[Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?

[Ted Moffett]

Roger et. al.

Military action by government sponsored armies could be defined as
terrorism, given your definition, and is by many.  Did the US military's
"shock and awe" campaign bombing Iraq during the invasion "terrorize,
intimidate or make them fearful?"  I don't mean the Iraq army, I mean the
civilian women, children and men of Iraq.  How many civilians were killed?
But of course many will jump to defend this as legitimate sanctioned use of
"terror" by a government sponsored military to pursue a "legal" war.

You can define the word any way you want... But there are dangers in
adopting a too broad legal definition of terrorism.  I attempt to clarify
what is and is not terrorism in the discussion below.  If adopting a wide
definition of terrorism, entire classes of crime, even constitutionally
protected political protest, can be redefined as terrorism.  Burglars could
be defined as terrorists, striking fear into the heart of home owners of
further retaliation, even violence, by burglars, due to the violation of
their residences, broken into, property stolen.  "Burglars terrorize
neighborhood," the headlines sometimes read. But do we really want to define
them legally as "terrorists," like we define those who engage in deliberate
targeted killing of civilians for political purposes?

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2007-October/048248.html

Comments below from web link above:

However, I think a few of your points below require qualification:

Given the limited definition of terrorism I have been using, deliberate
killing of civilians for political purposes, I am not sure that tree spiking
qualifies as eco-terrorism.  Again, just as with Kai, I ask you to offer
documentation that anyone has been killed by tree spiking.  And even if this
was true, you would need to argue that the person who spiked the tree
intended to kill. Terrorists who put bombs on crowded buses and detonate
them, know full well they are going to kill civilians.  This is their clear
and deliberate aim.  Suicide bombers with vests know full well when they
walk into a marketplace or cafe and blow themselves up, they are taking
civilians with them.  They are not just trying to cause economic damage, or
slow or stop an industry, such as may be intended via tree spiking.  The
9/11 hijackers knew full well that the people on the planes, and those in
the buildings, were going to die.  Even protest movements using civil
disobedience, though they know in advance that violence is possible, and
someone could get killed, are not terrorists, to my mind, though our
government appears ready to define them as such to squelch dissent, if they
have not already.  Though these activities are political, they are not aimed
at killing civilians, even though deaths may result (think Kent State for an
example), and the protesters know this.

Let's not be deceived regarding the power over the public that our
government is attempting to extend by creating a very broad definition of
"terrorism."

Let's consider more examples of what is or is not "terrorism."

Consider scaring a juror with threats of death, to control the outcome of a
trial.  Let's say that someone the juror knows is murdered to show the juror
that they are next if they don't comply.  Is this terrorism?  If the aim is
to let a buddy, with some scary and dangerous friends, walk free from a
criminal charge, I would say no.  It is not the killing of civilians for
political purposes.  However, if civilians were killed to influence a court
decision, such as a judicial proceeding deciding how the so called enemy
combatants at Guantanamo are handled, then maybe these actions could be
defined as terrorism. Maybe.  Also, perhaps a drug cartel killing civilians
to influence governmental policies (Columbia) impacting their business,
might be defined as terrorism.  But some of the clear cut cases of terrorism
are the bombings in Spain and the United Kingdom in recent years, aimed
randomly at civilians, by groups opposed to the Spanish, British etc.
presence in Iraq.  Even a targeted assassination, like Chile's leader
Allende during the 1973 CIA supported coup, I would not label terrorism.
His assassination was not aimed at civilians for political purposes.

Ted Moffett

On 10/2/07, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Ted
> Terrorism is not just the intent to kill. It is anything that is intended
> to terrorise, intimidate or to make them fearful. Arson in that context is
> terrorism.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071002/ab6972b1/attachment.html