Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

hiredgun · 07-14-2006, 09:59 AM

highthief: by extra-normal, I meant the quality of the method, and not the quantity of casualties or damage. I do agree that this is really tough to define, other than by saying that we know it when we see it.

The_Jazz: you raise a very good point.

I'll concede that my provisional definition has a big gap in it; I think that in fact it is possible to carry out a 'terrorist' attack on a military target. However, the key element in the examples you mentioned: 9/11, the Cole, the marine bombing - was the indirect political objective of each event. The Lebanon bombing of 1983 was intended to spark a US withdrawal from the country, and it did. In the attack on the Cole, I think it's fairly clear that the real target was not the warfighting ability of the American navy.

The 9/11 attacks were similar; we can't know their motives exactly, but they were trying to (or at least, succeeded in) sowing fear and panic while striking a public blow to the world's superpower.

But it seems I've argued myself into a corner; if we follow this line of thought through, it appears Hizbullah's provocation would certainly be considered terrorism if they knew how Israel would respond, which they very likely did. Part of what makes me think that this shouldn't be classified as terror was the utter conventionality of their method; it was a regular military attack on an armed military target, and there was no surprise; Lebanon and Israel have never formally ended hostilities, and Hizbullah and the IDF clash very frequently at the borders.

I would consider the Katyusha rocket fire to be terrorism, though, as it is utterly random and designed to bully civilians living in northern Israel.

I'd caution that in examining any given case, the opinions of governments on the matter should be somewhat discounted or at least viewed with skepticism, as states tend to propagate the term for their own purposes.

I think one problem we encounter when trying to construct an objective definition is that the term is so morally loaded. While we would agree that not everything 'bad' is terrorism, the political connotation of the word forces us to forge a definition where all 'terrorism' is bad. That's not necessarily problematic, but just a concern to keep in mind.

Let's keep this going. Any more ideas?

07-14-2006, 09:59 AM	#9 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	highthief: by extra-normal, I meant the quality of the method, and not the quantity of casualties or damage. I do agree that this is really tough to define, other than by saying that we know it when we see it. The_Jazz: you raise a very good point. I'll concede that my provisional definition has a big gap in it; I think that in fact it is possible to carry out a 'terrorist' attack on a military target. However, the key element in the examples you mentioned: 9/11, the Cole, the marine bombing - was the indirect political objective of each event. The Lebanon bombing of 1983 was intended to spark a US withdrawal from the country, and it did. In the attack on the Cole, I think it's fairly clear that the real target was not the warfighting ability of the American navy. The 9/11 attacks were similar; we can't know their motives exactly, but they were trying to (or at least, succeeded in) sowing fear and panic while striking a public blow to the world's superpower. But it seems I've argued myself into a corner; if we follow this line of thought through, it appears Hizbullah's provocation would certainly be considered terrorism if they knew how Israel would respond, which they very likely did. Part of what makes me think that this shouldn't be classified as terror was the utter conventionality of their method; it was a regular military attack on an armed military target, and there was no surprise; Lebanon and Israel have never formally ended hostilities, and Hizbullah and the IDF clash very frequently at the borders. I would consider the Katyusha rocket fire to be terrorism, though, as it is utterly random and designed to bully civilians living in northern Israel. I'd caution that in examining any given case, the opinions of governments on the matter should be somewhat discounted or at least viewed with skepticism, as states tend to propagate the term for their own purposes. I think one problem we encounter when trying to construct an objective definition is that the term is so morally loaded. While we would agree that not everything 'bad' is terrorism, the political connotation of the word forces us to forge a definition where all 'terrorism' is bad. That's not necessarily problematic, but just a concern to keep in mind. Let's keep this going. Any more ideas?