Monday, May 28, 2007

A Word Without Definition

I got a lot of criticism for arguing that the six people who planned to massacre soldiers at Fort Dix weren't terrorists, but just simple enemies of America.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Nightline last year;

"Somebody who is fighting against Israeli soldiers is an enemy and we will fight back, but I believe that this is not under the definition of terrorism, if the target is a soldier."

I would have to agree with her. The six men who set out to massacre soldiers at Fort Dix were enemies of America, but they were not terrorists. Terrorists are enemies who target the defenseless to create a sense of fear and terror. Terrorists target places that are easy to attack; commercial buildings, mass transportation, etc. Their targets are what people need to live their everyday lives and their goal is to scare us into changing our everyday lives.

Fort Dix is a military installation. When a person or group feels they must declare war on America, their targets should be soldiers, not private citizens. They will be labeled enemies and we will fight back, but military installations are the "legitimate" targets. American soldiers are trained, equipped, and well aware their job is to to defend themselves and their country and then fight enemies, while the civilian population is, for the most part, not trained and prepared to fight back immediately, nor should necessarily have to. It is appropriate, I think, to ask this simple question; If these six men weren't Islamic fundamentalists, if they were white supremacists, neo-Nazis, or just mentally-ill individuals with guns, would they still be terrorists? We cannot use the term "terrorist" so loosely and we need to put forth a more specific definition as to what it is.

While most of us will agree flying planes or driving bomb-filled cars into privately own civilian buildings is terrorism, as it is meant to terrorize people from going to work as they normally would, the definition of what is a terrorist does seem to expand depending on where you are. In Alabama, for example, the state's Department of Homeland Security recently listed gay rights organizations and anti-war groups as possible breeding grounds for terrorists. As far as I know, no gay rights or anti-war organization has sought to slaughter and incite fear in the minds of every American. No gay rights or anti-war groups have blown themselves up on buses or planted bombs on subways, but Alabama, until just recently, saw them as potential hotbeds of terrorism. I have, however, heard of ANTI-gay, PRO-life terrorism; Eric Rudolph, for example, who bombed an Alabama abortion clinic in 1998 and a lesbian nightclub in Atlanta in 1997.

Without a specific definition of what legally explains what terrorism is and who can be a terrorist, we're fighting a war based on each and every American's interpretation of the word and everyone's specific idea as to what is "terrorizing" to them. To some, I have no doubt pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-war groups are potential breeding grounds for what they would consider "terrorists," even if they never threaten to build a bomb. The same holds true for some who think the same way toward pro-life, anti-gay, socially conservative and nationalist groups. Some may consider Eric Rudolph a terrorist and I'm sure there are some who do not, even though they think the For Dix Six are terrorists.

You cannot fight a war against something that everyone interprets the meaning of differently. Perhaps if we wish to fight a "war on terrorism," we must come together and figure out what "terrorism" actually is.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You quote the Isreali Foreign Minister as saying,

"Somebody who is fighting against Israeli soldiers is an enemy and we will fight back, but I believe that this is not under the definition of terrorism, if the target is a soldier."

You go on to say that "I would have to agree with her."

That's an interesting statement, especially in light of the fact that the current rulers in the White House are implicated in the worst attack on American soil -- an act of State sponsored terrorism... by our own government.

Consider this fact (and research yourself), that there is only ONE company sharing the security for all 7 WTC buildings in New York, United Airlines security, and American Airlines security at Dulles Airforce Base -- the 3 parties involved in the 911 terrorist attack...

that company is SECURACOM.

The chief executive officer of SECURACOM at that time was a fellow named Wirt D. Walker -- of the WALKER-BUSH clan.

Wirt D. Walker is a COUSIN to the current US President -- BUSH 43.

More interesting still, the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of SECURACOM was none other than MARVIN BUSH !! THE BROTHER OF BUSH 43, the current occupant of the White House.

Go figure!

These are verifiable facts. I have seen legal court briefs on the principals of SECURACOM that verify this incredible assertion.

Anonymous said...

Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly...

and no one will need to enquire as to your god.

We must never forget our mortality...we will all die...that is a fact.

What occurs beyond the grave, is the subject of belief and religion and philosophy. It is of interest to science only if it can be repeatable and verifiable.

Since the successful repetition of a "resurrection" has not been demonstrated, it remains unfounded the claims of "rising from the dead". Rather, many perceive this as a metaphor about being born anew, seeing things in a wholly new light. Overcoming even the bindings of death! A sense of invincibility.

Mythologies throughout history have afforded a perspective on the world born of attempts to explain the events of life, the life of community, the mysteries about the origin and destiny of humanity.

The bible affords one of many possible meanings to the human experience, origin and destiny.

Is it the only one? Is it the best one?

There is some value to the book; but there is also a degree of danger with any set of teachings, whether spiritual, social, political, or economic.

Religious teachings teach one to respect the authority of the church or the religious institution. So, learning submission to authority is key to this school of thinking. The robed ones have the food we crave, and we the appetite to eat it!

Human nature will always devise elaborate schemes for explaining the events of human life in theological and mythological terms -- rather than following the rigors of reason.

Authority loves compliance. But democracy promotes the aristocracy of the people - a rule of the many for the common good.

So religion is good for you if you need authority. But it quickly becomes tyrrany of the mind when the vice-grip of dogma seizes the impulse of inquiry.

When the human being becomes a person, an individuated entity with knowledge of boundaries, limitations, and possibilities...s/he emerges from the demands of external authority and embraces a radical personal responsibility.

No demons are responsible for my thoughts, nor for my feelings. I alone take responsibility for my thoughts, feelings, and actions.

I judge no one; and no one judges me.