Comments on: Terrorism: The Best Definition of Terrorism in Light of 9-11 http://criminaljusticeonlineblog.com/archives/terrorism-the-best-definition-of-terrorism-in-light-of-9-11/ Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:46:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: glenn http://criminaljusticeonlineblog.com/archives/terrorism-the-best-definition-of-terrorism-in-light-of-9-11/comment-page-1/#comment-6166 glenn Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:32:17 +0000 http://criminaljusticeonlineblog.com/?p=462#comment-6166 Webster has already defined terrorism, terrorist. the term dates back hundreds of years in France, i think. the only reason to change its definition is to make it fit a predetermined storyline. my point being by definition the US is a terrorist state so is Israel. So to change the definition to only apply to lone nuts or small groups of again nuts but conspiring nuts, is to effectively make the US actions no longer definable as terrorism. politically correct lawyer speak= BS Webster has already defined terrorism, terrorist. the term dates back hundreds of years in France, i think. the only reason to change its definition is to make it fit a predetermined storyline. my point being by definition the US is a terrorist state so is Israel. So to change the definition to only apply to lone nuts or small groups of again nuts but conspiring nuts, is to effectively make the US actions no longer definable as terrorism.

politically correct lawyer speak= BS

]]> By: Radek M. Gadek http://criminaljusticeonlineblog.com/archives/terrorism-the-best-definition-of-terrorism-in-light-of-9-11/comment-page-1/#comment-1262 Radek M. Gadek Fri, 22 May 2009 21:02:34 +0000 http://criminaljusticeonlineblog.com/?p=462#comment-1262 Thomas, Thanks for your invaluable input. Thomas,

Thanks for your invaluable input.

]]> By: Thomas Belvedere http://criminaljusticeonlineblog.com/archives/terrorism-the-best-definition-of-terrorism-in-light-of-9-11/comment-page-1/#comment-1256 Thomas Belvedere Fri, 22 May 2009 15:29:09 +0000 http://criminaljusticeonlineblog.com/?p=462#comment-1256 The State Department's definition focuses on "sub-national groups or clandestine agents." If this definition is accepted. then no nation (or government representing it) can be a terrorist. This lets certain people off the hook. Note also that the definition of terrorist is limited to "non-combatant targets." By this reasoning, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was not a terrorist act; the same is true for attacks on military checkpoints. I hope you will find the following definition of terrorist to be helpful. Highest regards, Thomas Belvedere Author of "The Source of Terrorism: Middle Class Rebellion" (published May 2009). A terrorist is usually a middle class rebel (1) experiencing magnified marginal or transitional conditions, who (2) voluntarily (3) goes through certain rites of passage, among which are (4) clique membership and (5) a deliberate decision to commit a criminal act that is almost always (6) violent and usually (7) murder, in (8) the name of higher intentions or convictions without (9) retaining consciously the ambiguity of his criminal act and his higher intentions/convictions. He expresses powerful, unconscious, ambivalent emotions in two ways: (10) converting his intentions/convictions into idées fixes or absolute truths, the opposite extreme from ambiguity, and (11) wielding uncertainty as a weapon. That uncertainty is total, as shown by the fact that (12) everyone -- allies, non-combatants, even himself -- is a potential victim. A concluding note: it is the syndrome, the running together of components, which counts -- not specific components taken in isolation. By not admitting what he cannot admit, the terrorist guards his secret, even from himself. By not admitting what he is, the terrorist shows the gravity that admission holds for him. To my knowledge, no terrorist or other middle class rebel has ever said what he is. What he is, is the secret he keeps: he is a middle class rebel. The State Department’s definition focuses on “sub-national groups or clandestine agents.” If this definition is accepted. then no nation (or government representing it) can be a terrorist. This lets certain people off the hook. Note also that the definition of terrorist is limited to “non-combatant targets.” By this reasoning, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was not a terrorist act; the same is true for attacks on military checkpoints.

I hope you will find the following definition of terrorist to be helpful.

Highest regards,
Thomas Belvedere
Author of “The Source of Terrorism: Middle Class Rebellion” (published May 2009).

A terrorist is usually a middle class rebel (1) experiencing magnified marginal or transitional conditions, who (2) voluntarily (3) goes through certain rites of passage, among which are (4) clique membership and (5) a deliberate decision to commit a criminal act that is almost always (6) violent and usually (7) murder, in (8) the name of higher intentions or convictions without (9) retaining consciously the ambiguity of his criminal act and his higher intentions/convictions. He expresses powerful, unconscious, ambivalent emotions in two ways: (10) converting his intentions/convictions into idées fixes or absolute truths, the opposite extreme from ambiguity, and (11) wielding uncertainty as a weapon. That uncertainty is total, as shown by the fact that (12) everyone — allies, non-combatants, even himself — is a potential victim. A concluding note: it is the syndrome, the running together of components, which counts — not specific components taken in isolation.

By not admitting what he cannot admit, the terrorist guards his secret, even from himself.

By not admitting what he is, the terrorist shows the gravity that admission holds for him. To my knowledge, no terrorist or other middle class rebel has ever said what he is.

What he is, is the secret he keeps: he is a middle class rebel.

]]>