Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hiredgun
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.
|
how do you measure quality and what is the break-even point? One death? Twenty? A broken nose? Bruised ego? Sorry, but I just don't see how you can quantify violence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hiredgun
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.
|
That's my essential point - military and civilian targets are certainly exploited by terrorists the world over. An individual (or group of individuals) who plans and executes a violent attack for non-monetary gain is a terrorist so long as they are not operating under military authority or government orders. People commiting attacks for monetary gain are criminals; people acting under orders are soldiers or agents (or spies). I don't think anyone would argue that Timothy McVeigh was anything other than a terrorist; however, if he set off his bomb during his time a few years earlier as a soldier after being order to do so by his commanding officer in an appropriate way, he was simply following orders.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hiredgun
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.
|
Hizbullah is an interesting organization akin to the IRA of the 70's and 80's or the Bolsheviks of the 1910's. It is an armed group of terrorist with a well-defined and separate political arm. The politicians are (at least theoretically) separate from the terrorists, although they may work in concert to the same ends by different means. One could, given that Hizbullah is now in at least partial control of the Palestinian government, make the arguement that this is an act of war, the same as if the US had kidnapped 3 East German border guards during the Cold War.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hiredgun
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.
|
I completely agree that the term has been misused on occassion, but let's remember that virtually every act of political violence carried out in the Middle East by the Muslim side is an actual terrorist act. There is no middle ground here, and the exceptions are limited to actual warfare. The IDF, being a military organization, cannot be a terrorist organization unless you're going to accuse the US, Canadian, British, Russian and Chinese governments of being terrorists too since they all have either external or interal disputes going with folks that do actually fit the "terrorist" title currently going.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
So self-declared national status, of the kind declared by the nacent United States in 1776, qualifies military actions of that group as legitimate non-terrorist action, yes? So by your definition Hizbullah can't take terrorist actions, since they self-identify as an army. Not the official state army of the Lebonese government, but a military group nonetheless. So, arguably, does Al Qaida.
And what about this so-called "state sponsored terrorism" that was our justification for taking out the governments of two weak little nations? Where does that fall under your definition?
Face it: there "is" no "is" about terrorism. You want to know what terrorism "is"? It's a pejorative term applied in the context of propaganda, a term that exists ONLY to sway public opinion. Your terrorist might be my freedom fighter (another propaganda term). I believe that any discussion of the "true" definition of terrorism misses the boat entirely. The thing missed is that our opinions and feelings are being manipulated for political purposes by the selective and judicious application of terms like "terrorism".
|
Excellent points. I was waiting on someone to make those since they're the logical holes in my arguement. The term "terrorist" only applies in retrospect, and then only accurately with some degree of perspective. If the US had not gained independence in 1781, then of course the leaders of the Revolution would have been terrorists. Revolutionaries, freedom fighters, partisans and terrorists are conceivably the same people committing the same acts. It is a matter of who is doing the labeling - remember that the victors write the history. As an example, I can point to how the Soviets changed their views on the People's Will who executed Alexander II. Under Lenin and the early years of Stalin, they were revolutionaries. As Stalin grew older and more fearful of internal threats, those same individuals were transformed into terrorist by 1938 even though they were long dead.
Should Hizbullah prove to be a viable political and military force, I will certainly grant that they employ no terrorists, only soldiers and agents. However, as it stands now, I can only rely on what they've historically been since their true political clout still has that "new clout" smell to it. And I'll point out that those individuals that I'm referring to will be employees of the Palestinian government and subject to and protected by the various internationally recognized rules and regulations for soldiers and spies. If Hizbullah is going to shake the "terrorist" label, they've got to stay in substantial control of the Palestinian government.
As far as Al Qaida, I don't see how you can argue that they're anything other than a terrorist group. They have no other reason for existance other than to commit violent attacks against other groups and individuals. Granted, the same was true of the Bolsheviks pre-1917 and the Sandanistas of the 1970's, and they both led legitimate governments. And "state-sponsored terrorists" are the same people that get some tax revenue as opposed to those who make their money from their supporters.
How's this for a definition - terrorism is political violence committed against you or your allies by those who aren't government employees working in the scope of their employment. A freedom fighter is the same actors doing the same thing but it's in your political or economic interest.