Counter-terrorism // asymetrical Warfare

[alibi]

I'm picturing internal breaches and bangers going off in low income apartments with tight hallways.

Sweet, that might mean we get another season of 24.

 

[x SF med]

from dictionary.com:

ter·ror·ism

   [ter-uh-riz-uh

m] Show IPA

–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Gang violence does not generally fall into the political realm of the definition.

 

[alibi]

from dictionary.com:

Gang violence does not generally fall into the political realm of the definition.

If we take a broad definition of politics:


a : the

art​

​

or science of governmentb : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policyc : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

2​

: political actions, practices, or policies

3​

a : political affairs or

business​

​

; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)b : political life especially as a principal activity or professionc : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices

4​

: the political opinions or sympathies of a person

5​

a : the total complex of relations between people living in societyb : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view<

office​

​

politics> <ethnic politics>
(From Merriam Webster's, emphasis mine)
It can meet the criteria of terrorism by the above bolded definitions.

 

[Marauder06]

The main difference between criminal organizations like street gangs and terrorist organizations is that terrorist seek to overthrow the current government, most criminal organizations seek to profit from the current government.

 

[x SF med]

If we take a broad definition of politics:

a : the http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics#

art​

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics#or science of governmentb : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policyc : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

2​

: political actions, practices, or policies

3​

a : political affairs or http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics#

business​

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics#; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)b : political life especially as a principal activity or professionc : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices

4​

: the political opinions or sympathies of a person

5​

a : the total complex of relations between people living in societyb : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics#

office​

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics#politics> <ethnic politics>
(From Merriam Webster's, emphasis mine)
It can meet the criteria of terrorism by the above bolded definitions.

alibi-
Fail, go to SS jail, go directly to SS jail, do not Pass GO, do not collect $200...

using a portion of the tertiary definition, refuted by the implications of the primary definition of terrorism (government) and the cinquicential definition of politics to disprove a statement made using the primary definition of terrorism is poor form and would fail in any debate... also - gangs do not actively participate in government - which is the major implied political entity used in the definition of terrorism. Sharpshooting is fine , if you have a true dog in the fight and back it up with at least one primary definition backing your thesis. Care to try again with a better researched and formulated response?

 

[SpitfireV]

The main difference between criminal organizations like street gangs and terrorist organizations is that terrorist seek to overthrow the current government, most criminal organizations seek to profit from the current government.

I don't quite follow your last line of thinking. How do gangs profit from the government?

 

[AWP]

I don't quite follow your last line of thinking. How do gangs profit from the government?

By exploiting the system/ status quo. Chicago gangsters during Prohibition commited "terrorist" acts like car bombings and drive by shootings, but they never sought to change the government. They did exploit weaknesses in the legal system and bribed government officials and LEOs, but they never sought to take power themselves.

 

[SpitfireV]

By exploiting the system/ status quo. Chicago gangsters during Prohibition commited "terrorist" acts like car bombings and drive by shootings, but they never sought to change the government. They did exploit weaknesses in the legal system and bribed government officials and LEOs, but they never sought to take power themselves.

That's not exactly profiting from the government, per sey. It's profiting from the social environment and bribery is taking advantage of individuals within the government but not the government itself.

For the most part, the only interaction gangs- these days, and I do stress the for the most part bit- have with the government is when they're either investigated for arrested. This is taking advantage and profiting from the social environment since their profit comes from the citizenry, not from the government.

 

[alibi]

alibi-
Fail, go to SS jail, go directly to SS jail, do not Pass GO, do not collect $200...

using a portion of the tertiary definition, refuted by the implications of the primary definition of terrorism (government) and the cinquicential definition of politics to disprove a statement made using the primary definition of terrorism is poor form and would fail in any debate... also - gangs do not actively participate in government - which is the major implied political entity used in the definition of terrorism. Sharpshooting is fine , if you have a true dog in the fight and back it up with at least one primary definition backing your thesis. Care to try again with a better researched and formulated response?

So a terrorist group must actively participate in government?

Terrorism cannot exist without a government?

I'm sorry, I find myself confused by your reply; I utilized two of the definitions given of politics, definition, which, if applied, would support my thesis. If I want to get bigger than that, politics can be simply stated as power relations among groups. Politics does not need a government to exist. If politics is primarily about power (Going back to the broad definition used by say, Foucault, or Aristotle's view of politics) then my thesis still stands. This is an argument over definitions; we don't have to share them.

I'm also still waiting for that reply to my Heinlein PM ;)

 

[AWP]

from dictionary.com:

Gang violence does not generally fall into the political realm of the definition.

You could even go two steps further:

U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/422/usc_sec_22_00002656---f000-.html

(d)Definitions
As used in this section—
(1)the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2)the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3)the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4)the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5)the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A)that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i)to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii)as a transit point; and
(B)the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i)section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii)section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii)section 2780 (d) of this title.

OR

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/t/7591.html

(DOD) The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political. See also antiterrorism; combating terrorism; counterterrorism; force protection condition.
Source: JP 3-07.2

 

[Servimus]

That's not exactly profiting from the government, per sey. It's profiting from the social environment and bribery is taking advantage of individuals within the government but not the government itself.

For the most part, the only interaction gangs- these days, and I do stress the for the most part bit- have with the government is when they're either investigated for arrested. This is taking advantage and profiting from the social environment since their profit comes from the citizenry, not from the government.

Would that social environment exists as it does without the government?

I think that's the crux of the issue. Most gangs don't seek regime change, but rather have a vested interest in things staying the way they are- so business is open.

 

[SpitfireV]

Would that social environment exists as it does without the government?

I think that's the crux of the issue. Most gangs don't seek regime change, but rather have a vested interest in things staying the way they are- so business is open.

But as far as laws go, they're supposed to reflect the morals and feelings of the people, not the government.

 

[alibi]

Would that social environment exists as it does without the government?

I think that's the crux of the issue. Most gangs don't seek regime change, but rather have a vested interest in things staying the way they are- so business is open.

That particular social environment? No. But a social environment without a government would still be preyed upon by gangs/terrorists.

This broaches a question: Could terrorism be used to maintain the status quo? A tenuous example would be during the Spanish Civil War, with loyalist death squads killing priests and nuns in support of the anti-clericalism of the Republican Government.

 

[Servimus]

But as far as laws go, they're supposed to reflect the morals and feelings of the people, not the government.

Well yes, but those laws are generally upheld via government- whether it be Federal or local.

I see what you're saying though. Hope I'm not outside my [ ] here, but I'm pretty sure that there is debate as to whether or not certain domestic gangs qualify as terrorist organizations. Not a clean cut subject matter.

Alibi- Gangs and terrorism could exist without a government. I'd say that many times government is absent, gangs fill the vacuum. My point was though that gangs experience profit under this status quo. There is no need to change that from their POV.

 

[SpitfireV]

Well yes, but those laws are generally upheld via government- whether it be Federal or local.

I see what you're saying though. Hope I'm not outside my [ ] here, but I'm pretty sure that there is debate as to whether or not certain domestic gangs qualify as terrorist organizations. Not a clean cut subject matter.

Alibi- Gangs and terrorism could exist without a government. I'd say that many times government is absent, gangs fill the vacuum. My point was though that gangs experience profit under this status quo. There is no need to change that from their POV.

You're not out of your box (Beevis/Butthead laugh goes here. Box! What a word!) IMO mate. So don't worry about that.

Re your second sentence. Domestic gangs should never be considered to be terrorist because then you're using the term in a solely pejorative sense, rather than in the cold and dispassionate word of law that it should be. It also lessens the impact of charging legitimate terrorists as terrorists because it becomes an everyday occurrence.

 

[Servimus]

You're not out of your box (Beevis/Butthead laugh goes here. Box! What a word!) IMO mate. So don't worry about that.

Re your second sentence. Domestic gangs should never be considered to be terrorist because then you're using the term in a solely pejorative sense, rather than in the cold and dispassionate word of law that it should be. It also lessens the impact of charging legitimate terrorists as terrorists because it becomes an everyday occurrence.

Roger. But on the note of narco-terrorism, where do we draw the line? Especially when they work in conjunction with domestic gangs.

 

[SpitfireV]

Narco terrorism doesn't exist, as such. It's two separate terms that have been combined for whatever reason. They're either terrorists who use drugs to finance their operations and objectives or they're drug runners who use violence to achieve their objectives. If that becomes a political objective then they become terrorists who use drugs to finance their operations. See the cycle? I'm not sure I'm being clear with this last bit lol.

 

[AWP]

Roger. But on the note of narco-terrorism, where do we draw the line? Especially when they work in conjunction with domestic gangs.

Ah, but then you still have two different organizations/ entities with two different goals who are working together for some benefit towards those goals. They are still distinct organizations with distinct goals. Now, that doesn't mean a domestic gang couldn't alter it's goal(s) and become a terrorist organization...a butterfly starts from a larvae, but just working with an international terrorist group doesn't make them terrorists. The whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.

 

[x SF med]

So a terrorist group must actively participate in government?

Terrorism cannot exist without a government?

I'm sorry, I find myself confused by your reply; I utilized two of the definitions given of politics, definition, which, if applied, would support my thesis. If I want to get bigger than that, politics can be simply stated as power relations among groups. Politics does not need a government to exist. If politics is primarily about power (Going back to the broad definition used by say, Foucault, or Aristotle's view of politics) then my thesis still stands. This is an argument over definitions; we don't have to share them.

I'm also still waiting for that reply to my Heinlein PM ;)

I will debate in the open and not take your wanna be everything (wannabe military, wannabe professor, wannabe sharpshooting everybody) behind the scenes.... if you want a debate, line it up in a good format.

To refute your debate - terrorism requires a government/political structure and a group trying to overthrow/disrupt that government - and yes, a resistance can be a terrorist group, and a government can be a terrorist group. You forget that I was involved in counter-terror, and FID before you were born... and yes, a political system, or group of poloitcal systems shared by a cabal of governments can be the target of terrorism - a gang, although using terrorist methodology does not fit the accepted definitions of terrorism - untl it reaches the level of the Chinese Tongs or the South/Central American Cartels - which do state they want political and economic control of whole countries/regions and the overthrow of those countries that care to stand in their way. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, ome man's advisor is another man's agent provocateur...

read up on the Baader-Meinhof Group and Brigante Rosa...

I know you have been asked to quit posting so much to stir the shit and sit back and read... it's not that you are not intelligent - you are naive and do not have the experience to back up the talk.

 

[Servimus]

Narco terrorism doesn't exist, as such. It's two separate terms that have been combined for whatever reason. They're either terrorists who use drugs to finance their operations and objectives or they're drug runners who use violence to achieve their objectives. If that becomes a political objective then they become terrorists who use drugs to finance their operations. See the cycle? I'm not sure I'm being clear with this last bit lol.

I see what you're saying, but the term Narcoterrorism distinguishes itself from drug runners who use violence due to the intent to alter the status quo or government policy on the part of the narcoterrorists. Drug runners can use violence against competitors, but when they level violence at society or the government- they cross the threshold and are labeled as narcoterrorists. Aren't narcoterrorists simply terrorists organizations that finance their operation via drug trade? They all seek change on some level- political, economic, societal. These guys just finance themselves via drugs.

Ah, but then you still have two different organizations/ entities with two different goals who are working together for some benefit towards those goals. They are still distinct organizations with distinct goals. Now, that doesn't mean a domestic gang couldn't alter it's goal(s) and become a terrorist organization...a butterfly starts from a larvae, but just working with an international terrorist group doesn't make them terrorists. The whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.

Yeah, I had a "Doh!" moment right after I posted that.