Terrorism: Good Strategy or Crime against humanity?

[iceaura]

The American Revolution was fought by the imprecise rules of war and revolution that were accepted, informally, in its day.

We aren't arguing about rules; we're arguing about effectiveness.

The Revolutionaries terrorized the Loyalists, behaved toward the Brits much as the Fallujans behaved toward the US, etc. The question is whether it worked.

And the answer is not simple. Sure they won - but some even at the time thought they won despite, rather than in consequence, of the terrorism.

 

[Vkothii]

Unfortunately, with language when people try to 'define' it and make certain words mean 'only one thing', it doesn't work. The word 'terror' is fairly obvious in meaning, so getting all antsy about its military use, political meaning, whether or not this or that group deployed tactics against civilians in clear breach of international laws (that have existed briefly, given our history), is a little precious.

The Romans used it effectively - Tiberius was believed to have crucified tens of thousands when he conquered Syria/Damascus. This was his way of saying "Hi, we're here now, so get used to the idea".

He would be looking at indictments from the Hague, nowadays. But the tactic was effective at quelling ideas of revolt or insurgency - by instiling fear of course.

 

[iceaura]

Unfortunately, with language when people try to 'define' it and make certain words mean 'only one thing', it doesn't work.

All we need is consistency, so we are comparing apples to apples.

If you don't want to call the Revolutionaries "terrorists", no problem - but then you can't call the Fallujans "terrorists" either, if you are discussing the effectiveness of terrorism.

The Romans used it effectively -

Another example. So far so good. State terrorism - by far the most common kind, historically - has often "worked", depending on what you want.

 

[Baron Max]

All we need is consistency, so we are comparing apples to apples.

Are burglary, robbery, rape, ...., and a whole slew of such crimes "terrorism"?

Because from your posts, I'm guessing that almost anything is terrorism. You seem to have a very loose definition of the term.

It would also be nice if you could give us your definition instead just post things that are or aren't so labeled.

Baron Max

 

[one_raven]

All right, settle down . It's true, I do sort of idolize the founding fathers. When someone calls them terrorists, I may tend to react a bit like SAM when someone criticizes Muslims. May I refer you to Fraggle's more dispassionate definition of terrorism and how it does not apply to the founding fathers.

I agree with Fraggle's run-down.

 

[S.A.M.]

I agree with Fraggle's run-down.

So you believe a "universal western tenet" is applicable to all peoples? What about the "universal <insert time, people, space> tenet"? Does it apply to western peoples?

If what the founding fathers did in their time is not terrorism, can we redefine our time so that nothing we do today is terrorism regardless of what the western universal tenet espouses?

 

[one_raven]

So you believe a "universal western tenet" is applicable to all peoples? What about the "universal <insert time, people, space> tenet"? Does it apply to western peoples?

If what the founding fathers did in their time is not terrorism, can we redefine our time so that nothing we do today is terrorism regardless of what the western universal tenet espouses?

No.
Look what I was responding to.
He was referring to what Fraggle said in the Linguistics forum...

We've been through this before. Dictionary definitions of terrorism tend to be amalgamated from official government definitions, which are crafted to suit their own purposes. The press is no better, since journalists these days bend language to frighten people into buying more newspapers.

The best definition I can offer is a synthesis from all these sources, run through the logic of linguistics:

• Terrorism is a form of extortion. It is the use of violence of military style, scope or magnitude against civilian targets, in order to terrorize the civilian population into supporting a cause so unpopular that there is no peaceful way to garner that support.

Note that the targets must be civilian; attacks on military targets may be insurrection, civil war or guerrilla warfare, but they are not terrorism. The attack on the WTC was terrorism, but the attack on the Pentagon was not. The Madrid subway bombing was terrorism, but the attack on the U.S.S. Cole was not. PLO shelling of Israeli villages is terrorism, but its attacks on Israeli military outposts are not. IRA attacks on random bystanders were terrorism, but attacks on police stations were not. Military personnel, including police viewed as occupying forces, civilian employees of military installations, government officials, etc., are legitimate military targets. Timothy McVeigh might have gotten away with being called a libertarian extremist freedom fighter if he had only killed the employees of some of our most unpopular government agencies in Oklahoma City, but by carelessly killing their children he became a terrorist.

Note that the perpetrators need not be civilians. Terrorism may be used by governments, even by military forces, so long as the targets are civilian.

Therefore, the greatest act of terrorism ever committed was by the U.S. armed forces in wartime: the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The military infrastructure in these cities was not significant enough to warrant such disproportionate use of weaponry--squandering the only two nuclear weapons the U.S. possessed!
...
Terrorism is extortion. It's the mobster burning down a restaurant so all the other restaurant owners will start paying his protection money... writ large.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah yes, I agree with Fraggle too. So the founding fathers were not terrorists?

 

[iceaura]

Because from your posts, I'm guessing that almost anything is terrorism. You seem to have a very loose definition of the term.

I'm willing to go with any definition you choose, applied consistently.

My preference would be Fraggle's or very like it, of course (I'm not sure the WTC in the context of its attack counts as terrorism, but will concede the grey matter in return for such an elegant and useful rule of application),

but take your pick.

Ah yes, I agree with Fraggle too. So the founding fathers were not terrorists?

Washington in the Indian Wars, not the others.

Some factions of the Revolutionaries were, definitely - the huge flood of refugees fleeing the Revolution were not fleeing the British, by and large.

 

[G. F. Schleebenhorst]

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, they did so with their colors proudly flying

That was hardly a terrorist attack, unless you took your facts from the film with ben affleck.

 

[S.A.M.]

Some factions of the Revolutionaries were, definitely - the huge flood of refugees fleeing the Revolution were not fleeing the British, by and large.

What refugees?

 

[superstring01]

What refugees?

Loyalists moving to Canada.

~String

 

[Roman]

So the founding fathers were not terrorists?

Not during the Revolutionary War, no. Their attacks on the Indians could be considered "terrorism".

 

[iceaura]

What refugees?
”
Loyalists moving to Canada.

Also, the West Indies and Britain itself.

Across the north Atlantic in winter, by the thousands.

 

[one_raven]

Regarding the subject of the thread...

Terrorism: Good Strategy or Crime against humanity?

Does it necessarily have to be either/or?
Can it be both?

 

[Baron Max]

Does it necessarily have to be either/or?
Can it be both?

Explain. From the viewpoint of a single individual, how could it be considered both good strategy ...AND... a crime against humanity?

I don't see how that's possible ...unless the person simply hates all humanity, perhaps.

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

I see what one_raven means

"Crime" is subjective. Terrorism has a strategic goal, the collateral damages are irrelevant.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I see what one_raven means

"Crime" is subjective. Terrorism has a strategic goal, the collateral damages are irrelevant.

Then why do you get your knickers all in a knot over the collateral damages from the U.S. and it's strategic goals, but seem fine with the Terrorist and the Collateral damage they cause in their drive to inflict their strategic goal on the world?

So in your own words.....the collateral damages are irrelevant......exactly.

Thank you for confirming that point of Islam, and Jihad, it their Strategic Goal that make the collateral damage irrelevant.

 

[one_raven]

Explain. From the viewpoint of a single individual, how could it be considered both good strategy ...AND... a crime against humanity?

I see what one_raven means

"Crime" is subjective. Terrorism has a strategic goal, the collateral damages are irrelevant.

That's not at all what I mean - quite the opposite, actually.
Collateral damages are supremely important, but sometimes unfortunately necessary for the greater good.

I am saying that someone can mourn the loss of people who died at his own hands.
He can appreciate their deaths while recognizing the necessity.

For example, if the US were under occupation by a nation of people who were mistreating and torturing her citizens, and they demolished our military and any hope of us beating them in conventional warfare, I would certainly resort to terrorism if I saw it as a viable option.
Even though I find terrorism an appalling, vile option and I would mourn the loss of the citizens who died by my actions, I would still resort to what I find disgusting to save my fellow citizens and do what I see as serving the greater good.

 

[S.A.M.]

If they are "unfortunately necessary" then they are irrelevant, would it matter who died if you blew up an hotel? If there were workers from your country, would that stop you from targeting soldiers from another. e.g. the Chaurichaura police station bombing was a significant event in the Indian fight for independence and I'm sure much of the local constabulary was Indian.