Defining Terrorism

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

So, you feel that half of the 9/11 guys were terrorists then? The guys aiming at the WTC were committing acts of terror and the guys aiming at the Pentagon and White House (I think that's where the one that crashed into the field was going) were not?

 

[Jayjay]

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.

So, you feel that half of the 9/11 guys were terrorists then? The guys aiming at the WTC were committing acts of terror and the guys aiming at the Pentagon and White House (I think that's where the one that crashed into the field was going) were not?

I think they were part of the same organization and interchangeable. And even striking Pentagon or White House are symbolic acts, and can't be expected to seriously cripple US military ability. Plus the method of using passenger planes means that civilians were targets as well.

Striking US military bases in Saudi Arabia would have been an example of non-terrorist strike for the same cause (ignoring the passenger plane part of course).

ETA: Or at least a borderline case. An example of such an attack would be the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983. It certainly quacks like terrorism, and I'm not entirely sure which way to classify it.

 

[arkirk]

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.

I note you have conveniently left loopholes for U.S. forces blowing up wedding and funeral gatherings. "Terrorism" is actually any act that lessens the dominance of U.S. forces anywhere in the world. There's no such thing as terrorism. There is just war against the disparate fragmented straggling portions of humanity that are not under the full spectrum domination of the U.S. or are struggling to get out from under it. We make far too much out of whether or not a person or group is a "state" actor. In locations like Afghanistan and Pakistan, these countries are not actually governed by single governments. Government control in these areas is actually secondary to tribal preferences. Anything that turns out ugly, someone will be calling terrorism.

We have no business labeling Cuba a sponsor of terrorism. Modern warfare is simply organized terrorism. So is extractive resource domination in places like Indonesia and Nigeria...non state actors attacking indigenous people, taking their land, then polluting it. Israel is a modern terrorist army that calls itself a state.

I am sorry, Loren, life is not a football game with all sorts of little sub rules as you and George Bush and Obama recite with mechanical precision and justify their every action. "Terrorism" is just one semantic tool in the imperial toolbox to manage the empire's unending series of wars. There never was a groundrules congress that made these rules for EVERYBODY. Pretty much, governments just write the rules to favor themselves and their foreign operations and all definitions are flexible and regularly flexed.

A good example was Putin's arrest of Greenpeace activists whose only weapons were cloth banners and calling them terrorists. Just look at the stupidity of that. They harmed nobody and had nothing with them to harm the equipment the Russians were using or the Russians themselves...yet this was deemed beyond the pale by Putin. They were headed to a terrible incarceration in an Russian prison. Lucky for them Putin was in a trading mood.

 

[Valjean]

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.

There's no politics in a criminal organisation? Why are the 'practical considerations' of a criminal organisation any different from the practical considerations (politics) of a nation?
Nations and criminal organizations are essentially the same thing. What applies to one applies to the other. Neither has the authority to order anyone to commit an immoral act.

 

[arkirk]

Jayjay: You are making a disctinction that might not actually be there regarding politics. Crime is as political as anything else. Most criminals would rather get their unlawful gains without having to resort to violence. Crime is under cover and does not seek the spotlight, but within the organizations there is the same kind of log rolling and one-upmanship as in the political realm. Their politics is just chocolate politics rather than vanilla politics. It is a very tiny difference indeed.

 

[Jayjay]

Jayjay: You are making a disctinction that might not actually be there regarding politics. Crime is as political as anything else. Most criminals would rather get their unlawful gains without having to resort to violence. Crime is under cover and does not seek the spotlight, but within the organizations there is the same kind of log rolling and one-upmanship as in the political realm. Their politics is just chocolate politics rather than vanilla politics. It is a very tiny difference indeed.

I'm not talking about impacting politics within an organization, but in society at large. Like you said, criminals want to conduct their business in secrecy and not attract attention; whereas for a terrorist getting the spotlight is the whole point.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

There's no politics in a criminal organisation? Why are the 'practical considerations' of a criminal organisation any different from the practical considerations (politics) of a nation?
Nations and criminal organizations are essentially the same thing. What applies to one applies to the other. Neither has the authority to order anyone to commit an immoral act.

I don't see a big difference between them in this regard either. And while criminal organizations can be concerned of politics if they grow big enough (such as the Italian mafia, or Central American drug cartels), it's usually just turf war rather than battle of ideologies.

 

[Valjean]

I don't see a big difference between them in this regard either. And while criminal organizations can be concerned of politics if they grow big enough (such as the Italian mafia, or Central American drug cartels), it's usually just turf war rather than battle of ideologies.

Small groups have politics, too. Turf wars, business plans, club officers, purchases -- this is politics. Interactions with police and "government" agencies -- that's foreign policy.

 

[Jayjay]

I don't see a big difference between them in this regard either. And while criminal organizations can be concerned of politics if they grow big enough (such as the Italian mafia, or Central American drug cartels), it's usually just turf war rather than battle of ideologies.

Small groups have politics, too. Turf wars, business plans, club officers, purchases -- this is politics. Interactions with police and "government" agencies -- that's foreign policy.

I'm not saying that small groups don't ave internal politics, just that it's irrelevant for definition of terrorism. And as for interactions wth outside entities, that's really the crux. If you are just interacting with the police or trying to avoid it, or even shooting at them, it's just business as usual, not terrorism. If you shoot people who talk to the police, that's terrorizing them, but not terrorism. Only if you are shooting not just the police, or the snitches, but randomly attacking the populace that supports the police (voters, etc.) with goal of coercing them to abolish the police force altogether because you believe that world without police (or with you taking its place) is better an they are the root of all your problems, then you might be a terrorist.

 

[Warpoet]

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

Then surely you'll agree that Israel engages in terrorism when it deliberately destroys the homes of suicide bombers' families in an attempt to show the Arabs who's boss and strongarm them into submission. Right?

 

[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.

I note you have conveniently left loopholes for U.S. forces blowing up wedding and funeral gatherings.

I note you have conveniently ignored my second statement: "Aiming at combatants using civilians as cover is not terrorism". It's a common strategy over there to use civilian gatherings as cover for military meetings.

We have no business labeling Cuba a sponsor of terrorism. Modern warfare is simply organized terrorism. So is extractive resource domination in places like Indonesia and Nigeria...non state actors attacking indigenous people, taking their land, then polluting it. Israel is a modern terrorist army that calls itself a state.

And when did you quit beating your wife?

A good example was Putin's arrest of Greenpeace activists whose only weapons were cloth banners and calling them terrorists. Just look at the stupidity of that. They harmed nobody and had nothing with them to harm the equipment the Russians were using or the Russians themselves...yet this was deemed beyond the pale by Putin. They were headed to a terrible incarceration in an Russian prison. Lucky for them Putin was in a trading mood.

While I agree they were not terrorists you're ignoring the fact that they were invading a Russian oil platform. That's a crime.

 

[Togo]

I note you have conveniently left loopholes for U.S. forces blowing up wedding and funeral gatherings.

I note you have conveniently ignored my second statement: "Aiming at combatants using civilians as cover is not terrorism". It's a common strategy over there to use civilian gatherings as cover for military meetings.

OK, so the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon wasn't terrorism? Because most of those guys were military.

What about the attack on the world Trade Centre? I know a lot of those guys were invovled in funding and fiannce around the Iraq war, so does that mean 9/11 itself wasn't a terrorist attack?

Again, you need a definition that actually works for everything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I note you have conveniently ignored my second statement: "Aiming at combatants using civilians as cover is not terrorism". It's a common strategy over there to use civilian gatherings as cover for military meetings.

OK, so the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon wasn't terrorism? Because most of those guys were military.

What about the attack on the world Trade Centre? I know a lot of those guys were invovled in funding and fiannce around the Iraq war, so does that mean 9/11 itself wasn't a terrorist attack?

Again, you need a definition that actually works for everything.

1) The Pentagon appears to have been a target of opportunity when they couldn't find their real target. Thus it shouldn't be given too much importance.

2) It appears that the original target list included two valid targets and two invalid targets. The invalid targets taint the whole operation, it's terrorism.

 

[Warpoet]

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

Then surely you'll agree that Israel engages in terrorism when it deliberately destroys the homes of suicide bombers' families in an attempt to show the Arabs who's boss and strongarm them into submission. Right?

I can't be the only person who noticed that Loren completely dodged this question.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then surely you'll agree that Israel engages in terrorism when it deliberately destroys the homes of suicide bombers' families in an attempt to show the Arabs who's boss and strongarm them into submission. Right?

I can't be the only person who noticed that Loren completely dodged this question.

For some reason I didn't see it.

The home of a suicide bomber is not a purely civilian target.

 

[Warpoet]

For some reason I didn't see it.

The home of a suicide bomber is not a purely civilian target.

It is after the suicide bomber is dead.

 

[Valjean]

The home of a suicide bomber is not a purely civilian target.

Neither is the home of your neighborhood car thief, but the police wouldn't go tossing in grenades or indiscriminately shooting up the place if his family might be home. Police won't even shoot at a fleeing felon if there are civilians in the background.

There are not differential moralities. What's wrong here is wrong everywhere.
You don't abandon morality when it becomes inconvenient.

 

[Davka]

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

Bingo. Threat or actual harm, with the implication of more to come.

 

[Davka]

I can't be the only person who noticed that Loren completely dodged this question.

For some reason I didn't see it.

The home of a suicide bomber is not a purely civilian target.

Israel doesn't target the home of the bomber. They target the home of the bomber's family, whether he lived there or not. The message is clear: "don't attack Israel or your family will suffer for it after you die." Whether the family had anything to do with the bomber's actions or not is irrelevant.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why wouldn't it be a civilian target? If the bomber has already committed suicide, who's the terrorist that's living there?