Imagine a scale which goes from 0 to 10. All organizations that use violence as a means to an end occupy a position on this scale. I am not excluding national armies.
0 stands for the most sincere and legitimate motives - the fight for an occupied homeland, a struggle for the defence of their own nation etc., Anything where there is an objective that validates the destruction.
10 is the most diabolical, fiendish worshippers of violence - where the cause is a mere excuse to unleash hatred and violence.
On this scale, where would you rank these organisations (feel free to add to the list):
Al Qaeda
The US Army in Afghanistan
The Indian Army in Kashmir
The Lashkar e Toiba (Kashmiri seperatists)
The PLO
The Israeli Army
The IRA
The LTTE (Tamil sepratists, Sri Lanka)
The Ulster Union
The Pakistani Army in Kashmir
The Chinese army in Tibet
As a corollary to this, what makes for a legitimate reason to use violence to kill innocents ?
We ought to be clear on the definitions. (If) A terrorist is one who kills “innocent” civilians to further his/her cause (by creating an atmosphere of fear) then I don’t think he/she deserves the appellation “freedom fighter”, and hence they can’t be compared. OTOH, if an organization is fighting for freedom or power, and as part of their strategy they target particular people in the opposition organization (pre-1947: say an Indian freedom fighter killing a British general who had caused a shitload of suffering to Indians) then we can start talking of ranking such freedom- fighter organizations (I still don’t agree with the methods) against national armies. Looking at the list, it seems to be me that no organization (LTTE, PLO, Lashkar …) has consciously avoided the killing of civilians as part of their strategy.
I think the idea is misconceived. “Terrorist” refers to the means adopted; “freedom fighter” to the end which is sought to be acheived. Thus if I use terrorist methods to attain or defend my freedom from opression, I am both a terrorist and a freedom fighter.
The problem is when a ‘legitimate’ government employs terror tactics, because it feels itself to be at war.
If a ‘terror’ or ‘freedom-fighting’ group feels itself to be at war, then it uses the same justification as e.g. the allies in WWII re. Dresden, to create terror in the civilian populace.
It’s a paradox, and I think the most dangerous thing in the world is to try to explain it in simple, black-and-white terms.
In fairness to barefoot, although the OP is rathermisleadingly headed “Constructing a Terrorist - Freedom Fighter scale”, the question he poses does not mention terrorism or focus at all on the means employed by any group. It focuses entirely on motives. At one end of the scale he proposes to place groups who have “an objective that validates the destruction” they wreak; at the other end groups whose objectives is “a mere excuse to unleash hatred and violence”.
I think a scale of this kind is not a logical impossibility, but it is a practical one. Even if we assume that the objective which groups proclaim is the objective which they actually hold – and this is a very big assumption – the question of whether the objective is (a) desirable in itself and, if so, (b) sufficiently desirable to justify destruction, hatred and violence is a highly subjective one.For example, almost all discussions on this board about almost any aspect of Middle Eastern politics very quickly resolves itself into an argument about whether Israel has a right to exist, and/or whether Palestinians have a right of national self-determination. This is inevitable. No view on any more specific question can be formed without explicitly or implicitly adopting a position on this basic issue. The same is true for most other conflicts, I would think. Hence a scale of justifiable versus unjustifiable motives in any conflict can only be drawn up by people who are already in agreement on what is justifiable and what is unjustifiable.
Sparc, no apologies, I saw your thread, but this isn’t about terrorists - it is about to what extent does a cause justify the killing of innocents?
UDS, agree with you on almost everything, except, it is not about what is justifiable or unjustifiable. It’s about the extent to which something justifies the killing of innocents (I’m only talking about killing with knowledge that innocents will be or probably be killed).
In a border conflict, do the territorial rights of a nation justify the killing of innocent civilians by its army? Does statehood justify the killing of innocents to a greater extent than the rights of freedom fighters to their legitimate homeland ?
I don’t believe this is black or white - which is why this is a scale. The cause justifies the employment of violent means. There is a gradation of causes, with some causes being more respectable than others and therefore capable of justifying more violence against innocents.
Killing civilians is never justified. Killing anyone is never justified. It may be a necessary evil at times, but the cause can never justify the means.
But sometimes we just are incompetent to the point where we end up in a situation where one life will save so many others, then killing comes close to being justifiable.
And actually the other thread is about the same thing, just a more complex view.
we make a big deal of military violence but ignore economic violence. if someone is forced into an economic position where they are being taken advantage of, only a fool or coward won’t take the game to the next level eventually. the problem is the fault of the people perpetrating the economic violence.
Menachim Begin was a terrorist and the Israelis elected him prime minister. but he was a GOOD terrorist. LOL!
The MILITARY WARGAME can be the result of the ECONOMIC WARGAME.
in the 1920’s Henry Ford contributed money to the NAZI party. i wonder how many gremans know that.
The US Army in Afghanistan - 0
The Indian Army in Kashmir - 3
The Lashkar e Toiba (Kashmiri seperatists) - 9
The PLO - 10
The Israeli Army - 0
The IRA - 10
The LTTE (Tamil sepratists, Sri Lanka) - 10
The Ulster Union - 10
The Pakistani Army in Kashmir -7
The Chinese army in Tibet - 5
Sparc, title of the other thread: “Negotiate with terrorists?”. It seems to have meandered into the topic of whether someone is a freedom fighter or not.
The reason for constructing the scale is so that we can decide how much support or opposition each group deserves. We ALL rank these organizations in our heads- some are definitely percieved as better than others. All I’m asking is that we put it down so that we can compare notes.
My own scale:
The US Army in Afghanistan - 3
The Indian Army in Kashmir - 3
The Lashkar e Toiba (Kashmiri seperatists) - 8
The PLO - 5
The Israeli Army - 5
The IRA - 4
The LTTE (Tamil sepratists, Sri Lanka) - 7
The Ulster Union - (No idea!)
The Pakistani Army in Kashmir -5
The Chinese army in Tibet - 9
Well, of course not, it’s hard to rank a group that doesn’t exist. Ottto’s willingness to go ahead and assign a 10 to an imaginary terrorist group ought to put the credibility of his rankings in some perspective.
Otto, that is possibly the most idiotic thing I have ever seen posted. the fact that you mark “The Ulster Union” leads me to believe that you randomly assigned values to the subjects.
One Cell, the first post clearly says “feel free to add to the list”.
As for the worthlessness of subjective data, a great many things are guided by subjective opinions not clearly stated. In many of our actions we implicitly find some organizations more respectable than others. It would help if the subjectivity was down on paper. I’m sure that a lot of us would be surprised to see how someone else rates these organizations.
Fercryinoutlout! Is there a semantic problem in my posts and the other thread or do you harbor an alternative comprehension of reality per se that makes conversation impossible?
Now I’ll try to put this as succinctly as I can. Once again: the two threads are treating the same topic. This one is treating it on an infantile sandbox level that is bent to be offensive due to the inherent subjectivity in rating anything including terrorism, which other bastions of reason have already pointed towards.
Or; what is the point of rating terrorism if the goal is not to decide how to deal with terrorism.
Or; what is the point of rating terrorism in the first place. Define what terrorism is, as Dseid does and then you can debate it. Rating terrorism on a scale of acceptability must deal with the methods of terror, NOT the groups that might or might not employ these same methods. By focusing on the groups you’re only inviting to a flame fest.
How and why should I debate your hypothetical 5 against my 4 on for instance The Freedom Fighters of Alpha Centauri???
Should I say for instance; “Nah, you’re wrong it’s a definite 4.”
To which you hypothetically reply ;“ Nope 5 it is.”
“Must be 4”
“Must be 5”
“It’s a 4!”
“5 it is”
“4! 4! 4! 4! 4! 4! Get it? It’s 4!”
“I still say 5!”
“But it’s 4!”
“Is sooo 5!”
“It’s 4 for fucks sake!”
“OK 4.5! Settled?”
:rolleyes: Completely pointless.
I wouldn’t react like I do if it wasn’t a debate about human life and the value of the same. It’s a goddamned affront to good taste and an insult to the millions of people that suffer under oppression, terror and violence in the world to flippantly discuss terrorism as if it was some kind of fucking sporting event.