- This topic has 8 voices and 44 replies.
-
Posts
-
Do you think that certain outlaws of the past would be classified as terrorists today? Jesse James with not only his deeds of murder and theft but also his association with guerrila warfare during and after the civil war. Or Butch Cassidy and his use of explosives during robberies. Or what about the gangsters of the 20's and 30's? Dillenger, machine gun kelly, Bonnie and clyde? How do you think they would be viewed in todays society? Terrorists?Ed. – Fixed spelling of “Terrorism” in the title
This is a good question. I do, however, think that a distinction could be made. Gangsters of the 20s and 30s targeted their victims and did not indiscriminately kill innocent civilians, even if their actions may have led to terrorism-like intimidation. The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, where about 7 guys were gunned down in Chicago, was a mob hit, but all the guys hit were part of one kind of “family” network. Jesse James may have robbed banks, but he didn't randomly kill people. The aspects unique to terrorism include high profile action for great effect, mass killings without discriminating between victims, and with motivation to make a political or social point. If you can find an episode like this before, say, 1900, you can find your parallel.I went through a D.C. museum last year which showed the history of terrorism in the U.S. Interestingly enough, there were anarchist terrorists in the early 1900s who tried to kill wealthy people…I believe even J.P. Morgan himself.
? Jesse James may have robbed banks, but he didn't randomly kill people.? The aspects unique to terrorism include high profile action for great effect, mass killings without discriminating between victims, and with motivation to make a political or social point.? If you can find an episode like this before, say, 1900, you can find your parallel.
Actually Jesse James did randomly kill. (I'll allaberate Later on that) But would you say that William Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson could be considered terrorists? Both sides denounced there activities during the war. Quantrill (and both James boys were present and participated) Pulled a group of soldiers of a train in Missouri and executed them all. terrorist act? Or act of war? And what of Lawerance Kansas?I remember once I was called to jury duty and the charge brought up on the man was making terrorist threats (he had said he was going to kick the guys butt.) This was about 94 long before 9/11. So do we use the term to loosley now?
Was there any political motive to their killings, though? I suppose that a serial killer also kills at random, but we wouldn't categorize him as a “terrorist”. Now that you brought up Quantrill and Lawrence I looked it up. Pretty gruesome event, indeed. To summarize the story (found on this site), Jim Lane and his “Jayhawkers” from Kansas would raid towns in Missouri during the Civil War. Perhaps in retribution, Quantrill, who sided more with the Confederates, took his men and raided Lawrence, Kansas, where they killed many men in the town – some 150 of them – burned buildings, and looted the whisky.While this raid sounds quite gruesome, it still doesn't seem like terrorism. A massacre, yes, but the people of Lawrence likely had at least a chance to defend themselves. Perhaps the train massacre, however, might fall more into this category.
Terrorism is designed to support a particular political agenda, otherwise it is simple random crime. John Wayne Gacy killing young men was a criminal, John Wayne Gacy killing Jews or Muslims or abortion providers in order to express his opposition to Judaism, Islam, or abortion would have been a terrorist. The KKK was one of our earliest terrorist groups as were Hitler's Brown Shirts. So Quantrill, Anderson, and the rest were terrorists. The James boys were terrorists who morphed into simple criminals. What distinguishes terrorists from criminals is not the victim or the act, but the purpose.
Really thats what I was getting at. Look a Bin Laden, he's a terrorist, if he suddenly quit blowing people up and started robbing banks, I dont think people would stop calling him a terrorist. And thats my point with the James boys, they started out politicallly motivated, as many did because of the war, and then changed. I was just thinking of it because of how the term Terrorist is thrown around these days, wondering if maybe the definition had evolved since 9-11.
Of course the meaning has evolved since 9/11. A terrorist is now anybody who opposes the policies of our government. It's also a cheap way to drum up support by keeping the public terrorized. I think those poor schmucks in Miami are a perfect example. I have a sneaking suspiciion that they were strung along for months by the FBI's PAID informant because they were a paycheck until they finally pressured him to show some sort of concrete results so he got them to quit talking and actually do SOMETHING and then he sold them like cheap meat. You may not be old enough to remember (I am) but terrorists and WMD and terrorist plots are now being used the same way that godless Communists and Commie subversives were used back in the 1950's – to keep the public scared and in line with government policies. But I will say that the ads to build your own atom bomb shelter were much more effective than some government schmuck advising us to buy duct tape and plastic.
? But I will say that the ads to build your own atom bomb shelter were much more effective than some government schmuck advising us to buy duct tape and plastic.
Tanamount to the old getting under your desk routine in case of a nuclear detination in your neighborhood.
Actually I never worried about it too much. We lived within 10 miles of a couple of major defense contractors, a major airport, and a major crossing point of the Mississippi River, so I always figures that either the near misses or the radiation would get us in the first couple of hours. That was called the “bend over and kiss your ass goodbye” strategy.
I came of age in the eighties and it wasnt on the minds of people like it was twenty or thirty years before. I'm just glad we had 'The day after' to remind us we could all be cooked at any moment.
The bottom line is that the world, including America, is, always has been, and unfortunately probably always will be a very dangerous place. It used to be disease and wandering bands of murderers called Huns, Visigoths, Tartars, whatever. Now its SARS, birdflu, or whatever the pandemic-du-jour is, WMD delivered by some band of savages called godless Commies, terrorists, street gangs, whatever. I guess next it will be invaders from outer space. I just don't like politicians and self-appointed “leaders” using that threat to attack others, discriminate against whomsoever they personally don't like, and chip away at our rights.
“Terrorist” has become one of these overused buzzwords, just as “Jihad”, for example, and the meaning has become blurred.I agree with what was siad already, there needs to be a political goal for the use of the term “terrorism”, otherwise it's crime.And, btw, terrorist violence isn't always random, but it needs to be directed at civilian targets to classify as terrorism.” – is defined by the US Department of Defense as “the unlawful use of — or threatened use of — force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.”Curiously, by this definirion, the Boston tea party was an act of terrorism. 😀
There is an exhibit entitled “The Enemy Within” that is coming to a museum not far from where I live. I caught the exhibit a few years ago at the International Spy Museum in Washington, D.C. and enjoyed it very much. It details terrorism in our borders that we, as Americans, seem to have forgotten, from the anarchists of the early century (I believe they actually placed a bomb in J.P. Morgan's mailbox, or something similar to that) to the Weather Underground to paramilitary groups of more recent years. September 11 was hardly the beginning of the problems we've seen as a nation.
And, btw, terrorist violence isn't always random, but it needs to be directed at civilian targets to classify as terrorism.
I don't necessarily agree with this. I think a real definition of terrorism is something that is directed primarily towards a government entity; whether that be civilian (embassy for example) or military doesn't really matter. I think what we see in Iraq with these car bombs, etc. targetting civilians is not terrorism by definition, it's just a type of strategy mainly used in insurgent warfare (think northern Ireland). For the most part, insurgents are not professional soldiers, where terrorists usually are more professionally trained. I think terrorism is a deliberate, well thought out, well planned attack meant to achieve an objective. I don't think it's as random as what we are seeing in Iraq now (which, unlike FOX and many in the Bush administration, is why I don't define those acts as terrorism)
If what you say is true, it would make 9/11 a non-terrorist event, since it was an economic objective – whether symbolic or actual – that they hit. It would also make something like the Eric Rudolph bombing at the Olympics a non-terrorist event since some nails or shrapnel with an explosive in a backpack, by a lone person, isn't really “well thought out” (relatively speaking). It might also make acts by U.S. special ops to destroy bridges or piping or whatever “terrorist” acts since they're well-trained soldiers, it's deliberate and well-thought out, and they do it towards enemy governments.
