I wish somebody would hurry up and de-bunk this guy because…

[Tyler]

... the term "terrorist" can rightly be attached to anyone who violates laws while intimidating or coercing societies or governments for ideological or political reasons.

That's a definition so broad as to encompass pretty much everything from George Bush to the steelworkers Union.

Now you guys are getting into my particular field of experience and education. There is a very specific profile that Mr. McVeigh fits into...its the same one that Ted Kaczynski, The Erie Collar Bomber, George Metesky (NYC's own Mad Bomber, if you aren't familiar), Eric Rudolph, and Utah's own Mark Hoffman of the Mormon Murders....the list goes on and on...
These guys all fit a very specific criminal and behavioral profile, and that's how a good deal of them were caught! A "terrorist" is something totally off the scale of what you're talking about here, and since "terrorist" is such a broad word, it would be wise to refrain from calling serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers anything but what they can be scientifically and categorically classified as. Psychological profiling and classification may not be an exact science, but compared to the obscurity of defining terrorism, it has adamantium claws.
Without getting into a disertation, there are some links you can follow to read up on this topic...
These are for the basic learner; if you really want to know more, go back to school and take advanced degrees in investigation from your local satallite police academy...
http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com
http://www.crimelibrary.com-not the most reliable source of topical information (it's one of Court TV's sites) but it'll give you a basic idea of what you might want to study...

Also, John Douglas, the man responsible for bringing profiling to the forefront of major investigations (I actually had the oportunity to learn from this guy in a classroom situation; he's absolutely brilliant!), has an entire series of books that are most informative.

[Dale]

Also, John Douglas, the man responsible for bringing profiling to the forefront of major investigations (I actually had the oportunity to learn from this guy in a classroom situation; he's absolutely brilliant!), has an entire series of books that are most informative.

I read one of his books and I was distracted by the breadth and depth of John Douglas's ego. Oh, well.

[Lorenzo]

... the term "terrorist" can rightly be attached to anyone who violates laws while intimidating or coercing societies or governments for ideological or political reasons.

That's a definition so broad as to encompass pretty much everything from George Bush to the steelworkers Union.

The terms "intimidating or coercing," in any common international sense, would include, but is not limited to, such destructive activities as assassinations, random bombings, random killings (such as a sniper), or hijackings -- not a reaction to these violations of law.

[dwinterfield]

... the term "terrorist" can rightly be attached to anyone who violates laws while intimidating or coercing societies or governments for ideological or political reasons.

That's a definition so broad as to encompass pretty much everything from George Bush to the steelworkers Union.

Now you guys are getting into my particular field of experience and education. There is a very specific profile that Mr. McVeigh fits into...its the same one that Ted Kaczynski, The Erie Collar Bomber, George Metesky (NYC's own Mad Bomber, if you aren't familiar), Eric Rudolph, and Utah's own Mark Hoffman of the Mormon Murders....the list goes on and on...
These guys all fit a very specific criminal and behavioral profile, and that's how a good deal of them were caught! A "terrorist" is something totally off the scale of what you're talking about here, and since "terrorist" is such a broad word, it would be wise to refrain from calling serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers anything but what they can be scientifically and categorically classified as. Psychological profiling and classification may not be an exact science, but compared to the obscurity of defining terrorism, it has adamantium claws.
Without getting into a disertation, there are some links you can follow to read up on this topic...
These are for the basic learner; if you really want to know more, go back to school and take advanced degrees in investigation from your local satallite police academy...
http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com
http://www.crimelibrary.com-not the most reliable source of topical information (it's one of Court TV's sites) but it'll give you a basic idea of what you might want to study...

Also, John Douglas, the man responsible for bringing profiling to the forefront of major investigations (I actually had the oportunity to learn from this guy in a classroom situation; he's absolutely brilliant!), has an entire series of books that are most informative.

A while back I read an article discussing Sadam, Iraq, bin Ladan and all. The writer's premise was that the people creating these threats fell into two catagories 1) people who had a desire to live past the bad act they want to create and 2) people for who their own continued existance is less important than the act they want to carry out.

He went on to say that US foreign policy response should be different for each group. You can negotiate with group 1 (Sadam) You can't negotiate with group 2 (bin Ladan) .

So my question is - will the mad bomber type negotiate?

[s1m0n]

He went on to say that US foreign policy response should be different for each group. You can negotiate with group 1 (Sadam) You can't negotiate with group 2 (bin Ladan) .

I think it's more useful to distinguish "terrorist" causes by the degree of support they have in an ordinary population. If a substantial proportion of 'the people' are behind a cause, then no amount of force will suffice to stamp it out--Stalin (among others) proved this over and over, and the Isrealis have spent 40 years proving it. The only way to succeed is to divert that popular will away from the terrorists by giving the population's grievance an alternate means of address. Once divided from their support base, you then stamp out the terrorist die-hards using police action.

This, however, isn't exactly 'negotiating with terror'--it's starving terror of it's support by resolving the grievance which feeds it. If a large number of a civilian population shares the grievance, it has to be a real one, genuinely in need of being addressed.

Conversely, terrorists of the mad bomber or thrill-seeking gang types (ie, Tim McVeigh or Baader-Meinhoff) have no substantial support in a population, and hence have no real cause that can be addressed. They're in it for the attention and excitement. Negotiating with this type is counter-productive, because the implied importance just feeds their grandiose fantasies. Besides, they don't want anything you can offer, apart from attention--there's nothing they want to negotiate for.

[Tyler]

So my question is - will the mad bomber type negotiate?

Nope.

He more than often will not directly take credit for his work by name (he might after the media or law enforcement give him one). The Unibomber is a classic example (not to mention one in the forefront of the public eye upon whom study is easier)of what the mad bomber personality entails.
The most basic explaination of his case is on Court TV's http://www.crimelibrary.com .

IMHO, (and this may just come from years of study on the subject) but Saddam Hussein and Ossama bin Laden have more in common with each other than Ted K. has in common with either of them. (and I just use Unibomber as an example because of the ease that most people can relate to the case compared with more obscure or historically distant bombers)

I read one of his books and I was distracted by the breadth and depth of John Douglas's ego. Oh, well

I'm willing to let his ego slide. If everyone in law enforcement could do what he did/does, we would have fewer voilent crime offenders..and the chances of an offender escaping would be absolutely nil. He can have his ego for all I care, just as long as he continues to train recruits to the Investigative Support Unit (formerly behavioral sciences). It takes a lot more than a degree in psychology or fifty years experience in law enforcement to do what he does; it's a melding of these arts/sciences.

[s1m0n]

Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist at all; he was a dictator. I'd be very wary of an analysis which treats Hussein as a terrorist merely because the republicans wanted to refocus americans' anger at Osama bin Laden so they could start a war with someone else.

Objectively, "Saddam Hussein" and "terrorism" had very little to do with each other.

[jGilder]

Has anyone seen that thread about Dale's cat? I can't seem to find it -- these political threads keep getting in the way.

[Lorenzo]

Looks like we have more than each other to convince...



*******************************


Ted Kaczynski, Terrorist

Born: 22 May 1942
Birthplace: Evergreen Park, Illinois
Best Known As: The Unabomber - http://www.answers.com/topic/unabomber

**************************

Theodore John Kaczynski, Ph.D., also known as the Unabomber (born May 22, 1942) is an American terrorist who attempted to fight against what he perceived as the evils of technological progress by sending mail bombs to various people over almost eighteen years, killing three and wounding 29. He was the target of the FBI's most expensive manhunt ever. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski

[amar]

Has anyone seen that thread about Dale's cat? I can't seem to find it -- these political threads keep getting in the way.

http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=32270

[Tyler]

Objectively, "Saddam Hussein" and "terrorism" had very little to do with each other.

I didn't mean to imply that they did; I was meaning to draw comparison to the distance between the "mad bomber" personality type and the accepted archetype of "terrorist."
IMHO, they're not even in the same ballpark...sorry for the confusion.

[Tyler]

Looks like we have more than each other to convince...



*******************************


Ted Kaczynski, Terrorist

Born: 22 May 1942
Birthplace: Evergreen Park, Illinois
Best Known As: The Unabomber - http://www.answers.com/topic/unabomber

**************************

Theodore John Kaczynski, Ph.D., also known as the Unabomber (born May 22, 1942) is an American terrorist who attempted to fight against what he perceived as the evils of technological progress by sending mail bombs to various people over almost eighteen years, killing three and wounding 29. He was the target of the FBI's most expensive manhunt ever. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski

Think of the word "terrorist" as a buzz word, with no true concrete definition...
What would you describe these men as?

[s1m0n]

So can you tell me what cause either the Unabomber or Tim McVeigh were fighting for? Which ideology he espoused?

You can't, because for both the cause was so shallow as to amount to little more than general animosity. The Unabomber's long manifesto was incoherent. It's a painful task to try and make sense of it.

~~

And I've seen quotes by actual legislators in the US describing all kinds of things as "terrorism". One guy who'd been defrauding old folks in Florida got called an "economic terrorist" by an expostulating congressperson. There isn't a lot of precision left in the word when gets used as a general expression of hate.

~~

However, if you actually mean to meaningfully discuss terrorism as a political or military strategy, you have to rule these hyperbolic uses of the term out, because they refer to neither politics nor war. They're crime.

[Dale]

Has anyone seen that thread about Dale's cat? I can't seem to find it -- these political threads keep getting in the way.

http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=32270

Mr. Gilder, I believe, is being sarcastic.

[Tyler]

So can you tell me what cause either the Unabomber or Tim McVeigh were fighting for? Which ideology he espoused?

You can't, because for both the cause was so shallow as to amount to little more than general animosity. The Unabomber's long manifesto is incoherent.

~~

And I've seen quotes byactual legislators in the US describing all kinds of things as "terrorism". One guy who'd been defrauding old folks in Florida got called an "economic terrorist" by an expostulating congressperson. There isn't a lot of precision left in the word.

~~

However, if you actually mean to meaningfully discuss as a political or military strategy, you have to rule these hyperbolic uses of the term, because they refer to neither politics nor war. They're crime.

<Sigh>
All I wanted to say is that it's probably not appropriate to refer to people like McVeigh or Ted K. as terrorists...their situations, stressors, causes, etc aren't even the same. If you were to ask someone more profficient in behavioral profiling than I, they'd probably tell you that people like Saddam and Osama fit into different behavioral profiles than Uni and McVeigh...
That's all I'm saying.