist acts on instruction.

As Bilby says, he was just a homicidal loony.

If you want to see what real islamic terrorists do, look no further than Peshawar this week, or Nairobi in September 2013, or NYC in September 2001. They simply indulge in mass killing without preamble.

 

[thebeave]

Timothy McVeigh, who killed over 500 people when he blew up the federal building in Oklahoma in 1995 has been labeled a terrorist pretty much since day one, and nobody really denies it. In fact, when someone makes a claim about terrorists being mostly just Muslims, Timothy McVeigh is pretty much the "go-to" guy to show otherwise. IIRC, McVeigh largely acted alone, though he did have some minor assistance from another guy. Seems to me, if you're going to consider McVeigh a terrorist, you're going to have to consider Monis a terrorist as well.

 

[bigfield]

A terrorist is someone who uses violence against the public in an attempt to push society or government along a path that meshes with their own ideology through the fear that's created, whether as part of a larger organization or as a singular individual. Someone who commits mass murder for purely personal reasons isn't a terrorist, but someone who does it to make some sort of political point is.

That is a pretty accurate definition IMO.

Really, the problem we skeptics may have with calling people terrorists is due to the the term having been applied unevenly by political ideologues, and so we tend to be wary when the term gets used.

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also acts of terrorism, meant to scare the Japanese into surrender. But you will rarely see it described as such because terrorism is associated with evilness.

 

[Valjean]

I'd hesitate to call McVeigh a terrorist. His act was more one of anger or retribution rather than an organized campaign of political coercion.

 

[Jokodo]

The Guardian thinks that the perpetrator of the Sydney siege isn't a terrorist -- and calling him one puts a 'feather' in ISIS' cap.

If taking 17 hostages, demanding to speak to the Prime Minister, and demanding an ISIS flag, and ztating your ideological cause explicitly -- that Australia is under attack by ISIS -- isn't terrorism, what is?

Astonishingly, the article claims


Apparently, demanding a flag for the cause you support, and demanding you get to speak to the highest politician in the land, and using social media is evidence that your acts are not politically motivated.

One absurdity doth tread upon the other's heels, so quickly the follow:

Considering the short amount of time between his apparent conversion and his carrying out an attack, it appears unlikely that he could have been fully radicalised so rapidly.

Good Gaia, it makes far more sense that Monis converted because he had already been radicalised and he already believed in the cause.

It's been my experience that the converts (whether from no religion to some religion, or from one religious ideology to another) are nearly always the most zealous. It's one thing to believe something you were indoctrinated with from birth. It's another to change your religion to believe a different set of crazy fantasies.

The article hints that even if Monis were a terrorist -- it would be better to pretend he were not.

What, precisely, would Monis have to have done differently to be called a terrorist?

I've only skimmed the piece, but as far as I can tell the argument is not that the act is insufficient to be classified as terrorism. Rather, that his mindset is not that of a terrorist.

If someone's motivation is a deep conviction in a cause (in the example at hand that would be: that ISIL has the potential to become the kernel of a global caliphate in which everyone lives under a rigorous Muslim rule in accordance with God's plans) and carries out an act which the goal to further that cause (such as intimidating the Australian government into withdrawing her forces from the anti-ISIL coalition or refraining from joining, whichever applicable), then he can be called a terrorist.

If, on the other hand, someone's motivation is that he's crushed by the feeling that anything he is or does is irrelevant, and his goal to show up on the world's TV screens for once, and he's using the public's fear of terrorism as a means to that end by presenting himself as an ISIL associate (a rather rational, in the 'there is method to his madness' sense, choice given the circumstances), it makes little sense and is actually quite counterproductive to call him a terrorist.

We may never know for sure, but the available evidence rather indicates that the second scenario is more likely to be true.

 

[dx713]

That is a pretty accurate definition IMO.

Really, the problem we skeptics may have with calling people terrorists is due to the the term having been applied unevenly by political ideologues, and so we tend to be wary when the term gets used.

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also acts of terrorism, meant to scare the Japanese into surrender. But you will rarely see it described as such because terrorism is associated with evilness.

Because we usually associate terrorism with civilians. Armies don't do terrorism, they wage wars, and choose means according to the effect needed (even if the effect is to scare the enemy into surrender).
Of course, once pursued fully, this definition can have unfortunate implications, like the WW2 French Resistance being terrorists while the Oradour SS weren't...

 

[Togo]

<shrug> If you pursue a definition of terrorism that doesn't include some sense of evilness or illegitimacy, then you'll inevitably end up with the conclusion that terrorism can be a good thing. (or pacifism)

 

[Valjean]

That is a pretty accurate definition IMO.


The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also acts of terrorism, meant to scare the Japanese into surrender. But you will rarely see it described as such because terrorism is associated with evilness.

Because we usually associate terrorism with civilians. Armies don't do terrorism, they wage wars, and choose means according to the effect needed (even if the effect is to scare the enemy into surrender).
Of course, once pursued fully, this definition can have unfortunate implications, like the WW2 French Resistance being terrorists while the Oradour SS weren't...

But aren't our 'usual associations' just facile conveniences? But for size, how is the US army any different from the Symbionese Liberation Army or The Weathermen?

 

[dx713]

Because we usually associate terrorism with civilians. Armies don't do terrorism, they wage wars, and choose means according to the effect needed (even if the effect is to scare the enemy into surrender).
Of course, once pursued fully, this definition can have unfortunate implications, like the WW2 French Resistance being terrorists while the Oradour SS weren't...

But aren't our 'usual associations' just facile conveniences? But for size, how is the US army any different from the Symbionese Liberation Army or The Weathermen?

Armies aren't defined by size, they're defined by a clear and admitted command chain linking them to a government.
(i.e. I'd argue that the Russian soldiers in Ukraine are not an army, because they're supposed to be there by volunteering on their own while on vacation)

 

[Valjean]

How were the SLA or Weathermen not governments? How many members does a group need to be considered a government?
Presumably Vatican City, with a population of 842, could legally declare war, or Nauru, with 1,300, or San Marino, with 28,000.
Why, then, couldn't the Crips outlaw gang (>30,000) legitimately send its soldiers to war?

Morality is individual. No individual or group, no matter how entrenched their power base, can take the sins of another individual unto itself.
There is only one morality, not different moralities for individuals and groups.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

In terms of it not being terrorism when conducted by armies, consider the following scenario.

North Korea considers reverence towards the Dear Leader to be an integral aspect of a stable society, so their government views a comedy movie about assassinating him to be a direct threat to their country. Despite warnings about this, movie theatres decide to show such a movie, so North Korea sends some special forces into an foreign city and and they blow up one of these theatres, killing everyone inside. Was that not an act of terrorism?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

And no, the Unabomber was not a terrorist. Terrorism requires an organisation, not just an individual nutter.

How many "Unabombers" would be required for you to consider them terrorists?

Strange that one can escape the "terrorist" label simply by not being a "joiner".

 

[Metaphor]

If someone's motivation is a deep conviction in a cause (in the example at hand that would be: that ISIL has the potential to become the kernel of a global caliphate in which everyone lives under a rigorous Muslim rule in accordance with God's plans) and carries out an act which the goal to further that cause (such as intimidating the Australian government into withdrawing her forces from the anti-ISIL coalition or refraining from joining, whichever applicable), then he can be called a terrorist.

If, on the other hand, someone's motivation is that he's crushed by the feeling that anything he is or does is irrelevant, and his goal to show up on the world's TV screens for once, and he's using the public's fear of terrorism as a means to that end by presenting himself as an ISIL associate (a rather rational, in the 'there is method to his madness' sense, choice given the circumstances), it makes little sense and is actually quite counterproductive to call him a terrorist.

We may never know for sure, but the available evidence rather indicates that the second scenario is more likely to be true.

But it seems to me that personal desperation is not in any way mutually exclusive to believing in a cause.

Indeed, it seems to me that there must be some level of personal desperation when one decides to become a suicide bomber.