(This springs from a discussion in General Questions)
OK, so we generally accept that terrorism is BAD, regardless of whether you endorse the political goals of the terrorists. That is, even if you support independnece for Quebec, you don’t support them blowing up people in a mall in London. (Take this as working hypothesis, you’re free to disagree.)
On the other hand, guerrilla warfare (American revolutionaries vs the British, say) can be good if you support the cause… or bad if you don’t support the cause (anarchist movement in Austria in 1910, say).
So, how do we distinguish terrorism from guerrilla warfare?
I propose that it has to do with the distance between the target of the military action and the political objective.
Thus, when the Jews wanted to kick the British out of Palestine (1948ish), they launched attacks against the British military force in Palestine. That’s guerrilla warfare, because the target of the military attack is closely tied to the political objective.
When the Palestinians want to kick the Israelis out of the West Bank of Israel, they killed an American on a Greek cruise ship. That’s terrorism, because the object of the military attack is extremely distant from the political objective.
Granted, there’s subjectivity in this definition, but it seems to me to be a plausible working basis. Thoughts?
In Ireland there is always a destination drawn between the Old IRA(good) versus the New IRA(bad) .
In the first half of the last century the IRA fought a war that was based on the tactics of guerrilla warfare . Hit hard and run fast was the only way to fight a British army that was better organised and better armed . The people killed where usually army or connected with them , informants etc .
In more recent times the IRA changed the tactics to bombing campaigns against military targets in the North but also targeted innocent civilians . They then moved there bombs to mainland Britain . Their reasoning was that if they could bring enough terror to the British public they would put pressure on their government to get out of the North . These actions were closely linked to their political objectives but where still Terrorism .
So I would say the difference is that guerrilla warfare is using distinct tactics against military targets to achieve your goals whereas terrorism is trying to scare or intimidate the general public to achieve your goals .
As you say Dext it all subjective. There are people in my country that would argue to their last breath that the bombings in England are a legitimate form of “The Struggles” but gladly they are becoming fewer .
Testing my coding abilities, the GQ thread is Did Israel ever Bomb the UK
Over there, in reply to CKDextHavn’s suggestion that distance is a sensible criterion for establishing the difference between a guerillla action and terrorism, I suggested that the distinction between military and non-military targets was important.
In CKDexHavn’s example, it is not that the ship was a long way away that made the act terrorist, but that it involved non-combatants.
In reply to this CKDexHavn said:
I would disagree with equating an attack on a distant military base with an attack on civilians even a metre away from the dispute. I would regard the military at any distance to be the legitimate target of a guerilla army.[usual disclamer in these matters: not to say that I think it is/ was justified in any actual case under discussion]
yojimbo raises the greyness of any such distinction in the comment that:
Actually, I think the difference between terrorists and guerrillas is who they’re aiming the gun at. CK and yojimbo got it right - if you’re aiming primarily at military targets that have a direct impact, it’s guerrilla warfare. If you’re aiming at civilian targets, or an unconnected military target, it’s terrorism.
I agree basically with the thrust of the definition, except that I believe there are some legitimate civilian targets. For instance, those industrial facilities that directly supply weaponry or critical supplies to the military. An ammunition manufacturing plant would be a legit target despite the fact that it may be owned and staffed entirely by civilians.
Most terrorist would say there is no such thing as a unconnected military target ( once it’s part of the country or regime your fighting ) .
I also think that it’s not as easy as military targeted=guerilla warfare and civilian=terrorism . The Hyde Park nail bomb was against a military target ( soldiers on horses , thats all my memory can get ) but it was designed to make the public react . It was a act of terrorism because the IRA was not trying to achieve a military advantage from the act they where trying to scare people .
I have heard many people say that the bombings of English civilian targets during WWII were warcrimes so the bombings of German civilians should be thought of in the same light .
Also the IRA does not consider their acts as terrorism , they consider themselves at war and so have the same mindset as the Allies in WWII .
So yes I would consider bombing civilians ( not factories or industrial areas where civilians would certainly be killed ) an act of terrorism .
How bout the U.S. bombing of an aspirin factory (presented as anti-terrorism?)
I don’t believe anyone has pointed out that both terms, guerilla warfare and terrorism, seem most appropriately applied to underdogs - combatants in a weaker position, often with less sophisticated weapons, fighting against either a stronger force (whether legitimate or occupying), or institutionalized norms. If this distinction is accepted, the U.S. might have difficulty engaging in either. Large scale military operations, even of civilian targets, are acts of warfare, no matter how misguided.
I tend to view just about any military installation as an arguably legitimate target - certainly any uniformed personnel is a more legitimate target than a civilian. Of course the line gets blurred with military industry. But I have less problem with, for example, the truck bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon, than the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building.
I feel pretty confident that physical distance between the target and the political objective was not what CKDexHavn meant. Rather it is philosophical distance. If the political objective is military, then attacking a soldier is directly tied to the political objective and the philosophical distance between the target and object is small. Whereas an innocent civilian has nothing to do with the political objective or at best is so far removed from it that the philosophical distance between the political object and the target is very great.
I agree with you D i D. This is why I questioned CKDexhavn’s list of acts which appeared to rate attacking British base in the Falklands with shopping centre in London.
“Remoteness” would seem to be the test, not physical distance.
Quotation from end of CDK’s first post:
"Thus, when the Jews wanted to kick the British out of Palestine (1948ish), they launched attacks against the British military force in Palestine. That’s guerrilla warfare, because the target of the military attack is closely tied to the political objective.
When the Palestinians want to kick the Israelis out of the West Bank of Israel, they killed an American on a Greek cruise ship. That’s terrorism, because the object of the military attack is extremely distant from the political objective."
Hmmmm. I have to differ with this. Certain Jewish elements attacked indiscriminately. The Stern Gang and Irgun were two of the more nefarious groups. Haganah, the primary military force of the Jewish community pre-WWII, was a bit more restrained in their actions, but have been criticized as well. Can’t cite anything as I am at work and all my sources are at home, but I’ll post something specific tomorrow.
How 'bout the difference is the intent of the instigator? In guerilla warfare, the intent is to wage war by attacking the **physical ** ability of your opponent to attack/oppress/fight you. You choose hit and run (“guerilla”) tactics because the opposing side is much stronger than you, and you can’t face them directly on the field of battle. Under that definition, ambushes of enemy patrols or bombing the ammunition factory are acts of guerrila warfare.
In terrorism, the intent is to wage war by attacking the ** psychological ** ability of your opponent to attack/oppress/fight you. You choose to bomb department stores so that the population of the opposing force is in personal fear for their lives (“terrorized”).
Not gonna go into my view on the morality of either method, 'cause it would just take too long.
Whether you ‘call’ someone a Geurrilla/Freedom Fighter or a Terrorist is, IMHO, very often determined by how the media refer to the organisation (if it’s current) or how the Historians on any given side of the debate later refer to it.
To the powers in situ (they affect the way the media reports on events), any attempt to upset the apple cart is terrorism. So, they’re ‘terrorists’. If you happen to be a part of the ‘terrorist’ organisation or sympathise with it, then you/they are Freedom Fighters.
I’m disagreeing. My point in the other topic was that it’s not logical or moral to say “you’re bad because you killed innocent people, but I’m good because I killed people in the military”
Terrorism, guerilla warefare, and conventional warfare are all bad because your killing people. Splitting people into groups of innocent and non-innocent is silly.
Any discussion of good vs bad warfare quickly boils down to "I’m good if I shoot you, You’re bad if you shoot me.
The OP’s use of the word “bad” is to describe the moral judgement placed on those actions, not as a description of conditions. Of course war is a Bad Thing, but that doesn’t mean that it is necessarily immoral.
It is true that people rarely, (probably never) see themselves as the “bad guys” during a war, but it is not true that because of this no judgements can be made.
How can you say that it makes no difference who you are attacking? Do you think I would be as justified blowing up a daycare center or a hospital as I would an ammo dump?
I gotta fundamentally take issue with the question that there is a difference between “terrorism” and “guerilla warfare.”
As some have mentioned, terrorism is a label for a type of warfare that is intrinsically objectionable to the opposition, where the opposition generally has conventional military forces. Furthermore, many who have engaged in unconventional warfare have described themselves as guerrillas, but offhand I can’t think of a single notable person/movement that would describe themselves as terrorists. Furthermore, those who support movements using unconventional warfare would certainly not say they support a group of “terrorists.”
The question left in my mind is that terrorism tends to imply a type of violence which is ethically questionable. But then again, is it really the type of violence used that leads us to the label rather than the political motives (and ‘our’ opposition to it), and a sense of confidence that ‘we’ wouldn’t ‘stoop to that level?’
Take for example the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, which I believe to be generally considered an act of terrorism. The act was essentially against members of the US armed forces, which if you think about it, is a pretty legitimate military target (as much as I hate to say that). If it was indeed an act of terrorism, could not the US raid on ‘terrorist’ camps in Afghanistan a few years back be considered just as terroristic, the only qualitative difference being the sophistication of the weapons used?