Honestly, I don’t feel confident enough to state what the distinction is, based on this information alone. Who is doing the bombing, and why? Have the targets engaged in specific activity that might justify reprisals, and how was this determined? What is the potential for civilian casualties in both cases? I would certainly tend to agree that sowing discord and confusion among opposing military forces is not terrorism, but these sorts of conflicts rarely if ever occur in isolation. While I don’t claim that there is no distinction between war and terrorism, I think that there is a continuum, and where one stands on that continuum is based largely on one’s behavior and attitudes toward civilians and noncombatants. I also don’t think that war and terrorism are mutually exclusive, either; just because a nation declares war doesn’t mean that it’s not engaging in terrorism, particularly if the war in question is supposed to pre-empt or discourage the hypothetical future acts of other nations. I’m uncertain what the critical distinction between “bully” and “terrorist” is. If they both have guns, how would one act differently from the other?
I think we are in agreement here.
My hypothetical aerial bombing of AAA sites is uniformed combatants bombing the military personnel of another nation – anyone manning the AAA sites will almost certainly be killed. The intent is to remove the AAA weapon from the enemy’s use, and (as an unfortunate consequence) kill anyone intending to use it. The mission is planned for night to minimize civilian casualties, but every pilot is aware that he is killing some innocent bystanders. Nonetheless, the weapon he has been issued, a guided bomb, is designed to concentrate its damage in the vicinity of the AAA weapon.
By contrast, the five simultaneous bombings of police stations in Iraq were conducted during the working day, with the full knowledge that there would be Iraqi civilians in and around the busy police stations. The intent was not to demolish the building (which could have been accomplished much more easily at night!) but to kill civilians and law enforcement officers.
When the intent of your attack is to cause loss of life, serious injury, or fear of reprisals in non-combatants, then you are engaged in terrorism. When the intent is to break the will of combatants to fight, it is psychological warfare. By taking good faith precautions to minimize casualties and to restrict the impact
I agree with the first statement; firebombing, atomic bombs, and weapons that unnecessarily harm civilians are essentially tools of terror, and have military utility only when properly employed against troop formations (and even then, you’re toeing a line). However, I don’t think you can argue that the ethical or moral character of a soldier’s actions changes based on “who started it”. By that reasoning, any of Germany’s military actions in WWII amounted to terrorism (easy enough to swallow) but conversely, all of America’s acts are justified (including the firebombing of Dresden).
I would argue that all war is coercion by force, and that the winners (who write the histories) decide whether a war was "good"or “bad”. Therefore, one must separate the acts of the individual combatants from the “goodness” or “badness” of a given war before you can make a distinction between war and terrorism.
A state engaging in a bad war can be described as a bully and an aggressor, but terrorism implies (to me) a particular subset of tactics, and a particularly malicious intent. If a state attacked another country with the intent to wipe out its population and cause the most suffering possible, that would be genocide – the state could justifiably be labelled a “terrorist.” But as long as a war – no matter how unjust – is prosecuted within the Law of Armed Conflict, then I can’t see how you can call the state a “terrorist.” Bully, aggressor, invader, and so forth. But to me, “terrorist” implies a special intent to actively cause civilian casualties.
To further refine your position, a few more questions:
Was Germany’s “blitz” of London a terrorist act since it was (a) part of a war of aggression, and (b) specifically targeted an urban center with the knowledge that civilians would die? Does that justify the firebombing of Dresden?
Was America’s air campaign over Baghdad a terrorist act since (a) it was part of a war of aggression and (b) strikes were carried out with the knowledge that some civilians would likely die? Does that justify any insurgent’s attack that kills Iraqi civilians? Would it justify a second Oklahoma City bombing?
I was taught that by definition, terrorism could not be committed by a government, only a political group or movement that has no legal standing to declare war on another entity. When a government commits an atrocity in wartime, it’s a war crime. When in peacetime, it’s genocide or displacement. You can argue if Hiroshima was a war crime, but it was certainly not terrorism.
I think this distinction is useful to keep, otherwise a useful word starts to exhibit mission creep, so terrorism=anything I don’t like to see happen.
And then there’s “state-sponsored” terrorism. When Saddam funds Palestinian suicide bombers, Iraq’s treasury is complicit in terrorism. When Reagan funds the mujaheddin, the U.S. treasury is complicit in legitimate armed resistance (as long as the mujaheddin restrict their attacks to armed Soviet regulars)! When the North Vietnamese Viet Cong waged a guerrilla campaign against Southern villages to deter cooperation with the US and the ARVN, that’s a war crime (uniformed forces / “regulars” perpetrating the act).
I agree with you, however, that a state and its army would have to work very hard to be called “terrorist.” A state can be complicit in terrorism, a state sponsor of terrorism, and so on, and still not truly a “terrorist” state. The term is almost an oxymoron.
I swear, sometimes I think this board needs a “light bulb” smiley. Since we don’t have one, I’ll instead simply congratulate you – you are starting to grasp the difference between terrorism and not terrorism. See, not terrorism has a military goal in mind, even if one might disagree with it – again, the example of Iraq invading Kuwait. Terrorism is just to, well, terrorize.
That’s exactly correct. Some people are using a definition closer to that of the United States of “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” (cite) Others are using a more expansive version which includes uniformed national or multi-national militaries under color of war engaging in campaigns with which they disagree, a version preferred by Osama bin Laden when he was justifying the Madrid bombings: "Be aware that if you describe us and our actions as terrorism then you should describe yourselves and your actions that way as well.
Our actions come in response to your actions of destroying and killing our people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. It is enough to witness the event that shocked the world, the killing of the elderly, wheelchair-bound Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, God have mercy on him, and we pledge to God to take revenge on America, God willing." (cite)
That is fact, not opinion. As it happens, I’m proscribed by the moderators of this forum from offering any opinions or conclusions on this subject so I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader, with the short admonition that one should withhold any judgement until each person has had an opportunity to see the two definitions and their sources next to each other highlighted in stark contrast and to rethink his/her position.
If I were to accept the categorisation that Metihabel has pointed out, then it would seem that neither Germany or America could be considered as engaging in terrorist activity, regardless of their actions at any time. This might well be a useful legal distinction, although it seems strangely arbitrary to me; if a nation engages in a policy of dirty tricks, assassination, or indeed isolated acts of outright agression, in order to effect policy change in another nation, is it a war crime if no war has been officially declared? On the other hand, if these actions occur in peacetime, how do they qualify as either genocide or displacement? Where is the logic in excluding government actions from being designated as “terrorist?” This seems like a suspiciously self-serving definition of the term, vaguely analagous to the contention that members of minorities can’t also be racists. If there’s a better reason for having this distinction, I’d like to know what it is.
In any case, such a definition seems to hit wide of the mark as far as the general usage of the term is concerned. To call a person or group “terrorist” carries a rhetorical weight which alludes to their tactics and attitude toward inflicting casualties, qualities that do not preclude one from also being guilty of war crimes or genocide. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding **Metihabel’**s argument (quite likely, I’m guessing), but if genocide is defined as an activity limited to peacetime, then presumably the majority of the Nazi Holocaust would not qualify as such. I can’t buy that.
In my opinion, whether a given act qualifies as terrorist or not should depend primarily on the intent of the perpetrator (one of the defining criteria of genocide as well, I believe). I grant that this definition could be abused lavishly in a legal setting…I could see someone arguing, for example, that the 9/11 attacks would not qualify as terrorism if it could be established that the attackers’ primary goal was the disruption of America’s economic and military infrastructure, rather than to instil fear in the population. So it’s not a perfect definition either, but I think it seems to better address the sense in which the term is applied: the application of political pressure specifically through the generation of fear. One could, for example, be considered a terrorist even if no actual physical harm results or was intended from one’s actions…planting a fake bomb or mailing out envelopes of baking soda labeled “anthrax” in order to call attention to one’s cause should certainly qualify. (Although evidently if you are ordered by the government to mail actual bombs or anthrax to people, you aren’t a terrorist, and neither are they. Funny how that works.)
So my take on your above question is that the Blitz, Dresden, and Baghdad all seemed to me to employ elements of terrorism to varying degrees, although as far as Baghdad is concerned the documents haven’t been declassified and the history books written yet; sadly, it would not surprise me at all at this point to learn of a leaked memo discussing the best way to create maximum terror among
the Iraqi population through the use of airstrikes. But I guess that’s just my own cynicism talking.
Admittedly this raises the question of whether any airstrike on a densely populated civilian area could be seen as legitimate. Yes, if the enemy military force has entrenched itself in such an area, civilian casualties are probably inevitable. I’d say that how one approaches that fact determines whether one is using terrorism. If one elects to exacerbate rather than minimize the effect on noncombatants, then one is using terrorist means to achieve victory. Of course, an airstrike is not the most clear-cut situation to determine such distinctions; an invading force could claim that bombing whole neighborhoods flat was the only effective way to remove the military threat.
So… they can crash planes into skyscrapers, as long as they invade Manhattan right afterwards?
Or do they have to be wearing uniforms?
Sorry to burst your balloon, but despite popular mythology, almost any military historian will tell you that the “minuteman” type of soldier had little effect on the American colonies’ eventual success in the Revolutionary War. It was the regular army, engaged in open battle, that won the war.
If a country’s state-owned airline sent an empty flight to D.C. with a military pilot at the controls, and while it was on the way, the country declared open war against us, and that plane were to then crash into the Pentagon, it would be legitimate. Deplorable and asymmetric, but legitimate.
Better yet, if a country sent an envoy to D.C. to declare war, and simultaneously used several carrier-based aircraft to strafe and bomb a major military base with high strategic importance… you know, a crippling first strike? That’s totally kosher; the surprise and shock of the attack would resonate in the American mindset for years.
But to get back to your question, the planes on September 11th were hijacked civilian airliners full of non-combatants, and the World Trade Center is not a legitimate military taget. The only possible outcome of that attack would be to kill lots and lots of civilians. So, no. But thanks for playing.
Just popping in to agree with those who see this as an argument about semantics. Military action, even if unjustified, is aimed at military targets and kills civilians by accident. Terrorism is aimed at civilians in the first place.
I also need to add that I think this exchange:
needs to be the default response to anyone’s first post in Great Debates.
Regards,
Shodan