What Defines Terrorism?

[rocketdodger]

I was reading the thread about last stand for property rights, and someone mentioned that the last course of action when the courts fail you is civil disobedience. Then it occured to me, however, that one can always resort to violence.

My question is, if one destroys infrastructure without the intent of causing terror, are they still a terrorist?

In this case it seems like the displaced property owners could simply put forth a warning like "any building placed over this property will be destroyed, though human beings will not be purposefully targeted." Without considering the feasibility of such a plan, would the persons responsible be terrorists?

 

[jimtron]

Terrorism is difficult to define. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I haven't been following the property rights thread, and am certainly not an expert in that department, but it seems to me if one destroys property--even with a warning--they'll be arrested and possibly be accused of terrorism. Both Israelis and Palestinians have been accused of terrorism when destroying property (even when people were not harmed). And some have accused the U.S. of terrorist acts for destroying property.

I don't think a warning or the fact that humans aren't harmed will necessarily keep one from being called a terrorist for destroying property.

 

[Kaylee]

Terrorists are usually the ones with the bad PR, the ones who don't get to write the history books or most of the newspaper articles, and are usually the ones who lost the war.

 

[Cleon]

It's very simple. "Terrorism" is any attack carried out by terrorists. "Terrorists" are people who engage in terrorism.

 

[Kaylee]

If George Washington and et al had lost the American Revolution, they might have been considered terrorists in the history books. One of my grade school teachers said that sometimes the Americans used ambush tactics instead of the more formal style of fighting that the British and French used in the Napoleonic Wars. Apparently that was considered unprofessional and ungentlemanly among other things, by the British.

 

[webfusion]

'terrorize' is the key --- the object being to sow widespread fear throughout a society, beyond the actual act committed.

Fear of being killed suddenly, out of the clear blue sky.

 

[kalen]

"Terrorist" is a great label for propaganda purposes.

 

[Kaylee]

'terrorize' is the key --- the object being to sow widespread fear throughout a society, beyond the actual act committed.

Fear of being killed suddenly, out of the clear blue sky.

OK, I see your point. Terrorists generally target civilians and professional soldiers don't. Although I don't think it would stop professional soldiers if their were civilians around enemy soldiers and resources (factories, airports, shipyards, media and communication infrastructure, etc.) that they wanted to take out.

So I will take back my George Washington post (post #5), and consider my post #3 revised.

 

[Cleon]

OK, I see your point. Terrorists generally target civilians and professional soldiers don't.

If that's the case, why is the attack on the USS Cole (a Naval destroyer) considered a "terrorist" attack? Ditto for the bombing of the army barracks in Lebanon, attacks on IDF outposts, etc. The idea that "terrorism" means "attacks on civilians" is an concept rendered obsolete, largely by the "war on terrorism."

I simply don't accept that "terrorism" means "to wage war by terrorizing," either. Sure, that's what the word "terrorism" literally means, but let's face it--all war is about terrorizing the enemy into submission. That was the stated point of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hell, what was the strategy going into Iraq? "Shock and awe!" Terrify them into submission. Is the war on Iraq then, by definition, terrorist?

Today, "terrorist" is simply a synonym for "bad guy."

 

[rocketdodger]

Today, "terrorist" is simply a synonym for "bad guy."

So darleks are terrorists?

 

[Cleon]

So darleks are terrorists?

Yeah, but Daleks are cool.

 

[Kaylee]

If that's the case, why is the attack on the USS Cole (a Naval destroyer) considered a "terrorist" attack? Ditto for ...

OK then, let me rephrase.

Terrorists generally include targeting civilians in their arsenal of tactics, and they are willing to use this tactic frequently. Terrrorists will take out enemy soldiers or resources also.

Professional soldiers don't include targeting civilians in their arsenal of tactics -- althought they are willing to kill civilians if they happen to be near their major target: enemy soldiers or resources.

Also, I just recalled... this relates to something called the Geneva Conventions -- 4 treaties and some additional protocols that are an agreement on how to treat civilians and prisoners of wars. Generally professional soldiers follow them (with perhaps certain exceptions in the current Iraq war unfortunately) and terrorists don't.

Today, "terrorist" is simply a synonym for "bad guy."

Well, I'll agree with that to a certain extent. Terrorists with good PR are usually called freedom fighters.

But, I think whether or not a group's fighters follow the Geneva Conventions makes a big difference. That's something that transcends propaganda.

 

[Cleon]

OK then, let me rephrase.

Terrorists generally include targeting civilians in their arsenal of tactics, and they are willing to use this tactic frequently. Terrrorists will take out enemy soldiers or resources also.

Professional soldiers don't include targeting civilians in their arsenal of tactics -- althought they are willing to kill civilians if they happen to be near their major target: enemy soldiers or resources.

Well, again, history kinda shoots that in the foot.

Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Dresden. The carpet-bombing of Tokyo. My Lai. Sherman's march to the sea. Confederate razing of towns and cities (such as Columbia, SC) to keep them from falling into Union hands. We can go back centuries and find professional armies purposefully targetting civilians in large quantities.

In addition, what defines "enemy resources" is an interesting question, isn't it? Technically, people are "resources." Power generators, even if used for civilian purposes, are "resources." Medical care, such as hospitals, is certainly a "resource." Food is a "resource." The line between "targetting civilians" and "targetting enemy resources" is not only fine, but rather vacuous in many cases.

Also, I just recalled... this relates to something called the Geneva Conventions -- 4 treaties and some additional protocols that are an agreement on how to treat civilians and prisoners of wars. Generally professional soldiers follow them (with perhaps certain exceptions in the current Iraq war unfortunately) and terrorists don't.


Well, I'll agree with that to a certain extent. Terrorists with good PR are usually called freedom fighters.

But, I think whether or not a group's fighters follow the Geneva Conventions makes a big difference. That's something that transcends propaganda.

Emphasis mine. We're not following the Geneva conventions right now. Even beyond Abu Ghraib. We're imprisoning people indefinitely under some legally vague concept of "illegal combatant" which is totally against the provisions of the Geneva treaties. We're committing acts of physical and psychological abuse, and rather than stamping that out, our elected officials (and their apologists) are hemming and hawing about what the exact definition of "torture" is.

So, are the armed forces of the United States now a terrorist organization?

My point is not that "everybody's a terrorist" or something similar. My point is that simply within the context of current propaganda, "terrorism" as a term has become virtually meaningless.

 

[Kaylee]

Hmm, well you've given me a lot to think about Cleon. Maybe for practical purposes in this decade the difference between a group of terrorists and a group of soldiers is the comparative percentage of civilian casualties or targets out of a war's total casualties or targets. If one side really goes after civilians, much more so than the other side, that makes them the terrorists by today's definition. (If I can come up with a better answer I'll let you know.)

I don't think I ever saw this stated anywhere, but perhaps another difference is the combatents' ultimate goal. Who's going to benefit? All of a nation's citizens, just some of a nation's current citizens, a new group of ogliarchs or even just one dictator and some of his cronies?

ETA: Its certainly not the dictionary's definition (ETA: , but FWIW I know that a fighter's ultimate goal makes a big difference in how I view him. And I do realize that can be the start of a slippery slope -- "the ends justifying the means" can be a very dangerous statement.)

However, it correlates nicely with whom most western countries have considered terrorists vs. soldiers in recent history -- with some exceptions. I think the IRA's stated intention was to benefit Ireland, but they were labeled terrorists in the papers.

I'm curious if they had won, would they have willingly shared power with the Irish Protestants? (I know very little about Ireland's history and politics.) The old regime in Iraq might have considered the Kurds terrorists. However, most of the Western Press does not. Is part of the reason because the Kurds are willing to share power with the new Iraqian govt and are willing to forgo fighting to set up their own country? (Turkey would never allow that anyway.) < / end rambling thoughts.>

This is a toughy, maybe jimtron's definition is as good as it gets:
Post #2

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[Art Vandelay]

In this case it seems like the displaced property owners could simply put forth a warning like "any building placed over this property will be destroyed, though human beings will not be purposefully targeted." Without considering the feasibility of such a plan, would the persons responsible be terrorists?

The rub here is that if one accepts the premise that they are the rightful owner of the property, then they are the rightful owner of any building built on that property without their permission, and so they are fully justified in destoying such a building.

Terrorists are usually the ones with the bad PR, the ones who don't get to write the history books or most of the newspaper articles, and are usually the ones who lost the war.

Ah, yes. Good old moral relativism.

If that's the case, why is the attack on the USS Cole (a Naval destroyer) considered a "terrorist" attack? Ditto for the bombing of the army barracks in Lebanon, attacks on IDF outposts, etc. The idea that "terrorism" means "attacks on civilians" is an concept rendered obsolete, largely by the "war on terrorism."

There is a good argument for those not being technically terrorist attacks, but then again, they were part of more general terrorist activity. Everything must be considered in context. If I forge an ID so I can engage in underage drinking, then that's not a terrorist act. If I forge an ID so that I can commit a terrorist act, then the forging itself is arguably a terrorist act. If I attack an IDF outpost as a military campaign, that's not terrorism. But if I attack it so that the IDF will leave and I will then be free to kill unprotected settlers, then that makes the attacks on the IDF terrorist acts.

Well, again, history kinda shoots that in the foot.

Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Dresden. The carpet-bombing of Tokyo. My Lai. Sherman's march to the sea. Confederate razing of towns and cities (such as Columbia, SC) to keep them from falling into Union hands. We can go back centuries and find professional armies purposefully targetting civilians in large quantities.

Except that in WWII, the disctinction of "civilian" was rather thin. "Civilians" were willfully participating in acts of genocide. By supporting a government that bombed enemy civilians, they tacitly gave permission to be bombed themselves.

Emphasis mine. We're not following the Geneva conventions right now.

Yes, we are.

Even beyond Abu Ghraib. We're imprisoning people indefinitely under some legally vague concept of "illegal combatant" which is totally against the provisions of the Geneva treaties.

No, it's not. I'm really losing my patience for these completely unsupported statements. Do you have anything to back this up, or are you just posting crap in the hope that we'll be too stupid to pick up on it?

My point is not that "everybody's a terrorist" or something similar. My point is that simply within the context of current propaganda, "terrorism" as a term has become virtually meaningless.

Only to terrorist apologists.

 

[andyandy]

Except that in WWII, the disctinction of "civilian" was rather thin. "Civilians" were willfully participating in acts of genocide. By supporting a government that bombed enemy civilians, they tacitly gave permission to be bombed themselves.

the definition of "civilian" was not especially thin during the second world war. It's generally accepted that civilian means someone not in active service of the military. That covered a large proportion of women, all children, and all men over serving age. To suggest that WWII civilians were "willfully partipating in acts of genocide" is somewhat disingenuous. I can only assume that you are extending "willfully particpating in acts of genocide" to include anyone who was not involved with the resistance movement - although i fail to see how a german housewife in Bavaria, or a Japanese pensioner in Yokohama could be described as a "wilfull participant in a genocidal act." Should a country and all its people be held responsible for its government's actions?

If you are suggesting that any civilian who was not part of the resistance is directly culpable, then by that rationale anyone - military or civilian is a legitimate target. This rationale however seems pretty similar to that espoused by palestinian suicide bombers or al-quaeda members in their justification of targeting civilians in their bombing campaigns.....

By supporting a government that bombed enemy civilians, they tacitly gave permission to be bombed themselves.

You do realise that Iraqi insurgents or Hamas or Al Queda could use your definition (and do) to justify their campaigns of violence? Do you think that it's legitiamate for them to target civilians?
Your argument.....

The IDF have bombed enemy civilians, therefore Israelis have tacitly given their permission to be bombed themselves.

So one could postulate that if you were a palestinian, you would support the bombing of Israeli civilians.....
I'm sure that's not true....so your argument must be flawed.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Should a country and all its people be held responsible for its government's actions?

To varying degrees, yes. Who else can be held responsible? Just the people that were directly involved? Why is okay to kill a boy who has just been conscripted into the army, but not okay to kill an adult who knows full well that the bombs that he's making will be used to murder civilians?

You do realise that Iraqi insurgents or Hamas or Al Queda could use your definition (and do) to justify their campaigns of violence?

No, they can't. We are not at with with Saudi Arabia. We do not target civilians.

The IDF have bombed enemy civilians, therefore Israelis have tacitly given their permission to be bombed themselves.

They don't target civilians.

 

[andyandy]

To varying degrees, yes. Who else can be held responsible? Just the people that were directly involved? Why is okay to kill a boy who has just been conscripted into the army, but not okay to kill an adult who knows full well that the bombs that he's making will be used to murder civilians?

but this definition means that anyone is a legitimate target - whether that be women, children, the infirm or ther elderly.....

you're talking yourself round in circles on this one. The allies employed women to work in factories to support the war effort in the same way the germans did.
So the allies were justified in bombing german civilians because the germans bombed the allies' civilians
and the germans were justified in bombing the allies' civilians because the allies bombed the german civilians.....

They don't target civilians

you didn't make a distinction over "target" with your original post...

By supporting a government that bombed enemy civilians, they tacitly gave permission to be bombed themselves.

but, if you want to shift the goalposts ......


it all comes down to semantics over "target." But certainly in WWII, both the allies and the germans conducted bombing raids whose main casualty was known would be civilian. The decision to drop the atomic bombs over hiroshima and nagasaki, or the firebombing of dresden or tokyo were all actions for which civilians rather than the military were targeted.


I'll carry on with the israel example, the IDF are responsible for the death of civilians in so far as these deaths are a recognised and accepted consequence of their targeted actions.....

indeed, any military force in war accepts "collateral damage" as a consequence of their actions.

So to argue over "target" is to argue over responsibility. You seem to be arguing that only if civilians are directly targeted that there can be any responsibility. But what if actions are undertaken for which there is an acknowleged likelihood of civilian death as a consequence? Where does the responsibility lie then? This rationale still leaves us with the argument that civilian deaths are acceptable for the greater good.....and if so, your catch all

By supporting a government that bombed enemy civilians, they tacitly gave permission to be bombed themselves.

still applies to whoever wants to use it - whether that be WWII Britain, the IDF, or Hamas.
and it's a very dangerous path to go down....

 

[Art Vandelay]

So the allies were justified in bombing german civilians because the germans bombed the allies' civilians
and the germans were justified in bombing the allies' civilians because the allies bombed the german civilians.....

The British bombed in self-defense. The Germans bombed in aggression. To put it in a Kantian framework, the German actions implicitly accepted that bombing civilians needed no justification, while the British ones accepted bombing in retaliation for unjustified bombing.

The decision to drop the atomic bombs over hiroshima and nagasaki, or the firebombing of dresden or tokyo were all actions for which civilians rather than the military were targeted.

The ultimate intent was to save American lives. It was, ultimately, a military operation in that made an armed invasion unnecessary. it Al Qaeda, however, is simply out to murder people. You can make all the arguments for equivalency that you want, but at the end of the day, Americans killed civilians because to not to do so would mean being responsible for thousands of American deaths. To criticize the decision is to ask leaders to send thousands of people to their deaths simply to make the moral distinctions of later generations a little easier. Al Qaeda kills out of pure malice. After Nagasaki, there were hundreds of thousands of Americans who could honestly say "If it weren't for that, I quite possibly would be dead". How many people can say the same of 9/11?

I'll carry on with the israel example, the IDF are responsible for the death of civilians in so far as these deaths are a recognised and accepted consequence of their targeted actions.....

No, whoever makes those actions necessary is responsible. If someone is shooting at me and is using a civilian as a shield and I shoot him through the civilian, he is responsible for the death of the civilian. I have an absolute right to live, and am not morally responsible for any deaths that, due to someone else's actions, are necessary for me to continue living.

You seem to be arguing that only if civilians are directly targeted that there can be any responsibility.

Or if the deaths reasonably could been prevented.

This rationale still leaves us with the argument that civilian deaths are acceptable for the greater good.....and if so, your catch all still applies to whoever wants to use it - whether that be WWII Britain, the IDF, or Hamas.
and it's a very dangerous path to go down....

Any argument can be used by someone willing to simply lie and say there actions are included by its logic. Hamas is quite clearly not working for the common good, or even the Palestinian good. MORE Palestinans are dying because of their actions, not fewer. They are motived by spite, not self-defense.

 

[andyandy]

The British bombed in self-defense. The Germans bombed in aggression. To put it in a Kantian framework, the German actions implicitly accepted that bombing civilians needed no justification, while the British ones accepted bombing in retaliation for unjustified bombing.

evidence?

The ultimate intent was to save American lives. It was, ultimately, a military operation in that made an armed invasion unnecessary. it Al Qaeda, however, is simply out to murder people. You can make all the arguments for equivalency that you want, but at the end of the day, Americans killed civilians because to not to do so would mean being responsible for thousands of American deaths. To criticize the decision is to ask leaders to send thousands of people to their deaths simply to make the moral distinctions of later generations a little easier. Al Qaeda kills out of pure malice. After Nagasaki, there were hundreds of thousands of Americans who could honestly say "If it weren't for that, I quite possibly would be dead". How many people can say the same of 9/11?

There is some distinction between the targeting of civilians directly for a cause, and the accepted deaths of civilians as a consequence of action for a cause. But to what extent the latter is morally acceptable when the former is so morally unacceptable is a cause for debate.
There's plenty to be said on the atomic bombs - but suffice to say the decision to bomb Nagasaki was an action that acknowledged that tens of thousands of civilian deaths were an acceptable consequence for the greater good. We could start to look at the legitimacy of your claim

After Nagasaki, there were hundreds of thousands of Americans who could honestly say "If it weren't for that, I quite possibly would be dead"

but that would require a new thread entirely

No, whoever makes those actions necessary is responsible. If someone is shooting at me and is using a civilian as a shield and I shoot him through the civilian, he is responsible for the death of the civilian. I have an absolute right to live, and am not morally responsible for any deaths that, due to someone else's actions, are necessary for me to continue living.

but again - your reasoning could be used by anyone to target anyone who has a dispute with a second party. Ie. they brought civilians into this conflict as a result of their <fill in the blank> policy. Therefore they are responsible if civilians are killed.

Any argument can be used by someone willing to simply lie and say there actions are included by its logic.

the trouble is that your logic sounds very similar to those who target civilians in conflict. In those cases they are seen as legitimate targets - because of party B's <fill in the blank> policy. And those deaths are therefore seen as acceptable for the greater good of party A's cause.