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.