New Drinking Game: Terrorist, Radical or Protester

Sullivan linked to an internal debate among the Newsweek staff which was initially intended to be a banter about the difference between Joe Stack and the Undie-Bomber but evolved into a taxonomic discussion over the definition of the term "Terrorist."  It's certainly worth a read to see how the different positions are defended.

Sullivan and Greenwald keyed in on Managing Editor, Kathy Jones' take (Sullivan today questioned the potential irony factor):

Did the label terrorist ever successfully stick to McVeigh? Or the Unabomber? Or any of the IRS bombers in our violence list ?   Here is my handy guide:
 - Lone wolfish American attacker who sees gov't as threat to personal freedom: bomber, tax protester, survivalist, separatist
 - Group of Americans bombing/kidnapping to protest U.S. policies on war/poverty/personal freedom/ - radical left-wing movement, right-wing separatists
 - All foreign groups or foreign individuals bombing/shooting to protest American gov't: terrorists

Personally, I'm not convinced it was irony but I also see the world through dark, slanted glasses and assume that we're loaded up with people who only understand terrorism as defined in a post-9/11 world.  I was much more interested in Digital Editor, Devin Gordon's spin:

Fundamentally, I'm with Dan: a Texan white guy named Joe Stack isn't as interesting / enraging / anxiety-inducing as a Nigerian Muslim named Abdulmutallab. I'm also with Eve: Stack's philosophy, unlike Abdulmutallab's, is pretty kosher with many—maybe even most—Americans. [...]
But I'm most intrigued by a couple of things Mike suggested. First, that Abdulmutallab's actions fit into a much larger terrorism narrative that has stretched out for years, resulted in ongoing wars and decided presidential elections. Isolated, Underpants Man's actions are surely milder than Stack's—it still amazes me that a man flying a plane into a building doesn't make us flinch much more—but Stack's actions are just that: isolated.

Then again, what if they aren't? That's the other thing that intrigued me about what Mike wrote: "The FBI gets skittish when you ask what they do about domestic terrorist groups because they clearly realize that the line between domestic terrorist and political dissident can sometimes be a blurry one." One thing that could've stretched out this Austin Wacko story out quite a bit longer is if the mainstream media had been bolder about connecting it to the larger anti-tax political phenomenon in this country today: the Tea Party. But most of us weren't willing to go there. Why? Because we are perceived as being dismissive and condescending toward the movement—OK, we *are* dismissive and condescending toward the movement. In short, we tend to treat them like wackos and we are gun-shy about going the full Monty and suggesting they are this close to being *violent* wackos. The FBI is skittish about that blurry line, and so is the media.

(my bold for emphasis)  And it gets better... Here's how correspondent Mark Hosenball followed:

[I]f you look at patterns of extreme-right-wing violence—and I have been collecting some string on this, which maybe it's about time to tie together—then the Austin airplane guy's actions don't look quite so isolated. For example this guy was grabbed by authorities in New Jersey less than two weeks ago. "Ready for 'Armageddon'" says the headline in the Gloucester Daily Times, about a man who got busted with a stockpile of hand grenades, 20 guns, handcuffs, camouflage clothing, handcuffs and assorted other military paraphernalia. The folks at Talkingpointsmemo reported that he was a Tea Party activist and big fan of Sarah Palin. How is it not terrorism if this guy at some point goes bats and shoots at or throws grenades into a crowd? Just because such a person is a fan of Sarah Palin, of course, doesn't make her a terrorist or even an inspiration to terrorists in the same way that Osama or Anwar Awlaki both deliberately have set out to be. But if such a guy goes bananas and killed a bunch of people—even if his personal views were so extreme (like the Unabomber's) that he constituted a political party of one—if he sets out to deliberately impose or advertise his views to the world by blowing up a bunch of innocent people, then to my mind that's terrorism. But I guess it's easier and more convenient—politically correct, even—to use that word to describe someone if they have a beard.

(more of my bold for emphasis)

Whoa. How is this the first I've heard of a guy who was arrested in my own damn back yard with enough weapons to wage a war on Martha Coakley's entire election return?  Yes I digress, but click that TPM link for some entertaining lit.

Now, clearly Hosenball's example is largely conjecture but the larger point remains:  it's much easier to lay the terrorist stigma on a "guy in a cave" than on the system engineer from Pennsylvania.  This is displayed, rather pathetically, by most of the contributors of that email chain.  After all, if we label people who perform acts of terror as terrorists, who aren't brown and bearded, it severely decapitates the anti-Islam fear breeding agenda that's dominated our political landscape, media and elections for the last decade.  Something I'm sure Newsweek and the WaPoCo umbrella understand and are careful to avoid like the vapid lemmings they are.

This topic did get me thinking about the term and how it should be defined.   I solicited the help of a few friends, asking how they would define the term terrorist and the message was consistent - and, shockingly, not in line with the lemmings:

a person or group who plots against either another group or government using radical means, weapons, scare tactics, etc.

a radical who is involved with groups of people with certain interest that will use fear and violence to promote or carry out their cause

 a person or group who uses violence to send a message, usually part of a religion or cult. 

Maybe there's hope for this world after all.   No muslim ties, no exclusion of lone-wolf types, no sparing of the ignorant to push an agenda.  Clear and concise: a Person or Group who sends their message through violent or radical means.  Much easier.  And we don't have to continue lying to ourselves about Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Scott Roeder, Joe Stack or anyone else for that matter.  Bottom line of this long-winded story, I think, is that the pathway to honesty begins without the mainstream media as a guide.