[OAW]

An interesting op-ed on CNN

Originally Posted by Arsalan Iftikhar

Within the last month, our country has witnessed two senseless, high-profile acts of criminal violence that would have been labeled terrorism if brown-skinned Arab Muslim men with foreign-sounding names had committed them.

Because two white men committed these acts of violence, however, our political and media chattering class never used the word "terrorism" in its discussions.

Most recently, John Patrick Bedell, a 36-year-old man from California, walked up to two security guards outside the Pentagon Metro station in suburban Washington and started shooting. He was then shot and killed. According to The Christian Science Monitor, Bedell appeared "to have been a right-wing extremist with virulent anti-government feelings" and also battled mental illness before his shooting rampage.

A few weeks ago, on February 18, another white anti-government extremist named Joseph Stack flew his small airplane into an Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas, killing two people and injuring 13 others.

According to media reports, Stack had left behind a disjointed suicide letter in which he expressed his hatred of our American government and outlined grievances with the IRS, chillingly stating that "violence not only is the answer; it is the only answer."

Both the Pentagon Metro and IRS attacks come at a time of "explosive growth in [domestic] extremist-group activism across the United States," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

A recently released law center report showed so-called patriot groups -- steeped in anti-government conspiracy theories -- grew from 149 in 2008 to 512 in 2009 -- a 244 percent increase that the Southern Poverty Law Center report judged to be an "astonishing" rise in the one-year period since President Obama took the oath of office. The number of these groups that are domestic extremist paramilitary militias grew from 42 in 2008 to 127 in 2009, the report said.

Even so, for any reasonable observer who is still skeptical about labeling the recent Pentagon area shooting and IRS attack terrorism, keep one thing in mind:

Let us imagine that these Pentagon and IRS attacks had been committed by an olive-skinned Arab Muslim man named Ali Muhammad.

Our national media and political commentators would have wasted little time in calling both of these acts terrorism, and some might have also called for the closings of other IRS and federal government office buildings around the country as a necessary counter-terrorism safety precaution.

Instead, shortly after the IRS plane attack, some prominent media commentators immediately asked why people -- especially conservatives on the right -- were not calling the IRS attacker a terrorist.

"If this had been done by a brownish-looking Muslim guy whose suicide note paralleled Islamist political themes," wrote media commentator Matthew Yglesias, then right-wingers would "demand that anyone who refused to label the attack 'terrorism' be put up on treason charges."

Does the author of this piece have a point? Does the national media in the US display a double-standard on those acts it labels "terrorism" based upon the ethnic background (i.e. racial, religious, etc.) of the perpetrator? Or is this much ado about nothing?

Discuss!

OAW

[BadKosh]

Zzzzzzz...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. zzzzzz......

[SpaceMonkey]

People who operate alone, in suicidal attacks, are rarely called terrorists. If Bedell or Stack had been a part of some organization that threatened additional attacks, then it would be terrorism. I agree that if these men had appeared to be Arab Muslims then there would have been more people jumping to the conclusion that they were part of a terrorist plot, or at least wondering aloud about it, but either way the description would still be wrong.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

People who operate alone, in suicidal attacks, are rarely called terrorists. If Bedell or Stack had been a part of some organization that threatened additional attacks, then it would be terrorism. I agree that if these men had appeared to be Arab Muslims then there would have been more people jumping to the conclusion that they were part of a terrorist plot, or at least wondering aloud about it, but either way the description would still be wrong.

Well by all appearances the Nidal Malik Hassan guy who committed the Ft. Hood attacks acted alone and he was called a "terrorist" in certain segments of the national media. As did Timothy McVeigh and Theodore Kaczynski. So while I understand his overall point, the author of this piece certainly shouldn't have listed those two as examples for sure.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

An interesting op-ed on CNN

The source quoted in the op-ed; Christian Science Monitor, issued an update to their article on Monday.
As more information emerges about Mr. Bedell, the less it appears that any coherent ideology was behind his actions, except that he was deeply antigovernment. The Monitor has changed the headline, subhead, and first paragraph of this story, which originally suggested a right-wing motive.
CSMonitor Retraction

Does the author of this piece have a point? Does the national media in the US display a double-standard on those acts it labels "terrorism" based upon the ethnic background (i.e. racial, religious, etc.) of the perpetrator? Or is this much ado about nothing?

The author of the linked piece; Arsalan Iftikhar, is an international human rights lawyer, founder of TheMuslimGuy.com and legal fellow for the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a nonprofit research organization in D.C. IMO the author was being sensationalist to drum up support for his activism and appears ill-informed in this particular instance. He first attempts to stretch the lone actions of a well-documented mentally ill person whose parents warned authorities about him weeks prior with some type of concerted "right-wing" terrorist effort, then suggests a racial double-standard.

From reading a little more on him, he's also pretty well-affiliated with the left and I suspect (wrong or right) that he may delight just a little in painting the "right-wing" in as negative a light as possible.

IMO, the need to point out a racial double-standard is understandable from the perspective of a Muslim activist. It would be more interesting a perspective had we not been severely attacked by Islamists of Arabic origin less than 10 years ago. It follows logically that a news outlet reporting on an incident would key on the most newsworthy and visible evidence of a recurrence; Arabic origin.

[ghporter]

Hassan has been quoted as having used significant amounts of Islamic religious epithets (Alahu Akbar!), and had a history of being in contact with Islamic rabble rouser clerics who themselves were purported to be recruiting and encouraging individuals for terroristic attacks.

The other two, the white guys, were "loners" who were making a "statement," by completely solo acts of violence. If Stack had flown his plane into a Bank of America branch because he had a beef about his mortgage, nobody would have seriously considered what he did "terrorism," but since his beef was with the IRS, a government agency, people add 2+2 and come up with 7.2.

Neither Stack nor Bedell had any credible connections with any sort of puppet masters, as Hassan did, and while Hassan MAY have been under the influence of some outside controlling force, he may just have snapped due to the conflict between his duty and his perception of his religion being under attack. So far, he and his lawyers aren't talking.

[lpkmckenna]

Any reduction in the excessive complaining about "terrorism" is fine by me, however arbitrary. But truly, if you're brown, you're more likely to get so labelled.

The Ft Hood shooter was just crazy, just like the professor who shot up her superiors for being denied tenure. People snap, and often grasp at bizarre political and religious notions in that madness. I don't think either case should be called terrorism. McVeigh is kinda iffy, closer to criminality than terrorism. He was more like the Columbine shooters with a different target.

The abortion doctor shooting are kinda iffy, too. The individual shooters are executing justice, in their own minds anyway; vigilanteism, not terrorism.

The Unabomber was obvious cut-and-dried terrorism, not mere criminality.

I don't think "puppet masters" is relevant, for example, again the Unabomber.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The Unabomber was obvious cut-and-dried terrorism, not mere criminality.

I don't think "puppet masters" is relevant, for example, again the Unabomber.

Don't forget a dogeared and highlighted "Earth in the Balance" was found in his cabin.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't think "puppet masters" is relevant, for example, again the Unabomber.

In the context of the continuing use of "suicide attackers" by Islamic extremist groups, and when discussing Bedell and Stack, "puppet masters" is appropriate. In fact, to most Americans, "suicide attack" has become synonymous with Islamic terror groups, and you'll note that none of those who planned attacks like 9/11 actually physically participated in them.

This is quite different from Unabomber and Tim McVeigh, who managed ways to commit murder (for political purposes) by remote control.

[OAW]

Perhaps part of the issue is that the term terrorism means different things to different people? Just reading this thread it appears that some don't consider the attacks by lone individuals to be terrorism? Where is the line drawn between vigilantism and terrorism? Is being anti-government an ideology in and of itself? How does the targeting of civilians factor in?

It seems that a common definition of "terrorism" is needed in order to determine whether or not a double-standard is involved when the media uses the term. The dictionary has a very simple definition:

terrorism - the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Wikipedia expounds upon this further ....

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Thoughts?

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Perhaps part of the issue is that the term terrorism means different things to different people? Just reading this thread it appears that some don't consider the attacks by lone individuals to be terrorism? Where is the line drawn between vigilantism and terrorism? Is being anti-government an ideology in and of itself? How does the targeting of civilians factor in?

This is a good thread because I had to do a double-take on the term terrorism. The first thing I did was seek its actual definition and this just left me wanting.
The targeting of civilians- yes.
The term anti-government as a determinant lacks definition IMO. If the government is acting in a manner opposite your preference, you will by definition be anti-government. Unless of course you don't speak at all, which I think is an idea people are starting to challenge.

It seems that a common definition of "terrorism" is needed in order to determine whether or not a double-standard is involved when the media uses the term. The dictionary has a very simple definition:

terrorism - the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Wikipedia expounds upon this further ....
Thoughts?

I'm more inclined to the latter. Just as a matter of an appropriate reaction, terrorism should imply a more concerted effort and not a well-documented nut case straight walking into a place armed for example. There are more localized resources that should have picked him up, particularly since his parents clued them in, reserving heavier resources for the more concerted efforts.

[Hawkeye_a]

To me, the characteristics of whether or not a person qualifies as a terrorist are:
1. part of a larger group
2. deliberately target civilians
3. militia, as opposed to official army
4. motivated by political/financial gain

If we go by mr. Arsalan's suggestion.... every burglar, rapist, arsonist, murderer, etc....would be considered "terrorists". If this is a matter of definition, Mr. Arsalan could be right in the literal sense. Practically he misses the point, imho.

I think it's unfortunate that many(if not most) of the terrorists today have brown skin and are muslim. But that is a fact. When the IRA were terrorizing..... we had no problem calling them terrorists (and they were white, Christians). Would it have been fair to be cautious of people from that region and of that demographic ? Of course. was it racist/double standard ? I dont think so... i'd call it being cautious with reason.

As a person with 'olive/brown' skin.... i have no problem with extra security measures, which waste a whole 3-5 minutes of my time when I travel, for example.

I wonder what Mr. Arsalan would have to say about the double-standards non-muslims face in the part of the world he originated from ? Or maybe he's just too scared to criticize them for fear of his life ?

Not all "brown" people who are muslim are terrorists, but it just so happens that many(if not most) terrorists today are "brown" and are muslim. IMHO.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

To me, the characteristics of whether or not a person qualifies as a terrorist are:
1. part of a larger group
2. deliberately target civilians
3. militia, as opposed to official army
4. motivated by political/financial gain

Allow me to play devil's advocate here for a bit and probe your list of criteria a little deeper ...

1. Al-Qaeda regularly posts videos on the internet calling on "good Muslims" to strike at the interests of Israel and its Western allies. If an individual who is not a member of or in contact with Al-Qaeda heeds that call and carries out a lone attack then s/he would not be terrorist?

2. Major Nidal Malik Hassan attacked US troops on a US military base so does that mean he was not a terrorist? Was the wanton destruction of civilian areas in southern Lebanon and the Gaza strip by the Israeli military a terrorist act?

3. The Israeli Air Force drops a 1 ton bomb on an apartment building well after midnight in an attempt to kill a Hamas commander. Scores of civilians are killed as would be expected given the fact that people are asleep in a densely populated area. Does the Israeli Army get a pass simply because they are "official military"? The US Navy intervened in the Lebanese Civil War and directly aided a faction with naval gunfire. Hezbollah retaliated by bombing the Marine barracks in Beirut. Does Hezbollah get the terrorist label simply because it is a militant organization and not "official military"?

4. The ANC, representing the black majority in South Africa, fought against the ruling white minority that was imposing apartheid. There was political and financial component as the black majority was overwhelmingly poor and politically disenfranchised. The South African government at the time listed the ANC as a "terrorist organization" during the 1970s and 1980s. The US government followed suit. As recently as 2008 (and perhaps even to this day) Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela and other senior ANC leaders are on the US Terrorist Watch List. They have to get special waivers to fly into the US. Make sense?

Do all four of your criteria have to be present to be considered a "terrorist" or just a majority? Does it matter if a militant organization is defending what it considers to be its territory from outsider invaders? When the Haitian slaves revolted against the French slave masters (technically civilians) were they terrorists? When the French military tried to restore control for political and financial gain were they not because they were "official military"? Etc.

Thoughts?

OAW

[Hawkeye_a]

Good rebuttal OAW ......

Those 4 criterion i posted were a guide, and need to all be present for me personally to classify a terrorist.

1. The person would be directly influenced by a terrorist organization. ("Jihandjane" comes to mind...who is not brown, but rather blonde-haired and blue-eyed(i think)). And would classify as a terrorist.

2. I do not know this situation specifically. But attacks on military would not be classified as terrorist acts, to me. There is a fundamental difference between a person in a military uniform and a civilian. When the target is indiscriminately a civilian, that would be a terrorist act. imho

3. With regard to dropping a bomb with the INTENT of all that carnage, would classify as a war crime and not a terrorist act in my book. Simply because a breach in protocol that 'real' armies follow, imo. The "pass" would be they are not "terrorists" but rather criminals of another kind. With regard to Hez.... they are not under any official banner of any army, so they are an armed militia. With regard to fighting between the U.S. Navy and Hez....neither are terrorists. One is part of an official army and the other is a militia operating illegally(by the country's law they are in, and international law regarding armies). In this specific instant neither are terrorists. IF the target becomes indiscriminate civilian populations, then that would classify as a terrorist act.

4. With regard to "slavery", it is a special situation. Slavery on any level is "wrong" imo. that predicament does not justify targeting civilians. One word.... Gandhi. As far as Mandela specifically ...i am personally not aware of his politics. i do think an organized(at a policy level) attempt to harm civilians with the intent of harming civilians is a terrorist act.

You brought up Israel quite a few times in your post. And as i said earlier, there is a difference between a person in uniform and a person in civies. If an illegal, organized and armed militia is targeting civilian population...the militia would be classified as terrorists, i think it's the responsibility of any official armed force to eradicate, and considering the targets were Israeli's and the Arabs (PA, Lebanon, Syria, or any other Arab/Muslim neighbor which was probably funding and supplying arms) were doing nothing to stop the attacks(from their own soil), the Israeli's were justified in their response. No one took ownership of the jurisdiction to enforce any law to stop the rockets.

Cheers

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

1. The person would be directly influenced by a terrorist organization. ("Jihandjane" comes to mind...who is not brown, but rather blonde-haired and blue-eyed(i think)). And would classify as a terrorist.

See, I think that one is bullsh*t, IMO. If your intent is to influence people's behavior through the use of fear of something really bad happening, then you're a terrorist as far as I'm concerned. There is no need to be influenced by a terrorist organization. If I didn't like it when people wore blue shirts and started shooting people who wore blue shirts and bombed stores that sold blue shirts, I would be a terrorizing those who wore and sold blue shirts; there is no need for a terrorist organization.

[ghporter]

I think it's also important to consider context and point of view. The British army considered those crazy Colonials "terrorists" (without using that word) for their tactics, yet since WE won that conflict we chose to call them "patriots" and "freedom fighters." Unfortunately this analogy has been used for certain other groups who have not been nearly as goody-goody as our "freedom fighter" forebears in the US. While the Continental Army and those other organizations working for independence certainly did a lot of things that weren't particularly nice, I don't think they went to the extremes that Central American "anti-communist" groups did. I have yet to hear of any widespread purges, no "rounding up the Torries and shooting them in front of their families," no organized, civilian-aimed "terror tactics" of any kind. Again, it's perspective that makes difference in the spin used in describing these violent actions.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

3. With regard to dropping a bomb with the INTENT of all that carnage, would classify as a war crime and not a terrorist act in my book. Simply because a breach in protocol that 'real' armies follow, imo. The "pass" would be they are not "terrorists" but rather criminals of another kind.

You know that's an interesting take on it there. I've long had a problem with those who hold very obvious double-standards when it comes to the "targeting of civilians" thing. Because at the end of the day, a civilian is just as dead from a bomb being dropped on him by an F-16 as he is from a suicide bomber blowing himself up in a crowded market. And I'm admittedly "skeptical" of the protests from official military when they claim "it is not our intent to harm civilians ...". Because even if we take that at face value, we often find that "official military" manages to kill more civilians by "accident" than the "terrorists" do on purpose. Imagine that! But your words here might provide a way around this. Perhaps it is better to refer to such acts as a "war crime" rather than try call it "terrorism"?

So with that in mind, IMO a "terrorist" would be an individual or militant organization (not official military) that engages in violent acts that deliberately target civilians in support of a political/financial goal. Using that definition Al-Qaeda and Hamas are clearly terrorist organizations. The ANC was not because even though it embraced the armed struggle, it's military wing almost exclusively went after military and infrastructure targets. Hezbollah is a borderline case. On the one hand, there generally is no conflict with them unless you invade or attack Lebanon. But on the other hand, during the wars they have fought with Israel they have fired rockets into civilian areas. Not sure on that one.

OAW

[ghporter]

Intentionally targeting civilians is a violation of the laws of armed conflict. That civilians may be injured or killed when valid, military targets are struck is a major problem, and one that probably will never be completely solved. I have a serious problem with the suggestion that US military planners, whose careers, reputations, and freedom from prison depend on their being as honest as possible (WAY more honest than any politician) would intentionally target civilians. Think for a moment about how the "bad guys" in our current entanglements may be USING civilians as shields, and how intelligence data about where these bad guys hide may be incomplete enough to not include the families they are using as protection.

In the warfare going on in Iraq and Afghanistan today, the insurgents actively take advantage of rules of engagement that support prohibitions against targeting hospitals, mosques, and so on by setting up their arms caches and sniper locations within or very near these facilities. In doing so they strip those facilities of their immunity from attack, but all we hear about in the news is about our troops firing on a mosque, not the number of RPGs launched from inside the mosque. Getting un-spun news about what happens-without spin from either direction-would probably tell a very different story from what's been told so far. Keep in mind that the only reason the North won in Vietnam was propaganda, not military victories, and they intentionally used US news to spin things their way on the global stage.

[ebuddy]

Again, I have a problem defining lone acts of violence as terrorism because there are jurisdictions/differences between localized threats and international organization often requiring a difference in the measure of response and because of the potential for abuse.

One of the examples given was a well-documented, mentally-ill person whose parents warned the local authorities about him weeks in advance. He should have been picked up (monitored) by a localized resource. There is little to suggest our Federal apparatus could ever know about or react effectively to individual, rogue cases like these. Defining these as terrorism only muddies the waters of jurisdiction complicating an effective and appropriate response.

Worse, any official policy founded from this view risks becoming little more than a means of demonizing free speech; identifying, slandering, and eventually silencing dissent. Before you know it, anyone who posts an article authored by Ron Paul for example, will be placed on some kind of a "watch list". You may laugh, but it has happened.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

See, I think that one is bullsh*t, IMO. If your intent is to influence people's behavior through the use of fear of something really bad happening, then you're a terrorist as far as I'm concerned. There is no need to be influenced by a terrorist organization. If I didn't like it when people wore blue shirts and started shooting people who wore blue shirts and bombed stores that sold blue shirts, I would be a terrorizing those who wore and sold blue shirts; there is no need for a terrorist organization.

Wouldn't that person qualify as a serial murderer ? If 'fear' is the only symptom of terrorism, isnt that just a matter of perception ? Where would you draw the line ? A stalker/murderer/rapist/etc 'terrorize' their victims...so are they "terrorists"(practical) ?

Besides definitions, what laws would apply to whom and on what basis ? and penalties ? should a person like Bin Laden get the same charge and sentence as a stalker/rapist or vice versa ?

@OAW:
Any loss of innocent civilian life is regrettable whether it is 1 or 1000. Hence we have laws and protocols that legal armies of sovereign states are held up to. militias and terrorist groups such as hammas and hez are not official armies of any nation and so escape the jurisdiction of the rules of conduct. I use the word 'escape' because it is my opinion that these groups are supported by(financed,supply of arms, recognition, sanctuary, etc) by sovereign governments which do not want to be held accountable for the carnage and wars they illegally promote from their home soil onto other sovereign countries (much like the Taliban and it's relationship with AlQueda). With regard to your opinion on Hez..... what say you of their treatment of the (former)Christian populations of that region ? And what role does the Lebanese army play here ? Maybe Lebanon should declare Hez a part of the country's armed forces. why do you think they wont do that ? Simple... because if Hez becomes part of the official army, any attacks it does carry out would be under the banner of Lebanon, and thus would be considered official acts of war justifying a response from the army on the other side. Hez is a terrorist group, they are not part of Lebanon's nor Syria's nor Iran's armed forces. they operate within the jurisdiction of countries which support their actions/policies(unofficially of course). And no country should have to endure the harassment from these groups which escape the laws of the countries from which they operate and international laws regarding warfare.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Wouldn't that person qualify as a serial murderer ? If 'fear' is the only symptom of terrorism, isnt that just a matter of perception ? Where would you draw the line ? A stalker/murderer/rapist/etc 'terrorize' their victims...so are they "terrorists"(practical) ?

It depends on the person's goals. If the person is targeting people wearing blue shirts with some goal like "I want the Smith Company to stop making blue shirts" then he or she is a terrorist. If he or she has some kind of pathological hatred of blue shirts and simply wants to kill anyone who wears one, then he or she is not, in my view.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, I have a problem defining lone acts of violence as terrorism because there are jurisdictions/differences between localized threats and international organization often requiring a difference in the measure of response and because of the potential for abuse.

One of the examples given was a well-documented, mentally-ill person whose parents warned the local authorities about him weeks in advance. He should have been picked up (monitored) by a localized resource. There is little to suggest our Federal apparatus could ever know about or react effectively to individual, rogue cases like these. Defining these as terrorism only muddies the waters of jurisdiction complicating an effective and appropriate response.

Worse, any official policy founded from this view risks becoming little more than a means of demonizing free speech; identifying, slandering, and eventually silencing dissent. Before you know it, anyone who posts an article authored by Ron Paul for example, will be placed on some kind of a "watch list". You may laugh, but it has happened.

Well, the other answer to that problem is to stop viewing all terrorism as an existential threat demanding a national security response, and revert to treating it fundamentally as a police matter and escalating the response as necessary.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

@OAW:
Any loss of innocent civilian life is regrettable whether it is 1 or 1000. Hence we have laws and protocols that legal armies of sovereign states are held up to. militias and terrorist groups such as hammas and hez are not official armies of any nation and so escape the jurisdiction of the rules of conduct. I use the word 'escape' because it is my opinion that these groups are supported by(financed,supply of arms, recognition, sanctuary, etc) by sovereign governments which do not want to be held accountable for the carnage and wars they illegally promote from their home soil onto other sovereign countries (much like the Taliban and it's relationship with AlQueda). With regard to your opinion on Hez..... what say you of their treatment of the (former)Christian populations of that region ? And what role does the Lebanese army play here ? Maybe Lebanon should declare Hez a part of the country's armed forces. why do you think they wont do that ? Simple... because if Hez becomes part of the official army, any attacks it does carry out would be under the banner of Lebanon, and thus would be considered official acts of war justifying a response from the army on the other side. Hez is a terrorist group, they are not part of Lebanon's nor Syria's nor Iran's armed forces. they operate within the jurisdiction of countries which support their actions/policies(unofficially of course). And no country should have to endure the harassment from these groups which escape the laws of the countries from which they operate and international laws regarding warfare.

Regarding Hezbollah and the Christian populations of Lebanon, there isn't a simple answer ... as is the case with all of the politics in that country. During the Lebanon civil war there were Christian militias that were allied with the Israelis. That, of course, put them into the cross-hairs of the other militias that were fighting against the IDF .... including Hezbollah. But today, Hezbollah is openly allied with largest Christian political party in the country. Even the political system is formally sectarian since the Presidency is reserved for a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister's position is reserved for a Sunni Muslim, and the Speaker of Parliament's position is reserved for a Shia Muslim. So what is Hezbollah now? It operates a network of charities. It's a political party representing the Shia Muslim population of Lebanon that resides primarily in the south of the country. And it's also the only Arab militant organization to have any kind of success against the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It essentially operates a de facto "state within a state" in South Lebanon. It doesn't, however, control the entire country due to the byzantine ethnic and sectarian politics that exist. I think the main reason why it has not been absorbed into the official Lebanese Army is because that would put its power under the control of politicians from rival sects. Perhaps one day that will happen ... and it might not be a bad thing since the Lebanese Army quite frankly leaves a lot to be desired as a fighting force compared to Hezbollah. But given the nature of the political system in Lebanon I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. As it stands now, the only thing that would make the IDF think twice about invading Lebanon again is Hezbollah. And IMO, that's a major part of the reason why you don't see the other Lebanese sects clamoring for Hezbollah to disarm.

OAW

[Osedax]

Going back to the op-ed...

I disagree with Arsalan Iftikhar's contention:

Within the last month, our country has witnessed two senseless, high-profile acts of criminal violence that would have been labeled terrorism if brown-skinned Arab Muslim men with foreign-sounding names had committed them.

I do not believe the color of the skin has anything to do with whether those individuals are labeled terrorists or not.

The definition of terrorism isn't something everyone agrees on, but I do think this is a general representation of what determinations are used when deciding if an act is terrorism:

1. The main goal is to scare, intimidate or coerce, not personal gain
Things like rape, robbery and murder etc are not considered terrorism because they are done for personal gain (sex, money, goods etc).

You don't rob a bank to scare the clerk and customers, you do it for the cash. That the clerk and customers are scared is secondary.

2. You have an agenda greater then your actions.
Things like suicide bombing or random shootings are done because Group A doesn't believe in what group B believes or is doing and so, Group A uses violence to try to scare, intimidate or coerce Group B to stop the actions.

3. You are motivated by and with like minded people.
This is where it's most fuzzy. Typically we do not consider one person acting totally alone and with no outside influence to be an act of terrorism.

Being part of a group, even a group that hates the target, does not alone make it a terrorist act. What makes it terrorism is when the group is working specifically for a cause.

For example, let's say the person is an extremist anti-government group that meets and protests the government taxes etc. If that group encourages acts of violence against the government, then that group is a terrorist organization and any attacks by any member is considered terrorism.

However, if the group just "gripes a lot" but never encourages or plans to take action against the government and one person goes off on their own, then that is not considered terrorism. it's considered someone that cracked.

As I said, this is very fuzzy and there is an exception to this - if it is an on-going / repeated attack, then it can and will become terrorism. (Beltway sniper went from murder to terrorist after a few killings).

So as I said, I do not believe the color of the skin is what determined if they were terrorists or not. It is their affiliations.

Let us imagine that these Pentagon and IRS attacks had been committed by an olive-skinned Arab Muslim man named Ali Muhammad.

According to Arsalan Iftikhar, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez would never be called a terrorist because of the color of her skin.


Yet every article about her labels her a terrorist.

Being a terrorist is more then just shooting people, even if they are government workers. It's also about motive and affiliations.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

According to Arsalan Iftikhar, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez would never be called a terrorist because of the color of her skin.
Yet every article about her labels her a terrorist.
Being a terrorist is more then just shooting people, even if they are government workers. It's also about motive and affiliations.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Regarding Hezbollah and the Christian populations of Lebanon, there isn't a simple answer ... as is the case with all of the politics in that country. During the Lebanon civil war there were Christian militias that were allied with the Israelis. That, of course, put them into the cross-hairs of the other militias that were fighting against the IDF .... including Hezbollah. But today, Hezbollah is openly allied with largest Christian political party in the country. Even the political system is formally sectarian since the Presidency is reserved for a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister's position is reserved for a Sunni Muslim, and the Speaker of Parliament's position is reserved for a Shia Muslim. So what is Hezbollah now? It operates a network of charities. It's a political party representing the Shia Muslim population of Lebanon that resides primarily in the south of the country. And it's also the only Arab militant organization to have any kind of success against the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It essentially operates a de facto "state within a state" in South Lebanon. It doesn't, however, control the entire country due to the byzantine ethnic and sectarian politics that exist. I think the main reason why it has not been absorbed into the official Lebanese Army is because that would put its power under the control of politicians from rival sects. Perhaps one day that will happen ... and it might not be a bad thing since the Lebanese Army quite frankly leaves a lot to be desired as a fighting force compared to Hezbollah. But given the nature of the political system in Lebanon I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. As it stands now, the only thing that would make the IDF think twice about invading Lebanon again is Hezbollah. And IMO, that's a major part of the reason why you don't see the other Lebanese sects clamoring for Hezbollah to disarm.

OAW

Hehe... "Charities" ? Sounds reallyyyy dodgy.

Hez "successful" against the IDF ? Thats like saying house-flies win against humans. Theyre annoying and provoke a response and get pushed away. i doubt the house-fly would consider that a success, id call that cowardly...running away. Also, i doubt the mission of the IDF was to occupy Lebanon, despite the fact they made it to Beirut...twice. All they wanted was to stop the provocation, and since, as you mentioned, the Lebanese army is a joke and cannot deal with militias on their own soil which provoke wars, the IDF had to step in. "Charities" lol.... imagine if the 'make a wish' foundation started firing missiles across the border into Canada and the U.S. government does nothing. Would the Canadian Defense Force be obligated(to it's citizens) to respond ? heck yea.

Your opinion on Hez's status is a bit contradictory. They're a 'state within a state'...so they're not under the legal jurisdiction of Lebanon ? so they escape those laws. And they don't want to deal with the political/legal aspects of being an army... hmmm sounds an awful lot like a terrorist organization to me. And they're not a state/country, so they have no international obligations. hmm...seems like they get to do what they want with no accountability..... thats probably why they have not been absorbed into the official Lebanese armed forces. If u ask me, Lebanon is responsible for them and their actions. If Lebanon will not control them, Lebanon faces the consequences(as seen in 2006).

Israel and the IDF have nothing against Lebanon. They have probably thought more than twice about invading, as you said 'politics' and law and responsibility and accountability play a part in the decisions of 'real' armies. And as you said, Lebanon(and it's population) will not control them and they do not want to be under the control of Lebanon....so they operate with Lebanon's blessing.

But the IDF is not afraid of Hez... they chased Hez(who cowardly dress in civilian clothing) across the length of Lebanon. And as far the Christians in the south..... how many were left there ? Ever single non-muslim Lebanese person i have met over 20 years, has migrated out of Lebanon, those who are left probably fear for their lives...cause they are up against a gang operating outside any law. imho.

Israel on the other hand dealt with it's militias like the Irgun appropriately. Something none of the Arabs states want or are even capable of doing. That is their problem. I do not want to turn this into yet another Israel vs Arabs discussion because it's been beaten to death in these forums.

@ Osedax
I agree with you. And thanks for posting about 'Jamie Paulin-Ramirez', is she "JihadJane" ? And yes, she is a terrorist...and she is not brown. the fact that she got into the business of planning to kill a cartoonist after converting to Islam is....just a coincidence, i suppose.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Hehe... "Charities" ? Sounds reallyyyy dodgy.

Indeed. Hezbollah (and likewise Hamas) operates a network of charities which in many instances provide better social services to the people than the official government. Like it or not, this is simply a fact. Like I said earlier, there is a charitable wing, a political wing, and a military wing of the organization.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Hez "successful" against the IDF ? Thats like saying house-flies win against humans. Theyre annoying and provoke a response and get pushed away. i doubt the house-fly would consider that a success, id call that cowardly...running away. Also, i doubt the mission of the IDF was to occupy Lebanon, despite the fact they made it to Beirut...twice. All they wanted was to stop the provocation, and since, as you mentioned, the Lebanese army is a joke and cannot deal with militias on their own soil which provoke wars, the IDF had to step in.

Initially the IDF invaded Lebanon because the PLO had its base in south of that country. From there they staged attacks against the State of Israel in their attempts to regain control of what they considered to be Palestinian land. The IDF invaded in 1978 and pushed the PLO further north. A larger invasion was done in 1982 which resulted in the the PLO withdrawing completely from Lebanon. Hezbollah was setup as a resistance movement against IDF forces in Lebanon. The IDF also supported the South Lebanon Army .... which was yet another "militia" despite its name ... as its proxy in its fight against Hezbollah and the PLO. Now from 1978 to 2000 the IDF and its proxy the SLA maintained a "buffer zone" in south Lebanon. So I'm not sure how you can say that they didn't want to "occupy" that country. A country can't maintain military forces in another country for 22 years uninvited and say that's not an "occupation". Regardless of its motivations ... whether they were justified or not ... at the end of the day it was an occupation. The bottom line was that the South Lebanon Conflict was basically a low-level war between Hezbollah and the IDF (along with its proxy the SLA). It was also a proxy war between Israel on one side and Syria and Iran on the other.

As for whether or not Hezbollah was "successful" against the IDF ... that, of course, depends on how success is measured. Clearly Hezbollah is not able to defeat the IDF militarily. But at the same time, the IDF was unable to defeat Hezbollah militarily during the 2006 Lebanon War. That was a stated goal of the IDF action along with stopping Hezbollah rocket attacks into Northern Israel. Neither of these goals were achieved despite the massive destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure (and large numbers of Lebanese civilian casualties) ... so there are those who consider that a good showing militarily by Hezbollah against the much larger and superiorly equipped IDF. Certainly much better than the official Arab armies that got their asses handed to them in the 1948 and 1967 wars with Israel. It was the first time ever that the IDF was unable to vanquish an Arab foe in war. Hezbollah essentially fought the IDF to a stalemate on the ground by withstanding massive air attacks, naval and army shelling, and tank advances. And by inflicting some significant casualties on the IDF in return. When it was all said and done, it emerged even stronger politically in Lebanon. And its rocket arsenal is probably larger and more advanced now than before the 2006 war. IMO Hezbollah will certainly think twice before doing a cross-border raid and capturing IDF soldiers. And the IDF will certainly think twice before invading Lebanon again.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Your opinion on Hez's status is a bit contradictory. They're a 'state within a state'...so they're not under the legal jurisdiction of Lebanon ? so they escape those laws. And they don't want to deal with the political/legal aspects of being an army... hmmm sounds an awful lot like a terrorist organization to me. And they're not a state/country, so they have no international obligations. hmm...seems like they get to do what they want with no accountability..... thats probably why they have not been absorbed into the official Lebanese armed forces. If u ask me, Lebanon is responsible for them and their actions. If Lebanon will not control them, Lebanon faces the consequences(as seen in 2006).

Not contradictory at all. I'm just stating the facts and putting the "value judgements" aside. Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government. A powerful part as it has de facto "veto power" in the Lebanese Parliament. Its political wing has 12 of the 128 seats in the Parliament. And it has 1 minister out of 30 in the National Unity Government. And its influence extends even further due to its participation in the March 8 Alliance (AKA the Resistance & Development Bloc) which controls 56 of the 128 Parliamentary seats. Having said that, they also have their military wing. Imagine if a major political party in the US had its own militia that controlled certain states. That's essentially what Hezbollah is.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

But the IDF is not afraid of Hez... they chased Hez(who cowardly dress in civilian clothing) across the length of Lebanon. And as far the Christians in the south..... how many were left there ? Ever single non-muslim Lebanese person i have met over 20 years, has migrated out of Lebanon, those who are left probably fear for their lives...cause they are up against a gang operating outside any law. imho.

Well there are plenty of Christians in Lebanon. Approximately 40% of the population in fact. They have traditionally dominated the Lebanese government though that influence has waned in recent years, especially after the Syrian occupation. They are scattered throughout the rural areas but they are concentrated primarily in Beirut and Mount Lebanon. The south of Lebanon has always been primarily Shia though.

As for Hezbollah dressing in civilian clothing ... well is that "cowardly" or is that simply "smart"? I mean put aside the politics of it or which side you support or not The fact remains that Hezbollah is a paramilitary organization that engages in guerilla warfare against the IDF. And doing this, as well as blending into civilian populations, is classic guerilla warfare strategy. All around the world. Just look at the Viet Cong and how they operated against the US during the Vietnam war. For Hezbollah to don "uniforms" and engage the IDF "toe to toe" out in some open field would be military suicide. That's like a 10 year old kid trying to fight Mike Tyson. It's crazy talk.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I do not want to turn this into yet another Israel vs Arabs discussion because it's been beaten to death in these forums.

Agreed.

OAW

[Hawkeye_a]

Hez a "charity" organization... indeed.

I wonder if contributors/supporters of this "charity" should also bear the responsibility of its charitable practices.