NationStates Jolt Archive

With all the threads on the situation in the Middle East, I would like to share my opinion and hear your opinions on what terrorism is indeed.

Throughout the years, especially from the second half of the XX century the word terrorism was heard more and more often.

It is a fact that states under attack of terrorist and non-terrorist groups, classify them all as terrorists. Portugal did so with the liberation movements in the colonies, the apartheid regime in South Africa considered the ANC as a terrorist group, ETA was (and still is) considered a terrorist group by many and, obviously, more recently Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and so forth.

Personally, agreeing or not with the nature of a given group, I consider the line that separates a (possibly) legitimate struggle from a terrorist act is when civilian population is targeted. Few examples:

ANC: never attacked civilians, all actions were targeted at government and/or military people or infrastructures. Would not (never did) consider the ANC as a terrorist group.
Besides the hideous nature of apartheid, justified their struggle.

ETA: again, all actions were targeted at government, police and/or military staff and infrastructures. Although not agreeing with the nature of their struggle, I cannot consider them as a terrorist group.

IRA: Civilians were targeted (correct me if I am wrong). Therefore would be on the terrorist groups list.

Red Brigades in Italy (70s and 80s): Civilians targeted = terrorist groups list

Al Qaeda, Hezbollah: seems obvious.

Finally, state-terrorism: I consider state-terrorism all acts carried out mostly by dictatorial regimes, within the borders of their Country against dissent groups, such was the case for the apartheid regime in South Africa, or the Pinochet regime in Chile.
In the current situation in the Middle East, I would not classify Israel actions as state-terrorism and would rather consider it as acts of war (legitimate or not, depends on the views and opinions of each one), as civilians are not the prime target.

Being rather late here already, I will read any posts tomorrow and reply, if such will be the case.

I dunno .... strikes me as odd to not include the Klan.

No, they don't go around bombing things anymore, but so what? Imagine an Al-Qaeda cell living in the United States. That particular group has never hurt anyone, never sent money to those who do, and only want to march to town square and recruit new members and shout about death to America and Israel.

Could they get a permit?

What's the difference?

Israel's campaign of massacring Lebanese civilians with their bombings, ostenibly to terrorize them into turning against Hezbollah is certainly terrorism.

It is attacks on civilians and civilian assets (like the Lebanese airport, bridges, apartment buildings, &c) with the goal of extorting political change.

Not one hair separates this from bombing a cafe or a bus in israel. Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, as is proved by their having killed more than 10x as many civilians as militants.

Sanctions and war reparations are in order.

*grabs a comfy bean-bag and some popcorn*

I dunno .... strikes me as odd to not include the Klan.

No, they don't go around bombing things anymore, but so what? Imagine an Al-Qaeda cell living in the United States. That particular group has never hurt anyone, never sent money to those who do, and only want to march to town square and recruit new members and shout about death to America and Israel.

Could they get a permit?

What's the difference?
Well they should be able to get a permit, but you're right. There is no real difference.

To the OP, terrorism in not inheritably evil. Sometimes people, especially those in power, need to be scared shitless.

Terrorism is any sort of violence or threat of violence used to instill fear in a people, usually done for ideological purposes, especially those related to politics and religion. That's my take on things. It seems to fit the definition of the groups mentioned in this thread.

This is a very broad discussion that would include a lot more than those coining the term see.
I think to define terrorism the term 'innocents' should be used instead of civilians. It's not necessarily just armed forces that surpress a peoples/cause...it can very well be a society. This is actually the case with most terrorist causes. To legitimize only the targeting of military/gov objects in such a case in not logic. Pondering over the term 'innocents' we come into the scary zone. Basically, in a democracy, notbody is 'uninvolved' and therefore everybody is responsible. (i.e.: if you voted the surpressor it's obious; if you voted against and lost, you didn't do enough; if you didn't vote you passively supported the ellected person). Therefore, in a logic sense, if a democratic state is surpressing a group or a peoples, then everybody is a legitimate target for 'terrorism' - because you are indirectely responsible.
In today's black-and-white Bushisms this is obviously overlooked. Nobody is responsible for their action. Everybody blames somebody else: Muslim terrorist --> Bush --> Imams --> Christianity --> Non-believers --> Corporations --> Protectionists --> etc.

Basically terrorism is the equivalent of a fever for the human body. It shows that there is something wrong within your system. You can than just take some pills that lower your fever or you can than search for the problems that caused the fever.

Terrorism is intentionally hurting civilians in order to create fear in order to achieve a political, social, economic or religious goal.

...

Is kidnapping rich industrialists terrorism, like the RAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction) did?

I believe terrorism is intentionally, directly targeting civilians for political goals.

For that reason I refuse to consider the bombings of the USS Cole as an act of terrorism. Al Qaeda believed (I am not passing judgment on the legitimacy of such belief, only that it existed) a state of conflict existed between them and the United States. During that period of aggression, they attacked a military vessle.

Military vessles are legitimate targets during a state of aggression between entities. It was horrific, but legitimate.

Embassies become a little more flakey (is a civilian whose work is directly related to the function of the enemy government a legitimate target?).

Outright civilians is terrorism.

Civilian deaths that happen as a result of legitimate tactical strikes is collatoral damage.

Terrorism is any sort of violence....used to instill fear in a people.

What is war other than an exercise in violence used to convince the other side to give up or die?

Military vessles are legitimate targets during a state of aggression between entities. It was horrific, but legitimate.
Hmm...what about the bombings against the US Marines in Lebanon by Hezbollah back in the days?

Hmm...what about the bombings against the US Marines in Lebanon by Hezbollah back in the days?

I would say that if there were reasons for this attack (other than hey we wanna kill somebody) then attacks on marines are not terrorism.

They're tragic and deplorable yes, but agents of a military are legitimate targets during times of aggression.

what terrorism is...?the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.

They're tragic and deplorable yes, but agents of a military are legitimate targets during times of aggression.
I'm figuring pretty much the same thing. Which is interesting because in the US those attacks have formed the basis for declaring Hezbollah terrorists for some time.

Personally I consider firing unguided missiles into towns much worse...but we all know that one American is worth at least 10 Europeans, and at least a thousand other people.

Hmm...what about the bombings against the US Marines in Lebanon by Hezbollah back in the days?
I'd probably have to say that it was a legitimate act too.

Doesn't excuse other actions by said group, but they don't have to go up and ring the doorbell announcing they're going to attack.

I believe terrorism is intentionally, directly targeting civilians for political goals.

For that reason I refuse to consider the bombings of the USS Cole as an act of terrorism. Al Qaeda believed (I am not passing judgment on the legitimacy of such belief, only that it existed) a state of conflict existed between them and the United States. During that period of aggression, they attacked a military vessle.

Military vessles are legitimate targets during a state of aggression between entities. It was horrific, but legitimate.

Embassies become a little more flakey (is a civilian whose work is directly related to the function of the enemy government a legitimate target?).

Outright civilians is terrorism.

Civilian deaths that happen as a result of legitimate tactical strikes is collatoral damage.


i would agree with your assessment.

I very much disagreed when the government and media labled the bombing of the USS cole as "terrorism".

It's not terrorism. It's a legitimate attack on a navy destroyer.

Now don't get me wrong. It was deplorable, tragic, horrible, it may well have been an act of war.

But it wasn't terrorism. It was an attack on a military target.

I very much disagreed when the government and media labled the bombing of the USS cole as "terrorism".

It's not terrorism. It's a legitimate attack on a navy destroyer.

Now don't get me wrong. It was deplorable, tragic, horrible, it may well have been an act of war.

But it wasn't terrorism. It was an attack on a military target.


Exactly.

The captain of that boat was at fault for not having precautions taken to defend it. Its like saying "they snuck up and blew our tank up! those terrorists!"

Exactly.

The captain of that boat was at fault for not having precautions taken to defend it. Its like saying "they snuck up and blew our tank up! those terrorists!"

I wouldn't say the captain was at fault. I dont know enough to say. As far as I remember the boat was at ease, docked at a friendly harbor. I don't think any officer on board was brought on charged for deriliction of duty. But it was still a military target, which still made it valid.

I very much disagreed when the government and media labled the bombing of the USS cole as "terrorism".(changing the semantics from "past" to "present")

Do you disagree with the US Gov definition of terrorism ? ..as they still Label (present day) it Terrorism.

(changing the semantics from "past" to "present")

Do you disagree with the US Gov definition of terrorism ? ..as they still Label (present day) it Terrorism.

I disagree with anyone who labels an attack on a military target by a government or agency that considers a state of aggression to exist between them and the government of the military they attacked.

It's an act of war certainly, but not terrorism. That is, after all, what the military IS, a way for nations (although NGO groups like al qaeda and hezbollah sorta stretch that definition) to duel out aggressions between each other while keeping civilians as out of the way as possible.

That's why we have them, as a last resort for entities to settle disputes while at the same time keeping innocents as safe as possible.

when AQ was figthing the soviets.. was that "terrorism"?

In short: if you are military then you are target.

If you think differently....then don't join the military.

However, the attack on the Cole was for the sole purpose of instilling fear; I don't think it was of tactical or strategic importance. The warship was doing nothing, just sitting in the harbour. The USA has plenty of warships in the area to call in naval bombardment and it's certainly not like Hezbollah has a blue water navy. I think it could be called an act of terror under those grounds.

when AQ was figthing the soviets.. was that "terrorism"?

Depends, don't know enough about that history to say for sure. If I am correct most of the AQ's attacks were focused on soviet military. In which case that is a legitimate response to occupation.

If they focused on civilians who were not involved in the occupational efforts then they were terrorists.

The warship was doing nothing

It was doing something. It was being a warship.

(USS Cole) I think it could be called an act of terror.(Thank you for proving my point)

In WAR/strugle.. you can always find grounds to call something "terrorism".

Most War sides use terror.. specially.. Israel/hezbollah/hamas/etc.

If you define terrorism as simply "attacks used to instill fear" then, as I said, isn't ALL war terrorism? What is war if not a statement of "give in or die"?

If you define terrorism as simply "attacks used to instill fear" then, as I said, isn't ALL war terrorism? What is war if not a statement of "give in or die"?

Oil?

If you define terrorism as simply "attacks used to instill fear" then, as I said, isn't ALL war terrorism? What is war if not a statement of "give in or die"?yes, in Modern WAR there is lots of terrorism.

and the official defintion has the "systematic" and "Coercion" notions.

If you define terrorism as simply "attacks used to instill fear" then, as I said, isn't ALL war terrorism? What is war if not a statement of "give in or die"?

Well, the more narrow defintion specifies that terrorism is carried about specifically against civilians. A definition that generally includes such things as Hiroshima, however... unless we contend that the US really had no idea there were civilians in the city, or any other city bombed by the allies.

Of course, the even more narrow definition specifies that terrorism is carried about BY non-military personnel. Hence a government can't commit terrorism.

And lastly, the even more narrow definition defines terrorism as Muslims who kill anyone for any reason.

yes, in Modern WAR there is lots of terrorism.

and the official defintion has the "systematic" and "Coercion" notions.

I am systematically bombing your tank line with my planes in order to coerce the government into surrendering.

Terrorism? No, war.

But by the definition of "attacks in order to instill fear and coerce the government to change" then it would be. Which is why that definition is meaningless.

I am systematically bombing your tank line with my planes in order to coerce the government into surrendering.

Terrorism? No, war.

But by the definition of "attacks in order to instill fear and coerce the government to change" then it would be. Which is why that definition is meaningless.

But those attacks have other reasons too: to stop the enemy tanks from advancing and killing you all. The Cole was not a direct threat to Al Qaeda.

But those attacks have other reasons too: to stop the enemy tanks from advancing and killing you all. The Cole was not a direct threat to Hezbollah.

Which is rather irrelevant since it was bombed by Al Qaeda.

So as long as the tanks are moving it's ok, but in time of war, even if you have the opportunity to say...bomb a tank depot you shouldn't take it? You'd make a lousy general.

All war is an effort to beat an enemy, or convince them to give in

Which is rather irrelevant since it was bombed by Al Qaeda.

So as long as the tanks are moving it's ok, but in time of war, even if you have the opportunity to say...bomb a tank depot you shouldn't take it? You'd make a lousy general.

All war is an effort to beat an enemy, or convince them to give in

Oops, my bad. But the tank depot is a potential future threat. The Americans have loads of other warships and plenty of planes; one here or there will not make a difference to their fighting capabilities when the enemy has none at all. Anyway, I'm getting drawn in too deep here: I was only playing semi-devil's advocate. Your point is taken.

“They're tragic and deplorable yes, but agents of a military are legitimate targets during times of aggression.”--- Arthais101

“I'm figuring pretty much the same thing. Which is interesting because in the US those attacks have formed the basis for declaring Hezbollah terrorists for some time.”--- Neu Leonstein

“I'd probably have to say that it was a legitimate act too.

Doesn't excuse other actions by said group, but they don't have to go up and ring the doorbell announcing they're going to attack.”--- Psychotic Mongooses


it all depends upon what you mean when you say ‘legitimate’. If you mean were they a valid target, then yes. If you mean was it a legal act, then no.

it all depends upon what you mean when you say ‘legitimate’. If you mean were they a valid target, then yes. If you mean was it a legal act, then no.

Well we were talking about what was "terrorism" not what was "legal". Technically, any attack, even on a military target, outside of a formal state of war, is illegal. In practicality attacking the military of a country you consider your enemy seems pretty legitimate to me.

Oops, my bad. But the tank depot is a potential future threat. The Americans have loads of other warships and plenty of planes; one here or there will not make a difference to their fighting capabilities when the enemy has none at all. Anyway, I'm getting drawn in too deep here: I was only playing semi-devil's advocate. Your point is taken.

Fair enough, although on the other side of the devil's advocate coin, I could argue that any boat can carry troops, many can launch missles. Every resource your enemy has is one more resource they can use against you.

Additionally, if they have boats and you have no air or naval forces to deal with them, then maybe loading a raft with explosives and smacking it into whatever naval vessle you can find may not be that bad an idea...

when AQ was figthing the soviets.. was that "terrorism"?

When were AQ fighting the Soviets?

When were AQ fighting the Soviets?

During the soviet occupation of afghanistan in the 80s? Although I think you're right, technically it was the Taliban, not Al Qaeda.

"In practicality attacking the military of a country you consider your enemy seems pretty legitimate to me."---Arthais101

there you go again....using a word that could be meant several different ways without bothering to define it. why don't you? i want to understand what you mean by 'legitimate' when you define the german attacks against the UK, France, US, Russia, etc. as legitimate. according to your definition, if the US launched a massive military strike and took control of the entire planet....it would be legitimate. you are obviously using a slightly different definition than i am, and i want you to explain so that it can be understood. i don't care if you use the word 'horse' to define an object with wings, jet engines, and a pilot......as long as you let us know

When were AQ fighting the Soviets?about the same time disco-Inferno was burning the charts.. :D

*grabs a comfy bean-bag and some popcorn*

C'mon PM, pull yourself up a chair. I'll roast some hotwings and get some brats.

During the soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 80s? Although I think you're right, technically it was the Taliban, not Al Qaeda.


Factual error, the Taliban was formed in the 1990s, al qaeda was founded earlier than that, but wasnt much, just bin laden's name for his organization to arm and train the arabs coming to Afghanistan to fight the soviets.

The soviets were fought off by the afghan mujahedeen with help from Arab volunteers and money and equipment from the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

"Ghost Wars: History of the CIA in Afghanistan" deserved its Pulitzer prize, its a great read!

Terrorism - Things the US can do to other people but other people can't do to the US.

Enjoy.

Terrorism is the use of violence against non-combatants for the purpose of coercion in the service of some political, ideological, or religious cause.

Factual error, the Taliban was formed in the 1990s, al qaeda was founded earlier than that, but wasnt much, just bin laden's name for his organization to arm and train the arabs coming to Afghanistan to fight the soviets.

The soviets were fought off by the afghan mujahedeen with help from Arab volunteers and money and equipment from the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

"Ghost Wars: History of the CIA in Afghanistan" deserved its Pulitzer prize, its a great read!

Fair enough, thanks for the historical clarification.

about the same time disco-Inferno was burning the charts.. :D
"Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the name of a computer file listing the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Soviets." Dr. Sa'ad Al-Fagih, a surgeon at Peshawar (where the Mujahideen recruiting happened) further explained that the computer database (al-Qaeda) was necessary to fix problems associated with a lack of documentation about the fighters who were recruited.

The origins of this group (at a later time given the name 'al-Qaeda' by the Justice Department) can be traced to a few weeks after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quaeda

I dunno .... strikes me as odd to not include the Klan.

No, they don't go around bombing things anymore, but so what? Imagine an Al-Qaeda cell living in the United States. That particular group has never hurt anyone, never sent money to those who do, and only want to march to town square and recruit new members and shout about death to America and Israel.

Could they get a permit?

What's the difference?

These were only examples given and not meant to be an exhaustive list of which are and are not terrorist groups.
Yes the Klan is, in my opinion a terrorist group.

About the Al Qaeda cell, as you put it, having no other links than the name, and as disgusting it would be to see that, the bottom line is that would only be exercicing their freedom of speech.
When you say recruting new members, is it only for demonstration purposes or are you talking about recruiiting operationals?

*grabs a comfy bean-bag and some popcorn*
Gimme some popcorn and a coke please

Israel's campaign of massacring Lebanese civilians with their bombings, ostenibly to terrorize them into turning against Hezbollah is certainly terrorism.

It is attacks on civilians and civilian assets (like the Lebanese airport, bridges, apartment buildings, &c) with the goal of extorting political change.

Not one hair separates this from bombing a cafe or a bus in israel. Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, as is proved by their having killed more than 10x as many civilians as militants.

Sanctions and war reparations are in order.

Then we have to say that all wars are terrorism and redefine "war" since the begining of ages.

Terrorism is intentionally hurting civilians in order to create fear in order to achieve a political, social, economic or religious goal.

...

Is kidnapping rich industrialists terrorism, like the RAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction) did?

Kidnapping people for money is crime!
Kidnapping people for political reasons is terrorism!

Well they should be able to get a permit, but you're right. There is no real difference.

To the OP, terrorism in not inheritably evil. Sometimes people, especially those in power, need to be scared shitless.
Depends on the nature of the regime one lives in.
I don´t see the point of blowing a bomb in a public place if the government of my country raises taxes. I demonstrate and next time around I vote for someone else.

I believe terrorism is intentionally, directly targeting civilians for political goals.

For that reason I refuse to consider the bombings of the USS Cole as an act of terrorism. Al Qaeda believed (I am not passing judgment on the legitimacy of such belief, only that it existed) a state of conflict existed between them and the United States. During that period of aggression, they attacked a military vessle.

Military vessles are legitimate targets during a state of aggression between entities. It was horrific, but legitimate.

Embassies become a little more flakey (is a civilian whose work is directly related to the function of the enemy government a legitimate target?).

Outright civilians is terrorism.

Civilian deaths that happen as a result of legitimate tactical strikes is collatoral damage.

I could agree generally with that.

the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.
If it was as simple as that I would have not started the thread.

Terrorism is something people do to the USA.
When the USA does it, it's called "liberating" or "self defence".

"activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

"activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
what about embassies or terrorist which aren't aim the USA?

what about embassies or terrorist which aren't aim the USA?


I suppose that similar activities that threaten the good and loyal friends of America are to be tarred with the same brush.

what about embassies or terrorist which aren't aim the USA?
Terror is Terror which ever way you dress it up.

the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.


Very good definition. The definition of terrorism will be ever changing. Its like defining bullying which is ever expanding.

"Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the name of a computer file listing the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Soviets." Dr. Sa'ad Al-Fagih, a surgeon at Peshawar (where the Mujahideen recruiting happened) further explained that the computer database (al-Qaeda) was necessary to fix problems associated with a lack of documentation about the fighters who were recruited.

The origins of this group (at a later time given the name 'al-Qaeda' by the Justice Department) can be traced to a few weeks after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quaeda

What?? Al-Qaeda means the base, not the database.