Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 06-08-2005, 07:15 AM

on "terror":

1. what do you make of the notion of "assymetrical warfare" in general--faced with a very powerful, vertically organized military apparatus, the only way a small force can operate is to switch the rules of enagagement, yes?

the only way this strategy can be understood as other than rational is if you apply the term "terrorist" to such organizations--which simply reflects the fact that the folk who get to name such operations do not like this particular one--so they are terrorists-----but the same naming apparatus may well like another, more or less identical group and what it does---so they are something on the order of "freedom fighters"----this despite the fact that nothing seperates the two tactically.

if that is the case, then terror is not about a type of organization--it is a political designation the effect of which is to erase any political motivation behind what these smaller groups might do.

2. maybe these grounds operate:

"terrorists" kill indiscriminately.

but is not "total war" part of the understanding of any military strategy? under "traditional" war, are not civilian targets understood as fair game as a function of "morale breaking"? think about the development of this since the american civil war through the main "legitimate" euro-american wars (world war 1 and 2--the latter in particular)--the strategies behind the cold war...etc.. i make this distinction because if you think about the colonial actions of these same euro-american powers, you see pretty quickly that there were no such rules in those contexts. not really. there were always justifications floated for the mau mau, algeria, vietnam, nicaragua----but in the main, these were horrifically brutal wars in which the euro-powers operated without compunction, without regard for such rules of warfare as actually obtain(ed). .

but states cannot be terrorist, it seems.
so anything these powers do is therefore not terrorist.

in particular:

how and why is a homemade time bomb left in a public square more or less indiscriminate as a weapon for killing randomly than a large bomb dropped from a huge plane 5 miles high? from a smaller bomb dropped from a low-flying bomber? from the effects of an artillery barrage? from the effects of a fusillade from any number of terrified ground troops? what is the distinction?

is there really more to it than: faced with the choice between indiscrimiate killing carried out by people in uniforms and that carried out by people not in uniforms, you choose the uniforms. perhaps because you like uniforms? certainly not because one is more or less likely to kill civililans indiscrimately.

it is usually at this point that the objection arises, in one form or another: war is hell.
well yes. yes it is.

the word terrorist is very 1984. the empty organizing signifier around which contemporary variants of the group hate can unfold.
nice pctures of representatives of those irrational fellows who oppose the forward march of the neocolonial order appear on tv on a regular basis just so that you, in the comfort of your livingroom, can hate them. because they hate you.
you could argue that they are understood as irrational because they are labelled terrorist up front--that is the function of the term, that is why it is used.
so the term refers to the context that does the naming, not to the nature, goals or tactics of any particular group.

06-08-2005, 07:15 AM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	on "terror": 1. what do you make of the notion of "assymetrical warfare" in general--faced with a very powerful, vertically organized military apparatus, the only way a small force can operate is to switch the rules of enagagement, yes? the only way this strategy can be understood as other than rational is if you apply the term "terrorist" to such organizations--which simply reflects the fact that the folk who get to name such operations do not like this particular one--so they are terrorists-----but the same naming apparatus may well like another, more or less identical group and what it does---so they are something on the order of "freedom fighters"----this despite the fact that nothing seperates the two tactically. if that is the case, then terror is not about a type of organization--it is a political designation the effect of which is to erase any political motivation behind what these smaller groups might do. 2. maybe these grounds operate: "terrorists" kill indiscriminately. but is not "total war" part of the understanding of any military strategy? under "traditional" war, are not civilian targets understood as fair game as a function of "morale breaking"? think about the development of this since the american civil war through the main "legitimate" euro-american wars (world war 1 and 2--the latter in particular)--the strategies behind the cold war...etc.. i make this distinction because if you think about the colonial actions of these same euro-american powers, you see pretty quickly that there were no such rules in those contexts. not really. there were always justifications floated for the mau mau, algeria, vietnam, nicaragua----but in the main, these were horrifically brutal wars in which the euro-powers operated without compunction, without regard for such rules of warfare as actually obtain(ed). . but states cannot be terrorist, it seems. so anything these powers do is therefore not terrorist. in particular: how and why is a homemade time bomb left in a public square more or less indiscriminate as a weapon for killing randomly than a large bomb dropped from a huge plane 5 miles high? from a smaller bomb dropped from a low-flying bomber? from the effects of an artillery barrage? from the effects of a fusillade from any number of terrified ground troops? what is the distinction? is there really more to it than: faced with the choice between indiscrimiate killing carried out by people in uniforms and that carried out by people not in uniforms, you choose the uniforms. perhaps because you like uniforms? certainly not because one is more or less likely to kill civililans indiscrimately. it is usually at this point that the objection arises, in one form or another: war is hell. well yes. yes it is. the word terrorist is very 1984. the empty organizing signifier around which contemporary variants of the group hate can unfold. nice pctures of representatives of those irrational fellows who oppose the forward march of the neocolonial order appear on tv on a regular basis just so that you, in the comfort of your livingroom, can hate them. because they hate you. you could argue that they are understood as irrational because they are labelled terrorist up front--that is the function of the term, that is why it is used. so the term refers to the context that does the naming, not to the nature, goals or tactics of any particular group. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-08-2005 at 07:19 AM..