Defining terrorism

[guerrillaradio]

Right so I'm working on a Spanish oral in which I take the "War on Terrorism" to pieces, bit by bit. However, I'm in a bit of a rut as concerns defining what it is to be terrorist.

I always worked by the rough mantra of terrorism is when a group targets government or state insitutions in order to undermine their control and authority and show them as such in order to win popular support for their cause. However, after discussion, it seems to me that terrorism can also include targeting civilians in the hope of manipulating public opinion. Moreover, it has been claimed to me that guerrilla warfare is a type of terrorism, since it includes ambushing a specific target and departing before retaliation is possible. And, to be honest, I'm stuck.

For this discussion (assuming there is one), I'd appreciate it if people were not to take a relativist view of terrorism: that is to say, not use the American line of deploring that which one considers wrong as terrorist and that which one considers just as "freedom fighters" or whatever nonsensical jargon people tend to use. Terrorism, like most things, can be a force for good and evil, and its methods can be just or injust.

Thoughts?

[BOZG]

A basic definition of a terrorist would be someone who rejects the role of mass activism to acheive their goals. I know it's cliched, by this method they use the fear and terror of the people they need the support of to change things.

[Revolt!]

Someone who uses violent methods to disrupt authority for political, social, ideological or religious reasons. Typically this includes the killing of innocents.


Terrorism, like most things, can be a force for good and evil, and its methods can be just or injust.

Terrorism is always wrong. Whatever the injustice there is unequivocally no way to justify the killing of innocent people. Your view is worrying to say the least.

[Raisa]

Terrorism is when you terrify people into giving you what you want.

But when people say terrorism they are usually talking about like what BOZG said...rejecting mass activism and using violent means to scare people into submission instead of recruit them into support like mass activism.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by Revolt!@Apr 16 2004, 05:35 PM
Someone who uses violent methods to disrupt authority for political, social, ideological or religious reasons. Typically this includes the killing of innocents.


Terrorism, like most things, can be a force for good and evil, and its methods can be just or injust.

Terrorism is always wrong. Whatever the injustice there is unequivocally no way to justify the killing of innocent people. Your view is worrying to say the least.
Yo I thought the CNN Discussion Room was second on the right, not third on the left.

How does the death of innocents "typically" occur in your definition??

And how is terrorism always unjustified?? Your definition fails to exclude guerrilla warfare, such as that conducted by Che in the Bolivian jungle.

[BOZG]

Revolutions are actions of great terror, are revolutions unjustifiable?

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:37 PM
Terrorism is when you terrify people into giving you what you want.
So terrorism has to be successful in its aims??

[Revolt!]

I believe there is a distinction between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist. Typically and Historically terrorism includes the intentional killing of innocent people.

Do you think Che would have intentionally blown up a building with innocent people in it so as to further the cause of a revolution? From what I know of the man I don't think this is so.

[God of Imperia]

Originally posted by guerrillaradio+Apr 17 2004, 01:20 AM--> (guerrillaradio @ Apr 17 2004, 01:20 AM)
Revolt!@Apr 16 2004, 05:35 PM
Someone who uses violent methods to disrupt authority for political, social, ideological or religious reasons. Typically this includes the killing of innocents.


Terrorism, like most things, can be a force for good and evil, and its methods can be just or injust.

Terrorism is always wrong. Whatever the injustice there is unequivocally no way to justify the killing of innocent people. Your view is worrying to say the least.
Yo I thought the CNN Discussion Room was second on the right, not third on the left.

How does the death of innocents "typically" occur in your definition??

And how is terrorism always unjustified?? Your definition fails to exclude guerrilla warfare, such as that conducted by Che in the Bolivian jungle. [/b]
A guerilla warfare is as the word says warfare, you attack military goals, killing civilians isn't part of that. As long as those civilians doesn't form a militia who fighst against you, but then they become soldiers, not civilians ... If you send bomb trucks to large cities and let them explode killing innocent bystanders you become a terrorist, that's the way it is. You could argue about the innocent part, but as long as they aren't armed, aren't part of any kind of government organisation which oppresses people then ... I guess you could call them innocent.

[Roses in the Hospital]

Admitadly it's hard to define terrorism...
Something like 'the use of terror as a method to further one's objectives' is probably the simplest definition, though in this day and age any kind of group using violent means without the support of the US is likely to be labbled 'terrorist', whereas any kind government sponsered force could use exactly the same, or more likely, more extreme methods and be labled a 'legitimate' force, even if said 'terrorists' happent to be acting for more justified motives...

I should probably point out that generally I don't think terrorist is justified, I simply have an issue with what the ruling classes would define as terrorism in the first place...

[God of Imperia]

It isn't because someone tells you they are terrorists that they are. But mostly you can't believe both sides. It is up to you to believe if they are or not. Sometimes, they both are terrorists ...

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by Revolt!@Apr 17 2004, 01:24 AM
I believe there is a distinction between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist. Typically and Historically terrorism includes the intentional killing of innocent people.

Do you think Che would have intentionally blown up a building with innocent people in it so as to further the cause of a revolution? From what I know of the man I don't think this is so.
By your definition the IRA and ETA are not terrorist groups. And Che killed someone for stealing which opens up the "innocent" debate.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by God of [email protected] 17 2004, 12:48 PM
A guerilla warfare is as the word says warfare, you attack military goals, killing civilians isn't part of that. As long as those civilians doesn't form a militia who fighst against you, but then they become soldiers, not civilians.
OK but who decides who is a soldier and isn't?? As far as Mr Bin Laden is concerned, we all are footsoldiers of a non-Muslim and evil cause. We all participate in the spreading of our businesses and ethics and values, eroding Muslim equivalents.

Moreover, as far as Al'Qua'eda are concerned, they're fighting a jihad, which is a war.

You understand why I battle with this question??

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 17 2004, 01:04 PM
Something like 'the use of terror as a method to further one's objectives' is probably the simplest definition...
So all one has to do is install fear in one's enemies?? Surely the threat of a fullscale American invasion would terrify a small country and in most cases, bring them to heel. Is that terrorism then??

[cebert]

Terrorism, as I see it is the targeting ( be it killing or kidnapping) of innocents for political gain by means of instilling terror the general population. I would not consider a threat of war to be terrorism. Do governments do terrorrism? probably but never openly. I dont see a threat of invasion as terrorism. But guerrillaradio, you just brought up another can of worms... what is innocent? Obviously the likes of Osama bin laden sees innocent completely different to a westerner would. Even communists I think see innocent differently ( eg capitalists, the rich, politicians etc...).

I dont think you can define terrorism without also defining what is innocent.

[God of Imperia]

People are innocent as long as they don't participate in an armed struggle. And with participating I mean fighting along with, people at desks writing propaganda are still innocent, they have a right to say what they think ... Thiefts, rapists and others are social problems, not political.
Anyone disagree?
Btw, the views of radical people are not reasonable, they can be excluded.

[Roses in the Hospital]

So all one has to do is install fear in one's enemies?? Surely the threat of a fullscale American invasion would terrify a small country and in most cases, bring them to heel. Is that terrorism then??

Sorry, what I meant was terror in terms of physical terror, ie. bombings, kidnap etc.

[Blade]

Here's some food for thought from "Rainbow Six" manual:


“Though some believe terrorism to be a cancerous growth unique to twentieth century politics, the reality is much deeper. Terrorism is simply the modern moniker for certain aspects of unconventional warfare that have existed throughout recorded history. Tactics now attributed to "Terrorism" have always been attractive to vocal, violent factions attempting to coerce others to adopt their social, political or religious platforms. Such tactics include the ambush of troops legally occupying a province or territory, the kidnapping of important dignitaries or other individuals to be held hostage and even the assassination of such individuals. The emphasis on the word "legal" in the preceding sentence is important if we are to understand the continuing influence terrorism will hold in the next millenium. Consider the FBI's definition for terrorism:

"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

If one removes the first four words of the definition and replaces them with "War is the lawful..." one comes very close to General Carl Von Clauswitz's dictum that "War is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means." When diplomacy fails, governments have the option of lawfully applying force to further their political and social objectives. Groups and individuals do not have this "right" and are therefore branded "Terrorists," though one's point of view certainly impacts how readily that term is applied instead of "Patriots." We certainly revere the courage Our forefathers demonstrated in breaking away from mother England and forming a new nation, but doubtless their actions were viewed in a much less favorable light by the legal government of the "coionies" same two hundred and twenty-two years ago.”

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 17 2004, 04:30 PM

So all one has to do is install fear in one's enemies?? Surely the threat of a fullscale American invasion would terrify a small country and in most cases, bring them to heel. Is that terrorism then??

Sorry, what I meant was terror in terms of physical terror, ie. bombings, kidnap etc.
But what about a bomb threat that turns out to be false?? Is that not terrorism?? It still instills terror.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by God of [email protected] 17 2004, 02:37 PM
People are innocent as long as they don't participate in an armed struggle. And with participating I mean fighting along with, people at desks writing propaganda are still innocent, they have a right to say what they think ... Thiefts, rapists and others are social problems, not political.
So politicians, chiefs of staffs, those giving the orders without having to suffer the consequences are immune while ordinary soldiers, many of whom being from the class you're supposedly trying to liberate is "guilty"??


Btw, the views of radical people are not reasonable, they can be excluded.

From what you've posted in this thread, and especially that comment, you would seem to be pretty radical, not to mention misguided. I'm also quite radical. I think you're talking trash.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 02:18 PM
Terrorism, as I see it is the targeting ( be it killing or kidnapping) of innocents for political gain by means of instilling terror the general population.
So blowing up a government building isn't terrorism??

[Revolt!]

By your definition the IRA and ETA are not terrorist groups.

Yes they are, they kill innocents.

[God of Imperia]

If the government building contained any civilians then yes, it is a terrorist attack, but then again, who decides who is innocent and who isn't ...

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by Revolt!@Apr 18 2004, 08:10 AM

By your definition the IRA and ETA are not terrorist groups.

Yes they are, they kill innocents.
By whose definition?? And doesn't intent play a role?? You're tying yourself in knots.

[Revolt!]

Confusing. By my definition you were talking of.



I believe there is a distinction between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist. Typically and Historically terrorism includes the intentional killing of innocent people.

I'm condemning terrorism because of the above. ETA and the IRA target innocent civilians, be they in buildings, restaurants or whatever. Che wasn't a terrorist, I don't think he would have done something like that, he was a Freedom fighter in my opinion.

[DaCuBaN]

In my opinion Terrorism is the justified use of force to attain ones goals. I like this description.

There are, of course, different levels of justification. For example I'm sure there are people out there who feel the IRA were justified in bombing London, and that Bin Laden felt justified in his actions.

This (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism) may help to shed some light as may this (http://sedition.com/ddx/w/549.html)

[Roses in the Hospital]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 11:25 PM
But what about a bomb threat that turns out to be false?? Is that not terrorism?? It still instills terror.
I think we've established that it's difficuilt to define terrorism... :D

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by Revolt!@Apr 18 2004, 04:50 PM
ETA and the IRA target innocent civilians, be they in buildings, restaurants or whatever.
I'm yet to see any evidence of either group targeting restuarants or overtly public places (although I don't know much about ETA). I was always led to believe that for the most part, the IRA targets the British army and government buildings.

[Revolt!]

Where were you when the IRA killed 29 people in the Omagh bomb of 1998! Or when they bombed Manchester city centre, or when they bombed Canary Wharf, or when they blew up a car because they didn't like a Panorama report the BBC put out about them, or countless other attacks dating back decades. Ever heard of the Guilford four who were falsely accused of doing the IRA's work of blowing up a pub in London?

Not to mention ETA! Whos most recent attacks were in 2003 on two hotels!

See here for more info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3500728.stm

Hundreds upon hundreds of innocent people have died.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 09:38 AM
Right so I'm working on a Spanish oral in which I take the "War on Terrorism" to pieces, bit by bit. However, I'm in a bit of a rut as concerns defining what it is to be terrorist.

I always worked by the rough mantra of terrorism is when a group targets government or state insitutions in order to undermine their control and authority and show them as such in order to win popular support for their cause. However, after discussion, it seems to me that terrorism can also include targeting civilians in the hope of manipulating public opinion. Moreover, it has been claimed to me that guerrilla warfare is a type of terrorism, since it includes ambushing a specific target and departing before retaliation is possible. And, to be honest, I'm stuck.

For this discussion (assuming there is one), I'd appreciate it if people were not to take a relativist view of terrorism: that is to say, not use the American line of deploring that which one considers wrong as terrorist and that which one considers just as "freedom fighters" or whatever nonsensical jargon people tend to use. Terrorism, like most things, can be a force for good and evil, and its methods can be just or injust.

Thoughts?
Here's a useful definition I think:

Terrorism is targeting civilian populations in order to intimidate or terrorize them into refusing support for political leaders and policies.

Most people would agree that terrorism is 1. political violence and 2. strikes at civilian rather than military targets and 3. seeks to intimidate or terrorize the population. The definition above includes all three.

One advantage of it is that it includes violence by established states as well as unofficial groups. Some people will attempt to dispute this, but murder is murder regardless of who does it, why not terrorism? The truth is that warfare against civilian populations has been done more often, and more destructively, by states than by unofficial groups. The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare against Civilians by Caleb Carr is worth reading...he traces the origin of present-day terrorism in millenia-old methods of warfare by official armies. Also demonstrates that targeting civilians usually leads to the failure of one's goals, with numerous historical examples.

Guerilla warfare is not terrorism. Guerillas strike at military targets in order to weaken the opposing army. Guerilla armies - in China or Cuba for example - often have strict rules against abusing the civilian population, who they depend on for support. Anti-guerilla tactics, on the other hand, often involve terrorizing the civilian population in order to deprive guerillas of this base of support.

The only drawback of this definition is it does not include the assassination of political leaders, which is traditionally considered terrorism...for example the classical political terrorism of the Narodniks, assassinating tsars and their officials. But this ain't all bad because, for example, the ETA's assassinations are clearly very different that the random slaughter of the March 11 train bombings. You could add a second clause to the definition, including the assassination of political leaders, if you wanted.

The former is not a communist method of struggle, and communist leaders have always made it clear that the elimination of a political leader does not end the rule of the capitalist class - only mass action can do that. The latter must be rejected even more clearly, however....

"Innocent" is hard to define, civilian or noncombatant is better IMO. "Innocent civilian" leaves the unanswered question, are there "guilty civilians" - as in, "that's a VC village, there are tunnels everywhere, those are VC civilians, napalm them all." And of course politicians are not innocent, a lot guiltier than soldiers IMO, but they are noncombatants. Usually.

Edit: Here's one U.S. government definition: "Section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."" link (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2003/12389.htm)

I'd agree, except remove the "by subnational groups or clandestine agents" - terrorism is terrorism no matter who does it. Even if you leave that, however, this definition of terrorism would include many covert actions by the CIA, and many groups financed and armed by Washington.

[Osman Ghazi]

This is indeed a difficult question. As I've been reading all the posts in this thread, I have come to a number of conclusions.

1. There is no such thing as an 'objective' definition of terrorism. Or rather, there is no objective way of determining what act is a 'lawful' use of force and which one isn't.

2. That being said, there should still be a communist view of terrorism because we all have a similar sense of subjectivity.

3. I think that this view should revolve around popular support or in whose or what classes interests are served by these acts of force.

For example, Che's use of force was in the interests of the working class, the majority. Therefore, it was lawful because the power of the law extends directly from the people.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Revolt!@Apr 18 2004, 05:10 PM
Where were you when the IRA killed 29 people in the Omagh bomb of 1998! Or when they bombed Manchester city centre, or when they bombed Canary Wharf, or when they blew up a car because they didn't like a Panorama report the BBC put out about them, or countless other attacks dating back decades. Ever heard of the Guilford four who were falsely accused of doing the IRA's work of blowing up a pub in London?

Not to mention ETA! Whos most recent attacks were in 2003 on two hotels!

See here for more info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3500728.stm

Hundreds upon hundreds of innocent people have died.
You're a little factually challenged I think. Omagh was by a splitoff from the IRA, and condemned by most of the IRA's leadership. But some of your other exapmles are good - it's true the IRA has conducted bombings targeting British civilians.

The ETA, on the other hand, basically assassinates police and politicians. From your link: "In 2003, for example, three people were killed in Eta violence." If they had in fact blown up two hotels, I think it'd be more than that. There was some supermarket attack where they killed other people...I haven't seen a detailed account of it...but ETA later said that was a mistake. Mainstream media reports on the March 11 bombings said that if this was in fact an ETA attack, it marked a sharp change in the ETA's strategy...they were right, it was inconsistent with the kind of attacks the ETA typically carries out.

[El Che]

guerrillaradio, Chomsky is really the best source on this subject. His traditional line of argument is using official U.S, or other, definitions of terrorism to show how many actions by western goverments are indeed terrorist. Moreso because of the scale of death and destruction they are capable of inflicting. He says "its commonly said terrorism is the weapon of the poor when infact it is overwhelming the weapon of the rich".

Here is a snippet from Who are the Global Terrorists? (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm) May, 2002.


The condemnations of terrorism are sound, but leave some questions unanswered. The first is: What do we mean by "terrorism"? Second: What is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree -- in fact, strenuously insist -- that the principle apply to us as well. Those who do not rise even to this minimal level of integrity plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of right and wrong, good and evil.

The problem of definition is held to be vexing and complex. There are, however, proposals that seem straightforward, for example, in US Army manuals, which define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." NOTE{_US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction_ (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37), 1984.} That definition carries additional authority because of the timing: it was offered as the Reagan administration was intensifying its war on terrorism. The world has changed little enough so that these recent precedents should be instructive, even apart from the continuity of leadership from the first war on terrorism to its recent reincarnation.

The first war received strong endorsement. The UN General Assembly condemned international terrorism two months after Reagan's denunciation, again in much stronger and more explicit terms in 1987. NOTE{GA Res. 40/61, 9 Dec. 1985; Res. 42/159, 7 Dec. 1987.} Support was not unanimous, however. The 1987 resolution passed 153-2, Honduras abstaining. Explaining their negative vote, the US and Israel identified the fatal flaw: the statement that "nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of people forcibly deprived of that right..., particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation..." That was understood to apply to the struggle of the African National Congress against the Apartheid regime of South Africa (a US ally, while the ANC was officially labelled a "terrorist organization"); and to the Israeli military occupation, then in its 20th year, sustained by US military and diplomatic support in virtual international isolation. Presumably because of US opposition, the UN resolution against terrorism was ignored. NOTE{See my _Necessary Illusions_ (Boston: South End, 1989), chap. 4; my essay in Alex George, ed., _Western State Terrorism_ (Cambridge: Polity/Blackwell, 1991).}


Terror and Just Response (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2063) July 02, 2002.

Noam Chomsky Archive (http://www.zmag.org/chomskyarticles.htm)

[Osman Ghazi]

Wait, what? South Africa didn't votew against the resolution even though it would have applied to them? That doesn't make sense.

[Revolt!]

You're a little factually challenged I think

Not in the slightest. It doesn't matter if it was the IRA or the so called 'Real IRA'. Its all terrorism and innocent people still died. Also, I never even mentioned March 11.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by Revolt!@Apr 19 2004, 11:34 AM

You're a little factually challenged I think

Not in the slightest. It doesn't matter if it was the IRA or the so called 'Real IRA'.
No, you are. The Real IRA are a splinter group from the IRA's main body. I believe this to be true cos:

(i) the IRA, like any "terrorist" group, will claim responsibility for their actions. Otherwise, their motives (which to me would seem to be something along the lines of publicly showing up a government) would be redundant.

(ii) the tactics used in the Omagh bombing were very different to those of the regular IRA. Your scraping of the barrel in order to find examples of the IRA targeting civilians demonstrates that it is not their style to explode bombs in crowded shopping centres on Saturday afternoons, especially not without warning. The IRA, for a variety of reasons, tend to call in a bomb threat and/or ascertain that their actions will minimise (or at least keep low) civilian casualties.

March 11 was mentioned cos it has something of a parallel. ETA being behind March 11 would be about as likely as the IRA being the perpetrators of the Omagh bombing.

[guerrillaradio]

Thanks for your replies. Generally speaking, if I don't reply to your comment, it means I roughly agree or have read and absorbed your input.

In discussion with someone infinitely more intelligent than me (but not of the left wing), he raised an interesting concept that terrorism was more about damaging authority than actual physical places. He suggested that its aim is to undermine and sometimes destabilise government (or its equivalent authority) in the eyes of the people in an attempt to rally support for their cause. Its aim is specifically not to cause maximum casualties and structural damage, since that would eradicate the possibility of whipping up popular support and the discontent would be turned away from the government onto them, most likely resolving in full retaliation by the system. Therefore, they attempt to minimise casualties by giving prior warning of their activities and choosing times when civilian/noncombatant collateral damage would be at its lowest.

By this theory, Al'Qua'eda is not a terrorist organisation. I would definitely say that there is a distinction to be made between them an on organisation such as, say, the IRA.

[Fidelbrand]

United States of America.

[God of Imperia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 08:28 PM
United States of America.
that doesn't help much :).
like said before you can't define it, not in general, it is purely subjective, nothing more.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by God of Imperia+Apr 19 2004, 06:50 PM--> (God of Imperia @ Apr 19 2004, 06:50 PM)
[email protected] 19 2004, 08:28 PM
United States of America.
that doesn't help much.
like said before you can't define it, not in general, it is purely subjective, nothing more. [/b]
:P hehe.. please excuse me, it's pretty late at night overhere and i am a bit dizzy.

I think terrorism is created by terrorism in the political sphere. The former lacks mass destruction weapons and this method is used when they became desperate for some revenge. I tend to sympathise them, but killing innocents of course is an all-time "unjust" depravity.

goodnight..

[Wenty]

Therefore, they attempt to minimise casualties by giving prior warning of their activities and choosing times when civilian/noncombatant collateral damage would be at its lowest.

By this theory, Al'Qua'eda is not a terrorist organisation. I would definitely say that there is a distinction to be made between them an on organisation such as, say, the IRA.

I don't believe this at all. Bin Laden thinks its every Muslims duty to kill American civilians, and he leads Al Queda. I think what 'Revolt' was trying to get at was right, he wasn't making any factual errors just pointing out terrorism aims civilians and the IRA do constantly target public places. There are warning sometimes yes but before you said


I was always led to believe that for the most part, the IRA targets the British army and government buildings.

Now you've turned around and said they give warnings for public places.


ETA being behind March 11 would be about as likely as the IRA being the perpetrators of the Omagh bombing.

Thats loco! You hadn't even heard of Omagh or very much about ETA and now you think your in a position to say this? Tu loco amigo.

The part I could agree with is terrorists wanting to undermine gvts and gain support for their cause, but as they've constantly shown they are willing to kill civilians. Destruction is a main part, if people get in the way then so be it.

[kroony]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 06:26 PM
Thanks for your replies. Generally speaking, if I don't reply to your comment, it means I roughly agree or have read and absorbed your input.

In discussion with someone infinitely more intelligent than me (but not of the left wing), he raised an interesting concept that terrorism was more about damaging authority than actual physical places. He suggested that its aim is to undermine and sometimes destabilise government (or its equivalent authority) in the eyes of the people in an attempt to rally support for their cause. Its aim is specifically not to cause maximum casualties and structural damage, since that would eradicate the possibility of whipping up popular support and the discontent would be turned away from the government onto them, most likely resolving in full retaliation by the system. Therefore, they attempt to minimise casualties by giving prior warning of their activities and choosing times when civilian/noncombatant collateral damage would be at its lowest.

By this theory, Al'Qua'eda is not a terrorist organisation. I would definitely say that there is a distinction to be made between them an on organisation such as, say, the IRA.

By this theory, Al'Qua'eda is not a terrorist organisation. I would definitely say that there is a distinction to be made between them an on organisation such as, say, the IRA.
Gurreila, forgive me, but you have completely mutilated the language in order to get your point across.

What, in practice, does Al-quida do? It murders people, on a scale never before seen in non-governmental organisations. And to what end do they do it? They do it to indirectly put pressure on the government to change its policies. They will then be in a position to kill MORE people, resulting in MORE pressure, resulting in MORE concessions, and before you know it, we won't recognise our existence.

In other words, mon ami, they kill civilians, people like you and me, in ORDER TO CREATE TERROR. What useful definition of Terrorism ignores groups which deliberately cause the maximum amount of terror?

And, if the IRA are terrorists, what word is left to describe al-quida??

Terrorism is ALWAYS, my friend, ALWAYS wrong. It was wrong yesterday, will be wrong tomorrow. It is wrong, no matter what the end may be, and no matter whether it succeeds or fails. It is part of the rules of war. You do not deliberately target civilians. Not for Radical Islam, or Capitalism, or Stalinism, or Anarchism, not even for Social Democracy.

[Saint-Just]

Terrorism is an individual or group using indiscriminate violence to achieve various political or social goals.

Terrorism is quite reprehensible, but often it is seen as the only solution and in some place it has been a force for positive change, such as in South Africa. Although it may not always be justifiable as, to most people, it was in that instance.

Terrorism is not outright always bad, it is most of the time. When it does lead to good change it can be difficult to say if there may have been another method or to actually quantify the influence of the terrorist acts.

[Osman Ghazi]

Kroony, he meant that if the IRA is a terrorist organization, then AL-Qaeda isn't because they are very different in their methods. However, I dont think that that is true. AL-Qaeda kills their enemies (non-muslims) ruthlessly, but they do try to minimize muslim casualties. Remember, they aren't trying to whip up popular support here, but with Sunni muslims the world over.

[guerrillaradio]

I don't believe this at all. Bin Laden thinks its every Muslims duty to kill American civilians, and he leads Al Queda.

Right...how is this relevant??


the IRA do constantly target public places. There are warning sometimes yes but before you said


I was always led to believe that for the most part, the IRA targets the British army and government buildings.

Now you've turned around and said they give warnings for public places.

I never claimed they didn't target public places, I was just suggesting that the focal points of their operations are instruments of power and authority or state. Besides, all this idea claims is that a terrorist organisation does not attempt to create maximum civilian casualties. The easiest way of doing this is by avoiding civilian targets.


Thats loco! You hadn't even heard of Omagh or very much about ETA and now you think your in a position to say this? Tu loco amigo.

Quit talking like an underpaid Kingpin extra and listen to what I am saying: the tactics used in the Omagh bombing and March 11 were decidedly different to those used in normal IRA/ETA operations in that they aimed to maximise civilian casualties (choosing the busiest time of the day in an overtly public place).

[Wenty]

the tactics used in the Omagh bombing and March 11 were decidedly different to those used in normal IRA/ETA operations in that they aimed to maximise civilian casualties

Yes i agree, that just makes these terrorists that more ruthless. It doesn't stop the fact that the IRA and ETA have killed innocent people in the past with little thought of cause nor consequence. So we should condemn it.



QUOTE
I don't believe this at all. Bin Laden thinks its every Muslims duty to kill American civilians, and he leads Al Queda.


Right...how is this relevant??



Because you said this


...By this theory, Al'Qua'eda is not a terrorist organisation

[guerrillaradio]

the tactics used in the Omagh bombing and March 11 were decidedly different to those used in normal IRA/ETA operations in that they aimed to maximise civilian casualties

Yes i agree, that just makes these terrorists that more ruthless. It doesn't stop the fact that the IRA and ETA have killed innocent people in the past with little thought of cause nor consequence.

Please produce evidence of this. And what do you mean by "cause"?? Surely you are aware of the agendas of both organisations??


So we should condemn it.

Whether "we" should condemn it is an entirely different question which I have no desire at all to answer in this thread.


Because you said this


...By this theory, Al'Qua'eda is not a terrorist organisation

Still not seeing the connection. You appear to be laying the foundations for a straw man argument...

[Wenty]

Not sure I can pay any creedence to your opinions after you hadn't even heard of the bombings in Omagh, Manchester, London etc etc etc.

The 'cause nor consequence' comment is merely a turn of phrase not to be taken literally.


Still not seeing the connection.

You said Al-queda wasn't a terrorist organisation. I said Bin Laden heads Al-queda and he encourages all Muslims to commit terrorist acts, such as killing American citizens. Bin Laden thinks there are Jews in Washington controlling things and trying to destroy Islam. He's waged a jihad against the United States; but this isn't your average holy war, it includes the ruthless, calcualted and intentional killing of civilians for religious reasons. It just seems like he's a 'muderous thug' though as Chomsky says.

Its definitely different to the IRA, compared to the funding AQ gets and their fanaticism the IRA are small time.

[Severian]

I think it's true that al-Qaeda - and those groups influenced by its ideas - are far more indiscriminate, and kill on a larger scale, than most previous non-state terrorist organizations. They are not even concerned with minimizing Muslim civilian casualties - consider the U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya, which mostly killed Kenyans, or the bombings which just happened in Basra, which mostly killed passersby. (The second is probably not al-Qaeda the organization, but people with some similarities in their ideas.) But I don't think it's useful to come up with some new word for them.

For one thing, state terrorists have always operated, and still operate, on an even larger scale than al-Qaeda. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were at least as indiscriminate as anything al-Qaeda's ever done. So "terrorist" applies if you keep in mind it is rooted in the history of warfare, not the history of political oppositions.

I agree that the IRA did target civilians (before the cease-fire), and I didn't intend any apologia for its methods. Just that factually, it didn't carry out the Omagh bombing. ETA, on the other hand, doesn't carry out this type of bombing, but only assassinations of police and politicians, so it's inaccurate to say it does.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 06:18 PM
Not sure I can pay any creedence to your opinions after you hadn't even heard of the bombings in Omagh, Manchester, London etc etc etc.
I can't believe that you're not reading my posts. Please, make sure you take heed of this:

THE OMAGH BOMB WAS NOT THE WORK OF THE IRA

It was by the Real IRA, which is a splinter group from the IRA, no longer affiliated with them or under their command.

Manchester, London....?? Please be more specific.



Still not seeing the connection.

You said Al-queda wasn't a terrorist organisation. I said Bin Laden heads Al-queda and he encourages all Muslims to commit terrorist acts, such as killing American citizens. Bin Laden thinks there are Jews in Washington controlling things and trying to destroy Islam. He's waged a jihad against the United States; but this isn't your average holy war, it includes the ruthless, calcualted and intentional killing of civilians for religious reasons. It just seems like he's a 'muderous thug' though as Chomsky says.

Once again, I point out that Al'Qua'eda consider all non-Muslims foot soldiers of an "infidel" lifestyle, eroding Muslim values and whatnot. Of course the guy's severely misguided and absolutely unjustified in his actions, but as far as he is concerned, he is fighting a war. He is not using the "softly, softly" (in order to avoid retaliation by the world's armies) approach that the IRA and ETA prefer, presumably in the belief that Allah will guide him to victory.

I expanded on the tactical differences between terrorist groups and Al'Qua'eda in an earlier post, but you probably overlooked that, since you have managed to overlook most of what I type.

[Wenty]

I expanded on the tactical differences between terrorist groups and Al'Qua'eda in an earlier post, but you probably overlooked that, since you have managed to overlook most of what I type.

This isn't a slagging match, lets concentrate on whats important and I do try and reply to what I read.

I am aware that Omagh wasn't the IRA, but its still terrorism; I don't care what group does it.


Once again, I point out that Al'Qua'eda consider all non-Muslims foot soldiers of an "infidel" lifestyle, eroding Muslim values and whatnot

I agree with this. I was responding to what you said about AQ not being a terrorist organisation by basically saying, 'look, Bin Laden heads AQ and this is what he says and does'. Its quite obviously terrorist in my view. I'm sure the independent media outlets would agree as much as the corporate owned media on that point.


Manchester, London....?? Please be more specific.

This was mentioned in an earlier post by someone I think. Anyway, the Canary Wharf attack in London comes to mind, "The Provisional IRA's 17-month cease-fire ends when a bomb explodes at London's Canary Wharf killing three, 9 February 1996".

So does the bombing in Manchester city centre. From the BBC too:-


On Saturday 15 June 1996 a 3,000lb IRA bomb exploded in the centre of Manchester, devastating a wide area

There was also the famous 'brighton bomb' incident where the IRA tried to wipe out the whole British cabinet in 1984.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/grandbombing.shtml

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 08:34 PM


I am aware that Omagh wasn't the IRA, but its still terrorism; I don't care what group does it.
No, cos you using it as an example of when the IRA targeted civilians. Now we're all clear that it wasn't the IRA.


I agree with this. I was responding to what you said about AQ not being a terrorist organisation by basically saying, 'look, Bin Laden heads AQ and this is what he says and does'. Its quite obviously terrorist in my view. I'm sure the independent media outlets would agree as much as the corporate owned media on that point.

Please read what I've been repeating in my last few posts.


This was mentioned in an earlier post by someone I think. Anyway, the Canary Wharf attack in London comes to mind, "The Provisional IRA's 17-month cease-fire ends when a bomb explodes at London's Canary Wharf killing three, 9 February 1996".

I'm not 100% clear on the Provos' relationship with the main body of the IRA but I think they might be a separate group.

Moreover, the Canary Wharf bombing happened late at night, after the office had closed business for the day (either that or it was a Sunday...I was actually about 4 miles from the explosion at the time and I heard it). Moreover, it was done (I believe) in the belief that it was a government building. Which is consistent with my argument.



So does the bombing in Manchester city centre. From the BBC too:-


On Saturday 15 June 1996 a 3,000lb IRA bomb exploded in the centre of Manchester, devastating a wide area

Yes but were there any casualties??


There was also the famous 'brighton bomb' incident where the IRA tried to wipe out the whole British cabinet in 1984.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/grandbombing.shtml

Yes...politicians, who we've already established to be legitimate targets. Not civilians.

[Wenty]

I think it makes little difference that they were Politicans. Its hardly a combat zone.

The Manchester bomb injured 200 people. The IRA might not be as ruthless as AQ but they still kill innocent people, just on a smaller scale.


Moreover, it was done (I believe) in the belief that it was a government building You're an IRA apologist now? Canary Wharf is a business building on the Isle of Dogs! All the buildings on there are business buildings! Look into their history, they have killed innocent people time and again!

How about you explain to me what you're supposed points were about AQ. From where I'm standing i've covered them sufficiently.

p.s. The Provisional IRA split with the 'offical IRA' in 1969. When we're talking of the IRA, we're talking of the Provs. For a detailed history on where the IRA come from look into the Fenians. They started assasinations of Politicans and blowing up buildings with innocents in, back in the 19th Century.

Heres two useful sources

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern...ries/162714.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/paramilitaries/162714.stm)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern...aries/69824.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/paramilitaries/69824.stm)

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 01:30 PM
Moreover, as far as Al'Qua'eda are concerned, they're fighting a jihad, which is a war.
"Jihad" actually means "to strive". It was miscontrued as 'holy war' by the media after September 11.

[Conghaileach]

The IRA and INLA, both of whom are currently on ceasefire, have released statements apologising for the civilians killed by them during the course of the last thirty years. What other army in history has ever done such a thing? Have the imperialist powers of the US or Britain ever apologised for their atrocities around the world?

It should also be noted that they never targetted civilians on purpose. Even the Omagh tragedy had such a high death count because the RUC directed the people into the area where the bomb was. Something of a conspiracy theory has popped up about this because, interestingly, there had been warning phoned in about the location of the bomb, no RUC members were killed or injured, and the incident also solidified support for the Good Friday Agreement in many quarters.


And as for the Brighton bombing in 1984, this was a period when Thatcher was waging war on the miners (possibly the most strongly unionised workers in Britain at the time). I doubt many class conscious workers would have shed a tear for her.

[Wenty]

So you think there are circumstances when killing innocent people is justified?

Like I've said previously the IRA and AQ are different in that the IRA aren't as ruthless but they've still killed innocent people consistently for decades. When someone plants a bomb in a city centre or in a building I don't care if they say they aren't 'intending' to kill people it quite obviously is an act of terrorism which they are fully aware will kill innocent people.

If they really cared about other people they wouldn't be planting bombs in those places in the first place.

[Conghaileach]

There has never been a war without civilian casualties. If you believe that any armed organisation that kills civilians, whether it be intentional or accidental, is a terrorist group then every army in human history would be terrorists (with the possible exception of the EZLN).

[Wenty]

Yes but they aren't fighting a war! They aren't a legitimately recognised army! They target public places with intent to destroy and maim!

[cubist]

terrorists take the suprise way and use fear to impose legislation to improve there standard of living, anyone who uses terroism to improve there own circumstances deserves to not have there circumstances improoved, how ever not negotiating with terrorists merel inflames the situation but negotiating with terrorists shows that terrorism works,

its cathch 22, the best thing to do is to impose communism on the world then no one would need to be a terrorist

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 08:18 PM
It should also be noted that they never targetted civilians on purpose.
I'm a little sceptical about this statement. I know most of the IRA's bombings in Ireland were aimed at Loyalist groups, although civilians were also sometimes killed. But a number of their bombings in Britain were aimed at train stations, etc. Were those all intended solely to cause property damage, with warnings phoned in on all of them, etc.?

Wenty, "they weren't fighting a war" is false and "they weren't a recognised army" is irrelevant, and smacks of a pro-capitalist, or in this case pro-imperialist, double standard.

[Wenty]

How so? I don't think their cause can be seen as a war. There is no combat zone, there isn't an army fighting them (in most cases), its just them blowing things up. I'd rather be pro-imperialist than tolerate a group that kills innocent people.

[Severian]

"I'd rather be pro-imperialist than tolerate a group that kills innocent people. "

Those two things are not counterposed....in fact they go together, seeing as how imperialism routinely kills "innocent people"...if by that you mean noncombatants, see my earlier posts on why "innocent" is a problematic standard.

My point was, if there's a standard, like say not targeting noncombatants, it should be applied to everyone equally, regardless of whether they're a "legitimate army" or not. Otherwise, you'd have to say the imperialists can do something, and it's not terrorism, but if a group fighting for independence does the same thing, now it is terrorism. That's what this thread was originally discussing y'know, finding a definition of terrorism that can be applied to everyone equally.

"there isn't an army fighting them (in most cases)"

I think this would be news to both the British army and the IRA.

[Wenty]

...Otherwise, you'd have to say the imperialists can do something, and it's not terrorism

I agree completely, a standard for them is a standard for all. Of course there are different types of imperialism but yes i'll retract my comment.


"there isn't an army fighting them (in most cases)"

I think this would be news to both the British army and the IRA.

I knew this would come up. I know bloody sunday etc. I was just trying to make the point that more often than not they aren't fighting a war.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 09:45 AM
I'm a little sceptical about this statement... a number of their bombings in Britain were aimed at train stations, etc. Were those all intended solely to cause property damage, with warnings phoned in on all of them, etc.?
Targets in Britain have always been of a military, political, or economic nature. I understand what you say as regards train stations (though, to my knowledge, that hasn't occurred in some time. I could be wrong, but nothing's coming to me as I write). Even the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings took place because both were bars with the British military as their main customers.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 12:02 PM
I'd rather be pro-imperialist than tolerate a group that kills innocent people.
Are you suggesting that imperialists don't kill innocent people?

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 12:42 PM
I was just trying to make the point that more often than not they aren't fighting a war.
The British never officially recognised that they were fighting a war, though republican prisoners did get POW status.

Of course, officially there was no war in Korea or Vietnam either.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 06:01 PM
Yes but they aren't fighting a war!
According to whom? The imperialists, of course.



They aren't a legitimately recognised army!
By whom? Do you think that the IRA or INLA or ETA or EZLN or FARC or ELN care that certain governments don't recognise them?



They target public places with intent to destroy and maim!
Like what the British did at Dresden, or the US at Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War Two (to name but a very small few).

[God of Imperia]

So I guess everyone could be a terrorist, you just need to find someone who don't agree with the things you do and he'll prob see you as a terrorist. So terrorism is a subjective view on the actions of your opposers or whatever you should call that. This isn't a could defenition, it needs some more work, so go right ahead ...

[Wenty]

I'm condemning all forms of terrorism, state supported or whatever. Terrorism typically and historically includes the intentional killing of innocent civilians for specific aims. You have to ask yourself whether you think this is justified. I think its barbaric and should be condemned with every breath.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 07:53 PM
Even the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings took place because both were bars with the British military as their main customers.
I think I should clarify that I'm not condoning what happened here. I'm only stating that the intention of those responsible was not to kill civilians, but it was foolish and short sighted.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by CiaranB+Apr 22 2004, 02:06 AM--> (CiaranB @ Apr 22 2004, 02:06 AM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 01:30 PM
Moreover, as far as Al'Qua'eda are concerned, they're fighting a jihad, which is a war.
"Jihad" actually means "to strive". It was miscontrued as 'holy war' by the media after September 11. [/b]
The actual technical definitions of the words are not of the utmost concern here. "Intifada" means "to shake off" but we all aware that, in practical terms, it is an uprising.

Wenty - I don't have the energy to repeat myself. Refer to my earlier posts. I'm more interested in hearing what people consider to be terrorism.

[Wenty]

Judging by your earlier posts you know nothing about the history of terrorism. You thought the IRA only attacked the British army and 'gvt buildings' (as if low grade civil servants are fair game). You also thought AQ wasn't a terrorist organisation?! You'd have to have the most deluded, not to mention dangerous, views to accept that. I've presented the facts, you've decided to blindly ignore them. So be it.

[guerrillaradio]

Discussions such as the one we have just had reminds me of why I largely try to avoid "debating" on this site. I repeat points several times over without them being acknowledged, arguments change to suit situations and straw men are everywhere.

However, inevitably, all this leads to is resentment and secretarianism within the left wing.

I just wanted to know what exactly it is to be terrorist, since I'm sure it has nothing to do with what the US government tells you (despite what Wenty says).

[Wenty]

I've attempted to debate amicably. You on the other hand have tried to get yourself out of corners by patently ignoring my points. In the end it transcends left/right wing politics, it comes down to basic moral truisms. First of all, whether you think there are circumstances where the killing of innocent people is justifiable. Secondly, if we condemn what others to do us we shouldn't do it to others, i.e. the standard for terrorism applies to all. Whether it is the terrorists themselves or governments.

[God of Imperia]

He did that because that wasn't what he wanted to debate over wenty ...
And I stick to my former defenition:
terrorism is the subjective view on the actions of their opponents

[Wenty]

I am aware of that but any act of terror has to include innocent civilians in it, be it through hostage taking or killings. History teaches this harsh fact.

Chomsky actually agrees with the U.S's manual definition of terrorism:-


the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear

We have to make sure this definition applies to everyone though.

[canikickit]

Of course, officially there was no war in Korea or Vietnam either.

Or Iraq, or Afghanistan either.
Good to see you around, Ciaran. I hope the studying and all went well/is going well.

In an interview John Pilger had with a spokesman for the Israeli government, they both agreed that terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians. I think this is a fair and widely accepted definition.


...reminds me of why I largely try to avoid "debating" on this site.

It's not just this site though, it's the internet in general.