MacBeth: How would you propose to define a terrorist? No matter what definition you come up with, there will be a legitimate counterexample that blows up that definition. I think we can all agree that certain groups (like Al Queda) are terrorists by virtually any definition of the word. Instead of going in circles trying to define the undefinable, why not focus on groups like that?
I'm saying A) It wasn't me who said not to take the time to define them, you were. As such, it takes a bit more than saying " Al Qaeda", which is the equivalent of saying " the boogey man., or, as the analogy i was giving states, "Charlie." It's easy to say " Al Qaeda is the enemy", but who is Al Qaeda? Where do we draw that line? According to your earlier definition, we don't bother to take much time to do it, thus we make a difficult task even harder. The basis for definition of Al Qeada is intelligence, which I think we can all agree right now is finite and fallible. If the people in charge adopt the attitude you expressed earlier, it will be even more difficult.
What I was saying earlier was not to waste time coming up with a satisfactory academic definition of "terrorist" when we already know who our enemy is. We are dealing with Al Qaeda and other non-state actors who support the establishment of Islamic states and the destruction of America, Israel, and other Westerners. Besides, it is not a problem. We know who they are.
Really? Ok...I'll bite. Distinguish between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Between an IRA guy and an American militia fighter during the Revolution ( aside from technological advances)...I think we can define Al Qaeda as beyond the pale because, even if they are at war, they enacted a war crime by targeting civilians...but in general, especially in that gray area Mr. C mentioned...where do we draw the line?
Which is why I didn't want to bother. I knew this would happen. I would give a definition, and you would object. Meanwhile a terrorist blows himself up somewhere. The point is, we don't need an exact abstract definition. We are going after those who hostile towards us.
But, if you read the article (to get back on topic), it was clear that before 9/11 we weren't doing much of anything to stop these terrorists. Another point this article illustrates is that America is hardly an overaggressive, militaristic, superpower. It took the death of 3,000 civilians for our leaders to realize the danger of the mass movement of extremism in the Middle East.
Really? Ok...I'll bite. Distinguish between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Between an IRA guy and an American militia fighter during the Revolution ( aside from technological advances)...I think we can define Al Qaeda as beyond the pale because, even if they are at war, they enacted a war crime by targeting civilians...but in general, especially in that gray area Mr. C mentioned...where do we draw the line? But why go after the gray areas? The reality is that this is not a "war on terror" - terror is a phenomenon that cannot be stopped in its entirety. All you can do is limit it and discourage it. We're not at the point yet of having to deal with the IRA and thos types of groups - why not just focus on what we KNOW is a terrorist and then see where we are when we finish that?
Because, as Iraq shows us, when you go ahead with military actions without a clear objective, limitations, etc., they tend to take on lives of their own, and you lose control. Besides, again we come back to the initial targets. Let's take Mr. C's definition:"We are dealing with Al Qaeda and other non-state actors who support the establishment of Islamic states and the destruction of America, Israel, and other Westerners." Ok...I've already stated that Al Qaeda has defined themselves, but where do we decide who is and who isn;t Al Qeada? Do we hang the landlady? ( Linclon assassination reference) But more to the point is the second part. So non-state actors are part of the qualification? Like the Palestinian? Or anyone else who is, by definition, fighting for their freedom? In the Revolution, we were non-state actors. Sure non-state means that you have no accountable nation...but it also includes all those currently victimized by tyrants, etc. Supporting the establishment of Islamic states qualifies you as a terrorist? Or just in conjunction with the other criteria, in which case non-state actors supporting the establishment of a Christian state would be fine? So we decide for the resto of the world where they are and are not allowed to draw their own line on church and state? ...and support the destruction of America, Israel, and other Westerners. Support how? Anyone who doesn't like us...who, for example, has reasonable hatred towards us because, say, we supported the dictator who killed his father...who, by virtue of that and millions of other similar deaths for which we are directly or indirectly responsible would rather we ceased to be able to do similar, that's an enemy? that's a terrorist? And, clearly by MC's definition, we have taken a very one-sided position on the Israel/Palestine issue, how remarkable for us. Maybe that kind of action in the past engendered other unreasonable enemies and terrorists? See what I mean? No matter where you start, when you decide that Group A doesn't deserve the process we have in place to ensure our priorities survive, you give the power to the few to decide who does and who does not qualify, and you also invariably stray into gray areas of exporting our ideals by force, and like Iraq shows, using one label to cover actions independant of the original intent.
