hiredgun

Some of you may be following the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon following the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah after a border raid. Upon reading and listening to extensive coverage of this, I was disturbed by wanton use of the word 'terrorism' in almost all media outlets. Here is an example from the Chicago Tribune that is representative of the kind of language I'm talking about:

(Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...l=chi-news-hed)

To be precise, attacking a military convoy and kidnapping soldiers of a state army may rightly be called all sorts of vile things, but it is not 'terrorism' in any meaningful sense. Neither do those Lebanese who choose to fight back against the Israelis inside their own homeland merit the 'terrorist' label merely because they are not wearing Lebanese uniforms. The general conflation of the word with the ideas of "insurgent" and "guerrilla" further obfuscates the issue.

I'd like this thread to be a serious attempt at refining our definition of 'terrorism' and examining the ways in which it is used in media today. There are those who claim that the word itself is useless, but I believe that 1) it describes particular real phenomena that bear identification and exploration and 2) the word is here to stay, so we are better off engaging it than rejecting it outright.

I would also like to hear from those who genuinely disagree that uses such as the one quoted above are inconsistent or incorrect.

One thing I feel we can agree on at the outset is that a man is a terrorist based on what he does, not what he is.

Here are a few elements that I think belong in our definition:

• Deliberate targeting of civilians.
• Extra-normal violence. (Easier said than defined.)
• Violence as a 'message' or an indirect means to ultimate ends. By this I mean that, for example, the real targets of a bomb that kills a tiny fraction of a civilian population are the survivors who live to see it.

One last theme is association. What degree of association with people who commit terrorist acts makes one a terrorist through complicity? If an organization is 'terrorist', does that mean all of its members are terrorists, even those who have not been involved in terrorist acts even from a distance?

ratbastid

I don't have a solution for this, but you're right that the word "terrorist" has been turned into "A person fighting who is not on our side." Just look at the shifting terms applied to Guantanamo detainees.

There's nothing accidental about that, by the way. The willful manipulation of the word and concept of terrorism got George Bush re-elected (or, nearly... manipulation of the voting process finished the job).

Daval

Well said, I agree entirely.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

hiredgun

Thanks for your replies. Let's try to focus on ways to fine-tune our language and thus our thinking, because I think it's more productive than accusing a particular party of willful manipulation.

A good way to start would be to try to develop a working definition together.

Willravel

When I use the word terrorism, I am usually referring to one who uses fear and/or intimidation in an illegal or immoral manner to acheive a selfish political or military objective.

Terrorism: blowing up a public tunnel in order to get troops pulled out of an area
Not terrorism: an insurency or rebelion against a foreign military

Just my $.02

The_Jazz

I have to disagree with hiredgun's definition. I think the kidnappers absolutely fit the definition of "terrorist", although I'll certainly conceed that other terms could certainly fit. One of the things that I think that we all forget is that the word "terrorist" is not an invention of the last 30-50 years and that those living in the Middle East did not invent the term or the strategy behind it (although they have refined both quite a bit).

The members of the People's Will who assassinated Emporer Alexander II in 1888 were branded "terrorists" by the Russian, British and French press (I've read the reports myself, although it's been years). He was the head of state and the commander-in-chief and was wearing an army uniform at the time the bomb went off. Please explain to me how that is NOT a terrorist act when virtually the entirity of Russian historians defines it as such. Were the hijackers on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon not terrorists? Their ideological brethren and compatriots who crashed into the World Trade Center met hiredgun's definition, but those who take action against the military don't meet that same definition? How about the Palestinians who blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983? The suicide boat bombing of the USS Cole?

Again, I conceed that there may be other terms that are a better fit for these actions technically - "guerilla", for instance or even "partican" - but given that kidnappings are being used to try to force the Israeli goverment to release prisoners, I find it difficult to abandon the "terrorist" label since suicide bombings of commuter buses are used as payback for other Israeli actions.

For the record, I define a "terrorist" as an irregular soldier of a losely organized group that uses violent acts (kidnapping would indeed be included) to attempt to exact revenge or obtain non-monetary concessions from a government.

In short, I think that the Tribune used the term cafefully and correctly.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Rekna

Does this include our government who has kidnapped many people and moved them to guantamo? And don't say that all those people were guilty there is at least 1 case I know of where a guy was completely innocent and he is trying to sue the US government now. Also is it considered kidnapping if you take a soldier?

This definition would include our founding fathers and everyone who faught in the revolutionary war.


Terrorist has been redefined to anyone who is fighting against us that does not follow the rules set by us. Even though these rules effectively make them unable to fight. It is wrong to make a roadside bomb (IED) but ok to drop huge bombs from the air.

highthief

Definitely, the civilian angle is important. Guerilla fighters who attack military targets are commiting acts of war or insurrection, but not terrorism. They may have previsouly committed terrorist acts, but the kidnap of soldiers or any attack on the military is not terrorism itself.

I don't think "extra-normal" violence is right. I don't think you can hang a particular body count or dollar amount of damage on an act and say it is or is not terrorism based on that.

Violence as a message basically fits. I think also it must be part of an ongoing campaign. I don't consider Timothy McVeigh a terrorist - I think he was a nutjob, for instance. He committed one great violent act, but I'm not sure it was terrorism, you know? Organizations or people that follow certain dogma and have an ongoing plan of committing attacks and converting people to their cause fit the definition to me.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

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.

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?

highthief

Except - we don't. I think the source of the violence is what will define whether or not the violence is terrorist in nature, rather than anything else.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

The_Jazz

Governments, by definition, cannot commit acts of terrorism. They may commit acts of war or individuals may commit acts of terrorism, but any military personnel acting under the legal command of their hierarchy cannot commit terrorist acts. They may act outside of orders to do so, but any government-sanctioned actions (regardless of who the government ordering that action happens to be) are either acts of war or unprosecutable as terrorst events. That holds just as much for the Iranian or Afgani government as it does the US. You'll note that neither guilt nor innocence plays absolutely any role whatsoever.



Actually, it would NOT include anyone who fought in the Revolutionary War. It would include some Founding Fathers who participated in actions prior to the Declararation of Independence, but their actions during the War would be exempted from the definition of terrorism. If you want to try to expand that definition to include all acts of war ad infinitum, you're welcome to make that arguement, but I think that you would have a difficult time of it. Killing one's opponents on the battlefield has been accepted as legal by virtually every culture in the entirity of history to the point that it becomes an acedemic exercise to find the ones who define it as murder. If you are given a legal order to kill on the battlefield, failure to do so is a crime in virtually every military organization that's ever existed.


No, it is wrong to make a roadside bomb if you are not a member of an army or other military organization. It would be terrorism for the same roadside bomb builder to drop "huge bombs from the air" since they are officially noncombatants. Terrorist, by definition, are not declared and acknowledged member of any government or acting in accordance with any orders.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

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".

The_Jazz

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

ratbastid

Valid, but you're still missing the point, I think. To define these things at all is to validate them as terms. I'd prefer to eliminate the terms from the lexicon--all they are is political tokens and as such, they're meaningless.

You know... As long as we're making things up...

guyy

I agree that "terrorism" as a term is little more than a marker for propaganda. It would also be a mistake to forget that it has been coded to mean "Arab" or "Muslim". The Oklahoma City bombers are generally known as just that, not "terrorists". Not swarthy enough I guess. That we associate Arabs with terrorism in this way has been Israel's greatest victory.

Despite the link to propaganda, I still think there is some value in using the term to describe what regular armies regularly do. Aerial bombing of civilians was once an outrage, one that moved Picasso to paint "Guernica". A few short years later, in WWII, even the "good guys" were obliterating whole cities from high above. The aim of much of the bombing campaign against Japan was to "demoralise" the civilian population. This sort of terrorism has ong since become part of America's military repertoire.

Even Americans have been victims of this sort of terrorism, and by this I don't mean the POWs in Hiroshima or Dresden. During the Cold War, the entire world lived under the constant threat of nuclear obliteration. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was nothing if not terrorist.

While we're at it, the IDF's targetting of civilians is really no different than their enemy's targetting of civilians. How is one "terrorist" and one not? Of course, in this case, Israel has struck against civilians in response to attacks on soldiers.

jimbob

First, I feel it should be pointed out that the quoted article, as so often in middle east discussions, withholds facts to make its point. It claims "brazen kidnapping of Israeli soldiers...[by terrorists]...can't be disguised as part of any historical pattern of attack and revenge". However, 2 Palestinian men were abducted the day before Gilad Shalit. It's likely that both abductions were planned in advance but this was far from being the first abduction of a Palestinian, many of whom are held without trial, the release of whom was called for by civillian and militant groups before the recent kidnappings. Those calls, of course, were ignored. So the militants' actions do fit exactly with the "historical pattern of attack and revenge." It is Israel that upped the ante.

Israel abducts Palestinians the day before Shilat is taken
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L24569004.htm

I'm very uneasy about The_Jazz's desire to restrict the terrorism label to only non-military, non-state or unorganised groups. Terrorism is seen as far more evil than mere acts of war, so such a definition would play down actions which those on the receiving end would almost certainly feel were terrorism, relabelling them simply "war" (or possibly war crimes if they're really bad). I would consider any action that was intended to have a physchological effect a civilian population (to leave them in terror of the next attack perhaps) to be terrorism, whether the perpetrator wore a uniform and knew where his orders should come from or not.

For example, Shock and Awe (I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned already) was clearly an act of terrorism, and to treat it as such helps us understand actions stemming from it. The Iraqis didn't know if the targets were civilian or military, didn't know when it would stop, didn't know if they would live or die. That's enough to terrify anyone.

'The US intends to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.'
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...911596206.html

Of course, you could argue that one massive bombardment could make the war quicker and eventually save lives. I wonder if the Palestinians could adopt the same tactics and use the same argument? Perhaps it just comes down to racism.

The_Jazz

Rat - I think that you need to reread what I wrote. It's basically a concession to your point. The same act is redefined from terrorism to a blow for freedom (or some similar wording) from different sides of a border, whether it is national or different sides of the political spectrum. At this point, using those terms is simple propaganda. However, that doesn't allow the user incorrect usage - the same as when we're defining what is and isn't propaganda.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

hiredgun

The_Jazz: According to your definition, only non-state actors can carry out terrorism; but because of the moral connotations that are (for better or worse) inescapably attached to the word, I feel we must define terrorism as a particular kind of violence rather than violence coming from a particular person or type of people. I think you would agree that the former method is far more precise and objective.

ratbastid: I agree with you that the word is often used in a meaningless way, and that it is more often a political tool than not. I do believe that by circumventing the word itself in order to discuss the issues and acts behind it in this thread, we can all sharpen our thinking and perhaps even our language in the future, and resist the urge to play the T-card when it is not appropriate or accurate to do so.

ratbastid

Yeah, I got that, it's just that I would go farther than you did. Rather than a "how bout this" definition that comprises all that we've now agreed on, I reject the effort to define the term at all. To define the term in any way cedes the lexical space to those who would propagandaize the term, and I refuse to do that.

Wow... Suddenly I sound like roachboy.

roachboy

i am invoked i see.

well now that i have been called down here, what to do?

you get to see this fine term "terrorism" sliding around in the context of the current massacre of lebanese civilians, doing the work that it seems to do, collapsing palestinians into hezbollah and somehow erasing gaza and the ongoing brutality there at the same time while also functioning to make it easier for folk to join the bush administration in armchairs across america to watch the latest bombing and carnage footage on cnn for another week and be able to imagine as they do that somehow what they are seeing not only makes sense but is justified.

it's an excellent word. most effective.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

matthew330

We all are in armchairs roach, attaching "Bush" to this beat metaphor and attributing it to the "other side" doesn't elevate you to a position beyond that.

It's a word who's meaning hasn't been fear-mongered into me. It all seems quite clear and not that complicated. Religious zealots of the Islamic persuasion, tantamount to those that would have quiet time in American public schools for prayer if one would be so inclined, are to poor to fight a real war so they use any and all means necessary to scare the populous. ANY AND ALL MEANS.<----Terrorism in a nutshell.

For whatever reason the leftists of the western world, sheltered in their educational institutions and unwittingly duped by their tendancy to think too much (source: read posts 1-19 of this thread)...okay so maybe i'm going overboard, but christ if at this point you (and by that I mean what is apparently the left in this country) really can't figure out who the terrorists are thank god your not running the country.

One final thought....with all of the education and thoughtfullness floating around in this thread over the meaning of one single word, you really can't come up with any other alternatives for why better than half of the populous in this country agree on the definition of terrorism other than "bush propaganda and fear mongering". Can we start debating the meaning of "idealogy"?

On second thought, never mind...I give up, you win.

hiredgun

matthew, the thread wasn't intended to be confrontational. You say that more than half of the country has agreed on a definition for terrorism. Could you please share that definition with us?

The reason the definition of the word is up for debate is because it is used in modern discourse very often but with very little precision. I would like to understand exactly what the media, academia, and my fellow TFPers are implying when they describe something as 'terrorist'.

I would further say that if none of us can be bothered to even vaguely define what the word means for us, then none of us are really entitled to use it. I don't think that's the case... what I would like is to hear everyone's specific thoughts on this.

Willravel

You didn't go to school?

matthew330

Hiredgun, I'm sorry I had to make this confrontational, if there were anyway to have a differing opinion without any sort of confrontation I'd do my best to go that route. I say half the country because Bush was re-eclected into office.

I think I might be the only person that's not trying to be vague. Here is my definition of terrorism: An act of violence motivated by ones ideology, with ZERO regard for life, including those who share your idealogy. In fact, making heroes out of those whose lives you ended.

"You didn't go to school?"

hehe - good one Will. Amazingly enough I did. In fact I minored in sociology, frightfull memories. In hindsight it's a scary thought. Whew....can I get some props on making it through all that?

Ample

I think the word terrorism has lost its value, at least in the eyes of the law. Its amazing little one can do and be charge with terrorism. Example; case a few years back when some animal activist were charged with terrorism for sending threatening letters and making threatening phone calls. When you add cases such as this one, you dilute the meaning behind the word. I wish they would stick to really heinous crimes. That is the one case that popped into my head, but I'm sure there are many more just like it. When terrorism is associated with crimes that are not devastating on a grand scale, the meaning gets watered down. My fear is it will turn into a bullshit charge like conspiracy.

__________________

Her juju beads are so nice
She kissed my third cousin twice
Im the king of pomona

The_Jazz

Isn't the "kind of" violence being perpetrated virtually irrelevant to the definition? After all, an American pilot who drops a bomb on the same spot that a terrorist/freedom fighter sets off a bomb gets the exact same results and the same people die. The actor is the only variable in the ensuing explosion and people are still dead. The pilot may have committed a war crime or simply followed orders, but the terrorist, being an official noncombatant but a de facto soldier, answers to no hierarchy for his actions and may have been acting alone or under direction of a larger body. I have to disagree with your method since it doesn't take into account anyone's politics.

There's so much wrong here that I'm not even sure where to start. Surprisingly (to me at least), that once I get past the surrounding churlishness of your post, I agree with your definition son long as you accept that the definition is in no way limited to Islamists. After all, the second worst terrorist attack on US soil was perpetrated by someone of your ilk, the American right. While you may reject his actions, he certainly sprang from the wellhead of your political camp.

By the way, since I apparently think too much I'll ask you to go back and reread posts 1-19, which weren't about trying to figure out who the terrorists are (look out, they're gonna getcha!) but rather who they aren't. We all know and accept that the vast majority of Islamists hate the US (I'm purposefully leaving myself some wiggle room in case there are a couple that somehow don't), but to limit the "terrorist" label to the Islamists is absolutely moronic. I can think of at least 6 active terrorist attacks in the last 10 years that had absolutely nothing to do with Islamists. Maybe if you and the rest of the neocons weren't so hellbent on transforming the old addage of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater into screaming "terrorist", maybe the rest of us could actually try to solve the issues.

By the way, to even suggest that the 2004 election was a single-issue referendum is so absolutely laughable that I have to wonder if you were actually in the country for any of that year. If you're going to try to stand by that statement, then I would respectfully suggest that you go back and review the transcripts of the debates and pay particular attention to all the domestic issues that were discussed.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

Automatic props. Sociology isn't easy.

roachboy

i didnt think post 20 was that inflammatory.

i had just read an article in the guardian outlining the fact that the bush administration has given israel "the green light" for its attacks on lebanese civilians for another week. this same information, spun differently, is in this morning's domestic papers as well.


i dont think anything else in the post is obscure.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

Thats why discussions here are like discussions with the wall in my office.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

roachboy

whether you agree with the dominant characterization of what israel is doing in lebanon or not, the simple fact of the matter is that the infrastructure being attacked is civilian and the casualties are civilian.

what is happening in lebanon is not pretty.
i see no reason to pretend it is otherwise.

at this point, i am checking out of this thread.
i have posted many times on the problem of this category "terrorism" in the past--i have little to add to that at the moment--what is happening in the spinning of the israeli attack on lebanon is simply another instance that shows the problems generated by this term. i see no reason to defend it as a category, no reason to look for a neutral-seeming usage that would enable "us" to rescue it from its ideological functions.
you cannot seperate an analysis of the category "terrorism" from one of the frameworks within which it functions, and these frameworks cannot be separated from particular actions and their justifications.
to go further with this here would turn this into another thread about the israeli action in lebanon as such.
two other such threads simply limp along. anything else i have to say about the conflict, i'll put in one of these, if i can screw up the energy for it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

The_Jazz

I'm going to object to the use of the word "terrorism" to describe the Israeli military's actions. You can see why in my earlier posts. What the Israelis are doing may be horrible, it may even be criminal, but the soldiers doing the actual attacking are doing so under strict orders from the highest escelons of a legitimate government recognized by the majority of the world. If the roles were reversed and the Syrians were attacking the exact same targets with artillery and airpower, we would not refer to the Syrians as "terrorists". Similarly, we don't refer to the Russians as "terrorists" when they raze half of Chechnya (or the Soviets when they flat out deported 85% of the Chechens to Matylka in 1946-47).

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

hiredgun

I think the problem with the strictness of your definition, The_Jazz, is that it doesn't reflect the moral message carried by the word as it is commonly used. The limitation of this definition is an inherent bias in favor of governments, who apparently are above terrorism.

Terrorist activity can be carried out by any individual or group, even if they are part of a government hierarchy. The French Terror of the late 18th century and Stalin's Great Purge of the 1930's are examples.

Don't you think that the use of excessive force used to coerce a civilian population (with, as you said, "zero regard for life") ought to be seen as terrorism?

To clarify, I'm not at the moment talking about Israel and Lebanon; the question is a general one.

The_Jazz

I'm going to stick by my definition. I think that the French Terror and the Soviet Purges are fantastic examples of state repression and totalitarianism, but the simple fact that the term "terror" factors into their descriptions does not terrorism make. By this logic, both Robespierre and Stalin would have been terrorists during these periods (I'm limiting it to these periods because Stalin was demonstrably a terrorist from c. 1896-1917 by any definition we've tossed out there including my own). That means, for instance, that Stalin was an active terrorist during WWII when he ordered the arrest, torture and execution of army officers who had escaped German prison camps.

I think that my definition most certainly fits the moral definition of the term, ratbastid's wholesale rejection of all terms notwithstanding. I think that there is a very definitive line between possible war crimes committed by an army and terrorist attacks, although the target and results may be exactly the same. I will even go so far as to extend the umbrella exemption from terrorist acts to well organized armies fighting in revolutions (those in the Congo immediately spring to mind). Those leading those armies (and the units within those armies) may be guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but they inherently cannot be guilty of terrorism. The reason for that is the hierarchical structure necessary for any government or army to function, and that is the reason that neither the French nor Soviets could have been terrorists - you would brand thousands of 18th Century Frenchmen and (literally) millions of 20th Century Soviets as terrorists, and I just can't accept that label, espeically as a Russian historian (amature that I may be). The hierarchical command structure lends itself to at least the illusion of the consideration of justice and morality of actions and attacks, and while they may be judged later to be crimes, they are just that - crimes, not terrorism. The use of excessive force to coerce a civilian population can be many things (consolidation of power, distraction from other issues, etc.) but the use of force on civilians by the military is by all definitions a military action.

If I accept your expanded definition, then we have to start considering whether or not the Allied bombing of Germany during WWII was a terrorist action along with the Soviet attack on Berlin or the Cambodian bombings of Vietnam or any military attack where civilians are injured, killed or even displaced. I will argue vehemently against any such expanded definition.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

roachboy

ok so i changed my mind about this thread.

the jazz: i do not follow some of the points in your definition.

1. the french revolution "terror" and stalin's "terror" have in common almost nothing beyond the name...which follows (as i am sure you know) from the fact that revolutionary marxists routinely mapped elements of the russian revolution onto the french revolution (the proletarian repeat of the earlier bourgeois revolution)---the french terror was a nebulous phenomenon which is usually defined as reactionary critics defined it: it lasts while the jacobins were in power and does not include the subsequent girondin massacre of the jacobins.
go figure.

the stalinist state apparatus was entirely different. following your own defintion, i would think that the french revolution "terror" could count as "terrorism" while stalin's would not.

why? during the french revolution (1) there was no bureaucratic state in the modern sense (it hadn't yet coalesced--budgeting was not implemented as an aspect of state functioning until napoleon, and without budgets you do nto have a modern state) and (2) the "command structure" was a problem. the terror was, if my memory serves, more a horiztonally organized affair--denunciations could come from any number of quarters---arrests were ad hoc, organizationally---trials were centralized, but that is not the same thing.


so the french terror would probably be "terrorism"---but the stalinist terror would not, yes? stalin's involved a top-down bureaucratic command structure exercised by a legitimate state---so stalin's terror was not terrorist nor would stalin's actions against escapees be terrorism.

this simply because of stalin's position within a state apparatus and the type of command structure he worked within.

(2) i am not sure i understand what exactly you mean by "well organized" militaries exactly. if i understand the argument you are making, it seems nearly tautological in that "well-organized" look like it means "vertically organized" or bureaucratic--which seems to me a repetition of a defining feature of the modern bureaucratic state.

but i might not be getting exactly what you are saying here.

3. i *really* dont understand the equating of bureaucratic organization with the possibility of ethical considerations.

i think max weber is basically correct in defining a bureaucracy as an administrative apparatus geared as a means to an end--and that from the viewpoint of its internal rationality, the nature of the end is not an issue (in other words, it is taken as a legitimate end as a because it is an end)---and if it is the case that professional duty requires that one internalize aspects of an administrative rationality (a bureaucrat who is functional in his job sees the world/information about states of affairs in terms shaped by his position within the bureaucracy--he does not stand outside making judgments--he performs his role within the apparatus), then there is nothing about how bureaucratic functions are carried out that would lead anyone to question the nature or ethical value of the end.

think about state-sanctioned genocide. the extermination of populations can be set up as a legitimate administrative end--this legitimacy is assumed by the apparatus itself---its conditions of possibility are functions of the political context within which that apparatus operates.

so if you have a bureaucratic apparatus in a repressive political context, there is no reason to imagine that the bureaucracy itself will cause actors to consider ethical questions. they will simply do their jobs. and you, as a potential member of a group that is to be administered out of existence, will be dead.

in other words, problems concerning the legitimacy of an administrative end are brought into play from outside the apparatus, as a result of, say, political pressure. otherwise, everything about a bureaucracy is geared toward normalizing the end.

ethical qualms about administering a given end are expressed in turnover rates otherwise. if people within an apparatus object to the end toward which that apparatus is directed, they are generally understood as dysfunctional and are forced out of the apparatus. there is nothing necessarily political about this.

(my apologies for the weberspeak in the last point-i dont know how to say this stuff in a short form without using shorthand. hope what i am asking is clear)

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

The_Jazz

1) Given that my specialty within Russian history is the revolutionary period between 1905 and 1924, I sometimes forget that some of the facts I take for granted perhaps aren't as well known in the rest of the world. My whole point here is that once the Bolsheviks seized power in November (to us) 1917, they instantly transformed from a terrorist group with a few legitimate politicians into a legitimate political force with a bureaucracy in place to deal with more than terrorist goals (at least in St. Petersburg/Petrograd). Call it magic if you want, but on that night in November (or October if you're going to insist on the old calendar) the Bolsheviks made an unprecedented jump from terrorists to politicians.

I certainly grant that I don't have nearly the depth in the French revolution, but I recall that the various parties in power did more than just consolidate power. Unless Paris and the rest of France existed in a state of anarchy, there was a government that, while it may not have had a budget in our sense, did administer to the basic needs of the population, i.e. food, military protection, general safety from criminal elements. Given that the "terror" was for all intents and purposes aimed at "enemies of the state" (whatever that state may have been at the time), I argue that while some of those caught up in the proceedings were certainly innocent of any crime (including formenting the downfall of those in power), the power brokers (for lack of a better term) used "terror" as a way to secure their positions as representatives of a legitimate government. Given that France did not suffer a complete collapse and managed to defend itself from its enemies and that the Convention remained intacted throughout the Terror, I still think that this is a legitimate political movement. I don't think that we can use budgeting as the only benchmark to decide the legitmacy or illegitimacy of a regime since there are several other functions served by governments that were met by the Convention. Remember that the First Constitution was passed during the Terror, which certainly leds a lot of credence to my arguement.

As far as denunciations go, I think that the French ones were eeriely similar to the Soviet ones in that all of them came from all quarters of society. The other similarity is that these denunciations were made TO those in power. The authorities, such as they were, were responsible for deciding upon the legitimacy of those denunciations and applying the appropriate punishment. We all accept explicitely that those denunciations were crocks of shit, but that's irrelevent.

2) I should have been clearer with my earlier post with examples of "well-organized militaries", especially since I had several in mind. I am thinking of the factions within Yugoslavia that were certainly guilty of committing war crimes but not of terrorism. Also, the factions within the Congo in the mid 90's would certainly qualify as legitimate military organizations whose primary focus was meeting their enemies on the battlefield. Perhaps that concept of "battlefield" needs to fit into my definition somehow since it seems to be a primary difference between soldiers in combat and terrorists. A military is going to be easily identifiable and recognizable while a terrorist organization exists in the shadows. The problem that immediately springs to mind is intelligence agents (spies) since they must exist in the shadows as well and I don't think there is anyone that will equate spies and terrorists. I certainly agree that the definition needs to be finetuned, but I still reject the notion that a soldier can be a terrorist.

3) Perhaps I erred in trying to apply morality to a bureaucracy, especially given my knowledge of the Soviet bureaucracy that spang up at the end of the Civil War. However, my point is that those in control of the bureaucracy have to consider morality (at least in theory) when directing it. A bureaucracy by its very nature cannot be leaderless since it will grind to a halt very quickly. While those in control may make decisions that seem immoral to us (see Stalin), I certainly agree with your point that the actors within the bureaucracy carry out their tasks within a moral vacuum.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

aKula

I think the definition developed to exclude actions of the state due to the acceptance of inprecise bombardment of strategic areas such as cities before and during the second world war. Such actions were essentially targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. As the deliberate destruction of such targets increasingly became to be seen as an illegitimate tactic, it has become customary to call such an action state sponsered terrorism or perhaps more accuratley as state perpetrated terrorism.

Though it is often the case that non-state actors acknowledge their attacks to be deliberatley targeting the civilian population, it is unheard of that a state would publicly declare to be engaging in terrorist activity. The result is that even if such an act did occur, it would be less likely to be widely regarded as a terrorist action (due to denial and cover up).

__________________
"I am the wrath of God. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." -Klaus Kinski as Don Lope de Aguirre

roachboy

interesting...thanks for that.

i would have thought the bolsheviks would not count as a terrorist organization given their internal organization....clear inside/outside distinctions, well-articulate command systems etc. maybe the mensheviks, social revolutionaries and anarchists would have been, though. strange what this distinction leads you to once you start sorting things.

the budget remark was mostly about making a distinction between a modern-style bureaucratic state and older types of bureaucratic organization. it was (another) instance of trying to use shorthand and muddying things up in the process. the main thing that distinguishes modern state forms from earlier ones is budgeting and all that budgeting requires in terms of information-gathering and colating. budgets are a kind of prompt for a state form geared toward a type of permanent surveillance....these are quite different from the type of centralized administration under louis 16....at any rate, things get murky here typologically.

i am just not so sure about grouping the french terror as you do.

the devil is in the details.
maybe that is why i write too much.

on whether a soldier can be a "terrorist": it seems like you are addressing problems like those which came up during the nuremburg trials in trying to work out whether you can hold bureaucrats accountable for atrocities committed by bureaucracies and how you go about doing it. if i follow you correctly, it seems that you would argue that individuals within a bureaucratic apparatus could be guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity, but they would not for that be "terrorists"--which is fine---but i am not sure i see the force of the argument.

more generally, it seems like we are creeping into the strange world of "concept history" (there is a german expression for this, but i am blanking on it right now) which is interesting as a way of tracking shifts in usage, but confusing when you try to turn that history onto usages in the present.

maybe underneath this lurks the good mr. wittgenstein's problem with the notion of meaning. a cardboard cutout version of his position: there is only usage. the idea of meaning assumes that all features are simultaneously present--meanings are kind of platonic forms, then--they do not fundamentally change across time--they may acquire new features or predicates, but if you are focussed on meaning, you simply tack them on to the manifold of others. the strange thing is that this focus on meaning leads you to assume that all features that have been associated with a word are simultaneously operational in each pattern of usage. i dont think that is the case.

the current uses of the term terrorism seem to come from the late60s=early 70s--groups like baader-meinhof and the red brigades in particular (to a lesser extent the weather underground in the states) which indulged in a variety of tactics designed to shake the legitimacy of the state by demonstrating the hollowness of its claims to provide security, etc.---these were leninist-style organizations that adopted direct action tactics, and so link back to the version of anarchism embodied by folk like bakunin.
the actions were on the order of blowing up symbolic buildings, robberies, kidnappings, etc...these actions were getting a ton of press around 1972, when the black september group carried out its attack on the israeli olympic team in munich.

i think that this is how the term surfaced in the west again and slid into the context of describing political actions carried out by palestinian groups in particular. timing rather than substance.

there is a difference between terror as a revolutionary tactic and terror as a term in public discourse, however: in the former, it is a type of political act; in the latter, the same term refers to the surface features of an act and functions to undercut the idea that it is politically motivated.

from this point, i tend to agree with chomsky, edward herman et al on the present uses of the term "terrorism" and their effects.

i think the category state-terrorism was worked by chomsky as an inversion of the dominant usage. he compiled the various features that characterized teh dominant usage of the term and argued that these same features could be applied to illegitimate state actions just as easily as they could to anything else. i would see this as a political move on chomsky's part rather than as an analytic point. i agree with the politics behind the move, however: it does function to highlight the arbitrariness of the terrorist/not terrorist distinctions you find in the dominant ideology/media apparatus (the example of the contras is a good one here)

i think this is more the field we are stuck in than is the field that you are arguing for.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

The_Jazz

Roach, I think that I'm getting stuck in the verbal equivalent of a land war in Asia, which as we all know from "The Princess Bride" is a foolhardy battle. I think that you and I are actually very close conceptually with a few minor differences. That said, there were only minor differences separating the Left Social Revolutionairies and the Bolsheviks, and we all saw how that worked out.

Akula, while I agree that greater attention was paid to the targeting of civilians and their infrastructure after WWII, I think that I need to remind you that virtually ever army that marched in Europe prior to c. 1850 did so on the backs of the local population, whether that population was ally or enemy. A marching army constantly foraged for supplies to at least supplement their rations since it was virtually impossible to carry enough to keep the army in the field past a few weeks. Given that almost all armies moved by foot power at the rate of a few miles a day, an army would routinely take what it needed by force with reparations only coming if the civilians happened to be on the right side. High speed transportation (i.e. rail) changed all that, but for the most part having any army march near you meant losing livestock and seed grain.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

roachboy

mr. jazz:

well maybe. there is a basic method difference that separates how each of us sees the question. thought i would lay it out, as i understand it. sometimes believe it or not, metaquestions clarify what is happening.

the method differences may only be of interest to historian types--which for better or worse, i guess i am. i dont see historians describing the world so much as modelling it. whence my affection for metagames.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite