Question About The 'New Jersey Six"

Good point on number 1.  I guess they are calling any non-state aligned people attempting death and destruction "terrorism".

Number 2 is a given.  Only in a police state could the "feds" know all.  In our country it will just take observant citizens.

I went to the Online Webster and under Terror:

violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

Also even with a Military Target you will get civilian casualties. And such an attack would instill fear in the local populace.

IG

I went to the Online Webster and under Terror:

actually, your "definition" is the 4th entry...here's the full definition...

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands


and it seems to be a little bit of a'political" definition. i have the feeling that was added recently. but i don't know...i'll have to check some older dictionaries and get back to ya. i could be wrong there,,,but...

here's some highlights from a more complete definition of terrorism from Wik...

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the US Army[1] counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". For this and for political reasons, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

Among these definitions, several do not recognize the possibility of the legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country, and would thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence[2]. Russia for example includes in their terrorist list only those organizations which represent the greatest threat to their own security.[3] Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.

the full definition is here...
Link

you can take that for what it's worth geek, my point is that by that definition and by your statement that "even with a Military Target you will get civilian casualties. And such an attack would instill fear in the local populace" kind of defines every single military conflict in the history of man.

is that the way you see it?

this article got featured? well bust my buttons...wierd,,,well,,,ya never can tell...lol

well bust my buttons

ok Wiz!

Congrats on the feature.

is that the way you see it?

No, because this is not a military conflict. (in the U.S.). This is a small group of men who want to cause damage and fear to promote their cause. They are not soldiers, beholding to a code or structure.

And what exactly is a lawful use of violence to promote a political agenda?

IG

1. I'm not sure which definition of terrorism you are using. Yes, many of them talk about civilian targets, but certainly not all of them. While Wikipedia is more and more suspect as time wears on: Link

2. The military is full of "people" who exhibit "good old vigilance and patriotism." Please don't rule them out.

actually, your "definition" is the 4th entry...here's the full definition... Main Entry: ter·ror Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE 1 : a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT 3 : REIGN OF TERROR 4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

I'm curious, no where in this definition does it say anything about excluding military locations. All the definitions seem to agree on one thing, fear. And unless the military is immune to fear, an attack on any location (military or not) where there is no military conflict (as InfoGeek stated) such as here on American soil would be considered a terrorist attack cause the purpose was to create fear not necessarily destroy the target. It would have been their intention to demostrate that they could hit us anywhere at anytime, not necessarily looking to cripple us as would be in the battlefield.

haven't we declared a "GLOBAL war?"




so, how is our invasion of a sovereign nation where we bagan the invasion with "operation shock and awe" which was designed to scare the iraqi's into submission by showing how powerful we are any different?

one correction,,,the CC clerk was a male, not a female...my apologies

Double Post

The word was coined to describe specifically attacks against civilian targets to instill fear in the population. Attacks against military target are not terrorism, even if there are civilian casualties. If the Palestinians had only ever attacked the Israel’s military they would have never been called terrorist, they would be called "freedom fighters" or "the resistance".

Reply By: stubbyfinger

While I do not know if that is the "standard" definition, that is the one I use.  SO my answers are predicated upon that understanding.

so, how is our invasion of a sovereign nation where we bagan the invasion with "operation shock and awe" which was designed to scare the iraqi's into submission by showing how powerful we are any different?

Do I really have to explain it to you? And here I thought you were a pretty smart guy. Let's see, we sent an entire army, with a lot of warning. Told them if they didn't change their minds that we would attack. Sat there for a little while, in plain view, then we attacked and it took how many days to accomplish anything?

Now, here we have 6 guys, planning an attack on a military base. Completely hidden from us, prepared to attack without warning and were fully aware that the damage would be minimal (I mean after all, unless they had a nuke, how bad could their attack really have been? I seriously doubt they were gonna hi-jack more planes.) but enough to make a point.

I don't know if you're acting ignorant or this is what you are, but unless you are calling the American people terrorist, you can not compare the concept of sending an army, in plain view, to fight a war (where the enemy will be facing us on the same grounds) with the intention of changing the entire structure of the country with a small "group" of guys who wanted to make a statement. Especially when these 6 guys are the type that would have ended their adventure and their lives in a single attack and not be able to do more damage, which is not how our military works.

So I ask, are you saying that we, the American people, are terrorist? Cause if you are then please blacklist me as of now cause I promise to attack every article you write as of now as if I was a terrorist, since it's what you would seem to expect from me, an American.

The word was coined to describe specifically attacks against civilian targets to instill fear in the population. Attacks against military target are not terrorism, even if there are civilian casualties. If the Palestinians had only ever attacked the Israel’s military they would have never been called terrorist, they would be called "freedom fighters" or "the resistance".

I'm curious to know why we have dictionaries and why we send our children to school to learn when people can give their own version of what they believe a word really means and that is acceptable? God forbid I ever pick up another dictionary and look up the meaning of a word just to be contradicted by someone who thinks the word means something else.

While I do not know if that is the "standard" definition, that is the one I use. SO my answers are predicated upon that understanding.

I understand your point DrGuy, but I have to stick to the belief that the definition of a word should be followed and not a "what you get from it" meaning. That's why Clinton claimed he did not have sex with that woman cause sex. They used a "what you get from it" meaning.

can you read? i am questioning the definition. the definition, as i read it, does include what we did.

you throw in all these "factors" that aren't in the definition that somehow absolves us.

like the size of the military group matters? do we not send small groups into battle?

and have our commandos, green berets and special forces not gone on "suicide missions" in the past where the odds were that they would be killed in the battle?

example,,,from wwII...

Col. Frederick was authorized to recruit 133 officers and 1,688 men from both the United States and Canada for what was widely regarded as a suicide mission. Frederick put out a call for officers under 35 in excellent condition who were willing to learn parachute training and had experience living in the arctic or mountainous regions. Some officers were told they would have "a short and exciting life" if they volunteered.WWW Link

like guy, i always considered "terrorism" to be attacks on civillian targets. i don't consider guerrilla warfare on military targets to be terrorism. and neither did ronald reagan when he funded the contras and called them "freedom fighters."

if you break it down, all military combat actions are designed to scare and intimidate the opponent into surrender. to attempt to stretch every opponent attack as an "act of terrorism" in my view dilutes and deligitimizes our actions and hurts america's cause more than the inflamatory language helps.

and please stop trying to equate my discontent with the "generous" defintion of terrorism that is being thrown around since 9/11 with me being anti american or pro terrorist in any way, shape or form.

as far as b/l'ing ya goes...you have stated clearly your intention to violate the terms of service and have made your threats. if you pursue them, that is your call. but i won't b/l ya "pre-emtively." if you follow up on your threats, i'll then do what i need to. and it won't tbe blacklisting, which is broken and useless anyway.

I don't know if you're acting ignorant or this is what you are, but unless you are calling the American people terrorist, you can not compare the concept of sending an army, in plain view, to fight a war (where the enemy will be facing us on the same grounds) with the intention of changing the entire structure of the country with a small "group" of guys who wanted to make a statement. Especially when these 6 guys are the type that would have ended their adventure and their lives in a single attack and not be able to do more damage, which is not how our military works.

Your definition of war is somewhat unique. Your saying the only way they can fight us and not be terrorist is to stand in the middle of the desert and call us out. As many have said you go to war with what you have and using stealth, sneak attacks and attacks designed to frustrate, demoralize or cost the enemy resources have long been a part of traditional warfare. We have also used war and the threat of violence to achieve political goals so by many definitions that is terrorism, along with any of the above tactics. Russia considers anyone deemed a threat to their own security a terrorist.

I'm curious to know why we have dictionaries and why we send our children to school to learn when people can give their own version of what they believe a word really means and that is acceptable? God forbid I ever pick up another dictionary and look up the meaning of a word just to be contradicted by someone who thinks the word means something else.

The definition of a terrorist is controversial to say the least. But hey if you have a dictionary that can clear it up for the whole world don’t hold back.

The six gents in New Jersey intended to do harm...the goal of that harm was no doubt to shake the confidence of the military at home...showing them to be vulnerable even here...to cause fear...hence...terror?

When the 8th Air Force undertook the destruction of German industry and infrastructure they referred to their campaign as "terror bombing". In the first Gulf War, the intense air attacks preceding the actual ground invasion was so effective that captured Iraqi soldiers, safe in compounds in the rear, would cringe and curl into the prenatal position whenever fighter-bombers would fly over the holding area...that is the result of an effective terror campaign. War is both terrible and terrifying...for soldiers and civilians alike. Rambling answer to your query...short answer is that it is called terrorism because that is what it is.

By this definition all warfare is terrorism, and that’s just not my reality. I can’t think of one action taken by any warring parties other than and prior to the intentional targeting of civilians that was called and accepted to be a terrorist act.

If Al-Qaeda had never intentionally targeted civilians, they would not be known as a terrorist organization today.

i hear that.



that actually is a better explanation to call this terrorism than politicically motivated defintions. once a terrorist, always a terrorist, kinda...

OK you guys are just creating a soup out of this argument by putting everything in the same bowl and mixing it together. War and terrorism are not the same, they may have similarities but by definition are not.

War - a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Synonyms: battle, bloodshed, cold war, combat, conflict, contention, contest, enmity, fighting, hostilities, hostility, police action, strife, strike, struggle, warfare

Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Synonyms: agitation, anarchism, anarchy, brawl, bustle, chaos, clamor, commotion, complication, convolution, discombobulation*, discord, disorganization, distemper, disturbance, dither, entanglement, fight, flap, fracas, fuss, hubbub, hullabaloo*, imbroglio, insurrection, lawlessness, mayhem, misrule, mob rule*, quarrel, rebellion, revolution, riot, rioting, ruckus, rumpus, static, strike, terrorism, tizzy*, trouble, tumult, turbulence, turmoil, unrest, unruliness, uproar

All this can be found in www.dictionary.com

If it is not terrorism then maybe you can enlighten me. But before that you need to first put away your paint brushes. Yes the attack was gonna be to a military facility but the act itself is considered a terrorist attack by the nature in which the attack would have been carried out. Or are you gonna tell me that the 9/11 events which include an attack on the Pentagon (a military facility), the attack on the Cole (a military ship) and the multiple embassy attacks (all which had military soldiers) were not terrorist attacks?

You guys are painting this topic to broad in my opinion. You can’t just up and call ever war ever done a terrorist attack. You guys are just being silly and trying to confuse people by making them doubt their beliefs with all these minor details. Let’s stick to what this article was about. Why is this attack considered to be terrorism? Simple, because it was in the way the act was to be carried out. Unless you want to go and revisit history so that you can then change the facts about what exactly was what back then, you have to stick with what is known and what is know is that these guys were gonna commit an attack that was not of military strategy but more of a terrorist strategy. Look at it how you want, it won’t change the fact that even though it was not a civilian target which is “normally” (and I stress normally), it isn’t always civilian the target and it does not change the fact that the way in which it was to have been accomplished would have been as an act of terror.

I understand your point that it seems that this country is on the mind set that anything Muslim related is some kind of terrorist act but the reality is that at this moment it is Muslims that have done previous recent terrorist attacks and that we can not tell who is a sleeper cell and who isn’t so being vigilant without accusing them all at once is not an easy task but then we are not perfect are we? Mistakes will be made regardless how perfect we want the system to be. Sometimes we will catch them on time as we did this time, chances are we may miss the next chance and chances are innocent people will get caught in the process. When you can show me a perfect system where error are a thing of the past then I will accept perfection.

thanks for sharing your comments charles  

War and terrorism are not the same, they may have similarities but by definition are not.

Terrorism is one of many tactics of warfare.

Warfare from Encarta,

“The use of force on the part of two or more nations or other organized groups for the purpose of deciding questions at issue that cannot be settled by diplomatic means. Warfare takes a variety of forms besides organized military confrontations—among them insurrections, revolutions, coups d'état, guerrilla warfare, and terrorism. A state of war can also exist without actual recourse to arms, such as the cold war”.

If it is not terrorism then maybe you can enlighten me.

Al-Qaida’s and their supporter’s goals are religious and cultural domination. Sound familiar? The goal of this foiled attack was "to kill as many American soldiers as possible”. When American soldiers go after the enemy in Iraq their goal is to kill as many of them as possible. The only reason we want to capture any of them alive is to get information that allows them to kill even more or them, until they surrender and agree not to attack us. That’s warfare, and terrorism is a part of warfare. So yes, what they were planning to do was a form of terrorism.

What separates us from them is the intentional targeting of civilians, which is the only tactic most People and I have a problem with. In WW2 we painted a red cross on the roof of hospital buildings to keep them from being bombed, to a terrorist this would be an bullseye. When you don’t separate combatants from non-combatants your saying there’s no living on the same planet as you and we want all of you to die. When you make that separation it say’s we know your human beings and once our conflict is resolved and one of us surrenders you will be respected you as a human being.

Terrorism is one of many tactics of warfare.Warfare from Encarta,“The use of force on the part of two or more nations or other organized groups for the purpose of deciding questions at issue that cannot be settled by diplomatic means. Warfare takes a variety of forms besides organized military confrontations—among them insurrections, revolutions, coups d'état, guerrilla warfare, and terrorism. A state of war can also exist without actual recourse to arms, such as the cold war”.

My point exactly, it may be part of it but it's not the same thing. Still you failed to answer the main question of this article: Why is this attack considered to be terrorism? It is not about war, it's about terrorism. That is what I meant when I said you guys were creating a soup out of this argument.

Al-Qaida’s and their supporter’s goals are religious and cultural domination. Sound familiar? The goal of this foiled attack was "to kill as many American soldiers as possible”. When American soldiers go after the enemy in Iraq their goal is to kill as many of them as possible. The only reason we want to capture any of them alive is to get information that allows them to kill even more or them, until they surrender and agree not to attack us. That’s warfare, and terrorism is a part of warfare. So yes, what they were planning to do was a form of terrorism.What separates us from them is the intentional targeting of civilians, which is the only tactic most People and I have a problem with. In WW2 we painted a red cross on the roof of hospital buildings to keep them from being bombed, to a terrorist this would be an bullseye. When you don’t separate combatants from non-combatants your saying there’s no living on the same planet as you and we want all of you to die. When you make that separation it say’s we know your human beings and once our conflict is resolved and one of us surrenders you will be respected you as a human being.

How's about you respond to what you quote? No where in this reply did you "enlighten" me. When American soldiers go after the enemy, they do not try to kill as many of them as possible, they try to stop their efforts to fight back with as little casualties as possible. Obviously it can't always be accomplished, sometimes the enemy is to resilient and we have no choice but to pound them with some of our most powerful weapons, but last I checked when the Iraqi army surrendered, we did not continue to shot at them. My point still stands, if this act that was to be done by the Six was not a terrorist act, then what was it?

Thousands upon thousands died in WWII, many were civilians. I, personally, have never seen the use of the word "terrorism" to describe any of it. I guess it's a matter of perspective. The freedom to believe what you want to believe based on what you see. As I said before, what the point of dictionaries if people will give the word the meaning they see better fit. It seems the only good thing school have now a days is that they are good daycares to let the parents work, cause education seems to be almost non existant.

thanks for sharing your comments charles

You're welcome. Look, I know I came off a bit too strong there. It just ticks me off when people give me the impression that they are trying to make Americans seem as if we somehow are just as bad as they are. Sure, we are not angels here, I won't deny that. But even with people like those in the White House, Congress and the Senate we are still far from being anything like a terrorist. The fact that our soldiers in Iraq are dying because we are fighting by the rules says it all. This is what I got from you're point of view.