"I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man. "- Al Capone
Nobody thinks they are working for evil. That is why it is important to have moral clarity about what is good and what is evil. Pushing an old lady in front of a bus is different than pushing her out of the way of a bus even though they both involve pushing ladies near buses. Terrorism is a tactic, to know whether it is an evil tactic or a morally permissable tactic you have to know what the terrorist is trying to impose. The ends would have to really great in order to justify the means. The people who tried to blow up Hitler were heroes because of Hitler was so evil. It is impossible to judge the morality of an action without knowing the circumstances and motivations behind the action. We know the end states of communism and islamism are evil so any actions to achieve those ends are evil. The fact that communists and islamists do not agree is immaterial.
Not really. Even then, there was no way to know that every communist overthrow would lead to mass killings and the like. Lots of non-communist revolutions also lead to purges and communal violence and so on.
The Second World War aided the cause tremendously, by allowing the Soviet regime to be seen as a heroic resistance to fascism, rather than a rival breed of evil totalitarianism.
Still, it should have been apparent that nations founded on liberal values and open, democratic government produced the best outcomes, but few nations had a liberal tradition (Germany and Russia certainly didn’t), so the revolutions became communist vs. fascist or monarchist vs. communist, where victory by either group ensured misery for the population at large.
But, I am of course writing from the perspective of an American.
But this is just your viewpoint. By what absolute standard is the end state of islamism (whatever that means) “evil”? As it happens I believe living in a fully Islamic state would be appalling and totally contrary to my personal wishes but to a devout Muslim it may appear the best of all possible worlds with each individual submitting to the will of God and the promise of eternal happiness in the hereafter. A devout Muslin could just as easily determine that the end states of materialism and liberalism are evil - in that they condemn millions to living, and dying, outside the pure light of the faith.
You may think their faith in Islam is absurd but it is their absolute belief.
All you have done is starkly outline what others have said - a freedom fighter is on your side, a terrorist is on theirs.
That’s a very nice absolute but you will need to define “terrorism”. To take a hypothetical: suppose in early 1941 you could have foreseen the course of the Second World War with the deaths of millions in the Holocaust and the even greater numbers of civilians in the Soviet Union - not to mention the German civilians killed by airaids and during the defeat in 1945 - (and to predict that millions would die in a World War would be no great feat of prediction) would it have been morally permissable to set off a bomb that would kill Hitler but also kill a number of innocent bystanders?
Surely setting off a bomb that will kill innocents is a terrorist act? But it will save maybe 25 million people from an early death - is that not morally permissable?
Sure! How about “the systematic use of terror as a means of political coercion.”
That would not be a terrorist act, it’s a sloppy military strike. Terrorism would be more like setting off bombs in German markets while demanding that Germany withdraw from Poland.
Were the Allied strategic bombing campaigns in WW2 immoral and not morally permissible? Do you unreservedly condemn them, those that ordered them and those that carried them out? Has every bombing campaign since WW2 been immoral and equally condemned by you since despite civilians not being the direct target of the bombing anyone with connected brain cells knows from history that the primary victims of bombing will nonetheless be civilians rather than military personnel?
Actually it doesn’t. Under total war theory, civilians are what provides the means for the enemy to wage war in the first place; targeting them directly is attacking the enemy’s ability to wage war, they are not separate things. History suggests that the means weren’t yet up to the task up through WW2. It is no accident that the nuclear arsenals of the Cold War an today are there to destroy the cities of the enemy and all the civilians living in them.
That’s not a terribly useful definition; it describes every war ever fought.
ETA:
What do you imagine the strategic bombing of Germany was if not that?
No. The strategic bombing campaigns were carried out to: destroy German industry, divert German resources, and weaken German morale. The first two aims are completely legitimate aspects of a military campaign, thus the strategic bombing campaigns cannot be condemned unreservedly.
No. I can’t speak to every bombing campaign since 1945, but the mere fact of civilian casualties does not make it terrorism.
That’s why I wrote “crippling the enemy’s ability to wage war”. Yes, that can mean bombing a factory. This is not terrorism.
As to the effectiveness, look at the Blitz. While poorly run and somewhat aimless, the bulk of the German efforts in their night attacks were directed at bombing concentrations of civilians, to break British morale. This was ineffective, just as Allied efforts to break morale through bombing were ineffective.
How’s that?
It was to disrupt the German military’s ability to resist invasion and defeat, pursuant to a war effort.
WHAT? Hijacking a civilian airliner, killing the pilots, and using said civilian plane as a weapon (killing all civilians on board) to attack a military target while not affiliated with any nation, wearing a uniform, or openly carrying arms is a legitimate act of war and not terrorism?
By that definition, you could make an argument that Tim McVeigh was not a terrorist because he was simply attacking a building where federal government employees worked and the civilians were collateral damage.
The federal employees in the Murrah Building were civilians, so that’s not really the same. I think what he means is that an attack on the Pentagon would generally be a legitimate military strike, not that the death of the passengers was incidental.
So the absolute condemnation is not that absolute as it depends on the motivation not the outcome. It appears innocent casualties are acceptable and it is not terrorism if there is a military justification for the attack - killing the enemy head of state, bombing a factory supporting the war effort, or even bombing a whole city to disrupt the enemy’s ability to resist invasion. So, by this definition, is a bomb on an Israeli bus containing an Israeli soldier an act of terrorism? Apparently not. From a Palestinian point of view the soldier is a legitimate target and the other casualties not a deciding factor.
Personally I cannot see why setting off bombs in a German market in an attempt to force a German withdrawal is indefensible but creating a fire storm that kills 60000 people is a “completely legitimate aspects of a military campaign”. Both have the same perfectly legitimate objective - preventing a Nazi victory - just one is carried out by several thousand young men in uniforms while the other is carried out by one or two individuals.
Note: I am not arguing that the strategic bombing campaign was wrong or in any way equivalent to the bomb on the Tel Aviv bus but that your view of “terrorism” is just too simple.