Okay, so a short thread on terrorism.
Basic idea is: Scaring civilians into demanding changes in government policy. But that's not enough.
For example, has to be non-state actors. If a *state* attacks civilians, we have a term for that: "War," or sometimes, "war crimes." /1
Also, the attacks have to be indiscriminate. They have to be aimed at *terrorizing*, in the sense that ordinary people fear for their lives. Attacking a military vessel overseas isn't even in the ballpark of "terrorism." Military people are armed and accept that risk. /2
All political violence is not terrorism. An anti-Vietnam riot outside the Pentagon is not "terror," in the way that the Weathermen planting a bomb in a post office was. One of them is violent protest; the other makes you afraid to mail a letter. /3
Governments always prefer to label all attacks on anything that isn't obviously a military target as "terrorism" because it commands popular support and gives a lot of room for prosecution, but we shouldn't just parrot the idea that all violence is terrorism. /4
The attack on the USS Cole, for example, was not "terrorism," despite the USG use of the term. IMO, it's impossible to "terrorize" military personnel on duty. Call it guerrilla war, unconventional war, sneak attack, whatever. But "terrorism" is about terrorizing civilians. /5
The 1/6 rioters were seditionists and traitors, IMO. They were trying to overthrow the Constitution. Charge them. But terrorism? Hmm. Think of how a riot can be played that way before you agree too quickly. (Think of what conservatives want to charge BLM with, for example.) /6
"Terrorism" should have real meaning beyond "this was awful and it scared me." The Weathermen. McVeigh. The IRA. Chechens in the 90s. Once you get to "all violence is terrorism," you're giving a license to the government you might regret. /7
One of the lingering outcomes of 9/11 is that "terrorism" is a magic word now to mean almost anything, and that once invoked, it should immediate assent that the government should act with brutal resolve. I am not good with this. /8
None of this means that I think there is no such thing as "terrorism." Terrorism is one of the worst crimes against humanity, and I want it prosecuted mercilessly. But if everything is terrorism, nothing is. That worries me. /9
And, as usual, nothing I say here should be construed to represent the views of any agency of the U.S. government, with whom I obviously disagree on this subject. /10x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Now, I'm not going to post @asatarbair's links, because the point, I suspect, of all this hooey is to bait people into debating him so others will see those links.
If they are as turgid as the 1960-ish Soviet level of his tweets, you are not missing anything. /1
@asatarbair My advice, however, to Dr. Bair, as a colleague, is that creating a stir on Twitter - and, ahem, I have created many - is not a substitute for basic competence in the scholarly field he has chosen to argue. /2
@asatarbair There's nothing wrong with pissing people off about music, food, and which James Bond was the best.
But teachers have a responsibility to know at least *something* about a scholarly matter before weighing in on it.
This is where Dr. Bair has gone very wrong. /3
Unrelated to anything: I finished listening to the unabridged version of "A Clockwork Orange," with the final chapter that U.S. editors cut from the original issue. Burgess was pissed, but having heard it now, I'm going to say: The editors were right. *no spoilers* /1
Burgess apparently felt that the U.S. ending - the version you see in the film - was incomplete and thus made the book a parable rather than a real novel. Far be it from me to disagree with a genius, but it seemed like a raggedy, tacked-on final chapter. /2
The U.S. editors felt the UK ending wouldn't fly with American audiences, and at least for me, it didn't. I can't see it really landing with anyone, but it seems anti-climactic. /3
@dcherring I have Republican friends, too. It's easy to be sociable but as I said to a friend who quoted Hannity to me: You can believe me, or you can believe Hannity. But not both. And it's okay not to talk about it after that and move on to other stuff. /1
@dcherring In other cases - like with a longtime friend who has become an OAN zombie - I just said: "You're wrong. You're being lied to." (I broke off the friendship when I was getting swarmed on FB with threats and he basically said: Well, you know, you caused this.) /2
@dcherring I guess my point is: I don't treat their views as sacred. They wanna talk politics with me, they get what they get. When it gets crazy or I think they've crossed a line, I walk, but up till then, I tell them what I think if they ask me - and I don't care if they like it. /3
So, to amplify on a point in my @TheAtlantic piece today. There are a lot of objections to my argument that whether you loved or hated what conservatives were back 40 years ago, they believed in certain things and reflected that in policy. /1 theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
I think this howling about the eternal evil of conservatives is dumb, and worse, it's myopic and misses the point about the danger of the GOP as it stands today. Conservatives are not extinct - nor will they ever be. But that's not what Trumpers are and that's not the point. /2
People keep raising comments by @SykesCharlie or @stuartpstevens to say "see, it was all just lying nonsense," but having read both their books, I think people misunderstand something they (and I) are saying, and miss something important about conservatism back in the day. /3
I'm tired of Tom Cotton getting away with the motte-and-bailey maneuver he pulled.
People citing his Fox interview are ignoring Bartiromo, who said "bioweapon," and then Cotton carefully said "well, no one knows."
This was a "you think might that, I couldn't comment" moment. /1
Then, Cotton went on Twitter to list "possibilities," including a bioweapon. He put it out there, let others run with it, then said "well, it's not *likely*" - because Cotton knows exactly how the Fox and right-wing info swamp works. /2
This is a recurring tactic on the right. Imply it, let the echo chamber run with it, then deny it, then say you were right all along. Because the goal, as always, is to plant the idea in the heads of stupid people who will not bother with later nuance or explanations. /3
Liberals are being too quick to apologize for not accepting the "lab accident" theory. While I am not a liberal, I accepted the lab accident idea as totally possible back in April 2020. But I warned at the time that people like Tom Cotton were poisoning the well. /1
"Oh, Cotton never said 'bioweapon,' his defenders said, but as I pointed out at the time, this was a motte-and-bailey maneuver, where he played along with Bartiromo and implied that "We have similar labs run by the military." Cotton knew exactly what he was doing. /2
And I was concerned at the time that making off the wall accusations (and quitting WHO) would let China off the hook and complicate our ability to investigate this was a lab leak. But yet, liberals were too quick to just take the opposite of whatever Trump and Cotton said. /3