What is Terrorism?

The Surgeon

This morning on the news, they reported a grenade attack on American soldiers and described it as "terrorism". On the first day of the war, reporters talked about the possible "terrorist" threat in Kuwait. At the same time, the delivery of 1,500 cruise missiles etc against Baghdad was described as "military action".

So let's get this straight: US and British forces slam 1,500 plus missiles into Baghdad in an operation they call "Shock and Awe" and it's "military action" and then one guy lobs a grenade into a tent and it's "terrorism".

I used to have clear definition of terrorism in my head. It was "the deliberate targeting of civilians in order to terrorise those civilians into forcing their governments to change their policies".

Using an obvious current example, Hamas and the rest target Israeli citizens in order to try to convince them to force their government into pulling out of the Occupied Territories, allowing the formation of a Palestinian state, right of return for refugees etc etc. Now, I would make a distinction between targeting the citizens (terrorism) and targeting the army who shoot children in the back on a daily basis. That's resistence. Suicide bombers going into an Israeli restaurant or boarding a bus filled with students is terrorism; targeting the military is not.

Another example: for years, the IRA used terrorism against loyalists and the British public in order to try to force Britain to cut ties with the north. That was terrorism. Again, I would consider the targeting of British soldiers to be legitimate "military actions" since it was a war and the soldiers were not civilians.

And of course, 9-11 was the single worst act of terrorism in modern history. I don't think anyone could consider 200 storeys of office workers a legitimate military target.

But when you look at the way the word and the concept of terrorism has been used since 9-11 by people like Bush, Blair, Sharon and others, you quickly realise that the definition is changing. You could say it has been corrupted. Maybe it was always that way, but now it's worse than ever.

Terrorism now is any military action against (usually western) forces who are engaged in invasion, occupation and suppression. Terrorism is any act of resistence against the people delivering the press conference. And the cruelty, brutality and indescriminate murder which took place on 9-11 has given those people a big black paintbrush which they can use in their propaganda war against anyone who stands in their way, even if those people have legitimate goals, aspirations and arugments.

Between 1939 and 2001, the word of shame which was used against anyone who held a different opinion to you was "fascist". Now, it's "terrorist".

DadaKopf

Your own definition of terrorism is pretty much the accepted definition of it: "political violence to achieve a justifiable political aim", usually with a backdrop of human rights abuses such as in Israel, Palestine or East Timor. However, this implies a carefully strategised use of violence with limited resources to maximum psychological effect. In this case, yes, US military strategy, like 'psyops', contains elements of terrorism. Andm once again, I'll cite this Strategic Intelligence document (note theconcentration on the word 'fear' in some passages.

America has no history of terrorism (funny, considering the country was forged as a result of a geurilla war) so a popular definition is more nebulous. During the Reagan administration, it was all about "narco-terrorism" - the ogre terrorising American society was Noriega. Now it's about "global terrorism", the name of which alone feels claustrophobic and frightening. It's no wonder, then, that without any true perspective on political violence/terrorism, it can be used by US governments, politicians and the press to warp the real definition/reason of terrorism for their own political ends.

People will continue to feel scared and will, therefore, often condone extreme positions to sate that fear. Parallel to that is a government which is clearly fostering and exploiting those fears for their own personal goals.

Most of the time though, it's just convenient and lazy to call someone terrorist like they call people fascists all because of the emotional punch it packs.

Shinji

"Terrorism" in itself is not a bad word, although it has been made into one by successive generations of politics.

The word implies a military strategy based on causing maximum psychological effect to your enemies using minimum resources. It is employed by groups who cannot afford to engage their enemies on a battlefield, for whatever reason.

Now, of course, there can be legitimate targets for terrorist action or completely morally wrong targets for terrorist action, but in the same way there can be legitimate targets for any kind of military action (other military bases, key military infrastructure) and morally wrong targets (hospitals, schools, the chinese embassy - oops!).

Remember always that Ireland is a nation founded on terrorism. Michael Collins practically invented the modern concepts of terrorism, and without them, the Republic of Ireland would not exist today. The history books like to use the word "freedom fighter", and there's no doubt that the IRB were indeed just that; but the methods they employed in their struggle were terrorism - plain and simple. That's not a condemnation - to me those people are some of the greatest heroes Ireland has ever seen - it's a simple definition.

Tusky

isnt it obvious ? to be a terrorist you need to be from the middle east :rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The Surgeon

I was going to write about Collins and describe him as one of, if not the, first modern terrorist. But then I thought no, he was the first to use guerilla tactics and not necessarily a terrorist. But I take the point that it is a question of special tactics which must be employed to defeat or at least cause the surrender of a militarily superior force.

I think at the end of the day the only people who will use the word are people who are (a) apathetic to the cause or (b) completely opposed to the cause, usually because it's aimed at them. The supporters of the guerilla fighters, be they Hamas, IRA, Al Quaeda or whoever, will never describe them as such. To their supporters, they are freedom fighters.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by The Surgeon
This morning on the news, they reported a grenade attack on American soldiers and described it as "terrorism".

Appears that said attack may well be terrorist or at the very least criminal, given that it was carried out by an American serviceman.

U.S. military spokesmen say one American soldier was killed and 12 others were wounded when at least three grenades were tossed into a command post at a U.S. military camp in the Kuwaiti desert. A soldier who is suspected of carrying out the attack has been arrested.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=4299478F-9D65-47ED-827B073FA20966F1

DadaKopf

Originally posted by The Surgeon
I was going to write about Collins and describe him as one of, if not the, first modern terrorist. But then I thought no, he was the first to use guerilla tactics and not necessarily a terrorist. But I take the point that it is a question of special tactics which must be employed to defeat or at least cause the surrender of a militarily superior force.

Well, people can argue about firsts for ever. The earliest example of a geurilla war I know of is the American War of Independence. That said, many of the tactics were lifted off the French, who in turn lifted those tatics off the Native Americans. This is a raging academic debate in America, as is the debate about who invented federalism: one convincing academic paper says it was a network of Nacive American tribes and not James Madison and Benjamin Franklin.

Clintons Cat

The Boers also used Guerrilla tactics against the British.
Who responded by Interning large sections of the population in concentration camps.
Another first for the Brits (alongside Gassing Iraqi Kurds in the 1930s)

Éomer of Rohan

The question begs to be asked whether or not 'terrorists' are any different from us. Surely the modern, popular, Western definition of terrorism is someone using guerilla tactics in our countries against our government, through the fear of our people? Does this make them evil people as the Americans choose to portray Al - Quaeda? Is it not possible that any one of us, given a different background and different life choices could support Al - Quaeda or even be a part of it and be proud of it?

I think 'terrorist' is too subjective a term in the way the media tends to use it and we all know the cliché that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Consider the IRA in 1969 - 71; I believe that the Catholic population (of which I am not a member) was isolated and needed such an organisation to protect itself because the forces of law and order had abandoned it. Of course, post 1971, I think the IRA became a reactionary terrorist organisation but I recognise that that is a subjective view thus I fear that there is no real answer to 'What is a terrorist?' since the question is based on subjection and cannot be answered for all men by the objective dictionary definition.

DadaKopf

Yeah, it literally matters which side of the fence you come from. The fence is a useful metaphor for a state/non-state conflict: it's generally necessary for both sides to portray the other as the outsider. Anyway...

In a scenario which has a non-state actor like a paramilitary opposing the state in which a subjugated community exists, it's clear that one side will tend to see political violence as a legitimate means to reform/oust an illegitimate state apparatus while the other will support that apparatus and oppose any attempt to destabilise it. Such a scenario always revolves around issues of power like a cyclone (these issues range from language rights, religious rights to human rights abuses, political autonomy and so on). The state is a monopoly of force, which is legitimately obliged to defend itself against insurgents who threaten to destabilise it. It's when that monopoly ceases to be legitimate that political violence becomes a viable option for those who are maltreated by that monopoly. This happens because the state ceases to protect (and respect) a section (or sections) of a population or citizenry.

It's not so much that a general definition of political terrorism/political violence eludes us, it's simply that both sides see each other's political agenda as illegitimate or, in today's parlence: 'evil' (which is always an attempt to render dialogue obsolete).

It should be stressed, though, that legitimate political violence may only be most convincingly attributed to those organisations that control their use of violence systematically through its own monopolosation of force, ensuring that terrorist attacks are executed only by members of that organisation. Otherwise political violence turns into a bloodbath of faction fighting.

Political violence always occurs when there is absolutely no chance of a peaceful resolution to a political conflict.

Éomer of Rohan

It's not so much that a general definition of political terrorism/political violence eludes us, it's simply that both sides see each other's political agenda as illegitimate or, in today's parlence: 'evil' (which is always an attempt to render dialogue obsolete).

I completely agree.

Political violence always occurs when there is absolutely no chance of a peaceful resolution to a political conflict.

But at the same time, often occurs even when there may be a dialogue based solution, no? It is true however than once one side gives up on dialogue, terrorism is the inevitable result, the inverse almost, of repression on the terrorising faction and the people they represent or claim to represent.

DadaKopf

When the US didn't get its way in the UNSC, it manufactured a breakdown in diplomacy which they felt gave them the right to wage war. Trite, I know, but you've got a good point.

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Political violence always occurs when there is absolutely no chance of a peaceful resolution to a political conflict.

The only thing that ever brings about political violence is one side's preference for violence over compromise.

Sometimes, that may be the right decision, but often its not. Its also typically a decision taken by those who are not directly involved in the results of their decisions in this day and age.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
The only thing that ever brings about political violence is one side's preference for violence over compromise.

Compromise is a dangerous word, some say you should never compromise - say would you compromise your ethics or would you compromise someone's safety? Would you compromise with a kidnapper?

What is needed is assertiveness, balance and mutual respect. Sometimes when this isn't given, there is an argument that violence can or must be used.

Éomer of Rohan

That is a good point; compromise, negotiation and terrorism are interlinked, especially when terrorists are not motivated by financial incentive.

The UK 'does not negotiate with terrorists.' Is it right therefore that innocent people will die because the UK will not compromise its principles?

If a state party and the afflicted (terrorist) party do not agree on a point and talks break down, the latter kills people, viable military targets or not. Is it right that either or both should be uncompromising even though this accurately reflects the wishes of their respective backers?

It is confusing to me at least because on the one hand, I disagree with violence as a solution - but pragmatism dictates that sometimes it is a necessary resort - not between state parties but internally.

Many people think that it is good that certain people fight for their 'freedom' or right to 'national self determination' - like the IRA or the Basque seperatists (not necessarily my views) but at the same time, consider the families of those killed in a Basque bomb? And now that equal rights between Catholic and Protestant have been restored in the North, is the IRA not now obsolete? What is the border but a line on a map when compared to the restoration of Catholic rights and civil liberties? Yet still the fighting goes on between extremist parties and the 'forces of reaction' - the state party.

So the question is asked, when is terrorism necessary and when does it stop being necessary?

How many of you agreed with the Mudjahadeen in their fight against Soviet tyranny? It was right that they should fight for such freedom but their tactics were terrorist tactics; they overran military compounds in which soldiers and their wives and children slept and the soldiers were shot, the women raped and the children were hung. Gruesome. Can the idea of 'freedom' justify so much death and heartbreak?

The Surgeon

Can the idea of 'freedom' justify so much death and heartbreak?

No way. Raping woman and hanging children can never be a justifiable response to political repression or any injustice for that matter.

In the debate over what is terrorism and what is and is not justifiable, I think a lot has to do with moral high ground. Once a terrorist organisation loses the moral high ground, it risks losing the support not necessarily of its own supporters but certainly of its enemies and outside observers with no particular opinion either way.

Take Hamas for example. In taking a stand against the Zionists, I personally feel they are absolutely justified especially given the despicable treatment of the Palestinians over the past 80 or more years in their own homeland. The blatant oppression of the Palestinians and the illegal land-grabbing of successive Israeli governments coupled with the violence which the Israeli army meets out to them on a daily basis is sickening. Sickening enough to be condemned by the UN on many occassions. So Hamas has a right to defend its people. By targeting the security forces or other arms of the state. But when they blow up a bus filled with innocent Isreali students, they lose the moral high ground and with it the sympathy of the outside world. It also makes the oppressive regime worse because they too want revenge.

Targeting civilian populations rarely seems to be effective in changing anything anyway. It usually makes those people even more hardline and determined to oppose the cause of the terrorists or the governments who use state terrorism in the form of bombing campaigns designed to shock and awe. You saw it in England during WWII, again in England during the IRA campaigns and of course in Israel. And I think one of the reasons for the failure of such tactics in changing the minds of the people on the street is that it takes away the moral high ground from the purpetrators. It makes them appear to be nothing but murderers and this doesn't just give the government the ammunition they need for their propaganda, it convinces the population who are targeted that the terrorists are in fact simply evil psychopaths who must be defeated.

Maybe when they lose the moral high ground, they cease to be guerrilla fighters and become "terrorists".

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
they overran military compounds in which soldiers and their wives and children slept and the soldiers were shot, the women raped and the children were hung.

While I could never condone the specific actions against the women and children, I'm wondering if the outrcy would have been the same if they were all just executed like the soldiers?

If so, then what happened to the US-spread belief that if a military unit chooses to place itself in and around civilian assets, then that unit is responsible for what happens to them, and not the attacking force.

Human Shields, and all that?

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by The Surgeon
So Hamas has a right to defend its people. By targeting the security forces or other arms of the state. But when they blow up a bus filled with innocent Isreali students, they lose the moral high ground and with it the sympathy of the outside world. It also makes the oppressive regime worse because they too want revenge.

Sure, but the most recent huge wave of Israeli aggression was triggered by the killing of 4 Israeli soldiers - wasnt it? The suicide bomber who blew himself up beside a tank, IIRC?

This is what gets me. The Israeli reaction to the death of these 4 "heroes" was far stronger and more severe than any reaction to the death of innocent civilians that I can recall for a long time back.

Way to send a message - target our soldier's and we'll be even more annoyed, so you'd best go back to the easier civilian targets....we wont get so pissed at you.

FFS.

jc

The Surgeon

Way to send a message - target our soldier's and we'll be even more annoyed, so you'd best go back to the easier civilian targets....we wont get so pissed at you.

Man, what a depressing thought.

sceptre

Came across this definition of terrorism a few years ago. Sums it up for me (and I suspect it was written by an ordinary Joe Soap):

Terrorism is the systematic targeting of non-military targets for the sole purpose of evoking a negative emotional response in the populace. The purpose of terrorism is not military conquest. The purpose of terrorism is to devalue the commitment of a toward their government's position*. By this definition, planting a bomb on a commercial airliner is terrorism. Filling a truck full of explosives and running it into an American military installation in Beirut, however, is not. That is a military attack

* to which I'll add "with the possible aim of military conquest" (but this is only as an secondary effect, not a primary one)


It isn't a definition (or explanation) that many people will be happy with. I post it here to highlight that it isn't quite true that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. The two can be quite easily separated in most cases.

dahamsta

The IRA routinely targetted military bases, does that mean they're not terrorists? I reckon the definition of a terrorist is what a terrorist defines it as.

adam

bonkey

Originally posted by dahamsta
The IRA routinely targetted military bases, does that mean they're not terrorists?/B]

No, it means that the targetting of military bases is not necessarily a terrorist action.

The targetting of civilians, use of indiscriminate bombing tactics, etc. etc. etc. is what makes them terrorists.

In the same vein, you can have Palestinian terrorists fighting against Israeli military incursions onto Palestinian soil. This resistance is not a terrorist act, although it may be carried out by terrorists.

(Note to the easily inflamed - I have not in any way implied that the people resisting Israeli incursions are necessarily terrorists either.)

jc

The difference between "Terrorism" and "freedom fighting" is this: Who wins?

In Ireland Collins was a Freedom Fighter, because we got Independence in the end. The French in Vichy France were Freedom fighters because in the end the allies won. Had the Germans won, these people would have become terrorists.

The moment the US declared war upon Iraq, & launched their invasion, Terrorism as applied to Iraq should have been thrown out the window. In War any tactic may be used to bring your enemy to its knees. Look at the US military, which uses the ultimate in conventional weapons, Spec Ops, and all arms of the military to take out an enemy. There is no claim that their use of high yield bombs is an act of terrorism, since they're expected to win this war.

In the case of the Muslim, that threw the grenade. I Don't see that as terrorism. Any American troops are legitimate targets to be attacked at any time, in any situation. They're soldiers, which means that if they saw an Iraqi, they'd consider shooting them. If they have weapons, or are capable of bearing arms in this conflict they're legitimate targets by their own decision.

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
In the case of the Muslim, that threw the grenade. I Don't see that as terrorism. Any American troops are legitimate targets to be attacked at any time,

I agree but for a different reason (I disagree with your reason).

The person who threw the grenade was in the US Army. I'm not sure if he should be equated to Traitor though as from what I gather he did it out of resentment rather then support Saddam.

So is it terrorism to use spies? I mean, the US have a long history of Spec Ops missions, including infiltration. Does that fall into the same category?

My feelings on this are, that once this war began, any such methods are allowable. For Both Sides.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Hobbes
The person who threw the grenade was in the US Army. I'm not sure if he should be equated to Traitor though as from what I gather he did it out of resentment rather then support Saddam.

TBH, we don’t as yet know if this chap committed the act in question, or even that it was politically motivated. It is also quite plausible that it was personally motivated.

Originally posted by klaz
So is it terrorism to use spies? I mean, the US have a long history of Spec Ops missions, including infiltration. Does that fall into the same category?

Actually, while someone may correct me, I believe the US is actually the only nation in history to have been convicted of state-sponsored terrorism (in Nicaragua) by an international body. Oddly enough the US does not recognise this ruling...

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
So is it terrorism to use spies? I mean, the US have a long history of Spec Ops missions, including infiltration. Does that fall into the same category?

Surveillance and espionage are not terrorism, sabotage and assassination are.

Originally posted by klaz
My feelings on this are, that once this war began, any such methods are allowable. For Both Sides.

No they are not, combatants must wear uniforms or other distinguishing mark and carry their weapons openly. Typically, spies don't.

HaVoC

You can’t define terrorism

Cause its relative

One mans terrorist

Is an other mans freedom fighter

quote:

---

Originally posted by klaz
My feelings on this are, that once this war began, any such methods are allowable. For Both Sides.

---

No they are not, combatants must wear uniforms or other distinguishing mark and carry their weapons openly. Typically, spies don't.

Where is this stated? War is an ever evolving concept. The tactics involved are constantly changing, and war doesn't have to include those wearing uniforms. The allied partisans of WW2 didn't have any distinguishing feature, and yet that was an acceptable form of resistance.

Guerrila warfare is based on the concept of fading into the people once a strike has been performed. The use of uniforms and such, would negate these tactics. And here are not many nations out there that haven't at some stage used these tactics in a war.

Spies are generally outside these normal guidelines, but if spies step into the area of action, then their actions could be construed as terrorism. Especially since the intelligence they provide, can lead to acts against a nation, or its armies.

growler

quote:

---

Originally posted by klaz
So is it terrorism to use spies? I mean, the US have a long history of Spec Ops missions, including infiltration. Does that fall into the same category?

---

nope , that's espionage

and you can be shot for it.

As klaz said above , it's about who wins ultimately, you're a terrorist to your opponents until you succeed in your aims , then you gain some legitimacy like Collins and Co.

Of course the Palestinians have gone full circle with this and have lost their legitimacy (in the eyes of the US / Israel) and the PLO are back to being terrorists again.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Where is this stated?

A small series of documents known as the Geneva Conventions.

What is slightly misleading in this case is the interpretation.

First of all, spies are not - by definition - combatants. Their purpose is not to be involved in combat.

Secondly, using spies is not "in breach" of the Geneva Convention. A spy being involved in direct combat would be in breach, AFAIK, as all combatants are required to meet certain qualifying criteria such as insignia's or uniforms being present to clearly identify them.

Also, a captured spy is not entitled to any protection under the Geneva Convention for Prisoners of War, because he or she does not meet the necessary qualification criteria.

Finally - I would argue that no party involved in a military action (such as Spec Ops, Saboteurs or Spies) are terrorists unless they are carrying out actions specifically intended to have the primary effect of inflicting terror on the populace at large.

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by dahamsta
The IRA routinely targetted military bases, does that mean they're not terrorists?

I'd say that while they're targetting military bases they're acting as secessionists using military means rather than being terrorists. Given that they usually went the route of shooting unarmed people they still fall under the terrorist category. I still wouldn't agree with either tactic or action but I'd see a difference from my own POV.

I reckon the definition of a terrorist is what a terrorist defines it as.

I'd agree with that. None of them seem to want to be called terrorists though.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
Where is this stated? War is an ever evolving concept. The tactics involved are constantly changing, and war doesn't have to include those wearing uniforms. The allied partisans of WW2 didn't have any distinguishing feature, and yet that was an acceptable form of resistance.

But many of those captured ended up being executed. After the D-Day landings and especially in the Paris revolt in 1944, most of the French partisans started wearing uniforms and / or military helmets. I'm not sure about any others.