Terrorists?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Not quite. Terrorism is a technique that aims solely at striking fear in your enemy's public opinion, so that it pushes for a policy change in your favor.

Attacking troops is "terrorism" only if you consider it is anormal for troops to die.

I disagree. By your definition, the September 11th attacks were not terrorism, since striking fear was not the only goal, other goals included economic disruption, provocation of America and rallying of Muslims. Indeed, it's rare that terrorists ONLY aim to strike fear, they usually aim for economic damage as well.

I think we get too hung up on the 'terror' aspect of terrorism. Nine times out of ten, when people talk about terrorists they are talking about covert operatives using explosives. That is the definition which is most often used, but when we are asked to define terrorism, we define it differently.

[LordVipper]

hmmm....soldiers bombing and killing civilians are terrorists or not? terrorists targeting military instalations are terrorists? religius fanatics targeting other people are terrorists? the later terrorizing gays and other groups that they dont like are terrorists? well dear messieur bush made it very simple for us all.if you are an american or american-equiped and funded terrorist you are either patriot,allie or freedom fighter.non americans are terrorists.simple as that. guys,please do something about your president,he is freaking the whole planet out!

[pchang]

Don't worry. Presidents here change every 4 to 8 years.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sandman
I think we get too hung up on the 'terror' aspect of terrorism. Nine times out of ten, when people talk about terrorists they are talking about covert operatives using explosives.

This is precisely why too many people are led to believe any guerillero is a "terrorist", if they are tagged so by the ones in power.

[lord of the mark]

It is generally agreed that under the laws of war one is supposed to target soldiers who are armed and defending themselves, and who thus themselves represent a threat. Thus it is not permitted to kill someone who is attempting to or has surrendered - that is a war crime, and if commited by an illegal combatant is certainly terrorism. Though admittedly most would hold it a lesser crime than attacking civilians.
Planting a bomb in a barracks generally is considered terrorism. Note that the Irgun attack on the British officers and troops in the King David Hotel is widely considered terrorism. Note that the Irgun defended their act based on the fact that they called on the Brits in advance to abandon the hotel, NOT by the fact that they were attacking soldiers.

What about when someone attacks soldiers who are not armed, in a way that allows no option for surrender? EG strategic bombing, submarine warfare, sniping, etc. The US in WW1 called unrestricted sub warfare a war crime, but in WW2 changed positions on that. The general rule with strategic bombing would be that if youre attacking a military target, or a barracks of troops that actually threaten, its not a warcrime. Note though that in WW2 the US spefically targeted Adm. Yamomoto for assasination.

Was the attack on the Pentagon terrorism or war? Well given that it involved use of a civilian airliner, and was coordinated with a larger strike on a purely civilian target, in ADDTION to the fact that the it attacked military and civilian personnel who were generally unarmed, Id say terrorism.

How about the attacks in Iraq? The attacks on troops are, for the most part not terrorism (though the attack on the UN, on Al Hakim, etc were) The attacks on troops do seem to be part and parcel of a campaign that also targets both international and Iraqi civilians, and in some instances have used methods (like fake surrenders) that tend to undermine the laws of war. Thus its a grey area - if not every act of the Baathist resistance is terrorism, it seems not unreasonable to consider the Baathist fighters terrorists.

But clearly it is possible to be a guerilla and an illegal combatant without being a terrorist.

[Sandman]

This is precisely why too many people are led to believe any guerillero is a "terrorist", if they are tagged so by the ones in power.

I consider guerilla warfare and terrorism to be different methods of waging war. The boundaries are blurred, to be sure. Terrorists operate with smaller numbers than guerillas, and with a looser command structure. Guerillas can hide in the hills or forests; terrorists can hide in the heart of enemy cities.

[our_man]

To me, a terrorist is someone who uses violence and intimidation on civilians delibrately in order to achieve a political goal; as they cannot hope to win by traditional force of arms.

With regard to my own country, the Volunteers (later IRA) of the War of Independence were not terrorists in my opinion. Their objective was to make Ireland ungovernable by the British. They did this by classic geurilla warfare tactics; using their 'flying columns' they hit British patrols hard and disappeared back into the countryside before action could be taken against them. The British government on the other hand embarked on a ruthless terrorist campaign by introducing the Black and Tans to wipe out any resistance. In one of their more excessive acts they burnt a large portion of Cork City to the ground.

The PIRA operating in Northern Ireland since the late '60's are without a doubt terrorists. They engaged in brutal campaigns against loyalists/protestants, punishment beatings and kneecapping were used in their own communities too to stop people from stepping out of line. Even though they did kill British soldiers, the fact that they needlessly killed large numbers of innocent people in sectarian violence condemns them to bing terrorists in my mind. The Omagh Bombing committed by the RIRA is all too fresh in most peoples minds. The same thing applies to the UVF (who are even worse than the IRA IMHO) and the British government (not any more, but they were no saints in the 70's e.g. internment, the use of torture).

I hope that illustrating the difference between these two examples in the history of Ireland shows what I consider the difference is between terrorism and freedom fighting.

I would have been willing to consider the attacks in Iraq until the bombing of the Jordanian Embassy as guerilla warfare, and even 'freedom' fighting ( I use the term figuratively, obviously a supporter of Saddam is not very fond of freedom). They're just terrorists to me now, they realize that they can't beat the Americans in a guerilla warfare campaign so they're trying to 'terrorize' the population by targetting the political leaders and police to undermine America's support.

There's no dount in mind that the people who attacked the Pentagon are terrorists; the most obvious reason being the innocent civilians on the plane. Even if there were no civilians on the plane, the action would still have been terrorism, as the Pentagon attack was one part of OBL's 9/11 plan, and therefore linked with the rest of what happened that day.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


I consider guerilla warfare and terrorism to be different methods of waging war. The boundaries are blurred, to be sure. Terrorists operate with smaller numbers than guerillas, and with a looser command structure. Guerillas can hide in the hills or forests; terrorists can hide in the heart of enemy cities.

Theoretically an urban guerilla can hide in a city, and a terrorist can hide in a rural area ( i suspect OBL is probably in a rural area right now)

Part of the grey area is caused by the nature of urban guerilla warfare - a guerilla may start out attacking "legitimate" targets = the bes response for the counter insurgency is use informants, locals etc to gather intel. At some point the guerillas are going to kill informants - in many cases individuals who are not legitimate targets. I suppose one distinction would be between a group that limits its attacks on civilians to informants, and one that deliberately attacks civilians for larger strategic reasons, whether to stir fear, provoke reactions, or to rally the cause. I note that when Hamas and other Pal groups are cited as terrorists, it is generally for their killings of Israeli civilians, not for their killings of Palestinian informants.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by BeBro
Terrorists, since there wasn´t a war going on between the US and the countries of the terrorists who piloted the planes.

Don´t be too shure about that. I remember hearing in the news that Usama declared war in the summer of 2001, but then it was all ignored until the first attack.

[BeBro]

States declare war (as said by different guys now in this thrread ) OBL has no authority to do so, like you and I have no authority do declare war.

[Arrian]

I declare war on France!

Now, since my last name is "England" that could be interesting...

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I declare war on France!

Now, since my last name is "England" that could be interesting...

-Arrian

Perhaps you only declare war on Anatole France?

[JCG]

Originally posted by Spiffor

This is precisely why too many people are led to believe any guerillero is a "terrorist", if they are tagged so by the ones in power.

Just as too many leftists are led to believe that any guerrillero cannot possibly be a terrorist, despite the fact that they can indiscriminately target civilians who are not part of the opposing forces in any way, shape or form, if that serves their agenda.

The grey area is larger than you think, these days.

[Berzerker]

One can argue if their cause is right or not, but they are certainly not terrorists.

That's key, is the cause right or wrong? By definition, terrorists target civilians to spread fear as well as death and it is generally presumed civilians are the most innocent in any conflict, even when they are citizens of a country engaged in immoral affairs abroad. Now, what is the cause of Iraqis fighting the US? Saddam's supporters wishing for a return to his immoral regime? Or just nationalists who don't want the US there? If the latter, they would only be justified if the US stayed there long after the time needed to catch Saddam and help the Iraqis get their sh!t together. How about Al Qaeda? Yes, they may have reason to complain about the US, but does their complaint warrant killing soldiers? No, their complaint is about US soldiers occupying some desert in Saudi Arabia. If they have more than that, I'd like to hear it... Is it about political and material support for Israel? Fine, what does that have to do with US soldiers? I don't know enough about the situation in Israel to make absolute judgements of right and wrong, but if the Israeli army is indeed an occupying force and the Palestinians are indeed the rightful owners of that land, then attacks on Israeli soldiers may be justified if all other avenues for peace have been tried and failed...

[Berzerker]

OBL has no authority to do so, like you and I have no authority do declare war.

That's a distinction without a difference - the American Revolution was a war for independence and it didn't matter one bit that the 2 sides in the conflict were a nation and a group of people fed up with that nation.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Berzerker
That's a distinction without a difference - the American Revolution was a war for independence and it didn't matter one bit that the 2 sides in the conflict were a nation and a group of people fed up with that nation.

The American Revolution was not a war between states, but a civil war (struggle for power within one single country).

[Tattila the Hun]

Did the.. Minutemen of American independence war wear uniforms?

[Berzerker]

Umm...I think you're talking about the US civil war which wasn't really a civil war either, but an attempt by one group of people to secede from another just as the American Revolution - that is if a civil war is a struggle for power over the whole nation. I'd say the Vietnam war began with a civil war with the north seeking to control all of Vietnam. Neither the South or the American revolutionaries were trying to take control of the other side's territory...

[Harovan]

Both the American revolution and the civil war were civil wars by the definition of power struggle within one country. To be even more exact, they were wars of secession. In the first case the country was England, the part fighting for independence the overseas colonies and the secession succeeded, in the second case the country were already the US, the part fighting for independence the southern confederation and the secession failed.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Berzerker


That's a distinction without a difference - the American Revolution was a war for independence and it didn't matter one bit that the 2 sides in the conflict were a nation and a group of people fed up with that nation.

And if you read the whole thread you wouldn´t have missed my earlier posts about things like guerilla or other movements and such....

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Umm...I think you're talking about the US civil war which wasn't really a civil war either,

You're not a history major, are you?

[Arrian]

My father still refers to the American Revolution as the "Second English Civil War."

-Arrian

[Bereta_Eder]

as with everything (*cough* turkstein?) we have to go back to the greek roots of the word.

Tromokratis

Tromos= terror

Kratis (~Kratia)= authority/power.


"the one who holds authority through terror" could be the meaning.

a very accomodating term for many people/organizations/countries etc eh?

[Rogan Josh]

By a lot of these definitions, the British bombing of Dresden was a terrorist act.

[Bereta_Eder]

By a lot of definitions lots, if not all, organized military campaigns of today are terrorism.

[Sandman]

Part of the grey area is caused by the nature of urban guerilla warfare - a guerilla may start out attacking "legitimate" targets = the bes response for the counter insurgency is use informants, locals etc to gather intel. At some point the guerillas are going to kill informants - in many cases individuals who are not legitimate targets. I suppose one distinction would be between a group that limits its attacks on civilians to informants, and one that deliberately attacks civilians for larger strategic reasons, whether to stir fear, provoke reactions, or to rally the cause. I note that when Hamas and other Pal groups are cited as terrorists, it is generally for their killings of Israeli civilians, not for their killings of Palestinian informants.

For me, the definition of terrorism is the methods they use. The targets, whether civilian or military, legitimate or illegitimate, are irrelevant. Aerial bombardment is aerial bombardment, regardless of whether the target is a village or a tank column. So it is with terrorism: to me terrorism is covert operatives with bombs.

Hamas etc are terrorists because they use covert operatives with bombs, not because they target civilians.

I believe my definition of terrorism is ultimately more helpful than other definitions, which basically equate terrorism with war.

[our_man]

Hang on Sandman, if we were to go by your definition of terrorism that would mean a Hamas member that mowed down a crowd of innocent civilians with a machine gun instead of blowing them up with a bomb wouldn't be a terrorist?

[Sandman]

Well, ask yourself, why Hamas doesn't send suicide machine gunners? Machine guns are too difficult to hide and are not as instant as explosives, that's why. Terrorists use explosives because explosives are the best for their purposes.

Although, if they did, for some reason, use machine guns, it would still be terrorism, by virtue of them using covert operatives in the midst of the enemy population to deliver the weapons to the target.

[our_man]

OK, point taken. But what about special forces missions behind enemy lines to wipe out military leaders? Would that be terrorism in your book?

[Saint Marcus]

yes, what about black ops by, for instance, the CIA?