CAN WE DEFINE TERRORISM? SURE WE CAN It is a fundamental statement of logic that

CAN WE DEFINE TERRORISM? SURE WE CAN

It is a fundamental statement of logic that if you cannot describe a term in operational language then one of the following statements is true:

1) You do not understand what you are talking about, and should refrain from talking about what you do not understand, until you do understand it.

2) Something is false with your criteria for satisfying the definition. (There are no paradoxes.)

3) You are trying to make facts suit your theoretical preference rather than modify your theoretical preference to correspond to the facts.

4) You are relying on normative rather than necessary properties.

5) You are trying to justify the use of a morally or politically loaded term to suit your purposes as a means of free-riding on pop-sentiments.

If you cannot reduce your statements to operational language then you are engaging in self deception, justification, the deception of others, or all three.

Academic, Postmodern, pseudo-science relies on all five of these criteria.

Am I left with the only possible conclusion, already, in just one week, that the class is not an honest pursuit of the truth, but a personal marketing campaign for justification of that which is not understood?

Terrorism is, in both common usage, and etymological origin, a pejorative criticism. Rebellion is not a matter for criticism, but a demonstration of the failure of the government. Either because the government fails to answer the needs of some group, fails to publicly invalidate the needs of some group, or seeks dominion over some group by monopoly fiat that should be given right of secession to choose some OTHER order more beneficial to that group’s sentiments.

The use of violence by those under the influence of the monopoly state, against state (political, bureaucratic and military), state-corporate (finance, banking, oil, infrastructure and transportation- the economy is an act of rebellion, and is a necessary and JUST USE of violence because under a monopoly, and equally under majority rule monopoly, one has no choice. If one has no choice, then rebellion is the only possible action one can take. Otherwise we say that majorities can do whatever they wish and that as such all state actions sanctioned by the majority, or even just the majority of their political representatives, no matter how immoral, unethical, or disadvantageous to some group is legitimate.)

Violence is not equivalent to terror. We may be afraid of it. But that we are afraid is a false equivalency. The purpose of Terror is the demonstration of power for the purpose of ‘marketing’. The purpose of Rebellion is the demonstration of power for the purpose of marketing marketing. Given enough marketing, the users of violence, whether terrorists or rebels hope to generate demand for political solutions to their complaints, that the state satisfies BOTH the demands of the users of violence, rebels or terrorists, AND the demands of the public for a solution to the violence.

The international charter of human rights consists almost entirely of enumerated anglo-american private property rights, plus four ambitions that states are chartered with seeking to solve if possible, as a limited nod to the communist movement that was popular at the time. By enacting this charter we state that STATES will hold other states accountable for the treatment of their citizens. However, we also, by ancient practice, hold states accountable for the actions of their citizens. (If your state houses terrorists then you are responsible for the consequences. (Just as the desert housed raiders in the arab conquest of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires.)

Furthermore, the USA participates in terribly confusing rhetoric but it’s policy has been consistent in the postwar era:

(a) The USA always supports the right of self determination wherever strategically and economically possible to do so (Saudis and Israelis the notable exceptions.)

(b) A democratically elected government is de-facto a legitimate government.

(c) A population can elect whatever government that it chooses to.

(d) The USA will hold the government accountable for it’s actions as stewards of the charter of human rights, and the international pattern of finance and trade, where the only tolerable means of competition is in the market for mutually voluntary exchange. This means that USA will punish the government and it’s civilians for violations of this charter until the people select a government that does respect those rights and obligations.

So Terrorism must satisfy these three criteria:

(a) violence against civilians or cultural symbols and icons

(b) that disrupts the predictable assumption of safety.

(c) for the purpose of generating demand for political policy.

(d) by non state actors.

One of the ways we reduced product tampering was to stop reporting on it. If we didn’t report on terrorism the impact would not be as dramatic but would follow that trend. (A.C. Nielsen was influential in demonstrating that the problem was providing a venue.)

Rebellion must satisfy the following criteria:

(a) violence against military, political, economic and symbolic targets.

(b) that disrupts the assumption of sufficient legitimacy of the government

(c) for the purpose of generating demand for policy

(d) by citizens under the control of a monopoly government

Warfare constitutes the remaining state actions.

Crime constitutes the remaining actions by the citizenry.

A normal 2×2 grid is sufficient for determining whether an action constitutes crime, rebellion, terrorism and war – in that order.

This classification prevents the false attribution of legitimacy to the state by classifying crime and rebellion as terrorism.