The Political Thread

[Tjm86]

Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public.  It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

UK CPS definition

Which may well be why there is a shift in perspective on the INCEL movement.  Then again it's the same as any other belief / cause.  There will be those who are simply vocal proponents of it whilst others engage in acts designed to terrorise.  Both have the same aims but differ in their methods.

At present though it looks like the authorities are in two minds.  Certainly there is growing concern over the attitudes and online behaviour of some of those engaged with the ideology.  Whether Davison was motivated to take such extreme action by it is still an open question.

In all honesty though, as we've said before, quite often 'social media' is anything but.  Ironically the sort of education a lot of kids are getting around these issues in schools means that it is actually more likely that it is their parents generation involved. 

The suggestion that the authorities should be using social media in vetting procedures is possibly well overdue.

[Jim_Campbell]

No one ever does. A bloke who comes gunning down a slew of people didn't think of that five minutes ago. And why always it needs to serve for political (or religious) purposes?

Because it wouldn't be terrorism if it didn't serve a political purpose. Besides, you were the one who tried to define terrorism just a couple of posts ago as "every act that endangers the lives of people". You're wrong. I have no idea what point you think you're making and, frankly, I don't think you do, either.

[milstar]

No one ever does. A bloke who comes gunning down a slew of people didn't think of that five minutes ago. And why always it needs to serve for political (or religious) purposes?

Because it wouldn't be terrorism if it didn't serve a political purpose. Besides, you were the one who tried to define terrorism just a couple of posts ago as "every act that endangers the lives of people". You're wrong. I have no idea what point you think you're making and, frankly, I don't think you do, either.

Okay Jim, don't be an arse. You misread or misunderstood my previous comments. I can play like that and ask "Ah, I am not sure what you are struggling about". One thing I noticed about this forum. It doesn't hold back, but at least people in majority of cases don't go by rude route. It is starkly obvious that I do see only politics involved in terrorist acts. And ofcourse the terrorism endangers the lives of the innocents. I don't think I owe that to explain - the obvious.

Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public.  It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

UK CPS definition

Hm... I wish UK policy includes environmental causes that FBI already did. Bioterrorism is a real threat just as any. But I am glad that, like I said, there are other topics, apart from political and religious matters included.

I'm not sure if you are saying this guy didnt think he was going to shoot someine until 5 minutes before he did it?  If so, thats a pretty lucky coincidence he had a gun licence, guns and was a keen follower and supporter of other nutjobs who went on a shooting spree?

No, I just pointed that such acts are already premedidated. Planning, logistics, etc. A man who bumped into a mosque in NZ or the guy who massacred a gay club in Orlando surely had it in mind for days.

[Jim_Campbell]

[Deleted]

Never mind. I'm done with this.

[M.I.K.]

Sensible.

[The Legendary Shark]

Were the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan acts of terrorism? I would answer yes.

[Tjm86]

Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public.  It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

UK CPS definition

Hm... I wish UK policy includes environmental causes that FBI already did. Bioterrorism is a real threat just as any. But I am glad that, like I said, there are other topics, apart from political and religious matters included.

The thing is 'ideological' covers a multitude of 'sins' so to speak.  Environmentalism, Anti-abortion, Incel ... all would fall under this umbrella.  It is also worth remembering the position of feminists in that "The personal is political".  There is fine line that is not always easy to define.

I can see where you are coming from in terms of trying to interrogate the boundaries here.  Possibly we are a little too used to terrorism being narrowly defined in terms of organisations such as Al-Queda or PIRA.  What appears to be happening is a more amorphous type of 'terrorist' without any links to some overarching organisation but rather an adherence to a particularly belief set / ideology that they are seeking to advance.

To a large extent this has been an issue for those involved in counter-terrorism for a long time now, stretching back to the Twin Towers.  The organisational structures are far less clearly defined, if at all.  This problematises the issue a lot.

In some respects it seems to me that both you and Jim are actually in agreement to some extent.  Both of you agree on the premeditation aspect.  Both on the ideology / belief dimension.  Certainly that is how it comes across to me reading back through what you have both posted.  What does seem to be an issue is how broadly to define 'political' but even there it is possible to see how both of you share common ground.

Your point that 'every act that endangers the lives of others is a form of terrorism' [sorry, my addition there] is something I could get behind.  The sorts of activities and actions of drug dealing groups for instance seeks to intimidate and 'terrorise' to achieve their goals. 

For me though, what distinguishes this from 'terrorism' is the goals involved.  In their case it is narrow self-interest as opposed to some sort of social / political / ideological goal.

Mind you, my view is possibly distorted by experiences back in the 80's and 90's as a legitimate target of the IRA.  Crawling around checking under my car every time we parked off camp just in case a tupperware box with a magnet and a few pounds of Semtex had been shoved on it did raise a few eyebrows at times but better than the alternative.  Some habits became so ingrained that I still adhere to them even now.  Ultimately though I still tend to see 'terrorism' as something that has an organisation behind it.  Clearly this is not so much the case any more so like you I am struggling to figure out many of these issues.

[Tjm86]

This article on  the Conversation website makes for interesting reading about the current debate we appear to be having regarding the classification of INCEL.

[Barrington Boots]

That's an inteteresting and in many ways terrifying article.

Like Tjm86 I think we're very used to thinking of a terrorist as being part of an organised paramilitary style group, rather than someone with an extreme ideology that drives them to commit acts of violence. From what I've read, the Plymouth attacker was radicalised online and I know the Isla Vista murders in 2014, which targeted both men and women and was / is one of the defining Incel atrocities, were defined as a terrorist attack (although I suspect that's because the attacker had some kind of manifesto).

I've not read the debate here in full as I have a poster blocked, but as well as the discussion on the acts and ideology that define a terrorist incident I've been part of some discussion elsewhere about the actual use of the word terrorsim itself and what it means both as a label and a badge. I've seen some argue that defining Incel 'movement' (if it could be described as one) as such legitimises them as an idealogy, others that it's a necessary descriptor for them to be taken seriously as a threat. It's certainly a word with heavy connotations - when news of this attack broke I know it was initially described as a 'domestic' incident which is also very connotation-laden, but in the opposite way: it almost downplays the severity of the incident (another example is the description of an attacker as a 'lone wolf' - it's kind of cool and romantic sounding and there's been suggestions it's not used in the media as, to the wrong kind of people, it has the wrong kind of connotation. Interestingly it's rarely used in attacks where the killer is not a white male).

(Also Tjm, your experiences looking for carbombs sound truly frightening)

[milstar]

Were the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan acts of terrorism? I would answer yes.

Hm...Interesting. Is counter-terrorism a terrorism?

[The Legendary Shark]

I suppose that depends on the nature the counter-terrorism takes. Information gathering and securing possible targets I would say no - but drone-strikes and similar forms of injurious retribution, yes.

[Tjm86]

(Also Tjm, your experiences looking for carbombs sound truly frightening)

It's strange but in some respects it was so ingrained that we didn't think twice about it.  Gate guard training, especially in Germany, focused on the PIRA threat and the sort of things that they did.  So you kind of treated it as just a fact of life. 

Six months before I was posted to Wildenrath Cpl Islania was gunned down in his car with his infant daughter in the back seat.  This was while I was on guard duty at Brize and to this day I still remember watching a Rock Ape carry the tiny coffin of his daughter off the kite at Northolt.  Then at Wildenrath we were shown photos of the car.  The image of the blood-stained and bullet ridden child seat was equally powerful.

At the time Germany was somewhere the IRA were operating at a higher level largely due to the ease with which they could spot British service personnel and the ease with which they could slip back and forth across borders.  You may recall some of the mistakes that they made such as the shooting of a couple of Australians.

Were the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan acts of terrorism?  No, they were unwarranted acts of war.  They have and no doubt will continue to have the accolade of the greatest mistakes of the last 20 odd years.  As Blair said, history will judge them.  Indeed it and many of us are doing exactly that.  Oh and Milstar, are you really sure you want to be quoting Priti Patel?  You know, that great advocate of the fight against counter-terrorism?   

[milstar]

It's strange but in some respects it was so ingrained that we didn't think twice about it.  Gate guard training, especially in Germany, focused on the PIRA threat and the sort of things that they did.  So you kind of treated it as just a fact of life. 

Six months before I was posted to Wildenrath Cpl Islania was gunned down in his car with his infant daughter in the back seat.  This was while I was on guard duty at Brize and to this day I still remember watching a Rock Ape carry the tiny coffin of his daughter off the kite at Northolt.  Then at Wildenrath we were shown photos of the car.  The image of the blood-stained and bullet ridden child seat was equally powerful.

At the time Germany was somewhere the IRA were operating at a higher level largely due to the ease with which they could spot British service personnel and the ease with which they could slip back and forth across borders.  You may recall some of the mistakes that they made such as the shooting of a couple of Australians.

Were the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan acts of terrorism?  No, they were unwarranted acts of war.  They have and no doubt will continue to have the accolade of the greatest mistakes of the last 20 odd years.  As Blair said, history will judge them.  Indeed it and many of us are doing exactly that.  Oh and Milstar, are you really sure you want to be quoting Priti Patel?  You know, that great advocate of the fight against counter-terrorism?   

Priti Patel is the least valuable person I'd quote on from a perspective that such statement would hold some length. No, I must agree with Shark; the cause for "humanitarian" intervention may initially been honourable, before all of them fucking up those countries up.

Sorry for your mishaps, Tjm, terrorism is one of the greatest evils of today, forcing people to live in fear and constant threat.

[Funt Solo]

I found an interesting article on "War and terrorism" (published by the Council of Europe) that explores some of these themes.  As you may imagine, there's a lot of grey area involved in such a broad topic.

In many ways war and terrorism are very similar ... the differences are not always clear-cut and even experts may disagree about whether a violent campaign counts as terrorism, civil war, insurgency, self-defence, legitimate self-determination, or something else.

[The Legendary Shark]

Were the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan acts of terrorism?  No, they were unwarranted acts of war.

This is why I dislike politics (though not you, Tjm - I'm merely using your comment as a jumping off point for the following rant and not to argue with you specifically).

I think I've probably mentioned the Trivium before; it is the first three elements of the classical liberal education which are - in order - grammar, logic, and rhetoric. In modern parlance these subjects might be described as input, processing, and output, were designed to exploit the way the human mind works in order to learn anything, and form the foundation of the modern scientific method. Grammar is the information of a subject; its realities, facts, specialised vocabulary, and so on. Logic is sorting those elements into a meaningful body and eliminating any contradictions. Rhetoric is passing on or using that information. A very simple analogy would be a flat-pack wardrobe - first one reads the assembly instructions (grammar), second one makes sense of the instructions in relation to the parts (logic), and third one uses this collated knowledge to assemble the wardrobe (rhetoric). This is innate in human beings, it's the way we function mentally.

Politics, however, gets these steps in the wrong order - logic, grammar, rhetoric. The political way is to first arrive at the logical conclusion that a wardrobe is needed, second to define the parts required, third to build it. Because politicians begin with the outcome they want, they can then define the parts they need in any way they choose in order to build their wardrobe. Thus any part can become a shelf or a fixing and the resulting wardrobe is, most likely, a mess.

The grammar of a subject, then, becomes twisted to fit the logic. For example, King Whosit the nth logically wants to remain king and decides that the best way to achieve this is by murdering his opponents. Murder, however, is widely regarded as unlawful and so he redefines the term as execution in order to kill people without murdering them. If he was to begin with the grammar, the fact that murder is unlawful, logic would dictate that he must either find another way to remain king or openly commit murder.

Thus we find ourselves using grammar to justify logic instead of using logic to understand grammar, leaving us tangled up trying to sort out terrorism from unwarranted acts of war. Both involve murder, but this point of logic is lost by putting the cart before the horse. Sophistry, then, which is the art of making good arguments seem bad and bad arguments seem good, becomes a vital skill in politics in order to justify a position rather than arrive at a position.

The twisting of grammar is aided by the fact that the spoken language is imprecise and malleable. English, for example, is nowhere near as exact as the languages of mathematics or even music. In mathematical language, X cannot be X and Not-X at the same time but, in English, terrorism can be terrorism and not-terrorism at the same time depending on personal choice or perspective - just as execution can be murder and not-murder, and war can be war and not-war at the same time.

[/rant]