Rererereredefining "Terrorism"

[bartl]

RE: This week's column

I HATE the terms "war on terror" or "war on terrorism". Because it isn't really. We can't even agree on an operative definition of what "terrorism" is. "Terrorist" is being used as a euphemism for a new kind of enemy; groups without nations, although frequently with support from nations, or groups within nations. They are frequently not friends, but they are frequently allies. They represent a movement that has existed over centuries, but has recently gotten out of control, so now many governments who used to use them have lost control and now fear them.

Because they represent several radical forms of Islam, political correctness makes it difficult to identify them. The term "Islamic Fascist" has been used; complaints that Hitler was not called a "Christian Fascist" come, but it is also noted that he was not looking for a Christian supremacy; he was lookiing for a GERMAN supremacy.

They represent no given nation, which has caused a majority of a body no less than the U.S. Supreme Court to refuse to recognize this as an international conflict.

But many of these groups, as they have no standing army, use tactics commonly called "terrorism". But, as I said, "terrorism" has many definitions. So, we have people who use the euphemisms to try to redefine the war (similarly to the way "anti-Semitism", originally a euphemism for "Jew hating", got twisted because, technically speaking, Arabs are Semites, too).

And, of course, because this is a new kind of conflict, there is even a question of whether it is actually a war. This makes a big difference, especially when going after the larger groups or their allies. If this is a war, that is a legitimate way to go. But if it's a crime problem, then it is not legitimate to go after the allies of the perpetrators; we can only go after the perpetrators themselves.

I'm not offering a solution here; it's more of an outlining of what I consider to be a key aspect of the problem, opening it for discussion.

[Steven Grant]

Yeah, it is a huge problem.

A big problem with calling them "Islamic fascists" is that they aren't fascists... "Terrorism" is such a broad concept that it can only really be defined per incident. There's no doubt that flying planes into skyscrapers counted as terrorism, and, generally, blowing up infrastructure elements like factories counts as terrorism. But what about a factory that pumps poisons into water that kill children in the area and the government of the country in question refuses to take any action against the factory to force them to clean up their act, and oppresses any local that pipes up about it? Is blowing up that factory an act of terrorism or of self-defense? (This is a hypothetical, of course.) The government involved and the factory owners will almost surely call it an act of terrorism, because the action is extralegal, but in some cases going through legal channels will be a guaranteed dead end that will just eat up time while people keep dying. In countries where the governments are unresponsive to their citizens and allow them no means to address and correct the situation, are violent actions of those citizens against their governments, with an eye toward forcing a change or inspiring a popular uprising, to be considered terrorism? Are the only legitimate governments democratically elected ones? Then what constitutes a democratic election? How democratic do elections have to be before they're acceptable?

I don't ask these questions looking for answers to them, because the answers change situationally, and no single answer can be applied to all situations. But this puts us into the land of pragmatism, which many seem to feel is morally repugnant...

- Grant

[cactusmaac]

Radical Islamists have a reverence for some past golden age analagous to the one the Nazis had, hate Jews, appear to be acting out of a sense of sheer anger and insecurity and exalt the Muslim world as previous fascists exalted their states. In that sense, the fascism tag fits. However they also adhere to a revolutionary, genuinely internationalist and ant-capitalist movement echoing communism. So the tag is an inexact one.

[Nick Soapdish]

Radical Islamists have a reverence for some past golden age analagous to the one the Nazis had, hate Jews, appear to be acting out of a sense of sheer anger and insecurity and exalt the Muslim world as previous fascists exalted their states. In that sense, the fascism tag fits. However they also adhere to a revolutionary, genuinely internationalist and ant-capitalist movement echoing communism. So the tag is an inexact one.

But most of those similarities with the Nazis aren't key elements of fascism.

- Exalting the state is. Something that we've been doing a lot of (flag-burning amendments?)

- The anger and insecurity is what helped drive fascism, but it's not a part of it by itself. And it seems to be driving a lot of the US response to the radical Islamists. Would that make us fascists?

- Neither is hating Jews. That's the Nazis.

There are a few similarities, but you might as well say that Sweden is a fascist state because it's mostly white people and it's in Europe, just like Germany and Italy were. It's true, but it's peripheral to the definition.

[Rhydaman]

Yeah, it is a huge problem.

A big problem with calling them "Islamic fascists" is that they aren't fascists...

Anti-materialist, war-glorifying, youth loving, anti-enlightenment, group intervention in all aspects of life, elevation of a single leader (bin laden) above a vaguely syndicalist network of groups, obsession with the onset of decadence and the opportunity to heroically deliver us from it, belief that the spilling of blood will offer deliverance, and so on and so on. This isn't a million miles from textbook fascism. The only thing it lacks is a 'nation', but this version of fascism seems to use the umma as a substitute for a nation. It's walking and quacking a lot like fascism to me.

"Terrorism" isn't too hard, either. Aiming military or other violent attacks against a civilian population with the intention of creating fear/terror among them. Acts against a particular piece of infrastructure don't normally qualify, unless the civilian impact is far greater than any impact on military/economic capacity.

Of course, historically, governments have agreed that nothing that they do can constitute terrorism; they think it's the exclusive preserve of non-state actors. So an alternative definition of terrorism might be: "the sort of thing that would be a war crime if military forces did it".

I don't agree with Bartl that this type of conflict is at all new, though. There have been terrorist acts, and conflicts with terrorist groups, since the invention of explosives.

[cactusmaac]

But most of those similarities with the Nazis aren't key elements of fascism.

- Exalting the state is. Something that we've been doing a lot of (flag-burning amendments?)

Uhh, I really think you're overstating how similar it is. How many people have been murdered as a result of burning US flags?

- The anger and insecurity is what helped drive fascism, but it's not a part of it by itself. And it seems to be driving a lot of the US response to the radical Islamists. Would that make us fascists?

.................

- Neither is hating Jews. That's the Nazis.

Didn't they write the book on fascism? Mussolini persecuted Italian Jews and was fairly unique among Italian leaders in doing so. Franco actually allowed Spain to act as a safe haven for Jews but various disciples of his started attaching themselves to neo Nazi groups in the 60s.

There are a few similarities, but you might as well say that Sweden is a fascist state because it's mostly white people and it's in Europe, just like Germany and Italy were. It's true, but it's peripheral to the definition.

I beg to differ.

[bartl]

I don't agree with Bartl that this type of conflict is at all new, though. There have been terrorist acts, and conflicts with terrorist groups, since the invention of explosives.

This is the first time such a war has been fought offensively, as opposed to defensively.

[Steven Grant]

Fascism, technically, is the corporate state, or a state designed along the lines of a corporation, with the head of state being the source of decisions and orders which are then handed down the pyramid of power for others to unquestioningly carry out or pass on down the pyramid for others to carry out. There are executives, executive managers, middle managers, managers, employees. Technically all things in the state are the property of the state, including the citizens. So there's spillover with totalitarianism, though while a fascist state is totalitarian, a totalitarian state isn't necessarily fascist. Mussolini, not Hitler, invented fascism, but Mussolini was inspired by the memory of the Roman Empire, which he sought to recreate. (Not the first in history to try that stunt.) Hitler (or, rather, Horbinger, but Hitler was the conduit) was the one who tried to infuse fascism - the German model didn't function quite like the Italian model, and Hitler was far more beholden to German (and American) corporations (which for some reason rather liked the idea of fascism) than Mussolini was to Italian corporations.

I don't know of any Muslim states that have a corporate structure. Certainly al-Qaeda doesn't; al-Qaeda is about the most freeform unit possible that can still lay claim to existence as a unit.

- Grant

[Inkthinker]

The problem, as has been stated MANY times, with "The War on Terrorism" is that "terrorism" isn't an enemy, it's a tactic.

Terrorism will continue to exist anytime a small group wants to attack a larger group. It's the best tactic of the weak, and if WE were the ones at war with a much more powerful enemy that occupied our territory, we'd use the same guerrilla tactics.

[cactusmaac]

I don't know if Hitler was particularly beholden to German corporations. He generally didn't give a crap about big business as long as it did what he told it to do. IG Farben was completely frozen out until they got rid of all their Jewish employees.

[Nick Soapdish]

Uhh, I really think you're overstating how similar it is. How many people have been murdered as a result of burning US flags?

You only spoke of exalting the state, not how many people the state kills. Killing people would be more of a function of a totalitarian state since just being ultra-patriotic wouldn't be enough on its own.

For the record, I wasn't trying to claim that we're fascist by using either of those examples. I was just trying to show that cherry-picking parts of the definition that fit can go in a lot of ways.

Didn't they write the book on fascism? Mussolini persecuted Italian Jews and was fairly unique among Italian leaders in doing so. Franco actually allowed Spain to act as a safe haven for Jews but various disciples of his started attaching themselves to neo Nazi groups in the 60s.

It's a type of fascism, but it's not the only one. More properly, fascism goes for an "us and them" mentality and tends to persecute people that look like or might be "them".

[cactusmaac]

Differences in degree are just as important as similarities in kind.

[Nick Soapdish]

Differences in degree are just as important as similarities in kind.

I'm just not seeing the connect between "exalting the state" and "killing citizens".

[mjm1231]

It's somewhat amusing that a thread intended to reredefine terrorism has become bogged down in a discussion over how to define fascism. The obvious conclusion, though, is that if nobody can agree on exactly what fascism is, then that term isn't going to help clarify any definition of terrorists. You're just trading one obfuscating term for another.

As for semantic arguments, I prefer placing the focus on the term "war", and whether or not the conflict with terrorists actually is one. Only Congress can declare war, and we got into Iraq because they temporarily ceded that authority to the President. But, unless I'm misremembering, that was a one shot, specifically for Iraq. Which war is over. (We may still be at war in Iraq, but we aren't at war with Iraq. I'm not sure how occupying troops were dealt with after other military victories, but at this point, the discussion on Iraq should be about the same as those were.) Any politician who says the US is at war certainly must either be lying or mean it as euphemistically as the war on drugs or the war on poverty. Until congress declares otherwise.

And defining it as a crime problem doesn't lead to the conclusion that we cannot go after the allies of perpetrators. After all, in criminal law, aiding and abetting is a crime too.

Terrorism will continue to exist anytime a small group wants to attack a larger group. It's the best tactic of the weak, and if WE were the ones at war with a much more powerful enemy that occupied our territory, we'd use the same guerrilla tactics.

Surely you meant when, not if? Though I would seperate guerrila tactics from terrorist tactics. Guerrila tactics are generally small army against big army, and the consideration of trying to avoid civilian involvement is still possible. Still, mostly army against army. With terrorism, the whole point is usually to target civilians. Unfortunately, moderm military methods, which sometimes leave hundreds of thousands of unexploded bomblets in civilian areas, waiting to go off after the cease fire, often fall into a grey area between the two.

[bartl]

I don't know of any Muslim states that have a corporate structure. Certainly al-Qaeda doesn't; al-Qaeda is about the most freeform unit possible that can still lay claim to existence as a unit.

No, but the religion DOES have a hierarchical structure, and, even in moderate Islam, the religion IS the state.