It seems that the acts that just about everyone can agree are terroristic are those that: 1) target primarily civilian targets with 2) largely indiscriminate violence 3) generally through covert means 3) in order influence the decisions made by leaders who are not the subjects of the attack.
In other words, if I sneak a bomb into a movie theater in order to send a message to the powers that be that they better carry out my political agenda, I’d call that terrorism, and I would hope that most people would agree.
But to dumb down terrorism to include the acts of uniformed soldiers who march in to Kabul while shooting those who oppose them in order to compel the opposing forces to capitulate, well, I doubt many people would agree with you. If anyone wants to label all forms of violence “terrorism,” well, that’s just poetic license.
I have a real hard time saying that it’s alright for states to carry out the type of terroristic violence I tried to define in the first paragraph. To me, it means an acceptance that there should be no laws of war. Murder civilians with impunity, butcher POWs with no guilt, use chemical and nuclear weapons to destroy everything in sight, because if “the enemy” had a chance, he’d do the same thing.
Well, here’s one guy who thinks that wars can be justified, but the intentional killing of innocent people cannot. It’s barbaric and immoral. And it leaves the word terrorism with no other meaning than one in which can be slung around as mindless attacks on political opponents for any reason whatsoever.
(PS - Anyone who disagrees with me is a terrorist.)
Quite the contrary. See, the actions of uniformed troops under color of war against announced objectives are not terrorism, the adamant wishes and claims of some to the contrary (non-partisan example: the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was not terrorism).
No, if the US woke up one morning and decided to engage in terrorism, it would look like this: Medina and, oh, say Karachi would just be… gone. Someone on an obscure website in Singapore (to which news organizations would have the URL) would announce that more holy sites and Muslim dwelling places will be destroyed unless Osama is brought to justice and Israel is allowed to exist in peace.
Meanwhile, the government would say “It wasn’t us” and no one would even notice the tiny charge against earnings that Boeing (say) took to third quarter earnings.
If Osama didn’t turn up, Mecca and, say, Jakarta would disappear next.
For those unwilling or unable to make distinctions, that is what US terrorism would look like.
I beg to differ. I agree with Reeder - terrorism is a tactic that can be used as much by uniformed troops under color of war against announced objectives, or by semi-uniformed rebels under color of war against semi-announced targets (yea, some of us listened when AQ said they’d attack us!), or by ununiformed insurgents who want an occupying army out of their backyard, frontyard, kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom.
lol, what an idealistic world you live in. Heads would ROLL if we did that. These people die for martyrdom (pun intended), and you want to give them the ultimate sacrifice and a golden platter with sprigs of that green crap that comes with steak.
But seriously, would US terrorism look more like Dresden, or Hiroshima?
Really? I thought US terrorism (by your definition) looked more like training, arming, and funding people we only hate a little to kill people we hate more.
Yes, they’ll probably come up with some highly visible brand or label to underscore their intent to inflict terror on a civilian population. Something along the lines of “Operation Awe and Shock,” perhaps. Something like that.
Yes, those were the original meanings of those words. What I’m trying to say is that when the US justified a war by saying that the other side are ‘communist’, it’s not saying that the other side necessarily follow the philosophy of Karl Marx. Rather, it was saying that the other side had some kind of link to the Soviet Union, and are therefore evil, and all patriotic red-blooded flag-waving God-fearing Americans should wholeheartedly support the war.
Similarly, when the US justifies a war by saying that the other side are ‘terrorists’, it’s not saying that the other side uses psychological warfare (thanks, by the way, for the succinct definition of terrorism). Rather, it’s saying that the other side has some kind of link (real or imagined) to the al-Qaeda group, and are therefore evil, and all patriotic red-blooded flag-waving God-fearing Americans should wholeheartedly support the war.
I suppose that could be a definition of terrorism, although it’s not a definition that I would use (nor does it match Dictionary.com’s definition). But even so, there are many, many groups around the world who perform such acts, and the US’s ‘war on terrorism’ isn’t touching those groups. It does turn out, that the groups the US is going after do tend to perform those acts. However, I argue that this is a case of the definition conforming to the act, rather than the other way round.
There seem to be three different definitions of terrorism floating around:
[ul]
[li]Psychological warfare (thanks again, Zagadka). This is any act or threatened act of violence with the intention of coercion. This is my preferred definition, if only because it directly implies terror.[/li][li]Killing civilians indiscriminantly through unconventional means.[/li][li]Having any kind of link to al-Qaeda. Or, if you want to be even more nihilistic, not doing what the US government wants you to do.[/li][/ul]
A loose correlation, but fair enough. Terrorism is the new Communism is a good way to say it. There is still a fundamental difference in that Communism had strong states with a lot of power backing them up. You could stick flags in the ground and measure progress, to a degree. Terrorism is much more of a “ghost” to fight.
A form of psychological warfare. Psychological warfare in general is a complex and deep topic that can go from simple propaganda to terrorism and many places in between. The US “PsyOps” (the only units in the military I would allow myself to be drafted into) enacts on psychological warfare daily, from controlling radio frequencies to dropping leaflets telling the enemy how to surrender. Frankly, this is the only tasteful part of warfare to me - the kind where your job is to convince people to not fight. As I would/will ensure the draft board, that is something I will put 100% of my being into doing if given the chance. I don’t care who you “aim” me at, I’ll work harder than ever to convince them to not get shot and bombed.
(PsyOps has been rather dismal thus far in Iraq. The biggest thing of note they did was the fall of the Saddam statue, and that was for propaganda purposes more than preservation of life purposes)
“Shock and Awe” was not intended to intimidate the population OR the ‘government’. It was intended to decapitate the military command-and-control. The idea was that the damage would happen so fast and so confusingly that lines of communication would be broken in many places at once, plus a lot of the military’s assets like radars, office buildings, airports, and other tactical targets could be disabled. The idea was to simply freeze the command and control of the military and government and render the them ineffective to the invasion.
With the qualification of “As you understand terrorism”.
It must be said that one person’s view of terrorism hardly stacks up against another person’s understanding, as this thread has proven, many times over.
Terrorism is a Western concept, a concept invented and discussed mainly by the people on the recieving end of it.
Do you think that Osama Bin Laden would actually describe himself as a terrorist? Do you think that Al Qaeda meetings involve people sitting around thinking up ways to “terrorize” Americans? Do the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah and Fatah use the term “terrorism” in reference to their bombings whilst talking to each other?
No, the Islamists (in this case) and others utilizing terror see it as simply a method of warfare. They have identified their enemy (in this case, non-Muslims) and to them, what we call “terror” is legitimate warfare because they are striking with the only means they have at their disposal. Al Qaeda doesn’t have an army, they don’t have a navy, they don’t have fighter planes and secret intelligence agencies. They’re waging the only war they have the means to, as of now.
In some ways the perception of what is proper behavior for soldiers has changed frequently over the past 4,000 years or so. It used to be standard operating procedure for the conquering army to kill many able bodied men, to enslave the population, to rape the women, and to loot, loot, loot. Granted these things still happen but when soldiers rape it isn’t generally with the approval of their superiors.
I suppose the definition of terrorism changes with the times. Perhaps from our point of view you could call them that but you’d have to say the same for the Persians and the Thracians.
I accept it as a fact of life and we should be prepared to deal with it. I’m not prepared to allow US troops to rape women, murder civilians, or enslave populations as a matter of policy.
Terror and terrorism are two different things. It’s acceptable to scare a population by threatening war or serious sanctions you just can’t scare them by murdering and torturing civilians.
Well, then, it’s a good thing that they didn’t decide to describe the operation by using two terms synonymous with “terror,” isn’t it? Oh, wait, they did, didn’t they? This is what is commonly known as a “giveaway.” I have no authoritative cite to back me up here, but I’d guess that there are literally thousands of things that you could code-name your military incursion that wouldn’t also be a synonym for terror, if you really felt like going out of your way to do so. How about Operation Overwhelm Iraqi Command? Operation Minimize Civilian Casualties, perhaps? How about Operation Emu, or Operation Clown Nose? Wasn’t there a time when military operations were given more or less random designations, instead of Fox News-friendly nicknames? Just from where I’m sitting, I can come up with dozens of names that don’t have any terror connotations at all. Operation Reclining Chair. Operation Pencil Sharpener. Operation Stack of Playboys. Operation Incontinent Ferret. It’s easy!
In a way, it’s almost funny to hear people defend the invasion along these lines: “Why do people automatically assume that Operation Cause Terror was intended to terrorize the Iraqi people? Just because we named it Operation Fear and Intimidation, people tend to irrationally jump to the conclusion that its intent was to frighten and intimidate.”
Does anyone else feel we’re just arguing semantics? In other languages, the word for “terrorist” has absolutely nothing to do with “terror”, and yet when speakers of those languages say their word for “terrorst” they mean exactly the same thing we do.
The bombing of Hiroshima perfectly matches the above definition (except (3), which I’m not sure why it is included)
So, I’m curious, do people here consider the bombing of Hiroshima as terrorism?
(and on a GRAND scale at that)
BTW, I’m don’t know the details but I think that the bombing of Dresden does not match the above definition because it fails condition (4), though definitely fits conditions (1) and (2).
So, do you justify the intentional killing of innocent people in Hiroshima, or do you condemn it as barbaric and immoral?
The only difference between a “terrorist” and a “freedom fighter” is who eventually wins. This country was liberated by insurgents: farmers who kept a musket handy, and who would steal into the night, fire a few shots at British regulars, and then slip away without engaging the enemy. Ambushes with small groups of scouts, hit-and-run tactics, raids, and most of the other tactics used against the U.S. Forces in Iraq are completely legitimate forms of armed resistance. During the Revolutionary War, however, we were not completely pure, however. Local civilians who were sympathetic to the British cause were tarred, feathered, stoned, and worse; a modern parallel would be the series of attacks on the new Iraqi government. Whether against a Tory or a New Iraqi, it is essentially terrorism.
When a strong army fights a weak one from a position of strength – for example, U.S. air strikes in a theater where we have air supremacy – that’s war. When a weak army fights a strong one from a position of weakness – for example, setting off a roadside bomb at the front and rear of a convoy and then hosing down the trapped convoy with machine-gun fire – that’s also war. Uniforms are a modern conceit that the strong army always makes a big deal out of, but think back to your American History class. Remember that the redcoats were easy pickings for colonists hiding in the woods.
War crosses the line into terrorism when civilians or non-combatants are deliberately targeted (or exposed to enemy fire) for no tangible military gain. Intentionally bombing a mosque on a Friday afternoon is terrorism; hitting a target nearby on a Wednesday and causing some structural damage is not terrorism. Running up to a Humvee full of US troops and spraying them with AK-47 fire is not terrorism; doing the same to a car full of Iraqi government officials (or other civilians) is.
To be perfectly honest, I have not thought about it in the context of terrorism. I’ll have to mull that over a bit and get back to you.
Here’s the sticking point that I have to think about a bit more: there are plenty of actions in past wars that I would condemn if they were carried out today. My definition of terrorism notwithdstanding, I see little moral difference between killing hundreds of thousands of civilians through the use of firebombs or the use of a single nuclear weapon – if either of those actions were to be carried out today.
I do not mean to be flippant, but I think of Civil War-era medicine, which primarily consisted of amputations: it was brutal and awful by today’s standards, but it was the best that could be done at that time. So the question for me boils down to: in the absence of smart bombs, was it morally justifiable in WW2 to bomb whole cities, ostensibly to attack military and economic targets, while knowing that thousands of civilians would be killed? Is the indescriminate killing made less indescriminate because we did not have the ability to be more discriminate, but if so, how does that relate to using the A-bomb?
I don’t know the answers at this point, but I’ll think about it.
I will say that I subscribe to the thought that the nuclear era began with Hiroshima and ended with Nagasaki. Hopefully, at least.
By the way, Terrifel, it wasn’t called OPERATION SHOCK AND AWE. The Operation name was OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. U.S. Operation names are a combination of two words (MARKET GARDEN, DESERT STORM, etc.). I can’t think of a single example where we’ve ever used “AND” in an operation name.
The doctrine we employed was called “shock and awe” - the idea was to synchronize several strikes to magnify their apparent impact. If you look at the September 11th attacks, the recent four-town bombing in Iraq by the insurgents, and (further back) the Tet Offensive, synchronizing your attacks to maximize their psychological impact is nothing new.
I maintain that as long as it’s used against military targets, with the goal of causing the enemy to lose his will to fight, that it is a legitimate form of warfare.
Many thanks for the correction. I don’t think that my main point changes much, though; if the United States employs a doctrine of “shock and awe” in its foreign policy adventures, especially when the “enemy” is a nation that has not threatened America in any way, then it’s somewhat disingenuous to act surprised or offended when the rest of the world starts to percieve the U.S. as no more than the biggest terrorist on the block.
If I were in the Pit, I’d have some strong words for their perceptions. I think the word you mean is “bully”, and not “terrorist.”
I find myself unwilling to concede this point. Synchronized assaults include coordinating flights of archer fire, musket volleys from the 1700s, cannon salvos from frigates in the wooden navies, “over the top” charges in WWI, the many-pronged attack on the Normandy beaches, and more. Hell, in hockey they call it a “power play.” Massing your firepower in space and time for physical and psychological effect is a no-brainer; it is elementary to war of all kinds. To call it terrorism is to dilute the meaning of the word and to paint all warriors and all terrorists with the same brush. If there is any difference between war and terrorism at all in your mind, then this must be clear.
Do you see any distinction between the aerial bombing of five anti-aircraft sites simultaneously and the car-bombing of five police stations simultaneously?
The colonials winning the war by sniping and picking off redcoats, neatly marching in line and unable to respond, is a myth.
You couldn’t pull off more shots with a rifle than with a musket plus the range difference wasn’t that important.
The British had plenty of light troops themselves, plus the loyalists, plus lots of indians.
The American forces only became an efficient fighting force after they were tought proper drill and started fighting in an organised fashion, like the Brits. In which they predominantly used muskets and most certainly did wear uniforms.
There is still a fundamental difference in that Communism had strong states with a lot of power backing them up. You could stick flags in the ground and measure progress, to a degree. Terrorism is much more of a “ghost” to fight.