Define Terrorism: Win $1000

[chequita guevara]

Define Terrorism: Win $1,000
by Frank Bardacke

Several months ago, Jeff Lustig, Doug Lummis, and I bet $1,000 that no read of the New York Review of Books could define "terrorism" in a way that would exclude U.S. military strategy and tactics. Twenty-one people have answered our challenge so far. After studying the proposed definitions, we are happy to report that our money is safe. We are now even more confident that any accurate definition of terrorism would cover some U.S. military activity, and have decided to open our contest to the readers of CounterPunch and the rest of the world.

. . .

We now invite everyone to take us up on the bet. Proposed definitions can be sent to:

CounterPunch
P.O.Box 228
Petrolia, CA 95558

They must be received by Dec., 31, 2002. We propse to read them, write an essay discussing them, submit it to the New York Review of Books, and see what happens.

=========

Anyone wanna take them up on the bet?

[Inverse Icarus]

couldn't you just make the defination start off by saying something about being of devout muslim faith? it's skewing the whole thing but that'd pretty much opt out the US

[Pekka]

Terrorism: Criminal act by organized group with political agenda, to cause destruction to other nation or group to hurt economy or its people, or just for fun. The US is excluded.

Did I win?

[Bereta_Eder]

Terrorism: anything that puts people under the state of terror. Like dealing with public services for example.

[GePap]

The trick is to include a bit about intentions.

Here's a beginning:

An act of terrorism is an act of political violence orchestrated by a non-sovereign entity (with or without the support of of a sovereign entity) in which the exact target of the violent act is not the smae as the intended audience of the act. (to explain this second bit: when Al qaeda blows somehting up, the political message they seek to send is directed towards the leadership fo the states they fight, but as they are too weak to do so, they aim at a different soft target so that indirect political pressure will be applied.)

Since the US is a sovereign entity, it can not by definition commit a terrorist act, plus the US always aims for the audience of its political violence when it undertakes a act of political violence (military action)since the US is strong enough to attack any political leadership.

[Inverse Icarus]

another thing. terrorism is the willful, direct, purposeful killing of private citizens that have no real impact on the troubles ailing you. american attacks on other countries kill civilians, yes, but we don't AIM FOR THEM. saddam builds a missle silo next to a village, we can't help the casualities. terrorists hit the WTC. there was no reason to do that. the only quasi-reasonable (and i use that term VERY loosely) is to hit the ecnomoic power of the US.

i've said before that if the terrorists had just hit the Pentagon and some military bases i would see it as a little more justifiable, but they went out of their way to kill civilians. that's terrorism.

[red_jon]

A terrorist (will be) anyone who disagrees with me. This includes people I don't like the look of in the street. All terrorists (shall be) put in 'super happy fun' camps.

[chequita guevara]

I think it has to be a valid definition. It would have to be able to include say, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, etc. You can't limit it to non-state entities, because the original defintion of terrorism was something that a state did to its own people.

[GePap]

Well, my definiton includes all those organizations, but as for the whole not letting states out of the hook:

Terrorism: an act of political violence intended to create political pressure on a group(an NGO, a political or social class) or state indirectly though the mechanism of fear.

Carpet bombing of cities would apply as terrorism. Direct attacks on those factions which you seek to change politically would not apply. The attack has to be intentional, so accident don't apply. Now, bonbing city services, as we did in 1991 might apply, so some refinement is needed....

I need $1000, so lets keep working on it..

[chequita guevara]

If anyone gets the $1,000, you should cut me in because I clued you in to the contest.

[GePap]

Yes, the unemployed and underemployed must stick togehter. What is the basic finder's fee? 10%?

[chequita guevara]

Beggars can't be choosers. I'll take ten percent.

[Japher]

Casualties of War.

The real trick is to separate "war" from "terrorism".

Or "retribution" from all these words.

I think that going with the "soverignity" of a nation is a aproach. Include that the soverign state is "recognized" and define what "a recognized soverign state" is. Then define "war" as something that only such a state can perform, and then define terrorism as something completly different.

I.e.

Terrorism - acts of violence against an established and recognized soverign state by an indipendent organization not recognized or established as a state, with the soul intention to bring fear and anger to that soverign state. Such acts of violence are usually in resposne to ideals on which that state is established and for which it is recognized for. [All terrorist are cowards, and when seen in the street should be pointed at and laughed at until they cry and run home to mommy.]

One could also expand on the fact since terrorist are not apart of a specific state that they are generally harbored and rely on other states, or members of those states, for funding of cash, arms, and resources. While soverign states produce such things themselves. In a way one could define a terroris more like a parsite instead of an actual faction.

[gsmoove23]

Taking recognized states out of the equation is a relatively new practice and downright dangerous. Terror tactics are commonly employed by states.

[DinoDoc]

Which definition would they like? It's approaching the hundreds.

The real trick is to separate "war" from "terrorism".

Terrorism can not be seperated from warfare because it is a meathod of waging war.