[Winstonm]

"Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his
countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more
justice in the world."

I recently read this quote and it made me stop and think - just what is a terrorist and how does one assume that role? It seems to me that the heart of the matter lies in the quote above, that a "terrorist" is one who feels desparately deprived of justice, to the point of killing or being killed in order to make a stand.

I am no historian, so those of you who are and wish to comment feel free to correct any errors I may make.

It seems to me that a terrorist is anyone so deemed as opposition to the status quo, one who feels so enraged by perceived injustices that terror is a last resort to alter or at least advertise his plight.

My memory is not what it once was, and my history lessons were never learned well anyway, but it appears that in a sense the American Revolutionaries could be deemed terrorists - to some the Boston Tea Party could be categorized as a terrorist action. The IRA certainly was considered a terrorist group, but they finally won amnesty and a voice, if memory serves. Menecham Begin helped orchestrate the bombing of the King David Hotel, a purely terrorist act, and later he became Prime Minister of Israel. Yassur Arafat at one time was almost as infamous as Osama bin Laden, but in later years was known as a leader of his people.

I'm sure there are many other examples, but doesn't it look like many terror organizations ended up being heard, that at their core there truly was an injustice to be righted or at least admitted?

To me this gives strength to the above quote - you fight terrorism by increasing justice around the globe.

It is hard for me to describe the incredulousnous I feel when rememberiing the proclamation of President Bush that "The terrorists hate us because of our freedom."

This statement can only be made by someone who believes the average citizen to be too incredibly stupid to know any better. It is not arrogance; it is insult, showing complete and utter disdain for the intellect of the American people.

The Islamic terrorist do not hate us because of our freedom - they are fighting their own kind of war because of some perceived injustice of the United States that affects them.

Mike started one of his posts once with the question: What do they want? I am beginning now to understand that question. And I believe the answer is simply this: they want justice.

Has U.S. policy been just or unjust concerning these people?

[helene_t]

We used to have terrorists here in Europe as well. The Red Bridgades, Barder-Meinhoff, IRA and several smaller ones. For some reason, they (except for ETA) seized to exist. Maybe this must be seen as a part of the more general extinction of extreme left which ultimately is related to the elimination of the Workers' Class. Maybe they depended on funding, training, intelegence support etc from the Soviet Union.

Another sweet theory comes from neuroscience. A brain scan of Ulrike Meinhoff showed that she lacked a moral sense, similar to the famous railroad worker who once lost his moral sense after a steel stick had perforated his skull. So maybe terrorism just comes and goes with the random fluctuations of such kinds of brain damages.

I don't think you can explain anti-American sentiments by injustice. There are anti-everything sentiments in the Arab World, many of which give rise to terrorism. I don't think that Kabyls, Kurds and black Sudanese are inflicting particular injustice on the Arabs, or the Sunis and the Shias on each other for that matter.

The Middle East is just one big cultural, political and social disaster. There are a lot of reasons for that. My two favorite explanations are
1) The ecological collapse of the region due to thousands of years of over-exploitation
2) The Otoman rule, which did not promote the establishment of a local middle class

Some people feel an urge to blaim all this missery on someone. Blaiming it on Islam or on the government obviously gets one into troubles. For some reason (which I don't understand but may have something to do with Islam) it is particularely popular in Arabic countries to blame everything on the Jews and the Americans.

[mike777]

It will be interesting to see how Europe's failure to integrate its many immigrants into mainstream society will affect it. In many countries your children born there are not automatic citizens. With all of industrilized Europe at below death replacement rates, if the next locally born generation of children are not citizens what are they? A potential breeding ground for terrorists perhaps or just freedom fighters without a country?

[helene_t]

Many people over here are afraid that you're right, Mike. But fortunately they hate the Americans more than they hate us. So they will probably just bomb the U.S. embasies and kill U.S. tourists, and leave us in peace. At least for a while.

[hotShot]

I think from the motivation side, there are 2 kinds of political terrorists.

One kind has a good social background and have the feeling they know how to change the world to be a better place. They start as political groups, but the don't get a majority behind them. They begin to think they are right and the majority is just ignorant. They develop the idea to take actions to shake people up. These actions get more violent each time, as this way of convincing people usually does not work.

The other kind grows on dire poverty, a life of privation or oppression.
If people don't have the means to live a self sustained life, no access to education they get angry and look for someone who is responsible for that. Desperate people take desperate actions.


Now add to this mix, that there are people who got their power, because of birth rights or because they are religious leaders. They don't want democracy, separation of state and religion or even laws that would limit their arbitrariness. They don't want things to change much and they are glad that someone else can be blamed.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Now add to this mix, that there are people who got their power, because of birth rights or because they are religious leaders. They don't want democracy, separation of state and religion or even laws that would limit their arbitrariness. They don't want things to change much and they are glad that someone else can be blamed.

I'm not so sure these types can be added to the mix, as usually these power-leader-types are more concerned with the control of there own people than causing havoc afar.

Poverty or even lack of voice might certainly lead to violent action.

[Codo]

I think it is easy to identify a terrorist:

A Terrorist is a freedom fighter, who is fighting for the wrong side.

What is the wrong side? Your opponent.

F.E. We all loved the resistance against the Nazis, they had been freedom fighters. But for the Nazis, all these groups had been terrorists. IF the Nazis had won the war, history had followed this view.

Same is happen always: Killing jews in Israel by a suicide attack is an act of terrorists. Killing palestines is self defence. At least if you follow our newspapers.

Killing americans with planes is an act of terrorism. Killing afghans by plane is self defence and fighting for freedom and peace.

And just to clarify: I share the view that these suicidal attacks in the last two examples are made from terrorists. I just don't share the view, that the counter strike is a good answer.

[sceptic]

what makes a terrorist

being allowed to be a terrorist

A terrorist is not a freedom fighter, a terrorist is some one that hates some one else

when your enemy is killed you then have the family take up that place, the father, the brother and worse of all the mother can breed more with that hatred instilled from birth

There were people that killed a person and found it was necessary to kill the whole tribe, if they never, they would always have that enemy, this is one resaon that hatred lasts so long in humans, we preach forgiveness, we never forget

show me a war that lasts as long as the war does and then finishes, think how long conflicts have gone on and what pitiful excuses we use to justify our actions, why try and explain human nature, we kill to survive and kill to dominate it is human nature that is at fault and for all the pain and suffering it causes us, it is what shapes us, what makes us and what drives us as a race

[mike777]

Codo, on Dec 25 2006, 07:40 PM, said:

I think it is easy to identify a terrorist:

A Terrorist is a freedom fighter, who is fighting for the wrong side.

What is the wrong side? Your opponent.

F.E. We all loved the resistance against the Nazis, they had been freedom fighters. But for the Nazis, all these groups had been terrorists. IF the Nazis had won the war, history had followed this view.

Same is happen always: Killing jews in Israel by a suicide attack is an act of terrorists. Killing palestines is self defence.  At least if you follow our newspapers.

Killing americans with planes is an act of terrorism. Killing afghans by plane is self defence and fighting for freedom and peace.

And just to clarify: I share the view that these suicidal attacks in the last two examples are made from terrorists. I just don't share the view, that the counter strike is a good answer.

These are the kinds of moral equivalency arguments that cause me lose to hope in sainity. If these are morally equivalent then we are all in trouble.

If you think comparing the Nazis is the same as comparing Bush and bombing afghanistan God help us.

[Winstonm]

Here is an interesting question, touched on by the president of Iran - if Germany had been forced to yield part of its land for the creation of the nation of Israel, would there still be terrorist attacks from the midlle east on Israel and on the U.S.?

A futher question - if terrorism is due to feelings and beliefs of injustice, are the attacks on the U.S. based totally on the U.S. support of Israel or is it due to other actions taken by the U.S.?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Dec 26 2006, 04:23 AM, said:

These are the kinds of moral equivalency arguments that cause me lose to hope in sainity. If these are morally equivalent then we are all in trouble.

If you think comparing the Nazis is the same as comparing Bush and bombing afghanistan God help us.

I think that you are confusing two very different issues:

Many people, myself included believe that terrorism is best treated as a tactic. Terrorism exists separate and distinct from the moral realm. Moral equivalency doesn't enter into the equation because "morality" is excluded from the discussion.

I'm not claiming that morality isn't an important topic, however, I find it very impractical to use morality as the basis for defining these types of discussions. You end up with nonsensical discussions:

For example, I've seen a lot of people trying to claim that the PLO is a terrorist organization while the Irgun was not based solely on the fact that they approve of the Irgun's aims, but not those of the PLO.

Its a lot easier to try to use the expression "terrorism" to describe a specific type of behaviour and save the morality talk for a separate discussion.

[Winstonm]

I do think it is important to define terms - bombs dropped from airplanes should be considered "war acts" or even "war crimes" but not terrorist actions.

And I got something different from Codo's post - that whether or not it is considered terrorism depends on which side you are on. As he pointed out, to the Nazis the French resistance fighters would have been considered "terrorists".

[pbleighton]

"These are the kinds of moral equivalency arguments that cause me lose to hope in sainity. If these are morally equivalent then we are all in trouble.

If you think comparing the Nazis is the same as comparing Bush and bombing afghanistan God help us."

Mike:

Please compare and contrast the terrorist tactics Al Quaeda used in Afghanistan against the Russians (with training and funding by the CIA) to 9/11.

FWIW, I supported them then, as terrible as they were (the Russians had no business in Afghanistan), and am against 9/11 (duh), but I think this example makes clear that the term "war on terror" is linguistic nonsense, and is a sign of total intellectual bankruptcy.

Richard is right, terrorism is a tactic, not a movement.

This isn't trivial semantic nit-picking. This sort of sloppy wording (and thinking) is why we are now in a hopeless situation in Iraq, after an invasion which has substantially worsened our national security for decades to come.

Peter

[mike777]

The morallity of terrosim does not depend on which side you are on Ok... If that was the point of the post I think that is insane. Yes, I hear people try and make this conclusion but if you truly believe this then print out your logic.

If you think that some kind of war is moral, then you need to decide what that is.
Yes, we all know that the firebombing of tokyo and other allied bombing runs in wwII might be considered a war crime if we lost....
OTOH I do have clients who lived through Dresden in Germany and did not think it was a war crime...they thought it was war period. To hear how they escaped in a burning river full of screams is something that I will never forget.

I hope no one is arguing that we need to delink morality and going to war?

[mike777]

Having just finished the Road by Cormac McCarthy I guess morality and the lengths we would go to keep alive ourselves and loved ones is on my mind.

This is a heck of a read, it was as if Samuel Beckett had written a novel.
As we all know starvation is a very real vision to millions in Africa and other places.
Just what are the moral limitations to feed our loved ones if they are near death and starving.

I know a few years ago the Irish were starving and some guy wrote a modest proposal.

[Winstonm]

I think (at least for me) that before debate we must define terrorism.

Is it simply tactics or is it more about the victims it claims? If a roadside car bomb in Iraq kills only U.S. troops, is that terrorism or an act of war?

I believe we should only call it terror when the targets are indesciminate and the purpose is simply mayhem - in that light, an attack against an embassy would not be considered a terrorist attack but a war act. An attack against a U.S. warship would not be terror but a war act. A car bombing in Times Square on New Year's Eve would be a terrorist action.

It seems to me the purpose then of terrorism is political - either to sway the policies of those attacked or to bring to light the attacker's causes.

If terrorism is a political action - a crime - should the response not then be political and police instead of military? If a country sponsors terrorism, does it not support the terrorist's cause rather than simply supporting mayhem? If Syria and Iran support al-Qaeda, is it not the political agenda of al-Qaeda that is truly being supported? If that is the case, it would seem the prudent course of action would be dialogue with Syria and Iran to see if a compromise settlement could be reached that would satisfy in part their grievances.

Isn't the whole issue about whether or not those who oppose the U.S. can be granted a sense of just treatment for their causes?

[pbleighton]

"If you think that some kind of war is moral, then you need to decide what that is."

1. It is defensive war (per the Geneva Convention). The invasion of Iraq clearly doesn't qualify. Iraq had not attacked us, nor had it declared war on us.
2. War crimes (as defined by the Geneva Convention) can and do occur by the "just" side in a defensive war. Those committed by the winning side are very rarely prosecuted, except for individual acts committed by low-ranking personnel. They should be.

Mike, this is War 101, I don't get why this difficult for you to understand, as you clearly are well educated. Do you believe the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to us?

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Well, it seems clear that all Iraqi actions against the US are justified as a defensive war. The fact that they are killing each other in sectarian violence is just par for the course...

Whether it be Al Qaeda or the Irgun (Israelis fighting against the British "occupation" in Palestine in the 40's) or The Free French Underground or whoever;

"any act of violence perpetrated against non-combattants for the purpose of gaining a specific and reasoned objective" would suffice.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Dec 26 2006, 07:03 AM, said:

I think (at least for me) that before debate we must define terrorism.

Is it simply tactics or is it more about the victims it claims? If a roadside car bomb in Iraq kills only U.S. troops, is that terrorism or an act of war?

As far as I know, there aren't any universally accepted definitions of the word "terrorism". The Wikipedia notes that there are over a thousand different definitions out there, none of which has really risen to the fore-front. One interesting point that Wikipedia makes is that the expression "terrorist" is almost always used a pejorative. The expression terrorist is an insult that is used to label opponents. Almost no one self identifies as a "terrorist".

From my own perspective, the most important characteristic of a "terrorist" attack is the political nature. Terrorist acts are designed to change the political behaviour of a specific entity.

A terrorist act can target a military asset (think about the bombing of the USS Cole). However, the terrorist does not intend to achieve their end by degrading the opponent's military force.

[helene_t]

Richard and Peter: You do have a point, but what Mike was refering to was Roland(Codo)'s comparisons, such as

Quote

Killing americans with planes is an act of terrorism. Killing afghans by plane is self defence and fighting for freedom and peace.

And here I tend to agree with Mike. There are two diferences between 9/11 and the US/British campaign against Taliban in Iraq.
1) "We" (whoever that is) happen to have more sympathy with the aims of the second than with the aims of the first (to the extent that we think we understand their aims....). You say that this should not be defining for the term "terrorism". Fair enough.
2) The tactics are different. 9/11 is litterally terrorism in the sense that it's immediate purpose was to create fear (=terror) in the general US population. It's possible that the effect of the US/British campaign in Afganistan is similar (I don't think so but what do I know) but at least it's not (as far as I know) the tactics to create fear in the Afgan population.