What We Mean When We Talk about Terrorism

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

There's a little bit of a dust-up at the moment regarding the man who crashed his plane into an Austin IRS building and how the media and government are covering his action, mainly centered around the belief that because he was an angry white male, he isn't being called a terrorist. While some of the points are valid (as in, if he had been an angry male of Arabic descent named Mohamed, no matter how long he and his family had been citizens or what manifesto he left, people would be trying to connect him to al-Qaeda), there are some salient details that distinguish his act from that committed on 11 September 2001. Some of this boils down to what do we mean when we say "terrorism," and it's no wonder there's some confusion there, because the Bush administration certainly wanted to use the term as broadly as possible to further their agenda.

By its very definition, the idea of terrorism is to cause terror. I believe one of the intended consequences of the 11 September attacks was to make Americans feel less secure, in the same way that people do not feel very secure if they live in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The intended consequence of the TeePee crasher was to have people pay attention to his written manifesto, not fear that another plane was going to drop from the sky. It seems a safe assumption, even now, that al-Qaeda have the desire and people who would be willing to commit suicide attacks against Americans, especially in the U.S. On the other hand, I very much doubt that there exist too many other Tea Baggers prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. Note that one act of violence hardly equals terrorism. The reason 11 September had such a profound affect on our psyche, i.e., which terrorized us, was because of its multiple nature (four planes all hijacked on the same morning with an express purpose of causing fear and dismay). The reason why the IRA and PLO were considered a terrorist organizations is becaue of their multiple attacks, etc.

While I group Mr TeePee (I'm not sorry to use this psuedonym for him, by the way, as his name has escaped me, and I do not feel his action makes it worthwhile for me to record his actual name for the limited posterity of even this web site) with the Tea Party "movement," there's a clear distinction between his connection to that movement and those of the 11 September airplane hijackers to al-Qaeda. Some of those differences include the hijackers were financially supported and trained by their group and the group made the decision to make the attack. While I've heard some TeePee supporters show some agreement with the TeePee crasher's manifesto, none of them has been stupid enough to actually show any support for his actions. Not only did al-Qaeda claim to be responsible for 11 September, they have vowed to continue attacks against the U.S.

So, was Mr TeePee a terrorist? No. Neither was Timothy McVeigh, whose action was even more disastrious in loss of life. Are they criminals? Yes, just as the 11 September attackers were criminals, and just as any of the people who aided and abetted them in that act are criminals. Mr TeePee obviously chose his method of suicide in copycat of a terrorist action, and there's some danger that others will, too. But that doesn't make their act itself a terrorist act. Copycat crimes are nothing new.

A final point: based on my reading of Mr TeePee Crasher's manifesto: he thought that his act would actually help galvinize people to do something about the arcane tax laws of the U.S. Unfortunately, I believe that his act has probably set back any progress in that area, at least in the near term, because politicians and tax activists could easily be accused of acting in his interests. On the other hand, all the damage done to the reputation of the U.S. abroad and to our constitutional liberties at home by the Bush administration in reaction to the 11 September attacks was an unintended consequence, likely even unforseen, by al-Qaeda, but one that have to be enjoying tremendously.

(In the interest of discussion and debate, I'm putting a link to a couple of arguments for why he should be considered a terrorist below. One argument hinges on the legal definition of terrorism used by the FBI. My argument above is about the generally accepted use of terrorism in the mass media and society. The legal definition would be used in a court of law for a particular indictement. What we mean when we talk about terrorism, I believe, hinges on truth and consequences, as I've laid out above. The other argument hinges on the idea that if the act is similar to a terrorist act, no matter if the person acted alone or not, it is terrorism. To this I submit that unless we respond out of being terrorized, then it is not. We clearly responded out of fear after 11 September; only time will tell, I guess, about how we respond to this.)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Joseph Stack was technically a terrorist, but... (trueslant.com)
• Jeff Schneider: When is Terrorism not Terrorism? Austin, Joe Stack, and Why Semantics Matter (huffingtonpost.com)

Comments

[GrendelJapan]

Totally wrong!

First, while it is virtually certain that one of Stack's intentions was to get folks to read his manifesto, it is similarly likely that he intended to instill fear among the ranks of the IRS. He could have chosen to burn himself alive in front of the White House. He chose to fly a plane into an IRS building during normal business hours. "I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after," he proclaims. The message to IRS employees is clear. There are people that hate the institution that you work for and are willing to kill themselves and take you with them in order to do it harm.

Second, the power of terrorism to instill fear and sow chaos has less to do with repetition than with symbolism. 9/11 was a planned and coordinated attack *against America*. True, sophistication, coordination, and repetition all heightened the impact of a statement; as exclamation points, bolded and underlined text do.

Third, "we" (those impacted) happens to include the 190 people who work in the IRS building in Texas. It also includes the hundred thousand people working at IRS; the friends, colleagues, and family of the 168 that died in Oklahoma; and also includes the nearly 2 million people that work across the nation for the Federal government. Those people have and do feel varying degrees of rational fear (e.g., terror) over this type of incident.

[Glen Engel-Cox]

Good points, Grendel. There's no doubt that his choice of crime was motivated in large part in copying the methods of the 11 September attacks, because that was his benchmark for getting people and politicians to react.

Do IRS employees feel more threatened now than before? Do tenure committees feel more threatened after the Alabama denied-tenure professor shooting this month? Do students feel more threatened after every school shooting? Yes. But are those acts terrorist acts?

Perhaps what I'm trying to get at is to rescue an idea that is unrescuable, and that is the concept of a "war against terrorism." If those acts mentioned in the previous paragraph qualify, how the hell do you create a defense and offensive to fight it. And that may be the problem. Bush et al. shouldn't have tried to fight against an idea, but an actual group, i.e., they should have declared war against al-Qaeda, not "terrorism." (Of course, there was never an actual declaration of war, either, but that's the subject of another debate.)

[GrendelJapan]

I'm sure all IRS employees feel a heightened sense of danger now. The act was committed against *the IRS.* So too do doctors of women's health clinics after crazies murder a doctor, because the act is committed against all doctors that perform abortions. The killing of an individual, blowing up of a building, or the like are means to a terrorist's ends.

As far as I know, the tenured professor along with most school shooters target individuals. They aren't trying to make statements against all tenure committees or all school bullies. Killing specific people is the sought after end, which is why these generally don't push outside of the boundary of premeditated murder.

Practically speaking, fighting terrorism is possible, but as you indicate, only insofar as there are known groups or individuals (i.e., terrorists like al-Qaeda) that can be targeted. If one relinquish the notion that all fighting and defending needs be done with sword and shield, humanitarian efforts seem like a reasonable method of attacking "terrorism" just as vigilance is a reasonable method of defending against it.