Terrorist movements versus terrorist organizations

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

A frequent topic of conversation in some political circles is what qualifies as "terrorism."

This was not a big topic of conversation back in the day because nobody cared. The victims were equally dead whatever label one pinned on the act.

But once we got the "war on terror" the question arose what we were at war with, and the definition of terrorism became more important.

Unfortunately the "war on terror" made terrorism a political cash-cow for the Republican Party. Terrorism was perceived as being good for Republicans so Democrats found themselves with an interest in denying and redefining terrorism. If any act is deemed terrorist that is a presumptive victory for the RW.

So we got people with an interest in expanding the category terrorism and other people with an interest in constricting the category.

Often it is said that a terrorist must be part of a terrorist organization. I disagree. What is required is that a terrorist be part of a movement.

Timothy McVeigh has to be terrorist if the word is to mean anything useful.

He committed an unambiguous act of terror motivated by a political agenda. That agenda is well known. It is the general agenda of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.. You don't need to belong to any organization to be motivated by that movement. You just need a radio or TV. There are militia movements and tea-bag movements and racist movements and guns rights movements.

If someone blew up the WH to stop Obama from taking away his guns it would be terrorism, even if he had never belonged to the NRA, a militia, the Glenn Beck pen-pal club or even the Republican Party. He wouldn't need to be part of any hierarchical outfit to be exposed to the ideas and goals of the movement.

During the heyday of anarchist terror the heads of state in most western nations, including a president of the USA, were assassinated by anarchists. It was an amazing record. Anarchists blew up all sorts of things.

There were anarchist organizations (ironic) but not all anarchist terrorism was carried out within a hierarchy. There was a global movement that caught the imagination of some folks. Acts were undertaken by people who were inspired by anarchism.

It is the same today with the jihadi movement. Some people feel sympathetic toward the movement and its goals. They want to blow something up or shoot someone in general furtherance of the goals of the movement as they perceive those goals.

There is nothing inconsistent about a lone-wolf jihadi or a lone-wolf abortion clinic bomber. Such men are different from the typical mass-murderer who kills class-mates, co-workers or family members because they perceive themselves as acting within an idealogical framework.

And terrorism is a motive-defined crime, first and foremost.

Consider this: If a man reads white-supremacist web-sites and talks about his sympathy for white-supremicism and then takes a gun and shoots 30 African Americans who he perceives to be specifically involved in the advancement of people of color that is terrorism, right? Even if he acted on his own initiative, bought his own gun and was not a dues paying member of any supremacist organization.

A singular attack inspired by the international jihadi movement is no different.

When someone motivated by jihadi lecture tapes concocts a plan to blow up Fort Dix it is planning terrorism, no matter how inept the plan is. (It was the best plan the guy could come up with.) When someone sympathetic to international jihad murders dozens of soldiers because he is upset that they are going off to kill Muslims that is terrorism.

In seeking to redefine such things we fall into the trap of arguing within the RW frame. The RW says terrorism justifies all sorts of malignant things. Instead of making the case that terrorism does NOT justify those malignancies we counter that there isn't much terrorism.

It's like the torture thing. To argue that torture doesn't work is an implicit argument that it would be okay if it did work.

There is such a thing as low-level and copy-cat and lone-wolf jihadism. It does not follow that we ought to elect a bunch of Republicans.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. This spasmodic unrec is even stupider, and more gutless, than usual