Stop Crying 'Terrorism' Every Time We're Attacked

[dr. mabuse]

*

[G]

I'll tell you why I think definitions are important:

If we cannot define what / whom we are fighting and why, we cannot win. If we are confused, we cannot win.

I think that the writer is saying we need to be on the same page about what we are doing. He is showing the confusion that exists out there, even among the people "who should know better".

If we understand implicitly and explicitly why we are fighting, then that is the first step to defeating the enemy. When I say "we" I am not talking about the type of person who would post on this board, I am talking about the general populations of our countries. They have to know what our soldiers and intel agencies are trying to achieve and why. Unfortunately, I don't think they do.

By using weasel words such as "man-caused disasters", by not using words like "terrorist", "islamist" or "jihadist" and instead talk about "militants" or angry young men etc, we start to blinker ourselves. We intentionally take away our sight of who the enemy is.

It is important to know the difference between an act of terrorism and an act of war. Targeting combatants in the AO is an act of war, not an act of terrorism. We are at war in order to prevent further acts of terrorism. More than that, we are at war to prevent a particular ideology (islamism) from being able to achieve its aims (which have been explained clearly in many threads here).

So many Western gvt's are moving away from using clear definitions, the US, the UK, Aus that I am afraid we are setting ourselves up for disaster. If the populations of our countries don't understand what all this is about, then they will vote to end this war before it's time, which will result (in the short term) in acts of terrorism on our streets, and worse than that in the longer term.

My (humble) 2c.

G

[LongWire]

Originally Posted by Richard

Actually - I read it as more a statement to the effect that we (as a nation, our NCA, reporting MSM and blogospheric pundits) seem pretty confused by the whole GWOT while our enemies appear to have a pretty distinctive and more cohesive point-of-view about it - terrorism vs terroristic acts.

Richard's $.02

I agree with Richard's view, and some of the others.

We have a tendency to heap things up under a word and act like it defines or encompasses a set of acts or events in order to prosecute our actions or reactions against.

Racketeering as defined by New Oxford:

racketeer |ˌrakiˈti(ə)r|
noun
a person who engages in dishonest and fraudulent business dealings.

I think of these acts thanks to our laws (lawyers) as being extortion, money laundering, receiving stolen goods/selling stolen goods, counterfeiting, book making, protection enforcement Etc...... as a means to profit and further Organized Crime.....all part of Rico as I understand it.

So what are we calling Terrorism? Not just the definition, and how do we define individual acts or events? The act in Afghan is pretty clear on an act of War IMHO.

Hasan in my mind could go either way, that would go to motive and state of mind, if one were to ask a lawyer.

I believe it will be harder for the NCA to define what specifically the definition of terror encompasses in the furtherance of prosecuting a GWOT IMHO, if one were to single out specific acts or events. Its not PC to declare Jihad on Islam. It would have to bring out another term such as Radical Islam and provide definition to suit the lawyers.

Meanwhile the guys on the ground "Have To" (and they are) provide or look at our key terms to conduct operations. These are Task, Purpose, Intent, and End State. It would do the NCA a world of good to look at and apply those as well, because I'm not so sure they know what these are..........

[99meters]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

Seems as if he's trying to legitimize the attacks on the CIA Base and Fort Hood because of the targets - to paint the jihadis as nobel warriors because those killed were Soldiers (or intel professionals prosecuting acts of war).

Political correctness already prevents many from calling them jihadis. Now he's trying to expand political correctness to prevent calling them terrorists.

Perhaps he'd prefer if we called them "the most nobel Soldiers of Allah."

If its a "war", then these guys should be seen as good soldiers. What else can you call someone who fights for his side in a war zone.
The fact that these guys a willing to strap a bomb to their chest and blow themselves up should not atomatically earn them the clasification of a terrorist. I think most Americans see such an individual as crazy and conclude he/she has to be a loony terrorist.
I would guess that many of the QP here have or would take missions knowing there is a 50% chance they may not make it ( I know they would give it all to save each other). How much less crazy are they from the guy who takes a mission against a known enemy knowing there is a 100% chance he is not making it.
..................

I don't think the problem is with the word "terrorism". I think the problem is with the word "war". It's my opinion that the statement the GWOT is as stupid as the statement "the war on drugs". Who are you declaring war on?

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by PRB

No comment on the article or the authors intent.

I've always drawn a distinction between military targets and civilian targets.
CIA is a legitimate target for the enemy.
The Ft. Hood deal is simply a traitor motivated by Islam. Terrorism fits this scenario in some aspects.

My problem with terms is that we often use them as more than descriptive in nature but as an end unto themselves....to define our present and future actions.

Our primary problem is we still have not defined the 'enemy'...non nation state organizations and "individuals" that are making war on our Nation.

We need to declare war. Period.
Declare war on non Nation state org, name them, declare our intent to destroy them unconditionally and thru any/all means.

If you harbor, coexist you do so at your own peril.

This criminal/ vs terr vs...whatever is the issue or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

We've complicated the situation and can actually simplify it.

Very well put PRB,agree with you completely......

Big Teddy