Tuesday, January 05, 2016

The Oregon Occupiers and Terrorism

Janell Ross asked in a Washington Post editorial, "Why aren't we calling the Oregon occupiers 'terrorists'?"

Answer: Because they are not.

To be a terrorist, one has to be a part of a political movement that, as a matter of policy threatens the lives of civilians as a means to forcing concessions. "Do what I demand or the innocent child's death will be on your hands."

The Oregon militia does not apply.

One of the ill effects of watering down the term "terrorist " so that it applies to a broad group of people is that it legitimizes terrorism.

Ross makes a point. If the same location were occupied by armed Muslims protesting the treatment of Palestinians, or armed blacks protesting the unjust treatment of blacks at the hands of law enforcement personnel, we would likely use harsher language.

But there are always two ways to resolve a contradiction. Either the terms that would have been used against the blacks or Muslims would have been too harsh, or the terms used for the Oregon militia are not harsh enough. You cannot coherently demand the use of harsh terms against the Oregon militia AND demand morally neutral terms in the case of blacks or Muslims. It is one or the other.

It is hypocrisy, plain and simple, to condemn inconsistent labeling while, at the same time, defending it.

Plus, we should not ignore the fact that, in the case of the protests against police abuses against blacks, violence was done, much of that violence targeted civilian property with risks to civilians lives, and this violence was threatened and acted on with some saying, "Agree to our political demands or you will get more of the same."

A proper analogy would be to a group of black protestors who occupied the Office of the President in some university - without hostages - who threatened to stay there indefinitely unless certain reforms were enacted regarding racial matters. The question is: would it be legitimate to call them "terrorists"?

To do so would be to misuse a term to score rhetorical points. We would know of any person who did this that their desire to score a political victory is overpowering any interest they have in truth and accuracy. They would rather win their victory through deception than explain their actual position honestly. 

I would not use the word "terrorist" unless they start conspiring to systematically kill civilians unless their political demands are met and, even here, only to label those who participated ( in trying to bring about those murders.

2 comments:

Josh said...

Alonzo, long time fan and first time commenter.

I'm still on the fence about this. To this point:

'A proper analogy would be to a group of black protestors who occupied the Office of the President in some university - without hostages - who threatened to stay there indefinitely unless certain reforms were enacted regarding racial matters. The question is: would it be legitimate to call them "terrorists"?'

A big difference is the Oregon group has armed themselves with lethal weapons and many have publicly stated they are prepared to 'die for freedom' or 'liberty' etc. Your example with university protestors doesn't likely include firearms and sentiments of being prepared to die for the cause.

Perhaps it's not terrorism, but it's not a peaceful protest either. Whatever we call what happened in Waco with the Branch Davidians seems to be similar to what is happening in Oregon. A private party/group breaks the law, then retaliates with armed resistance against federal authorities.

Alonzo Fyfe said...

This still does not make you a terrorist.

If we define terrorism this broadly, then all acts of armed rebellion are also necessarily acts of terrorism. In fact, we would have to say that there is no such thing as a rebel who is not also, at the same time, a terrorist.

That seems to be confusing terms.

The people in Oregon, the armed group that takes over an administrative building in a university without taking hostages declaring that they will fight anybody who tries to remove them before their demands are met, are engaging in an act of rebellion, not an act of terrorist.

When the Confederate army fired on Fort Sumpter, they were rebels - not terrorists.

When the colonials at Lexington and Concord fired on the British regulars, they were engaged in an act of rebellion - not an act of terrorism.

To count as terrorism, they need to target civilians.