But I’m judging terrorism by a double criteria, target and means. Yes, I agree that the Pentagon is a military target, but that fact does not mean that the 9/11 attack on it was not a terrorist attack. The means used in 9/11 was a hijacked civilian aircraft whose passengers were condemned to die in the attack. That factor, for me, means that it was a terrorist attack.
I know we disagree on this point. We’ve had a bit of a discussion on it before. I just don’t see how Hamas could attack IDF targets. Homemade explosives just don’t cut it when you’re up against armor plate and they have security measures which check IDs and possibly do other activities like frisking or searches. I think it is a choice between attacking “Soft” targets and not attacking at all for Hamas. Throw in other “grey areas” like Israel having mandatory military service(virtually every Israeli either is, has been, or can become an IDF member) and citizens in a democracy bearing some of the responsibility for their governments and “targeting civilians” becomes a fuzzy claim as well. They weren’t in uniform at the time, but they are potential combatants. They aren’t the officials, but their will becomes policy. How can someone draw a line here? The whole thing is a mess.**
Agreed, 100%. Now if only we weren’t making laws to revoke the citizenship and deport people whom this “label” ends up applied to.
Enjoy,
Steven
I agree.
Well, yes, I guess they could be both. But by posting the OP I was thinking about a terrorist movement as illegitimate and a resistance movement as an legitimate organization. Surely a resistance movement could step over the line (what line?)occasionaly, and still be a resistance movement, not terrorists?
Could we say that a violent organization is a resistance movement when they have a legitimate claim to a territory, either by private ownership or previous statehood, - or when they represent an ethnic group?
Al Qaeda would be a resistance movement while fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, turning terrorist when they opposed the US having military bases in Saudi-Arabia, - or maybe not? It’s not like they got a piece of land or ethnic group to defend. In that case the attack on USS Cole was terrorism, even if it was a military target.
The Kurds (and the Palestinians) however could be seen both as a people of them own, and living in a specific area of the world. They have fought for independence for decades. In the case of the Kurds, the US will never grant them their own land due to Turkey, so if they began to attack US troops, is this legitimate resistance which the US should respect?
Then it’s the question of type of actions taken. During WWII it was seen as perfectly OK to do whatever possible to inflict damage upon the enemy, including assassinating collaborators or sinking civillian cargo vessels moving supplies, - whether that happend on occupied territory or inside the occupant’s homeland. After all, military troops did all that. Is there a line to be drawn about what type of actions are legitimate (bullets, bombs, anthrax letters, nerve gas), or is the line drawn by the nature of the target (civillian/administrative/military), or both?
On what basis do you restrict legitimate resistance to territorial or ethnic claims, and rule out religious claims? Are you saying an attack motivated by religion is always a terrorist attack, regardless of target and means of attack?
See, when you drag legitimacy in it, that’s when you make things complicated, because every group thinks their actions and their cause are legitimate.
And how do you define your terms? What does “private ownership” mean, or “previous statehood”? How previous? How do you define an ethnic group?
Have you ever played that game? “I’m easy going, you’re laid back, he’s lazy?” Where you take three statements that mean fundimentally the same thing, but have different connotations, and you string them together like that? That seems to be what you want to do with “terrorist” and “resistance fighter”. I’m a resistance fighter, so I’m good, and you’re a terrorist so you’re bad.
No, they didn’t. Apart from in the early years of the “troubles”, when the IRA was poorly organised, they very rarely deliberately killed civilians.
It most certainly was.
No they didn’t. The UK decided to keep six counties without asking the people in those six counties what they thought of it. Two of them at the time of partition had nationalist majorities - four of them do now.
Which “state” are you talking about here? If you mean the UK, then the people of the six counties have very little voice whatsoever in the governance of the UK, because the parties that run the UK do not stand candidates in the six counties. The exception here is that the Conservatives, when in power, have frequently had to rely on Unionist support, but that doesn’t give the nationalists of the six any democratic voice.
And if you mean the state*-let* of Northern Ireland, it’s pretty well documented that the nationalists were denied anything approaching a democratic voice for most of NI’s existence - and with the recent cancellation of the Assembly elections at the behest of the Unionist party, not much seems to have changed.
Late again so I’ll just say “what ruadh said”. Damn you 
The IRA admits to having killed some 650 civilians. The rather notorious act of setting off 20 bombs in one hour took some level of organization, and a definite understanding that civilians would be killed.
It seems that the IRA is/was terrorist group. Except, perhaps, in the eyes of the Irish. (Not meant lightly; I also doubt that Palestinians see Hamas as a ‘terrorist’ group.)
A terrorist is a resistance fighter who is not on your side.
A resistance fighter is a terrorist who is on your side.
We have heroic patriots
They have filthy blood thirsty terrorists
Whether you claim to be political or not, if you have ever used either definition to describe any group of people, you are pinning your colours to the mast of an organisation to which other people have a diametrically opposed view.
Who is right? Well, the all powerful WE generally.
Brutus I can assure you that the vast majority of people in Ireland view the IRA as terrorists. Their modern geneses was in reaction to atrocious injustices on behalf of the Stormont Government in NI and the British Admin.
What they were fighting was in the opinion of a lot of people a just cause but how they went about it was the problem. Groups like the SDLP fought against these injustices in the political arena peacefully and had the support of nearly everyone down south.
Yes. I think I do. At least I cannot think of any recent conflict where religion was a legitimate cause for resistance. Certainly many of the conflicts we have witnessed in the recent years has had a religious aspect to it (Catholic Ireland vs. Protestant England, or Jewish Israel vs. Christian/Islamic Palestine), but to me those are just as much cultural hallmarks in people fighting for liberty and self-rule, and not the main reason for the fighting. Al Qaeda besides of course.
They certainly believe so. But standing on the outside, surely we can say that some has a legitimate claim (and they can be resistance fighters) and some has a illegitimate one (and they cannot be resistance fighters)?
In Europe the term “resistance movement” is regarded a heroic fight, bringing back memories of those who did something during WWII.
Some guidance may be found in international law:
- an unprovoked military attack leading to an occupation is an illegal occupation, hence local resistance is just an extension of the war
- land seized by the attacked party is a legal occupation, but you cannot stay on as the occupant: when the fighting between the regular army forces are done the occupant either has to withdraw or annex the territory, because otherwise the citizens in the occupied territory will forever remain stateless citizens without any rights.
I don’t know how to exactly define such terms, maybe they cannot be defined. But if there is a certain group of people living in a certain area of the world, feeling suppressed by another group of people, or it’s clear they don’t have a voice in the decision making, do they have a legitimate right to fight using violent methods?
For me one line is drawn at “who gets hurt”. It is a very unclear line. Military and governmental property and workers would be included as “legitimate” targets. However, thats clear as mud as well. A post-man is a government employee, but I would count him as “civilian”. A courthouse may be a legitimate target, but not the cleaner inside, despite his being a goverment employee.
One of the key differences between terrorist and freedom-fighter is in the word itsself. Terror. Terrorist actions are intended to spread general terror. Terrorist actions send the message “you are not safe, no matter who or what you are”. The actions of various dipshits in the early 80’s led in some years to fear amongst Dubliners of going into town on busy occasions. To do their Christmas shopping for example. I picked up on this myself at the time, and steered clear of dumpsters in town when it was busy, cos that is where ‘they’ would place suitcase bombs.
When the general populace fears for their life and safety because of your actions, you are a terrorist.
To use the Cole/WTC comparison, the bombing of the Cole did not cause terror to the Average Joe, WTC attacks did.
The problem with this is where is the outside? In determining if a group or its actions are terrorist in nature or a resistance movement made up of freedom fighters and patriots, you’re only establishing your approval or disapproval of a group or its goals. Were the Viet Cong terrorists? Chechen rebels? Irgun? The Shining Path? All of them have been called terrorists, but all that’s really being revealed is one’s approval for a groups goals or its methods. To take an extreme example, you could find those who think Timothy McVeigh was a freedom fighter striking a blow against tyranny.
Further, isn’t it possible for a resistance movement to use terrorist tactics? Or do they lose any claim to legitimacy when either a) the group itself or b) factions that’s its composed of either target civilians or play fast and loose about collateral damage? One of the primary lynchpins of revolutionary movements is that if you aren’t with us you’re against us. If people are allowed a middle ground between supporting the guerillas and supporting the government, most people in their desire to simply live won’t become involved. For instance, the whole point of a guerilla force ambushing/mortaring/sending sniper fire at a government force outside a village and then vanishing is to invite retaliation by the government troops against the villagers, who could very well not want to have anything to do with the struggle.
Do you have a cite for the IRA’s admission of this? Malcolm Sutton’s Index of Deaths, considered by most to be the definitive source, credits them with “only” 516 (I know, still too many, but significantly less than 650 I think). And you have to keep in mind that a good number of those would fall into one of two categories:
- The early years of the conflict, which I was specifically excluding (note that Bloody Friday falls into this category)
- People considered “civilians” by virtue of the fact they were not members of security forces or paramilitaries, but targeted for specific reasons e.g. collaboration with the security forces, drug dealing etc.
In any event I don’t think 516 is a particularly high number for thirty years of the armed struggle (compare to the 1011 members of security forces they killed in the same time period). Had they been specifically targetting civilians the number would undoubtedly have been far, far higher.
My cite came from CNN, but since I am downloading, errr, ‘educational videos’ at the moment, I’ll get back to you on that, not that it is important. I’ll accept 516. The local ‘big city’ here is Detroit, and since we have almost as many (400 and some, I think) murders last year alone, I agree that 516 is a low number, as would be 650, as would be 1000 (over the course of 30 years).
My actual knowledge of the IRA comes from ‘Patriot Games’, and that one scene in The Boondock Saints. Still, it seems to me that the IRA, at times, targeted non-military/non-governmental persons, including the various hostage-takings.
Don’t get me wrong; I am not entirely unsympathetic to the goals of the IRA (As far as I understand what those goals are). Heck, Croatians supplied some weapons to the PIRA (not a point of pride!), Catholic Pride and all that. And maybe it is not entirely correct to call the IRA a ‘terrorist’ group. But they have used ‘terrorist’ tactics at times. What’s the word for that? Dirty freedom fighters? (Sounds like one of the videos I am downloading!) Freedom fighters with some terrorists in their midst?
One request, please don’t get your information about NI from Hollywood films. Or, at least, don’t rely on it being accurate if you do. Thank you.
P(rovisional)IRA
R(eal)IRA
C(ontinuity)IRA
Are all terrorist groups.
Go ahead and call them a terrorist group, it’s no skin off my nose.