Suppose that there were a terrorist organization like ISIS, except that instead of using violence, it was committed to using peaceful, legal methods of accomplishing its means. How would the United States, and/or the rest of the world respond?
So for instance - the goal of ISIS is to establish an Islamic caliphate, and ultimately, dominate the world. Suppose that there were a peaceful version of ISIS, and this peaceful ISIS actually won elections and gained control of a number of Arab governments this way and sought to establish an Islamic empire - an Islamic empire that was virulently anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israeli, but would still be peaceful nonetheless.
And suppose that such a “peaceful ISIS” was committed to bringing about the destruction of the West - or at least, cause as great harm as possible - but through peaceful means (I’m having a hard time imagining such peaceful means, but I’m sure it could be done - constantly egging on the U.S. to disastrous policy, deliberately closing the Suez Canal, stopping all oil exports from the Middle East, embargo-ing things, denying airspace, etc.)
Would the U.S. or other countries still go to military war against a ‘peaceful’ terrorist group? (Greenpeace isn’t really an equivalent since it has done violent or illegal things before)
In the sense that its mission would be to cause as much harm, destruction, suffering and economic loss as possible - but to do it by peaceful, legal means.
Yeah, a terrorist is by definition someone who attempts to use terror to influence a group that the terrorists aren’t powerful to take on head to head. So what is peaceful terror?
Hizb ut-Tahrir is a pan-Islamic organization that wishes to establish a caliphate through political action. So far as I am aware, the US hasn’t attacked them.
Hmm… well, other than trying to “egg on” the US, (which sounds like diplomatic trolling,) you’re describing a sort of unfriendly alliance. They’re not really being hostile, and not really hurting the west other than taking away the kind of peaceful trade and co-operation it’s grown used to. Which is certainly enough to cause sections of US society to panic and hurt themselves, I admit.
Which doesn’t answer the question of the response, I admit, I’m just trying to sort out the implications of the premise.
There are hate groups within the US that would love to see large groups of people harmed but don’t use violent actions to do so, just heated rhetoric and protests. Their actions are protected as free speech. They’re reluctantly tolerated.
The thing is though, that generally such groups aren’t labeled as “terrorist” either officially or unofficially until they use violence. So “peaceful terrorist” ends up being an oxymoron.
But my point was that (by the definition that I accept, at least) terrorists seek to cause terror. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. And “calm fear” or “serene panic” are a bit oxymoronic. You can have groups that can attempt to undermine a country through peaceful means, but they wouldn’t be terrorists. So I’m arguing semantics.
But yes, hacking is one way to peacefully disrupt a high-tech country. Another way is to flood the market with counterfeit currency. Another creative way would be to attempt to introduce invasive species that would do economic or agricultural damage (kudzu, air potatoes, zebra mussels, etc.) A well done instance of economic warfare wouldn’t even be seen as an attack.
Seems to mean virulently anti-US/anti-Western pan-Islamic political movement, not ‘peaceful terrorists’. As noted such organizations exist, and there’s the additional potential for it in country by country Islamist political movements if they all gained power and the emphasis was placed on transnational anti-Western policies rather than the countries each solving their own problems with Islam as the guiding principal, which is what they propose to gain voters.
A bloc of anti-Western countries would be a problem somewhat like the Communist bloc was. However and obviously it’s a matter of degree. As often in discussions of embargoing this or that it tends to be ignored that trade benefits both sides, though not necessarily each side rigorously equally and not each element of society in each country equally. But if the oil rich countries were giving away the oil or if Egypt were providing the services of the Suez Canal for free, etc it would be a lot more realistic to imagine them cutting off such trade. In fact they get money for the oil and canal, and cutting it off would not be just orthogonal to the stated Islamist goal of solving the society’s problems via Islam but directly against it. Likewise those countries get all kinds of Western (and Asian) goods for the money they spend on imports: they aren’t writing checks to the rest of the world as a favor.
So the track record is, unsurprisingly, that even virulently anti-US/Western* individual regimes in the Islamic world have still sold their oil and bought outside goods. I don’t see why a more unified transnational politics would change that, or alternatively it points back to the basic inequality in natural resources which has always made pan-Arab/Islamism unlikely in practice. Even in the part of the Islamic world united by Arab language and culture, there are real differences in national interest based on which countries have resources. There are also non-trivial differences in the level of development aside from resource extraction, to question whether say Morocco (as emerging center of low cost aerospace manufacturing) would ever have the same enthusiasm for pan-Islamic autarky as say Yemen.
*Gaddafi at one point actually sent a merchant ship to lay mines in the Red Sea, just to generally screw things up, not particularly aimed at warships or any particular country’s ships as it’s hard to do with low tech mines anyway. How much more generally hostile could you be? But he sold his oil.
Heh. How about this? Imagine a group that threatens the use of violence, and gets exactly what they want – never actually resorting to violence, because they never actually need to deliver on the threat, because the other folks were so terrified.
I figure they’d count as terrorists – and I’d maybe even admit that, strictly speaking, they’re peaceful in a way that bombers who actually kill people aren’t.
Peaceful terrorist is an oxymoron. The OP makes no logical sense.
Your scenario is like a guy who points a gun at you demanding your wallet and you give it to him. He never fired his gun, so does that make him a “peaceful” criminal? Of course not.
I wouldn’t say they were peaceful, no. Threatening someone with violence is the opposite of "peaceful’.
The OP seems to contemplate a movement which not only doesn’t need to resort to force, but entirely eschews the use of force, crime, illegality, etc. To characterise such an organisation at “terrorist” is a perversion of language. It’s an attempt to blacken those whose interests are opposed to yours by associating them with the perpetrators of violence, illegality, etc when, in reality, there is no such association.
See, I was figuring that actual violence is the opposite of ‘peaceful’. I mean, granted, I get that “not threatening anybody” is more peaceful than “making threats”; but I figured “making threats” is more peaceful than “actually delivering on those threats”. Given the challenge in the OP, it seemed like an arguable way to do it: terrorizing people without actually killing anybody or breaking anything.