Just what IS terrorism?

That fact that everyone will lie in order to make their position look better, hardly means that an objective criteria cannot be established.As far as mine goes, I think I am going to change it a bit as I realize there are some actions that are war, that do not involve a previous threat, yet do not count as terrorism... well they could be and it wouldn't be wrong, but it could be made tighter.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

jar writes:

quote:

---

Regardless of the motive, if committed by a recognized government, it is not terrorism

---

The problem here is that what we commonly think of as terrorism can cross that line, too. The Iran hostage crisis is an example; although the original attack on the embassy might not have been an action of the Iran government, the government quickly got involved on the side of the terrorists.Similarly, the hijacking of the Air France flight that was taken to Entebbe in 1976 (subject of several well-known films) had the sanction and to some extent the participation of the Ugandan government. I don't recall that Uganda was involved in the hijacking itself, but they certainly participated in the holding of hostages.Even with 9/11 we have strong ties between a terrorist group and a government. So I guess my question to you is: how tight must the bonds be between terrorist and government before we say than an action was not terrorism?

---

Dog is my copilot.

I have always said that the issue between Nation States and NGOs will be difficult to resolve.AbELook at the Entiebbe incident. It really breaks down into several seperate events. The Hijacking was terrorism. The actions of the Ugandan Government were of a Nation State supporting terrorism. That would be exactly the same as the US support for terrorism during the Reagan years. The actions of the Israeli Government were those of a Nation State fighting terrorism.This message has been edited by jar, 11-18-2004 02:30 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think any definition that results in describing the Israeli state as non-terrorist is necessarily fatuously flawed.

Hi jar.Although I don't necessarily make Holmes' distinction concerning symmetric and assymetric war (probably just semantic disagreement), I do support his emphasis on motive or intent over actor.In the other thread, contracycle questioned DarkStar's use of a motive-based definition of terrorism. The example contracycle used was the destruction of infrastructure that caused civilian casualties as terrorist. IMO, it is not a terrorist act per se. It may be morally indefensible if it causes civilian casualties, but it is not in and of itself a terrorist act. OTOH, the deliberate targeting of civilian non-combatants as an objective IS terrorism. Hence, to take a few historical examples, the indescriminate firebombing of civilian population centers during WWII such as Tokyo and Dresden, or the bombing of Coventry, or the slaughter at Nanking, were demonstrably "terrorist", as they had as their sole justification and target the civilian populace of the respective victims. The murder of over 700 unarmed civilians in the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps by Tony Chamoun's phalangists with the apparent acquiesence of the Israeli occupying forces in Beirut in '82 - after the evacuation of most armed Palestinian guerrillas - was a terrorist act, pure and simple. The WWII examples are important because they were conducted by duly constituted nation states and national armies - so terrorism is not solely limited to actions by the fringes.This is not to say there is no ambiguity involved here. The bombing of the King David Hotel for example, however many civilians may have been caught in the cross fire, is probably defensible as a legitimate military action since the hotel was used extensively by the British military government. The elimination of the Tal el-Zatar suburb by the Lebanese Forces militia during the Lebanese civil war is borderline, but is probably terrorism as it was directed solely at the civilian inhabitants, despite the fact that comparatively few civilians were actually killed (it's an example of ethnic cleansing).My position is the tactics employed, "credible threat" considerations, the actors, and the mere fact of noncombatant casualties - however deplorable - do NOT terrorism make.

I'm not sure if that specific situation counts as terrorism. If my understanding of the situation is correct Hussein had signed a treaty at the end of the first gulf war which allowed the UN to verify that he didn't have WMD programs. Since he wasn't complying with that treaty congress authorized Bush to use force to enforce it. Of course he took it one step further and didn't just strong-arm Iraq into complying he actually invaded while the inspections were taking place. While I don't agree with the war I don't think it was terrorism but rather an unjust war (which in many ways is worse). I think that brings us to the discussion in which Jar is involved about war crimes/terrorism.

quote:

---

In the other thread, contracycle questioned DarkStar's use of a motive-based definition of terrorism. The example contracycle used was the destruction of infrastructure that caused civilian casualties as terrorist. IMO, it is not a terrorist act per se. It may be morally indefensible if it causes civilian casualties, but it is not in and of itself a terrorist act. OTOH, the deliberate targeting of civilian non-combatants as an objective IS terrorism. Hence, to take a few historical examples, the indescriminate firebombing of civilian population centers during WWII such as Tokyo and Dresden, or the bombing of Coventry, or the slaughter at Nanking, were demonstrably "terrorist", as they had as their sole justification and target the civilian populace of the respective victims.

---

Its a functionally useless criterion. Why are the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima not included in your list of attacks directed at civilian populations? Its easy to find apologists for these atrocities who make the argument that they were a necessary step to bringing Japan to the peace table asnd therefore produced a net saving of lives - how precisely do we discern the INTENT here? And can intent be discerned from anything other than self-reportage, which is necessarily subject to rationalisation?Couldn't the Chechnyan fighters at Beslan have also claimed that if their plan had worked, and Russia was deterred, there would also have been a net saving of lives? Or similarly, the attack on the twin towers?Intent is a useless measure. In fact I consider it dangerous because it is so easy to spin - it relies on speculation as to another persons state of mind, about as imprecise and unreliable a method as it is possible to have. And in the cintext of emotive words like "terrorist" being bandied about already, that cannot be considered valid at all.

Umm, possibly because I hadn't addressed the subject of Hiroshima? If you read the thread linked to upstream, you would have seen in that much more detailed discussion that I DO consider the nuclear attack on at least Nagasaki to be "terrorism" as conducted by a nation state - as well as the Dresden, Tokyo, Coventry, etc. Toller makes a fairly decent case in "Rising Sun" that Hiroshima, at least, may have had a more military basis than civilian, but I don't intend to argue one way or the other. Did you read what I wrote? Where do you get anything about "saving lives"? My criteria is that terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilian noncombatants. In both of the two incidents you cite here, there can be no question using my criteria that they constituted terrorist acts.As far as spin, I think it is much more dangerous to define terrorism with reference to actor or methodology. For one thing, it absolves nations of the responsibility for confronting their own use of terrorism as a "legitimate" tool of war. In the second, it simply permits the stigmatization of a particular group that a national government doesn't like - whether internal or external. A guerrilla organization fighting an insurgency where their attacks are against government or military targets would thus be considered "terrorist" - as is happening in Iraq today, for example. I can name a dozen or more guerrilla/insurgency operations down through history that could easily be stigmatized as "terrorist", from Armenius to the American Revolution to the Malay Insurgency, but which were, in the main, "legitimate" and confined their operations to military or government targets. In the case of Armenius, for example, his operations were directed solely against the Roman legions, whereas the Romans used terrorism in reprisal. This is why intent, or target (if you don't like the word intent), is the key criteria.

Based on this definition, much of modern war since 1914 has included acts of terrorism. I tend to think that terrorism should be defined as actions against civilians at a fair distance from the actual battlefield, if the idea of battlefield can even be defined. For a terrorist, any site anywhere involving anyone of "them" is fair game.

quote:

---

Did you read what I wrote? Where do you get anything about "saving lives"? My criteria is that terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilian noncombatants. In both of the two incidents you cite here, there can be no question using my criteria that they constituted terrorist acts.

---

Alright. What about Grozny and Falluja? In bath cases, the formal armies knew full when they were civlian areas, with many times more civilians than combatants, and yet they have used high explosive shells, artillery phosphorous rounds, and recon-by-fire. In both cases the formal armies argue - as does Israel in the West bank - that these civilian casualties are an unfortunate necessity for bringing the war as a whole to a close. At least, that is how they report their intent.By your criteria are these terrorist acts because they knowingly target civilians, even if there is some other nominal objective?A second issue arises in what constitutesd a combatant. In Falluja, the Us threw a cordon around the city and refused to allow any males between 18 and 40 at leave. If you were one of these peoplem, you would not have been allowed to leave - would you then seek out a weapon, just in case? If you do, you will instantly become a combatant in the eyes of the occupying forces. How do w determine the status of a person - the dead cannot testify in their own defence. And, further, what about someone who was conscripted - are they civilian or soldier? In short, what rigorous criteria an be used to separate combatants from non-combatants?That is what I dislike about the intent-to-target-civilians argument. I would prefer to go back to the definition that was current in the 70's and 80's, that terrorism is the use of violence as a form of political persuasion (as opposed naked territorial conquest). This at least has some objectively measurable standards, such as the arguments deployed, rather than relying on superficial descriptions of the victims as civilian or combatant.This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-24-2004 05:18 AM

quote:

---

Based on this definition, much of modern war since 1914 has included acts of terrorism. I tend to think that terrorism should be defined as actions against civilians at a fair distance from the actual battlefield, if the idea of battlefield can even be defined. For a terrorist, any site anywhere involving anyone of "them" is fair game.

---

A fair point, but of course that makes Israel a terrorist state without question. Becuase Israel argues that a Hamas leader in a coffee shop, or in a crowded street, is a valid target and too bad about the civilian casualties. Again I have no problem with this, but many people do.It's also dubious in the cas of Iraq, though, becuase formal armies can make anywhere they choose "a battlefield", as they have done to Falluja.

Although there were allegations in the Grozny case that flattening the city was a deliberate attack on the civilian population (and hence terrorist), the situation with Fallujah is not analogous. In the latter there was no effort to destroy or kill noncombatants. Civilian casualties are an inevitable and deplorable result of combat in a built-up area. Fallujah is more akin to the battle for Hue. Contrast these two actions, however, with Rifat Assad's indescriminant destruction of Hama - in this case the entire operation was designed to kill everyone including men, women and children. Hama was conclusively terrorist. Stop focusing on the mere fact of civilian casualties - as an unintended result, casualties are unfortunate and should be avoided as much as possible (as was the case with Fallujah from what I can make out), but that does not equate to terrorism. The entire point of using intent as a basis for judgement is designed to remove the ambiguity and force "legitimate" states to confront their own uses of terror by making a clear distinction. If you have a gun, you're a combatant. Doesn't matter in the least why you have it. Involuntary conscripts may or may not have the opportunity to throw down their weapons and surrender. If they do, the worst that can happen is they're interned until their true status is determined. If they don't, doesn't that speak more to the detriment of those who forced them into that situation than it does to those who merely take the fact that they are armed at face value? No one can realistically be expected to stop in the middle of a battle and ask whether the guy with the rifle really wants to be there. However, the fundamental problem with that definition remains: there is no way to distinguish between "legitimate" guerrilla groups or insurgents and terrorists. By this definition, the American revolutionaries were terrorists. It also completely absolves nation states from acknowledging and hopefully refraining from use of force against enemy (however that is defined) civilians as a legitimate tool of war. It legitimizes (or at least fails to condemn) such government-sponsored actions as the Salvadoran death squads, the use of carpet bombing on civilian areas by the 8th Air Force, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which you yourself referenced, the burning of dozens of German villages by the Romans following the Teutoburgwald massacre, etc etc etc.The basic idea is to not only develop an operational definition of terrorist, but also to delegitimize actions against civilians as a tool of organized war. Your definition doesn't do so. Mine at least comes closer.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-24-2004 10:07 AM

r Yeah I remember a few years ago when Reagan was president. He supported one side in the Nicaraguan conflicts. As I recall, one side was sandanistas and the other side was contras. Reagan called one side terrorists and the other side "freedom fighters". I suppose that as long as a country is defending Western Capitalist interests they are not "terrorizing" anyone no matter what they do..at least, according to Reagan. So then..it seems as if a terrorist is by definition against a democratic government. Right or Wrong?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 11-24-2004 10:13 AM

Since the quote this refers to was from my post, I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your thought process. To wit, how did you derive this conclusion from anything I've written in this (or the other) thread? I've been extremely careful to use numerous examples of duly constituted nationstates - mostly western - using terrorism as part of their warfighting. It is the entire objective of my definition to force these states to acknowledge this, and hopefully renounce it for the future. Of course, I'm something of an idealist...

quote:

---

Although there were allegations in the Grozny case that flattening the city was a deliberate attack on the civilian population (and hence terrorist), the situation with Fallujah is not analogous. In the latter there was no effort to destroy or kill noncombatants.

---

And right there your argument fails. I don't care what rationalisation is givenb for attacking civilians, civilians were attacked. Furthermore, neither the citizens of Grozny nor Falluja nor Hue can experience these assaults as anything other than deliberate. Guns don't kill people, marine snipers kill people, whetehr or not they are civilians.An army that knowingly fights amid civilians cannot claim it killed those civilians accidentally. It can claim it had to do it, but it cannot claim it was an accident.

quote:

---

The entire point of using intent as a basis for judgement is designed to remove the ambiguity and force "legitimate" states to confront their own uses of terror by making a clear distinction

---

But there is no distinction, because there are no circumstances that they cannot resort to the intent defence. How can we assess the intent of an operation except by reportage and interpretation? And knowing that terrorism is a Bad Thing, nobody ever admits to it. What this analysis does is actually de facto legitmise all civilain killings by a formal army, becuase the only organisation with the power to take exception to the claim and do something about it is an opposing formal army. As in the case in Iraq at the moment, the western media will continue to spin Western operations as ones that accidentally kill civilians, and enemy actions as ones that deliberately kill civilians - even if there is no discernable difference in their methoids, and often, where the methods of the west are substantially worse (eg phsphorous artillery in a city, or in fact any use of the doctrine of overwhelming force in civilian areas).

quote:

---

If you have a gun, you're a combatant. Doesn't matter in the least why you have it. Involuntary conscripts may or may not have the opportunity to throw down their weapons and surrender. If they do, the worst that can happen is they're interned until their true status is determined.

---

Not if you are sniped. Not if you are bombed by an F-18. By the way, "involuntary consript" is redundant.

quote:

---

If they don't, doesn't that speak more to the detriment of those who forced them into that situation than it does to those who merely take the fact that they are armed at face value?

---

I simply don't care to whose detriment it speaks becuase my objective is to minimse loss of life, not to moralise murder.

quote:

---

No one can realistically be expected to stop in the middle of a battle and ask whether the guy with the rifle really wants to be there.

---

Quite so. That is why I am wholly against the deploying of combat troops into civilian areas. If you recognise this to be true, then sending soldiers into such areas is explicit acceptance that they will necessarily kill non-combatants or involuntary combatants in the course of that opeartion. In which case: you are culpable fopr doing so, because you knew exactly what the concsequences of that action would be.

quote:

---

However, the fundamental problem with that definition remains: there is no way to distinguish between "legitimate" guerrilla groups or insurgents and terrorists.

---

Of course. The fact that there IS a difference is exactly what I dispute.

quote:

---

By this definition, the American revolutionaries were terrorists.

---

Yes of course. Why is that wrong?

quote:

---

It also completely absolves nation states from acknowledging and hopefully refraining from use of force against enemy (however that is defined) civilians as a legitimate tool of war. It legitimizes (or at least fails to condemn) such government-sponsored actions as the Salvadoran death squads, the use of carpet bombing on civilian areas by the 8th Air Force, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which you yourself referenced, the burning of dozens of German villages by the Romans following the Teutoburgwald massacre, etc etc etc.

---

All of which is quite true. Not least of which is becuase I recognise that in a fully serious, to-the-death war, the very idea of a civilian will vanish. Look at the second world war - the totalo war in wehich every sector of society was mobilised toward combat operations, whether that be Rosie the Riverter or actual front-line combatants. And no state in such a circumstance would ever even think twice about flattening whole cities full of civilians - becuase this is total war, and all civilian endeavours support the war effort directly or indirectly. War is hell, so what else is new?But that is NOT an excuse to justify the butchery in Falluja, or Grozny, or Hue, in which the perpetrating state is not fighting total war, and claims hypocrtitically to be trying not to kill civilians while shooting weapons gauranteed to kill civilians into civilian areas. States enagged in total war will happilly tell you they killed as many enemy "civilians" as they could and would do so again.Once again the net result is: a rich country with tanks and planes will kill civilians and claim that it was an accident, when not inntotal war, or take pride in it when it is total war. It will also describe any action by a poor enemy that results in a civilian death as illegitimate terrorism. The only time it cannot make tis analysis stick is when the enemy is sufficiently rich and powerful to produce its own propaganda, but then both sides resort to dehumanisaing the enemy completely.