The title says it all. If you squint your mind’s eye really, really hard and peer way, way back into the mists of time to Summer 2012, American warplanes were bombing Libya in acts of war.
Then: American shit got blown up by pissed off Libyans.
I really think this is war and not terrorism.
Is this not a war zone?
We should totally invade.
Or… totally provide air support.
Have we declared war on Libya? If yes, then it’s war. If not, then both sides are guilty of terrorism.
Because the Libyan people desired it.
Um… That isn’t how it works. Congress authorized military action, in support of a provisional government. That’s legal. That isn’t terrorism. That’s aiding an ally.
If you use the word “terrorism” to apply to anything you don’t like, it becomes meaningless from dilution.
Ignorance fought. Apologies for the incorrectness.
Armies do wars. Libya does not have an army. The best word to describe an invasion that some are for is “holocaust”.
The problem with this definition is that it simply allows the government, whether ours or “theirs” to define terrorism as violence that they don’t like.
Many moons ago I worked as a technician at a conference on international terrorism at the Smithsonian’s Wilson Center for International Studies. The attendees were academics from around the western world, and quite a few State Department representatives. The conference basically broke down because they could not get consensus on a definition. There were two recent events that couldn’t be reconciled. One was the attack on the Marine barracks by a suicide bomber in Beiruit. The attack resulted in nearly 250 Marine deaths, and a few civilians who were nearby at the time. The other was the US airstrike on multiple targets in Libya, which resulted in a large but unknown number of military deaths, and also some civilians around the facilities. The academics were pretty overwhelmingly of the opinion that neither was a terrorist attack – they were both aimed at specific military targets. But the State Department people insisted that the Marine bombing was a terrorist attack and the airstrike wasn’t, even though the airstrike killed more innocent civilians (IIRC some bombs went astray an hit non-military targets too).
They could not find a definition would define the incident as the US wanted it defined, so the conference ended without being able to agree on a definition. I don’t really know why the academics weren’t willing to buck the government position and settle on some definition, but there was a pretty clear divide and also pretty clearly the organizers of the conference didn’t want to offend the State Department. FYI, it was in the late 80s, either at the tail end of the Reagan years or early in Bush I’s administration.
Who does the OP think we should be at war with? Libya? Libyan troops help defend the embassy during the attack. The government of Libya has condemned the attacks and has been cracking down on the groups that carried it out. In the days after the attack tens of thousands of Libyans were marching in the street in protest of the attacks and in support of the United States.
A war zone is only a war zone as long as there’s, you know… a war. In the zone. The regime that Libya’s current government was fighting collapsed and organized pro-Qaddafi resistance ended months ago, at which point the country ceased to be at war/a war zone. So one of your premises is invalid.
Even if we take it as a given that it was a war zone and that we were at war with the perpetrators, that does not mean they can just kill whoever they like.
Unless the embassy was being used as a military asset - like if the CIA was controlling drones from that location - the embassy and its ambassador should have been off-limits.
You might want to look up the word and why it was used regarding the Shoah before you make posts like this.
I agree this is a problem… But the ability of governments to declare war is, in a way, self-correcting. If the government of Ruritania declared war on the U.S. – we’d could (as one strategic option) bomb them until their government ceased to function. This is what prevents formal declarations of war.
The problem then is acts of violence perpetrated without declaration. This doesn’t have to be terrorism, but it does pretty much mean “war.” You mentioned the attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut. That was pretty much an “act of war.” When an act like that happens, then return actions are legitimate. When the enemy is indistinguishable from the civilian population, then civilians get hurt. You can’t snipe at the other guy’s troops and imagine that there won’t be return fire.
If terrorism is a legitimate tactic of war…then so are the responses.
If terrorism is not a legitimate tactic, then it is a crime, and ought to be addressed that way. But some regions of the world are not policed, or policeable. So we’re stuck with the current situation of micro-wars.
I don’t really care about the definitions; I want to find a way to address the problem. I don’t care what you call the sniper; I just want the sniping to be stopped.
I think the events in Benghazi fall in the category of “Libyan Civil War”. There is a low level civil war going on, and we got pulled in due to our mere presence. The Islamist rebels know they don’t stand a chance if the US sides with the Libyan government.
I wouldn’t really call it terrorism, as it wasn’t directed at civilians. I guess that disqualifies me from running for the presidency. 
I wish it were that simple. George Bush declared a war on terrorism, without anyone (least of all himself) understanding or agreeing on what it means. So far it has resulted in at least one totally unnecessary invasion, tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties, Americans torturing prisoners, drone strikes in half a dozen or more countries, and I’m sure more bad shit that I can’t think of at the moment.
Who are we at war with in Libya? The (new/current) Libyan Government supported the US and condemned the attacks, and also has been quite vigorous in going after those who did this. Are we at war with the previous Libyan Government? The Colonel is dead and gone…eee’s a dead dictator…eeee’s shuffled off this mortal coil…eeee’s pushin’ up the daisies…eeee’s and EX-dictator.
So, what you are saying is that though the current government doesn’t support the attacks, and even though a large percentage of Libyan’s weren’t involved or even support those attacks, if a few folks are still pissed off and strike back that this equates to ‘war’. In all cases?
I’d say you are creating a new definition of ‘war’ in order to make this work. You could say it’s not terrorism, but instead it’s buckwheat. A rose by any other name smells as sweet, but calling a petunia a rose because they are both flowers is sort of silly, don’t you think?
As I’ve said, I think the important point some people are missing is there’s a huge difference between a terrorist attack on Americans in Libya and a terrorist attack on Americans by Libya. There were, for example, numerous British citizens killed in the United States on 9/11. But Britain didn’t declare war on America.
The people who killed Americans were terrorist groups like Al Qaida and Ansar al-Sharia not the Libyan government. The Libyan government is not supporting these groups. So why would we declare war on Libya?
I’d agree with John Mace and call it a low-level civil war. Not really sure what difference it makes, though.
The group who attacked the consulate was previously helping us ouster Gadhafi. Now they want they new Libyan Gov’t gone as well (and its perceived protectors, the US), or at least they will not integrate with the new Gov’t. A week or so after the attack, hundreds/thousands of civilians stormed the groups compound in retaliation for their attack on the US consulate - and the Libyan Gov’t stepped in to support the retaliation. That all seems very low-level civil war’ish to me. But again, what’s the difference.
Terrorism/war all bleeds together. However, 20ish+ armed men with AK’s and RPG’s, all coordinated, killing, burning buildings, attacking consulate building/force and annex building/force two miles away, that’s rising above criminal activity and would definitely give US/Libya the ability to kill in response at a later date (and not just arrest for a crime). So, if forced to pick, I’d call it an act of war. Although it’s really really close. And I’d probably go arrest them as a matter of policy.
While I totally agree with everything you say in this post…would a completely clear definition of “terrorism” do anything to prevent such abuses? It’s like pornography: even if a mathematically rigorous definition existed…how would that really advance us in our striving for consensus on what should be legal?
I would prefer that terrorism be treated as a crime, and investigated, tried, and punished under civilian criminal-law standards. But when large numbers of people support terrorism, either actively or passively (as many in Gaza, for instance, are compelled to support it against their will) then what can we do? William James said, “So far, war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community.”
If we could distinguish terrorism from its community, we could address it as criminal activity. But we can’t always seem to do this. War is all that’s left.