Who's an Activist and Who's a Terrorist?

I was astounded to read this morning that apparently Jews who plot to blow up mosques are activists, whereas we all know Muslims who plot to blow up synagogues are terrorists.

I can't say I'm surprised at the distinction made, this mass media of ours is famous for playing favorites, remember the Katrina situation where blacks were looters and whites were finders? Well this is along the same lines.

Check this out.
Link

A Jewish Defense League activist imprisoned for his role in a plot to bomb a California mosque and the office of a Lebanese-American U.S. congressman was killed at a federal prison in Phoenix, an FBI spokesman said Saturday.

My emphasis added above.

So what do you all make of this?

What is an outside observer supposed to think when distinctions of this sort are made?

I could provide a number of contrasting examples where arabs were labeled terrorists, but I think it goes without saying. I don't really have to post those links do I? We've all seen them, we've all read the stories, we've all talked about them here at ATS.

As an aside, this story might belong in media, but I thought it fit slightly better here in the war on terrorism, since what I want to talk about is essentially the use of the word terrorist, and how it applies differently to different people, or sometimes, as we see in this case, not at all.

Hmm. Don't get me started on the use of language to manipulate perception.

That said, it's an old story. And this is not the only application. Good catch though.

You can have an activist and a terrorist doing the exact same thing.

The way either one is being called just depends on your standpoint towards what they were targetting.

WyrdeOne,

I have to agree with TheMatrix...

Flip a coin and call it what you will.

The difference between the two is simply a matter of perspective. However, in today's day and age that difference is becoming more blurred as we speak.

Introduce Patriot Act II, at least here in the US, and the two virtually become one.

Originally posted by thematrix
You can have an activist and a terrorist doing the exact same thing.

The way either one is being called just depends on your standpoint towards what they were targetting.

Among other things they were attempting to kill a US Congressman with a huge carbomb.

Good thing one of their own turned them in to the FBI, their conversations were later recorded, and they were caught red-handed attempting to buy a ton of explosives from an undercover FBI agent.

If it were Muslims doing the same would they be terrorists?

ac·tiv·ist (ăk'tə-vĭst)
n.
A proponent or practitioner of activism: political activists.

adj.
Of, relating to, or engaged in activism.
Of, relating to, or being an activist.

ter·ror·ist (tĕr'ər-ĭst)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

adj.
Of or relating to terrorism.

ter'ror·is'tic adj.

Two differant things if you ask me. I suppose one has goals without harming others, and the other has goals with the intent on harming others.
Just my assumption...........

[edit on 6-11-2005 by Bikereddie]

Originally posted by Bikereddie

ac·tiv·ist (ăk'tə-vĭst)
n.
A proponent or practitioner of activism: political activists.

adj.
Of, relating to, or engaged in activism.
Of, relating to, or being an activist.

I'm not talking about the definitions. I'm talking about how the words are used by politicians.

ter·ror·ist (tĕr'ər-ĭst)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

adj.
Of or relating to terrorism.

ter'ror·is'tic adj.

Two differant things if you ask me. I suppose one has goals without harming others, and the other has goals with the intent on harming others.
Just my assumption...........

[edit on 6-11-2005 by Bikereddie]

For some reason my reply didn't show at first :@

Here goes again, I wasn't talking about definitions of words, I was talking about how politicians use them.

If the cause is supported they call them activists, liberation fighters and stuff like that. If they don't support the cause, they are called terrorists.


[edit on 6/11/05 by thematrix]

One man's insurgent is another man's freedom fighter.

It all depends on who's talking, and who the fighter is fighting. From the Us's perspective, if they're against the USA or allies, they're insurgents or terrorists. Otherwise, they're freedom fighters or activists.

Simple, really.

I'm not talking about the definitions. I'm talking about how the words are used by politicians.

But that is the definitions. No matter how you see it, or how you say it, the definitions are there.
The politicians use the same words and terminology as the rest of us. The only difference being, they are politicians.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Jewish Defense League

As far as I know, the JDL is outlawed as a terror group in the U.S.

The Jewish Defense League has been founded in 1968 by American-born extremist Meir Kahane.

Kahane also founded Kach (= “thus” in Hebrew) until he was assassinated in New York in 1990.

Israel outlawed Kach and its offshoot Kahane Chai (“Kahane Lives”) in 1994 (one month after Baruch Goldstein, a Kach supporter, killed 29 Muslim worshipers and injured approximately 100 at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron).


[edit on 6-11-2005 by Riwka]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
One man's insurgent is another man's freedom fighter.

It all depends on who's talking, and who the fighter is fighting. From the Us's perspective, if they're against the USA or allies, they're insurgents or terrorists. Otherwise, they're freedom fighters or activists.

Simple, really.

One of their targets was a US Congressman, and the perspective is American.

Why would they not be terrorists?

Put the shoe on the other foot.

If Muslims were caught in a plot to kill a US congressman with a carbomb would they be called terrorists, or activists?

well to be a successful terrorist he would have to be Active ; wouldnt he ?

Anyone who harms someone else is a terrorist; and if they already harmed someone you can bet hes on Active Duty.

You can be Active in many respects; not just for Terrorism. You can be actively Peaceful.
You can be actively eating or rambling, like i am right now.

Anyone who does anything, even nothing; would be an activist in their agenda. Just read between the lines. Its all there.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

One man's insurgent is another man's freedom fighter.

In my personal opinion, this statement has become not only a cliché, but also one of the most difficult obstacles in coping with terrorism.

I think in the struggle against terrorism, the problem of a definition is a crucial element.

Academics, politicians, security experts and journalists, all use a variety of definitions of terrorism.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Put the shoe on the other foot.
If Muslims were caught in a plot to kill a US congressman with a carbomb would they be called terrorists, or activists?

Terrorists if they had plans to kill him, Activists if they had a non agressive plan to stop him doing something that was against their idealologies.

Originally posted by Bikereddie

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Put the shoe on the other foot.
If Muslims were caught in a plot to kill a US congressman with a carbomb would they be called terrorists, or activists?

Terrorists if they had plans to kill him, Activists if they had a non agressive plan to stop him doing something that was against their idealologies.

Then by your own definition the JDL leaders were terrorists.

Their plans were to kill him, and all the other Americans in the office.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
One of their targets was a US Congressman, and the perspective is American.

Why would they not be terrorists?

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but that was kind of my point. (I was being sarcastic) Anyone who uses fear (terror) as a weapon is a terrorist. Regardless of whose side they're on. Regardless if they're enemies or allies of the US. Or if they are the US.

Originally posted by Riwka
In my personal opinion, this statement has become not only a cliché, but also one of the most difficult obstacles in coping with terrorism.

How so?

My point is that if an enemy army occupied the US and took our president and fought the people who rose up against them, those people would be me and some of us here. But the occupying army would consider us terrorists or insurgents. When we're just fighting to keep what we have. What's rightfully ours.

I think in the struggle against terrorism, the problem of a definition is a crucial element.

Academics, politicians, security experts and journalists, all use a variety of definitions of terrorism.

True. What is a terrorist, then? What's the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent and a freedon fighter?

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but that was kind of my point. (I was being sarcastic) Anyone who uses fear (terror) as a weapon is a terrorist. Regardless of whose side they're on. Regardless if they're enemies or allies of the US. Or if they are the US.

I assumed you were being sarcastic having read other posts of yours, but you only did it as bait for replies which I supplied.

Terrorism is violence that is politically, racially, ethnically, or religiously motivated with the intent of provoking a reaction.



Wondering if Muslim terrorists would have been blamed if they were not caught before committing their acts of terrorism.

Wondering if JDL would have taken responsibility......

[edit on 6-11-2005 by ArchAngel]

Originally posted by ArchAngel
... but you only did it as bait for replies which I supplied.

Really? You think you know me that well? Interesting.

Terrorism is violence that is politically, racially, ethnically, or religiously motivated with the intent of provoking a reaction.

So, are the insurgents in Iraq terrorists?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by ArchAngel
... but you only did it as bait for replies which I supplied.

Really? You think you know me that well? Interesting.

Apologies.

Please insert 'I suppose' after the word 'but'.

I did not suppose to know all of you, but it is an all to common tactic that I myself am guilty of using.

Terrorism is violence that is politically, racially, ethnically, or religiously motivated with the intent of provoking a reaction.

So, are the insurgents in Iraq terrorists?

That would depend on their motive, their targets, and their tactics.

NATIONALIST motivations with targets that are foreign occupiers would represent partisans, not terrorist.

In other words if they attack Coalition soldiers with the intent of expelling the occupiers it is not terrorism.

Those people are Partisans.

The ultimate aribter of language is the record of its use.

A word only means a thing because it has been used to describe that thing. Without the authority granted by repetition no word would mean anything.

That being said, I think it's high time for some honesty in media. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Anyone who uses fear and intimidation, along with clandestine criminality to influence politics and voters is a terrorist.

Which means 90% of political and religious leaders are terrorists.