NationStates Jolt Archive

It's been discussed before. The discussions usually degenerate into emotion-fests and accusation slinging.

As a (hopefully) helpful starting point, I've included a "definition" of terrorism. It's suitably vague.

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

So:

1. What are the uses of terrorism? Are they ever legitimate?

2. It's been used often in the past, to cite a few situations -
The Sons of Liberty - American Revolution; Irgun - Israel; Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda - various Middle Eastern Islamic countries; The Irish Republican Army - Ireland; Robespierre - France - The Reign of Terror; Lenin, Stalin (to name but two) - Russian Revolution; Franco - The Spanish Civil War; Pancho Villa - one of the many Mexican Revolutions; Boadica (sp?) - the Roman occupation of Britain. What makes these legitimate? Illegitimate?

3. If terrorism can be considered legitimate in certain contexts, what are they?

4. Is it ever legitimate to carry terrorist activities outside the directly affected country?

5. Is it ever legitimate to deliberately injure civilians in these acts? Children? Animals? (I'm not including women in this because, with some exceptions, women are as knowledgably involved in terrorist activities as men. While some children might be involved, they usually are doing it without real knowledge of the reasons or consequences for the actions). When, if ever, is it allowable to pull the innocent into these acts?

Are there any good answers to these questions? Or are there only more questions?

1. What are the uses of terrorism? Are they ever legitimate?


To draw attention to a cause and to pressurise a higher power into doing something they want or to give up power.


2. It's been used often in the past, to cite a few situations -
The Sons of Liberty - American Revolution; Irgun - Israel; Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda - various Middle Eastern Islamic countries; The Irish Republican Army - Ireland; Robespierre - France - The Reign of Terror; Lenin, Stalin (to name but two) - Russian Revolution; Franco - The Spanish Civil War; Pancho Villa - one of the many Mexican Revolutions; Boadica (sp?) - the Roman occupation of Britain. What makes these legitimate? Illegitimate?


I don't think there is such thing as legitimate or illegitimate terrorism.


3. If terrorism can be considered legitimate in certain contexts, what are they?


-


4. Is it ever legitimate to carry terrorist activities outside the directly affected country?


No.


When, if ever, is it allowable to pull the innocent into these acts?


Never in my opinion.


Are there any good answers to these questions? Or are there only more questions?

There are no strict right answers to these questions. A very important question is this: Can a government of a country commit terrorism?

1. What are the uses of terrorism? Are they ever legitimate? On occasion, yes.

2. It's been used often in the past, to cite a few situations -
The Sons of Liberty - American Revolution; Irgun - Israel; Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda - various Middle Eastern Islamic countries; The Irish Republican Army - Ireland; Robespierre - France - The Reign of Terror; Lenin, Stalin (to name but two) - Russian Revolution; Franco - The Spanish Civil War; Pancho Villa - one of the many Mexican Revolutions; Boadica (sp?) - the Roman occupation of Britain. What makes these legitimate? Illegitimate? Fighting against a system that oppresses certain groups or groups. Fighting to oppress certain groups is illegitimate.

3. If terrorism can be considered legitimate in certain contexts, what are they? See above.

4. Is it ever legitimate to carry terrorist activities outside the directly affected country? No. Not unless other countries are directly involved with said oppression.

5. Is it ever legitimate to deliberately injure civilians in these acts? No.Children? No.Animals?No. (I'm not including women in this because, with some exceptions, women are as knowledgably involved in terrorist activities as men. While some children might be involved, they usually are doing it without real knowledge of the reasons or consequences for the actions). When, if ever, is it allowable to pull the innocent into these acts? Never, at least not on purpose.

It's been discussed before. The discussions usually degenerate into emotion-fests and accusation slinging.

As a (hopefully) helpful starting point, I've included a "definition" of terrorism. It's suitably vague.

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

So:

1. What are the uses of terrorism? Are they ever legitimate?

Terrorist are RL attention whores. Sometimes, when they are rebelling against oppressive government.

2. It's been used often in the past, to cite a few situations -
The Sons of Liberty - American Revolution; Irgun - Israel; Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda - various Middle Eastern Islamic countries; The Irish Republican Army - Ireland; Robespierre - France - The Reign of Terror; Lenin, Stalin (to name but two) - Russian Revolution; Franco - The Spanish Civil War; Pancho Villa - one of the many Mexican Revolutions; Boadica (sp?) - the Roman occupation of Britain. What makes these legitimate? Illegitimate?

If they are rebelling against an oppressive government, then it's legit. However, if they are using terrorism to spread their ideology, whether it's religion, political, etc. it's Illegitimate.

3. If terrorism can be considered legitimate in certain contexts, what are they?

To rebel against Oppressive Government, is there an echo in here?

4. Is it ever legitimate to carry terrorist activities outside the directly affected country?

Only if the country in question is also involved.

5. Is it ever legitimate to deliberately injure civilians in these acts? Children? Animals? (I'm not including women in this because, with some exceptions, women are as knowledgably involved in terrorist activities as men. While some children might be involved, they usually are doing it without real knowledge of the reasons or consequences for the actions). When, if ever, is it allowable to pull the innocent into these acts?

Innocents should not be involved in the acts of terrorism, on either side.

Are there any good answers to these questions? Or are there only more questions?[/QUOTE]

Who knows.

So...If a large group of cannibals is oppressed (rightfully) by their goverment, hunting them down and sending them to jail, they have legitimacy to go postal and terrorize the no-human-eating population?

We hear the term "oppressive government" allot, but what constitutes an oppressive government. The IRA sometimes claimed to be fighting to remove the oppressive British government from Ireland, but our Government is most highly respected throughout the world. So who do we believe, the IRA? I think not.

Personally, my view on terrorism differs from cause to cause and who they are attacking.

So...If a large group of cannibals is oppressed (rightfully) by their goverment, hunting them down and sending them to jail, they have legitimacy to go postal and terrorize the no-human-eating population?

Hey, as long as those being eaten consent to being eaten, and the government is interfering in their business, and said government is being propped up by another country, then they have the right to attack the government and country's government supporting said government.

So, terrorism is only legitimate when a foreign country is involved?

What if they are just eating the dead, who can't really consent?

i prefer the 'academic consensus' definition of schmid and jongman (1988) as a starting point, myself.

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought"

i think it helps get at why terrorism ain't cool - because the victims of terrorism are more or less irrelevant to whatever it is the terrorist is trying to accomplish. they are chosen solely for their usefulness or convenience as part of a message aimed at somebody else entirely.

it should also be noted that i don't know that we can actually make a hard and fast distinction between assassination and terrorism, as the definition implies, because sometimes assassination is used as a particularly high profile message to a wider audience with the target chosen for their symbolic value. think white supremacists wanting to assassinate obama or fascists taking out union organizers or prominent communists.

i prefer the 'academic consensus' definition of schmid and jongman (1988) as a starting point, myself.

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought"

i think it helps get at why terrorism ain't cool - because the victims of terrorism are more or less irrelevant to whatever it is the terrorist is trying to accomplish. they are chosen solely for their usefulness or convenience as part of a message aimed at somebody else entirely.


^This

This is always why, even fighting an oppressive government, terrorism
is not legitimate. Because it is, as the definition above indicates, not attacking legitimate targets but instead targeting people at random to make a point. I think the word terroism has been bandied about too much and it has confused what is actual terrorism with insurgency or guerilla warfare.

To take the example of Iraq: militia groups blowing up military convoys (even if they use suicide bombs to do so) is not terrorism. It may not be nice, but it's not terrorism for those are legitimate military targets. On the other hand when the same insurgents let off a bomb in a crowded market, that is an act of terrorism and I don't care how oppressive you think the government/the invaders are, it is never justifiable or legitimate. Indeed it's use of those sorts of tactics by extremist groups in Iraq that has made their popularity decline and the people they are claiming to 'save' to turn against them.

You do NOT purposefully target civilians, especially not to generate a "message" or force a government to accede to specific demands. That is never a legitimate tactic.

2. It's been used often in the past, to cite a few situations -
...
Boadica (sp?) - the Roman occupation of Britain. What makes these legitimate? Illegitimate?


Be a darling and run past me why Boadicea should be classed as a terrorist, would you?

Be a darling and run past me why Boadicea should be classed as a terrorist, would you?

From the British perspective she wasn't, she was a freedom fighter. From the Roman perspective, and they were in charge at the time, she was a terrorist insurgent. Of course, because of what the Romans did to her and her daughters, she could have, legitimately, thought of them as terrorists. Occasionally, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

From the Roman perspective, and they were in charge at the time, she was a terrorist insurgent.
HUH??? No, the Romans did not call her a "terrorist", since the very concept had not been invented.
Was there any action of hers that could be classified as "terrorist" in the modern sense?

From the British perspective she wasn't, she was a freedom fighter. From the Roman perspective, and they were in charge at the time, she was a terrorist insurgent. Of course, because of what the Romans did to her and her daughters, she could have, legitimately, thought of them as terrorists. Occasionally, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

'Insurgent' - perhaps... but where was the element of terrorism in her brief campaign?

1. What are the uses of terrorism?
To get your viewpoint heard. That's it.
Are they ever legitimate?
Very, very rarely.
Are there any good answers to these questions?
Yes, mine.
Or are there only more questions?
Depends how much you argue with me.

From the British perspective she wasn't, she was a freedom fighter.
No such thing at the time. I'm sure the Scottish weren't fussed at all, nor were the welsh.

'Insurgent' - perhaps... but where was the element of terrorism in her brief campaign?

Quote from Tacitus - relevant passage highlighted.

Chapter 33. [Suetonius abandons London to the Boudiccan forces.]

Suetonius, undismayed by this disaster, marched through the heart of the country as far as London; a place not dignified with the name of a colony, but the chief residence of merchants, and the great mart of trade and commerce. At that place he meant to fix the feat of war; but reflecting on the scanty numbers of his little army, and the fatal rashness of Cerealis, he resolved to quit the station, and, by giving up one post, secure the rest of the province. Neither supplications, nor the tears of the inhabitants could induce him to change his plan. The signal for the march was given. All who chose to follow his banners were taken under his protection. Of all who, on account of their advanced age, the weakness of their sex, of the attractions of the situation, thought proper to remain behind, not one escaped the rage of the Barbarians. The inhabitants of Verulamium, a municipal town, were in like manner put to the sword. The genius of a savage people leads them always in quest of plunder; and, accordingly, the Britons left behind them all places of strength. Wherever they expected feeble resistance, and considerable booty, there they were sure to attack with the fiercest rage. Military skill was not the talent of Barbarians. The number massacred in the places which have been mentioned, amounted to no less than seventy thousand, all citizens or allies of Rome. To make prisoners, and reserve them for slavery, or to exchange them, was not in the idea of a people, who despised all the laws of war. The halter and the gibbet, slaughter and defoliation, fire and sword, were the marks of savage valour. Aware that vengeance would overtake them, they were resolved to make sure of their revenge, and glut themselves with the blood of their enemies.

While the term "terrorism" was not in use at the time, the wording indicates that these are "terrorist" acts, vented, not against the military, but against civilians.

Cassius Dio, a bit more of a sensationalist, says that they impaled noblewomen, cutting off their breasts and sewing them to their mouths.

Definitely terrorist acts, at least by my definition.

So, terrorism is only legitimate when a foreign country is involved?

What if they are just eating the dead, who can't really consent?

If it was in their will/they have permission from the dead guy's relatives... Sure.

Definitely terrorist acts, at least by my definition.

Given that Genghis Khan and the Crusaders were noted to have had entire cities that didn't surrender immediately (and some that did for the latter) butchered to the last man, woman and child, that makes them terrorists too doesn't it?

Given that Genghis Khan and the Crusaders were noted to have had entire cities that didn't surrender immediately (and some that did for the latter) butchered to the last man, woman and child, that makes them terrorists too doesn't it?
Depends on your definition. If it's because they used terror as a weapon, then yes, yes they are.

Depends on your definition. If it's because they used terror as a weapon, then yes, yes they are.

Well, ASD marks it down as just outright butchery in his example. I'd prefer to call bloodthirsty butchery, even if it was example setting in Genghis Khan's case, just that. Bloodthirsty butchery.

Terrorism is a little more complicated.

While the term "terrorism" was not in use at the time, the wording indicates that these are "terrorist" acts, vented, not against the military, but against civilians.

are all military attacks on civilians acts of terrorism?