OK... why are we calling terrorists "militants" here?

Maybe I've been reading too much of the BBC lately. In the case of the attacks in Thailand, "terrorists" might have been a better description...I give you that one Joe.

That said, I've also found myself in situations where I have a difficult time defining the appropriate terminology for a given situation and don't feel comfortable slapping the terrorist label on anyone who picks up a gun.

What is a militant?
What is an insurgent?
What is a terrorist?

I know plenty has been written about this, including many quality opinions expressed here at Winds of Change in the past and I don't believe it's always as clear cut as it seems.

Would Ted Bundy be considered a terrorist? He definately terrorized entire communities.

Would an armed member of the Taliban be considered a terrorist, even if he only engaged "enemy" soldiers and not civilians?

Again, I concede your point about the term "militant" being used in the context of the attacks in Thailand, that was certainly terrorist activity. Just pointing out that it's an issue not so cut and dry and I harbor some reservations about labelling everyone a terrorist (not insinuating that is your position).

Maybe I've been reading too much of the BBC lately.

'Reporting' on the murder of the three youngsters from Hebron, the BBC presenter asked their correspondent: Do we know what the motive is?

According to the Thai government, these militants are a small army that's been trained in Libya:

Thai insurgency backed by 3,000 Libyan-trained militants: Panlop

Published on Oct 12 , 2005

Some 3,000 "core militants" received military training in Libya before joining the Islamic insurgency in Thailand's Muslim-majority south, a top general said Wednesday.

"The militants have advanced over the last 20 years, as the core members went to receive military training in Libya for four years, just like our soldiers train," General Panlop Pinmanee told a seminar of 100 security officials.

"When they returned they became the chief operators in the south. Those militants have (the) same capacity as our commandos. There are 1,000 of them in each province and all together there are 30,000 sympathisers across three provinces," he said.

Panlop, an advisor to Thailand's defence minister and head of the Internal Security command, which oversees military operations on Thai soil, said the military has so far proved powerless to stop the insurgency.

"We cannot do anything," he said.

According to the Asia times, this Libyan-trained, Saudi educated army is the most violent "insurgency" outside Iraq

This is the standard Islamist invasion tactic that allowed Islamists to take over most of Northern Africa. Like most of the Islamist invasions the press will sit around and watch it happen, calling this invasion a local, separatist action. Even the Thais don't want to upset their Saudi/Libyan "allies". After all, we all need the "security" that comes from Saudi oil

Oops, I didn't scroll down to see that this had been mentioned.

Meanwhile, Maj-Gen Pongsak Intarawongsak, secretary-general of the Southern Border Provinces Peace-building Command, tried to play down Gen Panlop's remark that key separatist militants had received military training in Libya. The information was nothing new and the number of key militants given by Gen Panlop was too high, he said.

Maj-Gen Pongsak also criticised Gen Panlop over his remarks, saying they would dishearten the troops and make it more difficult for them to do their job.

Deputy Prime Minister Chidchai Wannasathit, addressing the same forum, said the government would release copies of the so-called white paper on key militant attacks around the end of this year.

"The militants currently use hit-and-run tactics. And if the state continues to send in more troops and put them in particular spots, they will continue to lose,'' he told a forum of Isoc executives.

Gen Panlop suggested that small rapid-response motorcycle units be formed and deployed to hot spots.

''So far we have employed lots of troops to hunt them (militants) down because we fear for the safety of our own men. If it's a one-on-one duel, they can't beat us except when we really run out of luck. We have far better equipment.''

A militant is your local feminist, firebrand union leader, or NRA activist, someone who is very zealous about their beliefs and mobilizes themselves and others to that end. They are combative and (esp. the left-wing variety) may even be violent at times, but do not take up arms to express that. A jihadist cleric who preaches hate but doesn't put himself at risk by taking up arms or serve as an operational organizer of violent acts (lots of those around, it seems) is also a militant - but the moment he picks up a gun as part of that effort, or organizes those with guns, bombs, etc. to commit armed violence or otherwise kill people, he's a terrorist.

A terrorist is a non-nation state actor who deliberately murders civilians to advance political ends. So Ted Bundy, having no political agenda, is a criminal but no terrorist. Ditto for Dr. Evil in Austin Powers, so long as his schemes revolve around money. But the Washington snipers were terrorists, and so was the Unabomber. And the Bali bombers, Madrid 3/11, 9/11, Palestinian terrorists in Israel, etc., etc.

Nation-state actors whose militaries murder FOREIGN civilians to advance political ends commit Acts Of War. They present defined targets for retaliation when they do, and are therefore deterrable by conventional calculus. The gray area is stuff like Bulgarian intelligence murdering anti-Soviet dissidents in the West during the Cold war. If they use proxies for this purpose instead, then you have state-sponsored terrorism. Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism against India, for instance. The #1 state sponsor of global terrorism, of course, is Iran.

Nation-state actors who deliberately murder their OWN civilians by the millions, on the other hand, are called members in good standing at the UN and given membership on the UN Human Rights Committee. They may also be given other honorifics and gushing praise by the global Left. Their leaders may be evil tyrants, and the states themselves evil tyrannies or even Evil Empires® - but they are not terrorists which is a very specific sub-species of organized evil.

An insurgent is someone who is part of a full-scale guerilla war aimed at toppling a government (local or national) and assuming power in its place by force of arms.

Now, let's apply...

A Jihadist may be a militant and not a terrorist or insurgent, as in the hate-preaching cleric who never goes beyond that. They may be a terrorist but not an insurgent (Madrid 3/11, London 7/7, 9/11). They may even be an insurgent but not a terrorist, if they confine themselves to military targets in a guerilla war. Or they may be all 3, for instance if a hate-preaching jihadist organizes the bombings of civilians in cafes as part of a guerilla war (Hamas' leaders).

Hope this clarifies.

In regards to the Google Earth article relating India’s consternation over potential benefits of satellite imagery to terrorists, I noticed that Iraq and Iran have excellent detailed imagery, but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has virtually no detail at all, with exception of Riyadh. What’s up with that?

JK: I agree with your general outline of what consitutes a terrorist.

I don't however agree with your usage of 'militant', as I would argue that you are using 'militant' solely in a metaphorical context which obscures the literal meaning of the phrase. Literally, a militant is one who advocates the use of force of arms. So, a cleric, feminist, union boss, or NRA activist is properly described as a militant only if that person advocates or undertakes the use of violence to achieve thier ends. So, 'militant' is useful as a term in that describes both violent actors and potentially violent actors.

Unfortunately, 'militant' is all too often used as you have used it, metaphorically as an adjective to describe someone who is zealous in thier beliefs. Normally, when we speak of a 'militant feminist', we don't mean someone advocating women take guns into the work place. However, when the BBC uses the word 'militant', they almost certainly mean someone who has a gun or other weapon and is planning to use it, so lets avoid such a metaphorical use of the term in a political context.

I would argue that the BBC falls back on the usage of militant precisely because it is such a general and non-specific term, especially when used in its benign metaphorical context. The BBC is literally trying to tell you nothing.

Celebrim,

Exactly.

And whatever its original uses, 'militant' had become something different. With 'militant' used so often to describe people like militant feminists, militant union leaders, et. al., its co-optation to describe terrorists was entirely deliberate and for exactly the reason you mentioned.

Another drive-by in Israel, this time in Be'ersheva. Three wounded - two seriously, one moderately.

Beer Sheeva drive-by probably had criminal motive