Defining Terrorism

[Kharakov]

Provide definitions, or else...

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Did they do or say something that makes you uncomfortable?

1) Yes: Terrorist!
2) No: maybe

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Terrorism :

1. Acting in a manner which is contrary to the interests of the US government.

"The villagers who politely objected to the American troops relocating them away from their town, even though there were valuable mineral resources underneath it which multinational corporations could exploit, were engaging in acts of terrorism and properly blown up by Hellfire missiles.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Also:

2. Any foreign civilian killed by the US.

"Today the United States destroyed a Syrian town. 2300 terrorists were killed."

 

[Jayjay]

I think that terrirosim is acting based on an ideology that perpetrating acts of terror is an appropriate and a crucial method to achieve some political goal.

So just committing an individual act of terror is not enough, which rules out common criminals.

Tear it apart now.

 

[Valjean]

Terrorism :

1. Acting in a manner which is contrary to the interests of the US government.

"The villagers who politely objected to the American troops relocating them away from their town, even though there were valuable mineral resources underneath it which multinational corporations could exploit, were engaging in acts of terrorism and properly blown up by Hellfire missiles.

"Business interests" could easily be substituted for government interests. They're so interwoven these days it's hard to tell one from the other.

 

[J842P]

I think that terrirosim is acting based on an ideology that perpetrating acts of terror is an appropriate and a crucial method to achieve some political goal.

So just committing an individual act of terror is not enough, which rules out common criminals.

Tear it apart now.

What is an act of terror? Why does that not include "conventional" military actions? Or does it?

 

[Tristan Scott]

I think terrorism is the use of terror on a population in order to get them to do what you want. Whether you are firebombing a city or crashing a plane into a building, its all terrorism.

 

[Valjean]

Terrorism's a form of political coercion using the threat of physical harm on civilians

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My take on it:

Aiming at civilians for the purpose of scaring people into behaving how you want.

Aiming at combatants using civilians as cover is not terrorism.

Mistakes (either in the aim point or in choosing the aim point) are not terrorism.

Terrorism taints an operation--thus 9/11 is terrorism despite the attack on the Pentagon.

Attacks by subterfuge are not inherently terrorism. Bush was wrong, the USS Cole was not terrorism.

 

[Togo]

My take on it:

Aiming at civilians for the purpose of scaring people into behaving how you want.

Aiming at combatants using civilians as cover is not terrorism.

Mistakes (either in the aim point or in choosing the aim point) are not terrorism.

Terrorism taints an operation--thus 9/11 is terrorism despite the attack on the Pentagon.

Attacks by subterfuge are not inherently terrorism. Bush was wrong, the USS Cole was not terrorism.

One difficulty with this approach is that it relies on claiming to know and understand the motives of the attacker, which isn't usually practical. It's better to define terrorism in terms of actions, rather than your beliefs about their thought processes. Otherwise people will simply use these unknowable and undetectable distinctions to pick and choose who is a terrorist and who is not, according to their own political beliefs.

 

[Jayjay]

I think that terrirosim is acting based on an ideology that perpetrating acts of terror is an appropriate and a crucial method to achieve some political goal.

So just committing an individual act of terror is not enough, which rules out common criminals.

Tear it apart now.

What is an act of terror? Why does that not include "conventional" military actions? Or does it?

During war it might overlap. But the purpose of conventional military is to kill your enemies, disable their fighting ability, hold or conquer land, etc. Terrorizing the populace isn't an end to itself. During wartime things get muddled up pretty quickly though and I don't think terrorism is a particularly meaningful notion in context of war.

 

[Valjean]

I think terrorism is the use of terror on a population in order to get them to do what you want. Whether you are firebombing a city or crashing a plane into a building, its all terrorism.

Was 9/11 terrorism? Was it part of a campaign of coercion, using an ongoing threat of harm to achieve a political end?

What is an act of terror? Why does that not include "conventional" military actions? Or does it?

During war it might overlap. But the purpose of conventional military is to kill your enemies, disable their fighting ability, hold or conquer land, etc. Terrorizing the populace isn't an end to itself. During wartime things get muddled up pretty quickly though and I don't think terrorism is a particularly meaningful notion in context of war.

During WWII the Allies bombed civilian centers to demoralize the public in an effort to turn it against the administration.
Political goal+fear of harm+coercion=terrorism.

 

[Jayjay]

Was 9/11 terrorism? Was it part of a campaign of coercion, using an ongoing threat of harm to achieve a political end?

What is an act of terror? Why does that not include "conventional" military actions? Or does it?

During war it might overlap. But the purpose of conventional military is to kill your enemies, disable their fighting ability, hold or conquer land, etc. Terrorizing the populace isn't an end to itself. During wartime things get muddled up pretty quickly though and I don't think terrorism is a particularly meaningful notion in context of war.

During WWII the Allies bombed civilian centers to demoralize the public in an effort to turn it against the administration.
Political goal+fear of harm+coercion=terrorism.

If the allies had only bombed civilian centers, that would be terrorism. In conventional war, the acts that would normally qualify as terrorism do happen, but they are not the main point. That's why the distinction doesn't really make sense during war. Just like "murder" isn't a useful concept to describe soldiers killing other soldiers... the rules have already been broken at that point.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, was 9/11 terrorism then? They didn't fly planes into the WTC for the sake of killing civilians, they did it to strike at the heart of the US financial center in order to degrade their enemy's ability to pay for their military.

 

[Valjean]

If the allies had only bombed civilian centers, that would be terrorism. In conventional war, the acts that would normally qualify as terrorism do happen, but they are not the main point. That's why the distinction doesn't really make sense during war. Just like "murder" isn't a useful concept to describe soldiers killing other soldiers... the rules have already been broken at that point.

I disagree with this differential morality. It's a facile convenience that facilitates and justifies war. What's immoral between neighbors is immoral between countries.

Individual actions cannot be removed from the equation just because some larger group pretends to usurp moral authority.
Where do you draw the line? Is it OK for me to abdicate individual responsibility for my actions if my neighborhood instructs me to vandalize another neighborhood? How is the bombing of a Blood's clubhouse by the Crips any different from one country attacking another? What's the difference between an outlaw motorcycle club and a nation, but for size and organization?

 

[Jayjay]

So, was 9/11 terrorism then? They didn't fly planes into the WTC for the sake of killing civilians, they did it to strike at the heart of the US financial center in order to degrade their enemy's ability to pay for their military.

Did they miss? Because that did not decrease US military spending at all, quite the contrary, and I don't think even the most ardent Al Qaeda follower would have believed that justification.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, was 9/11 terrorism then? They didn't fly planes into the WTC for the sake of killing civilians, they did it to strike at the heart of the US financial center in order to degrade their enemy's ability to pay for their military.

Did they miss? Because that did not decrease US military spending at all, quite the contrary, and I don't think even the most ardent Al Qaeda follower would have believed that justification.

Who cares if they were successful? That's like arguing that the Pearl Harbor attack doesn't count as an act of war because Japan lost WWII or that the Taliban slaughter of the kids at the Army school in Pakistan aren't terrorists if that leads to more attacks against them by the army in retaliation instead of less attacks out of fear.

If the goal of 9/11 was not just to kill random people but that Al Quaida actually had some sort of goal related to their cause associated with it and they weren't just trying to terrorize the US population as an end in and of itself, does that mean it's not terrorism?

 

[Jayjay]

If the allies had only bombed civilian centers, that would be terrorism. In conventional war, the acts that would normally qualify as terrorism do happen, but they are not the main point. That's why the distinction doesn't really make sense during war. Just like "murder" isn't a useful concept to describe soldiers killing other soldiers... the rules have already been broken at that point.

I disagree with this differential morality. It's a facile convenience that facilitates and justifies war. What's immoral between neighbors is immoral between countries.

I don't see it as an issue of morality at all, but whether it is a useful concept ina given situation. Terror tactics are part and parcel of warfare, and always have been. But when it happens during peacetime it's an anomaly. That doesn't mean one is any less morally justified than another, it's that when you are looking at terrorist strike in context of regular warfare it's not as difficult to tell where the normal warfare ends and terrorism begins. That's why I don't think that Hamas firing rockets at Israel during war is terrorism, but when they fire them during ceasefire, it is. Same action, same ideology and motivation, different context.

Individual actions cannot be removed from the equation just because some larger group pretends to usurp moral authority.
Where do you draw the line? Is it OK for me to abdicate individual responsibility for my actions if my neighborhood instructs me to vandalize another neighborhood? How is the bombing of a Blood's clubhouse by the Crips any different from one country attacking another? What's the difference between an outlaw motorcycle club and a nation, but for size and organization?

This is the far more interesting comparison. Criminal organisations regularly use terror as means to further their agenda. What distinguishes them from terrorist though is that there is no political or religious ideology behind it. It's more of a practical consideration for criminal organizations. Some shit that drug cartels are pulling off is very close to terrorism though.

 

[Jayjay]

Did they miss? Because that did not decrease US military spending at all, quite the contrary, and I don't think even the most ardent Al Qaeda follower would have believed that justification.

Who cares if they were successful? That's like arguing that the Pearl Harbor attack doesn't count as an act of war because Japan lost WWII or that the Taliban slaughter of the kids at the Army school in Pakistan aren't terrorists if that leads to more attacks against them by the army in retaliation instead of less attacks out of fear.

Whether it was successful or not is not material, it's that no sensible person, or even an Al Qaeda supporter, could have assumed it to have worked as a direct attack against America's ability to wage war. uBt as means to coerce America to either withdrawing (as part of a larger campaign of strikes) or overreacting? It makes much more sense.

If the goal of 9/11 was not just to kill random people but that Al Quaida actually had some sort of goal related to their cause associated with it and they weren't just trying to terrorize the US population as an end in and of itself, does that mean it's not terrorism?

I'm not saying terrorists don't have an end goal, in fact lacking such a goal would in my opinion make them just random psychopaths. But for terrorist, acts of terror against civilians are the primary means of achieving their agenda.