Just what IS terrorism?

{11/14/04 - Note from Adminnemooseus - This topic takes over the theme of the (IMO) excellent Terrorism - Criminal Act or Act of War?. If you are interested in this topic, you should read and consider the above cited also.}We have another thread running about news reports characterizing rebel activity in Iraq as terrorism. The timing is interesting because I've been hearing many different opinions of just what constitutes terrorism from other quarters in the wake of Arafat's death.To my mind, a terrorist act would be an act or the threat of an act of political protest intended to kill or harm civilians, or would at least show criminal disregard for the safety of civilians.I've heard it said that the first act of modern terrorism was the Gunpowder Plot against Britian's Parliament and King James I in 1605. The 1881 assassination of Russia's Alexander II has also been cited as the first, as has the King David Hotel bombing in Jarusalem in 1946. Each of these acts was of course political, but the King David Hotel bombing seems to me to be unique in its disregard for the lives of civilians (including a large number of medics and nurses).In your opinion, what distinguishes an act of terrorism from other acts of war or violent protest?This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-14-2004 12:22 PM

---

Dog is my copilot.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

History and culture.Custar is looked upon by many till this day as a hero.Ask the indians and you will hear a different story. What were the rebels during the war of independence?It's all how time views you in retrospect.

terrorists are people who attack the people who write the history books.but then look at how we view the crusaders (or at least did until a few years ago when it became cool to hate anything christian). they massacred a huge number of muslims at a battle in the 12th century on september 11th (i can't remember the year). funny thing.but we write our history books so we view ourselves as the victim and champion in everything.

Yes, it's always the victors who write the history books, but there ought to be some objective measure by which we judge whether an act of war or violent protest should be considered terrorism. My proposition is that terrorism involves intent of harm to civilains, or at the very least a criminal disregard for the safety of civilians. At least in more recent history, that measure should not be so difficult to make.By extension, we have to deal with who is and who is not a terrorist. It is a common conception that Arafat was a terrorist, and what gave me the idea for this thread was the fact that I keep hearing him referred to as the "father of modern terrorism". I dispute that because the King David Hotel bombing pre-dates any terrorist activity which Arafat may or may not have been involved in and may in fact have given the Palestinians the idea of targeting civilians.As we were saying, history is written by the victors, and it's very difficult to find an objective assessment of any acts of war or terrorism which have taken place in the Middle East since the time of the British Mandate in Palestine. But it's not so difficult to find subjective assessments from a variety of sources, and I suppose all we can do is consult all available sources before we decide that we have all the facts and can make a sound judgement.But what I'm really after is an objective definition of terrorism that is specific enough that we can judge any act, no matter who committed it or in what cause it was committed, as being or not being terrorism.BTW, I'm sorry I didn't notice that a similar thread is running before I proposed this one.

---

Dog is my copilot.

Would you say that all actions, regardless of who commits them or who is targeted during a period when there is a declared state of war between recognized nation states would be excluded from terrorism?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hey berberry,I have a friend in the US military who said he was taught the definition "a military or para-military attack on a civilian target."Seems pretty straightforward; though when I responded by saying that the US military definition would qualify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as one of the worst acts of terrorism in world history, he got pretty pissed off.

Jar asks:

quote:

---

Would you say that all actions, regardless of who commits them or who is targeted during a period when there is a declared state of war between recognized nation states would be excluded from terrorism?

---

No. As far as I'm concerned, if it's civilians and not military units that are targeted, then it's terrorism.You may be able to come up with an example that is too difficult to clearly define, but that's why I brought this up. I'm trying to find a better definition than the one I use now.

---

Dog is my copilot.

Okay, let's step on further.Was the carpet bombing by the British initially of German cities an act of terrorism or of war?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

pink sasquatch writes:

quote:

---

Seems pretty straightforward; though when I responded by saying that the US military definition would qualify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as one of the worst acts of terrorism in world history, he got pretty pissed off.

---

Good point. I suppose I'd have to agree that those bombings could be viewed as terrorism.For purposes of comparison, let's go back to the King David Hotel bombing. Responsibility for that act, which killed nearly 100 mostly civilian people, rests with Manachem Begin, who decided to go ahead with the bombing when his superior (the name escapes me) tried to call it off at the last moment out of apparent concern for civilian casualties. The fact that Begin made the decision to go ahead with the bombing makes him technically a terrorist. In his case, though, I think we have to take into consideration the fact that he did work toward peace in the Middle East later in his life.In the case of the Americans dropping the a-bombs on Japan, clearly the targets were civilians. It was terrorism, but again it wouldn't be fair to judge the act as though it were isolated.It's a complicated question, for sure. I don't suppose there is an easy answer.

---

Dog is my copilot.

jar asks:

quote:

---

Was the carpet bombing by the British initially of German cities an act of terrorism or of war?

---

That's an even better question. I suppose it would depend on the motive. Was the primary motive to kill civilians?How would you label this one?

---

Dog is my copilot.

If you were a senior decision maker, say, Churchill, would you consider the infrastructure of the enemy as a legitimate target?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not saying that your friend wasn't taught this definition but from what I have read the official US definition is something to the effect of "Terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain religious or political ideological goals though intimidation, coercion or instilling fear." I think this is a fairly reasonable definition of terrorism. Unfortunately by this definition the US may well be the biggest terrorist state. Our invasion of Afghanistan might even be considered terrorism by this definition. We basically said, "Give us Osama or we will invade." (ie. the threat of violence to attain political goals through intimitadion.)Not that this is really unusual. I expect that almost all governments engage or have engaged in terrorism of some type. What makes ours stand out is that we are large, have an enormous capacity dole out violence and are wealthy enough to support terrorist states all over the globe.

jar asks:

quote:

---

If you were a senior decision maker, say, Churchill, would you consider the infrastructure of the enemy as a legitimate target?

---

Yes, and that gets to my point of motive. Was the motive to kill civilians or to destroy infrastructure? I'd say the carpet-bombing was intended to destroy infrastructure, in which case it was not terrorism (at least not using my definition).But in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sp?) we're still left with what looks an awful lot like terrorism. The primary motive was to kill civilians in such huge numbers that the enemy would be forced to surrender, was it not?

Well, before we can get an answer for that I fear I have to ask one more question.Is the civilian population that supports the war through manufacturing, agriculture, finance, communications, logistics or intellegence part of the infrastructure? Can a factory run without workers, trains carry goods without workers, armies be supplied without foodstuffs grown by workers?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion