October 17, 2002

12:06 AM

Arsonists try to burn down a mosque in Melbourne, AustraliaI was going to title this link 'Another terrorist attack', but I was concerned that would unduly alarm people: Deputy Victorian Police Commissioner Bill Kelly said police had no evidence to suggest the Doncaster attack was a response to the Bali bombing. "It's not being looked at as a retaliation attack, it's just being looked at as an arson attack on a building," he said. "But obviously given what has happened last Saturday that puts another dimension into the investigation to follow-up on to make sure it either is or isn't politically or religiously motivated." Terrorists or arsonists? I suppose it depends upon whether you're Muslim or not. Sounds like terrorism to me. But like us easy-going Aussies like to say: 'No worries. She'll be right, mate.' Damn them all.
posted by chrisgregory (27 comments total)

this sort of thing is beyond stupid. the jihadist terrorists actually want a holy war and these assaults only encourage them. it also affects mainstream muslims, who, ordinarily will never support terror, that dialogue/integration is fruitless, thus creating a political gap the jihadists will gladly fill.
posted by quarsan at 12:57 AM on October 17, 2002

That's true. Unfortunately we have our own fair share of idiots in this country.
posted by Jubey at 1:45 AM on October 17, 2002

two things:

1. [more inside]
2. Vandalism is not terrorism.
posted by hama7 at 2:08 AM on October 17, 2002

What's the difference? Someone tries to burn down your church, that's vandalism or terrorism (or arson)? That depends upon who you are, and the particular god that the church was dedicated to, and your own particular beliefs.
Myself, while I'm not a Muslim, I have many Muslim friends who are going to have second thoughts about ever leaving their homes again. Vandalism? Sounds more like terrorism to me.
And I thought that that George W had a war on against terrorism. Was that just an euphemism for having a war against people with pointy beards? Because it would seem that there are terrorists abroad, in Melbourne, my own home town, who are conducting their own little terrorist campaigns.
Frank Zappa said: I'm not black, but there are times when I wish I could say I wasn't white.
I'm Australian. But when something like this happens in my home town I wish I could say I was an Icelander.
posted by chrisgregory at 2:34 AM on October 17, 2002

that's vandalism or terrorism (or arson)? That depends upon who you are, and the particular god that the church was dedicated to, and your own particular beliefs.

Why does the definition of the act depend on your religion? I think most people would call this an act of intimidation or something similar to that. I wouldn't call this terrorism - not because it doesn't terrorize, but because we use the term terrorism to mean something different. Al Qaeda is different to a bunch of thugs in Melbourne. If we're going to expand the term to mean any Bad Thing then we may as well ditch it altogether.

And I thought that that George W had a war on against terrorism. Was that just an euphemism for having a war against people with pointy beards? Because it would seem that there are terrorists abroad, in Melbourne, my own home town, who are conducting their own little terrorist campaigns.

George Bush has also been far too free and easy with the word terrorism, but come on, do you expect him to invade Melbourne?
posted by Summer at 2:43 AM on October 17, 2002

Intimidation or terrorism?
What does it take to be a terrorist?
I'd of thought that a terrorist was someone who intimidated someone into staying at home when they wanted to go out, or just generally made them afraid for their own lives.
I think that was accomplished. I'm sure it feels much better to know that you're not being terrorised, but that you're just being intimidated.
It's all wrong. It is all terribly wrong. Whether you call it retaliation or intimidation or terrorism, it is all wrong.
posted by chrisgregory at 2:56 AM on October 17, 2002

There is an ongoing debate at the UN about the meaning of terrorism, but most definitions would seem to include the arson perpetrated against this mosque.

For me the key for transforming terror into terrorism is where "the direct targets of attacks are not the main targets", e.g. Muslims in general were the target, not the specific mosque.
posted by daveg at 5:05 AM on October 17, 2002

you folks down under might want to start being escorts for shopping and mosque-going, like we did in NY.....a lot of muslim women were being harrassed, especially in Sept./Oct...
posted by amberglow at 5:37 AM on October 17, 2002

For me it comes down to something like this: I used to love my country, and my friends also loved their country. And now we don't. Australia, I would have once said with confidence, is the best place in the world. And now I don't know. I've lost faith, as have all of my friends. Any reason for me to feel to proud be an Australian was betrayed some time ago.

It's all turned to shit.

And I'd challenge anybody to say anything optimistic about Australia, or the little puppet gulag it has become.

Everything sucks. If I ever get to meet John Howard face to face I'll call him a cunt. And some idiot is throwing petrol bombs through the window of their local mosque.

Monsters from the ID.
posted by chrisgregory at 5:55 AM on October 17, 2002

chrisgregory: "I'm Australian. But when something like this happens in my home town I wish I could say I was an Icelander."

Fairweather Australian are you? You need to grow a pair of balls and stand up and speak out. If you feel strongly about this, then you need to shout it out to all that could possibly hear you that you denouce this shit or that shit or whatever, not hide behind "I wish I was an Icelander, but only when the publicity is bad; other times I'm a quiet Australian."
That is bullshit, and you know it.
posted by blogRot at 6:28 AM on October 17, 2002

Who gets to be defined as a terrorist? When Florida doctor Robert Goldstein was arrested recently with "40 weapons, 30 explosive devices, a list of about 50 Islamic worship centres in Florida and detailed plans to bomb an Islamic education centre," the Sheriff's deputy on the case referred to Goldstein as "Just a smart guy" and who "knew his stuff. It was like a James Bond thing."

James Bond??
posted by carter at 6:50 AM on October 17, 2002

Every time I hear in the news, "We don't know if it's terrorism or not", it just seems like code for "We don't know if the perpetrator is Muslim or not". The Florida doctor case is a good example. So is the attempted bombing by Irv Rubin of the JDL of several Muslim targets in LA (along with a US Congressman of Arab descent).

In those two cases, I never heard a reference to terrorism. These two people were caught with weapons in their possession in the process of committing terrorism, unlike the so-called "sleeper cells" who had no weapons on them. Yet what gets called terrorism? Anything that has "Islam" attached to it.
posted by laz-e-boy at 7:09 AM on October 17, 2002

For me the key for transforming terror into terrorism is where "the direct targets of attacks are not the main targets", e.g. Muslims in general were the target, not the specific mosque.
interesting point, however I would add first of all specifically civilian targets. For example, Palestinians are labeled "terrorist" whether they attack soldiers or civilians. Deliberate attacks on civilians could never be considered legitimate, but Palestinians shooting at Israeli soldiers arguably is a legitimate attack.
posted by tranceformer at 7:10 AM on October 17, 2002

Intimidation or terrorism?
What does it take to be a terrorist?

Apparently it takes Bush calling you one, otherwise we would be calling Israelis terrorists, and training terrorists inside the US for use in south america...

On another topic, this definition of terrorism is interesting "the direct targets of attacks are not the main targets", e.g. Muslims in general were the target, not the specific mosque."

Perhaps a redefinition of hate crimes into the new terminology is needed so people can possibly understand.

Terrorism is intimidation that attempts to curtail your freedom whose target is almost always based on a class of which you belong. Israelis forcing palestinians to live in constant curfew is terrorism, burning a mosque is terrorism, burning an african-american church is terrorism, killing a homosexual because they acted too gay is terrorism, torturing people that try and work for democratic reform is terrorism, and driving planes into the world trade center is terrorism. And it's all wrong.
posted by rhyax at 7:15 AM on October 17, 2002

I have always felt there must be an accompanying political component for an act to be considered terrorism. That is, the perpetrators (whether they be individuals, organizations, governments, armies, etc.) must have some political agenda they feel they are advancing by carrying out an act of terror. Otherwise, the definition becomes so broad as to be meaningless. (In the linked case, I would hazard a guess that this is indeed terrorism, the politcial agenda being to frighten Muslims into emigrating.)
posted by mapalm at 7:33 AM on October 17, 2002

No one was in the mosque. It's vandalism with intent to destroy property. Terrorism would include waiting until worship time to maximize carnage. These arsonists deliberately attacked the mosque when it was empty to avoid killing innocent civilians. This doesn't even come close to terrorism.
posted by David Dark at 8:22 AM on October 17, 2002

Do you think if Al-Quida killed hundreds of Icelanders that there wouldn't be any misguided retaliation? There are reactionaries in every neighborhood of every city of every nation. You say you are surprised it could happen in your own neighborhood, are you really so arrogant that you believed your country was somehow morally superior to Israel or America? Welcome to reality. People get scared. People get angry. People, not Americans.

Are you really so obtuse that you don't see a difference between the Bali bombing and this attempted arson. No differences in motivation or intent? Do you need it spelled out for you? The Bali bombing, the September 11th attacks, the bombing of the Cole, the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in africa these are all deliberate, calculated attempts to draw the western world into a war with the Middle East.

The arson, OTOH, looks like it was a bad decision by some pissed off and scared people.

With all due respect get your head out of your ass.
posted by Bonzai at 8:27 AM on October 17, 2002

Rhyax: I appreciate your sentiment that everything violent = terrorism = bad. But that's pretty simplistic right? Israelis = Killings of Gays = Destruction of World Trade Center?

There is such a thing as defense and there are a lot of people who believe they are defending themselves, if by violent means. To me, terrorism is not based "on a class of which you belong," because every violent act can be interpreted that way. When we are talking about terrorism, I think we're really talking about the organized destruction of life and property outside of officiated state controls.
posted by boardman at 10:13 AM on October 17, 2002

chrisgregory: wow, just because the perps are white, causing TERROR to a community selected for its beliefs suddenly doesn't get the T label attached to it?

What are you, trolling?
posted by timyang at 10:20 AM on October 17, 2002

When we are talking about terrorism, I think we're really talking about the organized destruction of life and property outside of officiated state controls.

You got it right up until the part about "outside of officiated state controls." When Israel fires missiles into civilian apartment complexes, there is clear "organized destruction of life," and it is meant to further a political agenda: the clearing of the Occupied Territories of Palestinians. Sounds like terror to me.

I for one rarely use the term "terrorist," because it is a deceptively shallow and facile term. BUT, if folks want to use it, you can't have it both ways. Terror is terror, and applying the label selectively only highlights the political biases of those who use the term selectively.
posted by mapalm at 10:37 AM on October 17, 2002

This is where I disagree, mapalm. Israel is a sovereign state that is, rightly or wrongly, providing security for its people. Every state has a right to do that, including Israel. This isn't being selective; it's making a difference between "war" and "terrorism."

I dislike using these terms as well, but they're with us and we need to know what we're talking about as this very serious stuff.
posted by boardman at 11:07 AM on October 17, 2002

Then we agree to disagree. I do not make the distinction between a state that perpetrates acts of violence against a civilian population with the intent to scare and intimidate them into submission...and an individual who does so.
posted by mapalm at 12:05 PM on October 17, 2002

Hmm. Actually, I don't think I agreed to anything. It's kind of easy to point fingers at Israel, one of the most open states in the world about its problems and admittedly unhealthy political dilemmas. (Anyway, this has been discussed 8 million times before on MF.)

Maplam, what would you call Saddam's violence against his own people? What would you call Colombia's? Here's an interesting piece I found today.
posted by boardman at 1:11 PM on October 17, 2002

I would call Saddam's violence against Kurdish and Iraqi civilians the same thing as what I would call Israel's violence against Palestinian civilians. And by the way, the US has actively supported, or turned a blind eye, to both.
posted by mapalm at 1:15 PM on October 17, 2002

Maybe we should wait until all the facts are in before passing judgement on this...OH WAIT...that's only when we think it might be Muslim terrorists...for suspected western acts we are free to rush to any judgement we desire.
posted by HTuttle at 1:43 PM on October 17, 2002

If you burn down a church it's arson.
If you burn down a mosque it's a public service.

"A day without Muslim bashing is like a day without sunshine" ;)
posted by MikeMc at 9:51 PM on October 17, 2002

That is a joke, right, MikeMc? Right?
posted by mapalm at 7:41 AM on October 18, 2002