Surely it's only terrorism if he or she is doing it to gain a political goal?

i feel, as a young adult in the this country, that my views of terrorism have been shaped to the idea of a senseless act of anything that causes mass hysteria and a national bonding is known as terrorism. its almost gotten to the point where i welcome acts of 'terror' because it seems to be the only moments when this country can get together and make decisions or really act.

enough untouched oil in alaska to run our country for many many years and were worried about the effects any actions in the middle east will have on our economy. i think that, unfortunately, it takes loss of life before anything gets done, and that saddens me.

Terrorism is a meaningless word. It basically means any act of violence the other side doesn't like (and sometimes not even violence is required before the label gets thrown around). Enough already.

Isn't the easy answer "don't be violent"?

what are your thoughts

Not very happy as I am working the next week here in Herndon, Virginia..... my boss (with his wife and 3 kids) is down the road in Manassas (site of the latest killing) and my kid sister (and her 4 kids) are up in PG County Maryland (site of the initial killings).

As we were driving back from Baltimore today listening to the latest updates, I wondered if this murderous party spent some time scouting out hides (is that the right term?) where they could fire from good cover and then escape. And, tarot card or not, I don't see any great amount of desire to break cover.

If this is so, and perhaps even if it is not, I have a bad, gut-level, prediction, one that I hope will be shown wrong: I don't think that that this killer will be apprehended.

My return flight is next Wednesday at 5:00 PM. Can't wait.

best of luck to you jim.

If you wear a kevlar vest and you run in zig-zags anytime you're outside (just don't stand still), I think you'll be safe. It'll be much harder for him to shoot a moving target, and kevlar will easily stop a .22 (isn't that what he's using?). Though of course you'll look silly, and you probably have a greater chance of dying in a car wreck then being hit by the sniper.

The shells are .223, much different than the .22 you are thinking of, and kevlar vests have a nasty habit of not protecting the parts the don't cover (think 'head').

Wow, interesting Jim. My girlfriend lives not far from where you'll be working. She's a Loudon County resident, and just over the Herndon border. But it's a neat coincidence that you'll be in the area at the same time. Wish there were some sort of empeg meet going on, sniper or no.

i feel, as a young adult in the this country, that my views of terrorism have been shaped to the idea of a senseless act of anything that causes mass hysteria and a national bonding is known as terrorism.

I feel, as a young(ish) adult in this country, that my views of terrorism have been shaped by the IRA and the Northern Ireland conflict. Even at the height of the IRA "terror campaign" of the eighties and early nineties, there were still plenty of people -- perhaps a majority of people -- in Britain who just didn't know the extent to which the mechanisms of state in Northern Ireland oppressed the Catholic minority. (The Patten report, for instance, described the Northern Ireland police as "falling far short of the human rights standards to be expected in a modern democracy".)

So I've ended up with the idea that terrorism is often not a disease as such, but a symptom of other underlying societal problems. Democracy is all well and good as a way of preventing a minority from repressing the majority, but it doesn't help in a situation where the majority is repressing a minority -- especially if the media too is largely run by "the majority". Terrorism doesn't in itself solve those sorts of problems either, of course, but sending a message that there is a problem is sometimes the difficult first step towards finding a solution.

That's why I don't think that a (presumably) rich bored white male playing a first-person shooter with innocent people's lives, deserves to be dignified with the name of terrorist. He's not repressed. He's not sending a message. He's just a criminal.

enough untouched oil in alaska to run our country for many many years and were worried about the effects any actions in the middle east will have on our economy. i think that, unfortunately, it takes loss of life before anything gets done, and that saddens me.

What saddens me more is when loss of life causes people who don't see the big picture, to try and cure the disease by suppressing the symptoms -- which just leaves the actual problem to get worse and worse. So the British government initially dealt with Republican terrorism by pouring more militarised, predominantly Unionist, security forces into Northern Ireland (and, whether officially or not, supporting Unionist paramilitaries). And the Spanish government deals with Basque terrorism by outlawing the Basque political movement. And the US government deals with Columbine by training teachers to "profile" misfits rather than worrying about why dominant cliques create misfits in the first place. And the US government (again) follows a Middle-East policy of supporting petty dictator A versus petty dictator B according to oil and defence-industry interests, calling it democracy (who won the last Kuwaiti general election?) and backed by an electorate who, to paraphrase the Disposable Heroes, think the Middle-East means Tennessee but know a low gas price when they see one. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The only positive thing I've got to say, is that every media pundit in sight was saying, after Tiananmen Square, that global media in general and the Internet in particular were beginning to mean that totalitarian governments couldn't get away with that kind of stuff any more. Perhaps eventually democratic governments will realise that they can't get away with it either.

Peter

That's why I don't think that a (presumably) rich bored white male playing a first-person shooter with innocent people's lives, deserves to be dignified with the name of terrorist. He's not repressed. He's not sending a message. He's just a criminal.

I'll agree with that. My major problem with Al Qaeda (a group I think we can all view as terrorist from any viewpoint -- not that anyone brought it up) is that they don't seem to expend much effort in making their points known; it's all posturing. They're like a woman saying ``If you don't know why I'm mad, I'm not telling you''. The IRA and PLO, for examples, always made sure that everyone knew why they they were doing the things they did. But Al Qaeda seems much more interested in killing folks than trying to get things changed.

every media pundit in sight was saying, after Tiananmen Square, that global media in general and the Internet in particular were beginning to mean that totalitarian governments couldn't get away with that kind of stuff any more

Too bad they were wrong (so far).

I don't think AL Qaeda is as interested in changing things as they are in killing infidels. If Muhammed Atta just wanted to change something on earth (policy or whatever), then I don't think he would have gone on a suicide mission.

Terrorism doesn't in itself solve those sorts of problems either, of course, but sending a message that there is a problem is sometimes the difficult first step towards finding a solution.

My reaction is the same as one might take to a crying baby who realizes by crying they get attention, because I don't know how else to discourage it: if terrorism is your answer, you have no rational basis to complain about being repressed.

You can say it's a reaction, but one you lose the moral high ground, you're dirt.

And I can say it without hypocrisy, because I've known for years that I'm dirt; I never had any moral high ground, despite my dislike of terrorism.

What saddens me more is when loss of life causes people who don't see the big picture, to try and cure the disease by suppressing the symptoms

Allow me to take the other side: if you aren't doing anything to restrain people who advocate your position, why should anyone take you seriously? (not you particularly, obviously)

Don't get the idea that I'm holding up the government here as ideal, either. Not a chance. The Clinton administration was less odious, at least, but these ones have foreign policy which basically boils down to "piss all over everyone who doesn't share our agenda". I didn't vote for them. I pray that in the next election Bush doesn't manage to make himself a "wartime president" and thus get retained, and maybe, maybe we have a chance to salvage the government's image in the eyes of other countries.

But Al Qaeda seems much more interested in killing folks than trying to get things changed.

Yeah, its because they think it is religious, and that anyone not following their religion (especially Americans) are evil. Hence it is a holy war to them.

I totally agree.. they don't make readily available the reason for their terrorism - their message. I believe they simply don't care, the only answer to them is to destroy our way of life. I say 'our' to not mean 'American' but anyone that lives in freedom. And they are unfortunately hijaking the very religion that they are "fighting for". Although it is unfortunate to see and have seen in the past, lots of blood has been spilled over various religious disputes - such (unfortunate) irony since the major religions themselves seem to have a common moral thread that teaches peace and love.

Although the sniper is terrorizing the crap out of people around here, he is a crazed criminal that unfortunately has a gun, and I don't take it as being acts of terrorism. In fact, I don't think I've heard terrorism mentioned in any local news coverage about the sniper here. I think the comments that several people here made about what terrorism really is are correct.

they don't seem to expend much effort in making their points known

I thought bin Laden had made himself perfectly clear: He wants the West to get out of the Muslim countries. He particularly wants the US to stop propping up the Saudi government.

He's concerned that Western secularism is eroding the Islamic fervour of the people. This is (to him) a Bad Thing.

Yeah, its because they think it is religious, and that anyone not following their religion (especially Americans) are evil. Hence it is a holy war to them.

Actually, there are plenty of non-Islamic, relatively free countries in the world which are not hated by Al-Qaeda. It's specifically the US which they have a problem with.

I totally agree.. they don't make readily available the reason for their terrorism - their message. I believe they simply don't care, the only answer to them is to destroy our way of life. I say 'our' to not mean 'American' but anyone that lives in freedom.

I always had the impression that it had more to do with US foreign policy in the Middle-East. I suspect that, much as with British foreign policy in Northern Ireland in the 80s, the oppressor nation's media (and the media of close allies) have not been telling the story entirely even-handedly.

Peter

if terrorism is your answer, you have no rational basis to complain about being repressed.

You can say it's a reaction, but one you lose the moral high ground, you're dirt.

Yes, I think the whole issue is that it's a reaction. And the terrorists are being irrational and immoral. The question is, what awesome and terrible forces are acting on these human beings that can turn them immoral enough to kill 2,800 of some other country's citizens, or irrational enough to give their lives doing so?

Have you seen news footage of Garvaghy Road in Belfast? It's an utterly ordinary-looking street of houses on a utterly ordinary-looking housing estate that could be anywhere in Britain. But when the Orange Order is marching down it, both verges are lined with Army landrovers nose-to-tail, filled with armed soldiers, and people on opposite sides of the landrovers are throwing pipebombs at each other. You don't need to have a high opinion of the morals or rationality of the pipebomb-throwers to realise that the big picture is that something has gone terribly, terribly wrong with this ordinary street of houses on an ordinary housing estate, and that even if you could arrest the entire community it wouldn't help.

Peter

Well shit. These killings are going to be all around me. I know it sounds selfish, but I was supposed to drive back home today. Not there was a killing in Fredericksburg, which is half-way home. It's raining, it's Friday, and the roads are blocked off. It's gonna take like 7 hours to drive home. This suck.

And then I'm just driving into all this crap. Damn.

I thought bin Laden had made himself perfectly clear

It wasn't my intent to say that he hadn't. Rather, that he/they don't make a lot of effort into promoting that. If that was his real concern, he'd spend more time making, for lack of a better term, press junkets, when, in fact, apparently almost all of his time is spent in killing folks, and even some of that is done so that we don't know it was necessarily them, which doesn't promote extending his concerns.

Those facts lead me to believe that his espoused reasons for his terrorism are simply there to supoprt his killing, rather than the other way around.

Of course, my facts could be incorrect. I'm sure that, at least in part, the reasons that Al Qaeda messages were ``banned'' is that more westerners would begin to understand his concerns. It would be horribly unfortunate if this was all because he was under the impression that westerners understood his cause and didn't care, when, in fact, they didn't, and still don't, know.

Just curious, what is the "this" in the comment "unfortunate if this was all because..." to which you refer?

Specifically, the World Trade Center attack. Generally, all the Al Qaeda terrorist actions. Which has nothing to do with the DC-area sniper.

The question is, what awesome and terrible forces are acting on these human beings that can turn them immoral enough to kill 2,800 of some other country's citizens, or irrational enough to give their lives doing so?

If I start caring, they win. As long as I see them for what they are, they've lost.

You do have a point, and I'm really not trying to gloss over it, but this is something that I'm entirely consistent about: once you start doing stuff which causes harm, in many cases irreversible and often final, to other people in the guise of whatever cause, I hope to see you and your cause get smashed. If you want to throw away the basis for society, fine, but why do you feel the need to drag as many other people down with you as possible? It's all talk... "it's so bad here that..." and it's bull, if it's so bad, leave. "They won't let us" is also bull, because they also won't let you kill people, and yet...

In that vein, I need to figure out where my own life is going, because if we're going to continue walking all over other countries, I can't stay forever, but nor can I support for instance overthrow of the government by other than electoral means, because again, it involves walking on innocent people to achieve one's ends, which to get back to my original point, is lower than dirt.

If I'm rambling, I apologize.

"the oppressor nation's media (and the media of close allies) have not been telling the story entirely even-handedly."

If I'm going to believe one news source, it'll be over here where we have freedom of the press and not Propaganda TV in the mideast. I know we have propaganda here, too, but it is usually subtle and not far from the truth since we have plenty of competing news agencies, and it's in their best interest to report the facts.



"the reasons that Al Qaeda messages were ``banned'' is that more westerners would begin to understand his concerns."

What do you mean? When were Al Qaeda messages 'banned' and by who? Do you mean the major news networks? The governement couldn't legally ban any information and I don't think that ALL of the news businesses in the west would just suddenly decide not to report something that is certainly newsworthy.

or do you mean banned by Bin Laden? If so, I didn't know he did.

"the oppressor nation's media (and the media of close allies) have not been telling the story entirely even-handedly."

If I'm going to believe one news source, it'll be over here where we have freedom of the press and not Propaganda TV in the mideast. I know we have propaganda here, too, but it is usually subtle and not far from the truth since we have plenty of competing news agencies, and it's in their best interest to report the facts.

Hopefully, then, you aren't going to believe one news source, but will piece together your understanding of what's going on through a multitude of news sources. The propaganda here (in the US) is hardly what I would consider "subtle", unless you consider being smacked over the head with a 2x4 subtle. The trouble isn't the "subtle propaganda" that gets printed, it's the volume of what doesn't get printed that's more worrisome -- US media has a distinct tendancy to ignore anything that, on a national scale, casts doubt on US policy, or otherwise portrays the US in a negative light. Why? Because the major US media outlets are owned by large conglomerates that are beholden to the government. Sure, individual reporters may be free of bias, but it's the editors and their superiors that determine the political leanings of what they publish, and those people still curry favour with the politicos. If you want to have any real idea of what's going on in the world, take up reading non-US media. The Gaurdian is a good place to start.

"the reasons that Al Qaeda messages were ``banned'' is that more westerners would begin to understand his concerns."

What do you mean? When were Al Qaeda messages 'banned' and by who? Do you mean the major news networks? The governement couldn't legally ban any information and I don't think that ALL of the news businesses in the west would just suddenly decide not to report something that is certainly newsworthy.

Yes, the government can legally ban any information they want. "I'm sorry... that tape you have of Bin Laden giving a speech? We're in the middle of a war now. You can't play that because it may contain coded messages for his followers. That tape is now classified information." And yes, the media does withhold newsworthy items at the behest of the government, and yes, the government hides information from the media that is of great interest to the public. The magic words are "we're at war".

I know we have propaganda here, too, but it is usually subtle and not far from the truth

"They hate us because we are free"?

Peter

You do have a point, and I'm really not trying to gloss over it, but this is something that I'm entirely consistent about: once you start doing stuff which causes harm, in many cases irreversible and often final, to other people in the guise of whatever cause, I hope to see you and your cause get smashed.

But I think this would end up with both opposing causes getting smashed in most of the world's terrorist theatres. Most terrorism starts as a response to irreversible and often final humanitarian harm: it seems to be a good rule of thumb, a bit like Boyle's Law, that oppressing people turns them into terrorists, and --at least for creating largish terrorist groups -- no other force seems strong enough to do so.

I'm discounting lone terrorists such as the Unabomber here. Such people often think they're being oppressed, but the reason they think that is because they're mentally ill.

If I start caring, they win. As long as I see them for what they are, they've lost.

The only way, short of genocide, to end any genuine terrorist conflict is for both sides to stop thinking in terms of "terrorists winning" or "terrorists losing". As long as there are any terrorists, both sides are losing badly. Although, as Northern Ireland shows, the tissue of delicately-worded compromises needed to achieve a situation where, for once, there is peace and both sides win, can be elusive and fragile.

Indeed, is it possible at all? Looking at the centuries-old Northern Ireland conflict, or the century-old (at least) Palestine conflict, it's easy to believe that resolution is unachievable. But other equally volatile situations have been defused. There are no terrorists in England still fighting the Wars of the Roses, or the Catholic/Protestant conflicts of the 1600s. Healing can come. But it takes the removal of oppression, it takes gifted peacemakers, and, most importantly, it takes generations.

Peter

Let me restate what I was trying to say earlier....there's lots of propaganda over here, probably just as much as in the mideast. The difference is we have the freedom to say what we want and share information as we please, so we get to see all sides of the story. People in Iraq only get to hear Saddam's side of the story, and the Afghani's only view of the outside world was Al Jazeera TV. And if they speak against what they say then they can end up dead.

I think the people in the mideast are being oppressed, but not by us, by their own governments. The US would want nothing more than the mideast to be a free democracy, because then people would start to think for themselves, put down their AK's and their bombs, do something for themselves, boost the economy, and hopefully become a stable, peaceful country. They think they're being oppressed by US foreign policy, but in reality the people who are oppressing them are feeding them propaganda (and stamping out any opposing voice) so that they don't realize it. So where some terrorists would fight to combat genuine oppression, I think that the arab terrorists are fighting a non-existant cause and are blinded from seeing their true oppressors for what they are.

Unless of course everything I've been told about the rest of the world has been a complete lie (i've never been to the mideast), but in that case my parents could be robots for all I know and my surroundings just illusions.

...but nor can I support for instance overthrow of the government by other than electoral means

Just curious, which government... Iraq or the US?

Ours. Note that I don't particularly support our overthrow of theirs, but what happens there is much less my business as long as it's not our fault.

Most terrorism starts as a response to irreversible and often final humanitarian harm
but at least those people (usually) don't lie and claim to be freedom fighters or some other B.S.

The only way, short of genocide, to end any genuine terrorist conflict is for both sides to stop thinking in terms of "terrorists winning" or "terrorists losing.

If you're right, that's ok, because I'm under no delusion that I can do anything anyhow.

Healing can come. But it takes the removal of oppression, it takes gifted peacemakers, and, most importantly, it takes generations.

And I'm way too cynical to believe that just because it can, it will. Hence my seething resentment of everyone involved.