Here's a good one, for example: does the victim of terrorism have to be a civilian in order for it to be terrorism?
Yes.
Can you commit acts of terrorism against a military target, and if so, what separates that from a traditional military attack?
No.
Uniforms?
I've always thought the best definition of terrorism is 'a violent act against civilians to produce fear and influence a political outcome'
911 - Terrorism
USS Cole - Not Terrorism
Firebombing of Dresden - Not Terrorism
Grupo Colina - Terrorism
The attack against the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't terrorism then?
I think you guys are just too muddled in the negative connotation of terrorism. Because you agree with someone's goals does not make then not a terrorist.
It's definitely a gray area. If they flew a private jet into the pentagon then yeah, not terrorism. The Pentagon is a military installation. (Edit: Beat'd)
And I don't know what you mean re: agreeing with someone's goals. If you're referring to me, I should probably clarify, bombing the USS Cole was 100% a dick move and I think everyone responsible for that should be shot, but it wasn't a terrorist act.
The attack against the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't terrorism then?
The use of a civilian airliner as the weapon makes that a lot murkier.
Had Al-Qaeda used a missile instead of a Boeing, then I would be perfectly comfortable saying that no, it wasn't terrorism, it was an act of war.
Couldn't they just as easily claim the civilians on the plane count as "collateral damage" as our CIA agents do when they use drone attacks to kill 20-40 civilians to target one or two enemy combatants?
I think that, ideally, the ability to use violent force should be concentrated in the hands of state actors. This idea is the fundamental basis of police action.
...
However, I do think there is a sort of moral superiority when force is carried out by a state as opposed to an individual—having nothing to do with the act itself mind you, but rather with the scheme of organization and accountability that leads to the act. In other words: all things being equal, I am more morally comfortable with acts of force by state actors than by individuals.
Okay. I agree on the first point.
The second, however, I'm not sure about. We give states the privilege of force because there are only certain situations in which the use of force is moral. Outside of these situations, states is not acting with the authority of the social contract. In other words, a soldier killing a noncombatant for no good reason - I'm not talking about accidental collateral damage here, or a misidentification of a noncombatant as a combatant in a tense situation, I'm talking about a simple execution-style killing - is not using force for the reasons we agree soldiers should be given the privilege of force. In that moment, he is not actually a state actor - he may have the uniform of one, and the title, and be following the orders of somebody else with a uniform and title - but from a philosophical and moral position he is nothing more than a brutal murderer. He has no moral superiority over any other killer.
In fact, because we do concentrate this privilege in the hands of state actors, I think we need to apply very close scrutiny to them... which is why I think in some cases the punishment for, for example, police brutality should be greater than similar acts committed by civilians. Great power, as the comic book says, comes with great responsibility.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
Literally no one argued that 9/11 wasn't terrorism.
The attack against the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't terrorism then?
The use of a civilian airliner as the weapon makes that a lot murkier.
Had Al-Qaeda used a missile instead of a Boeing, then I would be perfectly comfortable saying that no, it wasn't terrorism, it was an act of war.
This here.
The major target in the 9/11 attacks was a civilian target, using a civilian "weapon" so to speak
Just because there's a guy in a uniform in the crowd when the bomb goes off doesn't mean it's not terrorism.
As well, al-qaeda even followed up the attacks with a responsibility claim and political message. It's terrorism bros sorry
The ratio of military to civilian targets in Dresden, or in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was probably pretty close to those of 9/11.
Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"? I would argue that 9/11 was wrong less because they killed a bunch of people (which is always wrong) and more because it was not done remotely for any greater good (as you could argue Hiroshima and Nagasaki were—the lesser of two evils)—and specifically because the supposed moral justification for 9/11 is a batshit psychotic medieval cult mythology involving religious intolerance, women's oppression, and flying donkeys.
Similarly targeting a political leader, such as Hitler, would be assassination. The only exception I can think of would be if you were killing political leaders as a means of creating fear within the populace. Killing off a slew of judges until no one will take the job so no one will prosecute members of your drug cartel, which would nicely muddy things in a terrorist direction.
Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"?
I don't think the vast majority of people are prepared to say "sometimes terrorism is okay."
We, in this thread might be, because we're the great enlightened thinkers of the Pennius Arcadus salon, but I think we need to take into account the popular connotations of the word we're discussing.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The second, however, I'm not sure about. We give states the privilege of force because there are only certain situations in which the use of force is moral. Outside of these situations, states is not acting with the authority of the social contract. In other words, a soldier killing a noncombatant for no good reason - I'm not talking about accidental collateral damage here, or a misidentification of a noncombatant as a combatant in a tense situation, I'm talking about a simple execution-style killing - is not using force for the reasons we agree soldiers should be given the privilege of force. In that moment, he is not actually a state actor - he may have the uniform of one, and the title, and be following the orders of somebody else with a uniform and title - but from a philosophical and moral position he is nothing more than a brutal murderer. He has no moral superiority over any other killer.
In fact, because we do concentrate this privilege in the hands of state actors, I think we need to apply very close scrutiny to them... which is why I think in some cases the punishment for, for example, police brutality should be greater than similar acts committed by civilians. Great power, as the comic book says, comes with great responsibility.
I certainly agree in principle; I think this would be extraordinarily difficult to enforce in practice. And also that police officers and soldiers are human beings who are put into life-and-death situations; it's all well to say they should have increased responsibility and accountability, but everyone makes mistakes and snaps, and it is unrealistic to expect such people not to make mistakes or snap. Unfortunately, when they do so, innocent people are killed.
Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"?
I don't think the vast majority of people are prepared to say "sometimes terrorism is okay."
We, in this thread might be, because we're the great enlightened thinkers of the Pennius Arcadus salon, but I think we need to take into account the popular connotations of the word we're discussing.
Well, sometimes its necessary, in a war, to batter an opponent's civilian population to the breaking point, as in the doctrine of total war, because otherwise there would be no end in sight to the war since the civilian population is completely committed to it. Which results in massive acts of terrorism against the enemy population.
For example, Sherman's march was drastic, but necessary in order to weaken the resolve of the Confederacy. However, its easy to justify such a thing in hindsight. In the eyes of the Southern people, Sherman was a complete monster. In the eyes of the North, Sherman did what was necessary to secure the Union.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I would suggest that the critical component to defining terrorism isn't the terror part -- it's publicity, and specifically the desire of the terrorist actor to get as much of it as possible. Whether we're talking about Basque separatists using explosives to draw attention to their otherwise-obscure political agenda, Khalid Sheik Mohammad streaming the beheading of Daniel Pearl on the Internet, or Timothy McVeigh finally getting his letters published by Fox News after blowing up the Federal Center in Oklahoma City, the desire for intense public attention is what separates a terrorist from other kinds of criminals.
EDIT: For the military thinkers out there: terrorism isn't defined by the tactic, it's defined by the strategic objective.
Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"?
I don't think the vast majority of people are prepared to say "sometimes terrorism is okay."
We, in this thread might be, because we're the great enlightened thinkers of the Pennius Arcadus salon, but I think we need to take into account the popular connotations of the word we're discussing.
I think terrorism is always wrong, but in some very rare cases it may be the lesser of two evils. Like non-state actors in Vichy France terrorizing Nazi soldiers.
However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.
I should be slightly less glib about it. What I really think:
It's a tactic that targets civilians in order to intimidate to achieve some political end.
Two kinds of terrorism then:
1) Domestic terrorism is a politically motivated violent felony.
2) International terrorism is a war crime by a non-state actor. Or, if we recognize non-state actors as capable of being entities capable of waging war, they're just war crimes.
I do have a problem with usage of the word terrorism though. It's increasingly a word used to justify heinous actions by the government. Why is what happened at Gitmo acceptable to something like half the public? Because those people are terrorists. And the way the right and the media use the term, it's had an implicit adjective "Islamic" added to it. Therefore, the militia types or the murderer of Dr. Tiller can't be terrorists, and neither can the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.
I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The attack against the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't terrorism then?
The use of a civilian airliner as the weapon makes that a lot murkier.
Had Al-Qaeda used a missile instead of a Boeing, then I would be perfectly comfortable saying that no, it wasn't terrorism, it was an act of war.
This here.
The major target in the 9/11 attacks was a civilian target, using a civilian "weapon" so to speak
Just because there's a guy in a uniform in the crowd when the bomb goes off doesn't mean it's not terrorism.
As well, al-qaeda even followed up the attacks with a responsibility claim and political message. It's terrorism bros sorry
The ratio of military to civilian targets in Dresden, or in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was probably pretty close to those of 9/11.
Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"? I would argue that 9/11 was wrong less because they killed a bunch of people (which is always wrong) and more because it was not done remotely for any greater good (as you could argue Hiroshima and Nagasaki were—the lesser of two evils)—and specifically because the supposed moral justification for 9/11 is a batshit psychotic medieval cult mythology involving religious intolerance, women's oppression, and flying donkeys.
Again, Dresden, committed by state actor, so it's an act of war. We actually already have a term for this, it's called total war
Also 9/11 was done because of the US's involvement in the middle east and particularly their backing of Israel. Al-Qaeda made it pretty blatant they want to remove US support of Israel. So in their eyes, 9/11 was for a greater good, and wasn't just some kind of religion thing (although certain aspects of Islamic extremism created the method of the attack)
However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.
I'll give Qingu this: the American Revolution was kind of a ridiculous overreaction to being asked to pay for the war the British fought for the American colonies. But of course, ridiculous overreactions to taxes to pay for things done to benefit Americans is part of our national character, isn't it?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.
I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA
There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.
Edit: Metal Gear Solid 2, re: FF7 and Star Wars—I guess I should explain. The extent to which "rebels" and "freedom fighters" are celebrated in our popular culture, and the complete lack of moral ambiguity over their actions and killings, really bothers me. The Empire (or Shinra, or Cocoon Sanctum, or whatever incarnation) is always cast as evil, and every person working for the Empire, every soldier fighting for the Empire, can be killed without any moral compunction.
Well the thing is he cites 2 fictional rebellions (that worked), 2 real ones that worked, then one that's kind of on-going but has been a huge pain for the oppressor.
There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.
In modern first world countries, sure. Go outside that to places where the state actor doesn't really mind a few mass graves, and not so much.
I'll give Qingu this: the American Revolution was kind of a ridiculous overreaction to being asked to pay for the war the British fought for the American colonies. But of course, ridiculous overreactions to taxes to pay for things done to benefit Americans is part of our national character, isn't it?
However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.
I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA
There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.
You realize that in many places and times a peaceful march results in lots of dead peaceful people?
Its completely justified to rebel against one's government if it has already broken the social contract.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.
I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA
There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.
I don't think Qingu's doing a great job at advocating his point, but he does have one. Consider the dichotomy between India's civil disobedience against the backdrop of all the violent revolutions that took place towards the end of Colonialism. The violent legacy of post-colonialism is still playing out in Africa today, in the form of unstable governments and not-infrequent attempts at genocide. India, by contrast, is today the world's largest democracy.
Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"?
I don't think the vast majority of people are prepared to say "sometimes terrorism is okay."
We, in this thread might be, because we're the great enlightened thinkers of the Pennius Arcadus salon, but I think we need to take into account the popular connotations of the word we're discussing.
It's the equivalent of throwing up the "killing babies" card in an abortion debate. No one's going to outright say that they think it's ok to "kill babies". Which is why the anti- side always goes for it... they don't care that it's a double-whammy of fallacies or that it completely ignores the original argument.
Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"?
I don't think the vast majority of people are prepared to say "sometimes terrorism is okay."
We, in this thread might be, because we're the great enlightened thinkers of the Pennius Arcadus salon, but I think we need to take into account the popular connotations of the word we're discussing.
It's the equivalent of throwing up the "killing babies" card in an abortion debate. No one's going to outright say that they think it's ok to "kill babies". Which is why the anti- side always goes for it... they don't care that it's a double-whammy of fallacies or that it completely ignores the original argument.
You realize that in many places and times a peaceful march results in lots of dead peaceful people?
Of course.
I'm not saying it's wrong for people to risk their lives to fight for basic dignity. I'm saying it's usually wrong, and often counterproductive, to risk your lives to fight for basic dignity by attacking the soldiers.
You realize that in many places and times a peaceful march results in lots of dead peaceful people?
Of course.
I'm not saying it's wrong for people to risk their lives to fight for basic dignity. I'm saying it's usually wrong, and often counterproductive, to risk your lives to fight for basic dignity by attacking the soldiers.
You're going to have to define "usually" because right now it just reads like "I'm not saying it's wrong but it's wrong"
However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.
I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA
There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.
I don't think Qingu's doing a great job at advocating his point, but he does have one. Consider the dichotomy between India's civil disobedience against the backdrop of all the violent revolutions that took place towards the end of Colonialism. The violent legacy of post-colonialism is still playing out in Africa today, in the form of unstable governments and not-infrequent attempts at genocide. India, by contrast, is today the world's largest democracy.
Because truly, there was no violent legacy in post-colonial India.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I don't think Qingu's doing a great job at advocating his point, but he does have one. Consider the dichotomy between India's civil disobedience against the backdrop of all the violent revolutions that took place towards the end of Colonialism. The violent legacy of post-colonialism is still playing out in Africa today, in the form of unstable governments and not-infrequent attempts at genocide. India, by contrast, is today the world's largest democracy.
This.
I should probably say that "my point" is sort of based on the assumption that over time things naturally (and without need of violence) get better.
However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.
I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA
There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.
I don't think Qingu's doing a great job at advocating his point, but he does have one. Consider the dichotomy between India's civil disobedience against the backdrop of all the violent revolutions that took place towards the end of Colonialism. The violent legacy of post-colonialism is still playing out in Africa today, in the form of unstable governments and not-infrequent attempts at genocide. India, by contrast, is today the world's largest democracy.
Those circumstances are pretty different, with a lot more issues than just how they gained independence. Just to start, India is at least somewhat homogenous ethnically and religiously, but many African nations are hodgepodges of tribes put together near randomly by European powers divvying up Africa amongst themselves.
Even if they rebelled peacefully, they still probably would have collapsed into civil wars.
Edit: Enlightenedbum is right, India was a violent place before and after the British left.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
And again: India was neither peaceful nor stable for a long time after it became independent. Hell, Kashmir is still the most likely trigger of a nuclear war on the planet until Iran gets the bomb and Israel or the US is a threat to do something stupid.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
You're going to have to define "usually" because right now it just reads like "I'm not saying it's wrong but it's wrong"
The only exemption that immediately comes to mind would be genocide, and that's when "fighting back violently" verges into "self-defense."
Slavery? I am not sure. It's something I've thought a lot about—was it worth the death of 600,000 people to stop slavery in America? I am of the opinion that slavery would have disappeared naturally with the spread of industrialism. However, this doesn't answer whether fighting back violently against a state trying to enslave you would be morally justified in a time long before industrialization; I'm willing to say it is, but I'm really not sure.
However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.
I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA
There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.
I don't think Qingu's doing a great job at advocating his point, but he does have one. Consider the dichotomy between India's civil disobedience against the backdrop of all the violent revolutions that took place towards the end of Colonialism. The violent legacy of post-colonialism is still playing out in Africa today, in the form of unstable governments and not-infrequent attempts at genocide. India, by contrast, is today the world's largest democracy.
Those circumstances are pretty different, with a lot more issues than just how they gained independence. Just to start, India is at least somewhat homogenous ethnically and religiously, but many African nations are hodgepodges of tribes put together near randomly by European powers divvying up Africa amongst themselves.
Even if they rebelled peacefully, they still probably would have collapsed into civil wars.
The reason India is homogeneous is because they violently split up. The Partition of India was a human rights disaster which still has a massive impact on politics and violence in the sub-continent.
The French Resistance in WW2 was absolutely terrorism.
Sometimes terrorists aren't the bad guys
I'd find it pretty hard to argue that the thousands of bombs dropped on the civilian populations of Axis countries in the Second World War wasn't terrorism, insomuch as it was absolutely intended to utterly terrorize the civilian population, as well as limit their warfare making capability, indiscriminately. A broken enemy population is not just a huge advantageous it is, potentially, the greatest advantage you could hope for in total war.
That being said, I can completely understand why it was done. Just like I can completely understand why German bombers struck at London.
So, either war effectively negates anything as terrorism, or terrorism--in as far as spreading terror--just goes hand-in-hand with older (though not necessarily our current) methods of making war.
Soviet Partisans absolutely relied on terror as a tool against the German Army. And I can appreciate why they thought they were absolutely justified in doing it. Was it terrorism? Yeah, probably. I certainly bet the Germans did.
(I have a feeling this is all already discussed, but I wanted to state my agreement.)
And again: India was neither peaceful nor stable for a long time after it became independent. Hell, Kashmir is still the most likely trigger of a nuclear war on the planet until Iran gets the bomb and Israel or the US is a threat to do something stupid.
This is really tangental to the question of a proper indigenous response against colonialist forces.
I mean, I don't think you're arguing that India would have been more stable or peaceful had Ghandi used violence.
However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.
I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA
There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.
Edit: Metal Gear Solid 2, re: FF7 and Star Wars—I guess I should explain. The extent to which "rebels" and "freedom fighters" are celebrated in our popular culture, and the complete lack of moral ambiguity over their actions and killings, really bothers me. The Empire (or Shinra, or Cocoon Sanctum, or whatever incarnation) is always cast as evil, and every person working for the Empire, every soldier fighting for the Empire, can be killed without any moral compunction.
It would be nice if the Government leader and Gorilla Leader fought it out 1v1 in person, preferably with lightsabers, but the reality is that grunts on both sides of a conflict die.
Armed conflict happens, you can say the aggressors were wrong to invade, you can say the oppressed are wrong to rebel with violence, but sometimes there just aren't alternatives available.
Posts
It's definitely a gray area. If they flew a private jet into the pentagon then yeah, not terrorism. The Pentagon is a military installation. (Edit: Beat'd)
And I don't know what you mean re: agreeing with someone's goals. If you're referring to me, I should probably clarify, bombing the USS Cole was 100% a dick move and I think everyone responsible for that should be shot, but it wasn't a terrorist act.
This here.
The major target in the 9/11 attacks was a civilian target, using a civilian "weapon" so to speak
Just because there's a guy in a uniform in the crowd when the bomb goes off doesn't mean it's not terrorism.
As well, al-qaeda even followed up the attacks with a responsibility claim and political message. It's terrorism bros sorry
Okay. I agree on the first point.
The second, however, I'm not sure about. We give states the privilege of force because there are only certain situations in which the use of force is moral. Outside of these situations, states is not acting with the authority of the social contract. In other words, a soldier killing a noncombatant for no good reason - I'm not talking about accidental collateral damage here, or a misidentification of a noncombatant as a combatant in a tense situation, I'm talking about a simple execution-style killing - is not using force for the reasons we agree soldiers should be given the privilege of force. In that moment, he is not actually a state actor - he may have the uniform of one, and the title, and be following the orders of somebody else with a uniform and title - but from a philosophical and moral position he is nothing more than a brutal murderer. He has no moral superiority over any other killer.
In fact, because we do concentrate this privilege in the hands of state actors, I think we need to apply very close scrutiny to them... which is why I think in some cases the punishment for, for example, police brutality should be greater than similar acts committed by civilians. Great power, as the comic book says, comes with great responsibility.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"? I would argue that 9/11 was wrong less because they killed a bunch of people (which is always wrong) and more because it was not done remotely for any greater good (as you could argue Hiroshima and Nagasaki were—the lesser of two evils)—and specifically because the supposed moral justification for 9/11 is a batshit psychotic medieval cult mythology involving religious intolerance, women's oppression, and flying donkeys.
The moral calculus regarding force precedes the state privilege of force.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
--LeVar Burton
I don't think the vast majority of people are prepared to say "sometimes terrorism is okay."
We, in this thread might be, because we're the great enlightened thinkers of the Pennius Arcadus salon, but I think we need to take into account the popular connotations of the word we're discussing.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This is why we need more robots
Well, sometimes its necessary, in a war, to batter an opponent's civilian population to the breaking point, as in the doctrine of total war, because otherwise there would be no end in sight to the war since the civilian population is completely committed to it. Which results in massive acts of terrorism against the enemy population.
For example, Sherman's march was drastic, but necessary in order to weaken the resolve of the Confederacy. However, its easy to justify such a thing in hindsight. In the eyes of the Southern people, Sherman was a complete monster. In the eyes of the North, Sherman did what was necessary to secure the Union.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
EDIT: For the military thinkers out there: terrorism isn't defined by the tactic, it's defined by the strategic objective.
However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.
Violence to obtain basic human rights isn't acceptable because violence begets violence?
I'm not even sure how to respond to that
It's a tactic that targets civilians in order to intimidate to achieve some political end.
Two kinds of terrorism then:
1) Domestic terrorism is a politically motivated violent felony.
2) International terrorism is a war crime by a non-state actor. Or, if we recognize non-state actors as capable of being entities capable of waging war, they're just war crimes.
I do have a problem with usage of the word terrorism though. It's increasingly a word used to justify heinous actions by the government. Why is what happened at Gitmo acceptable to something like half the public? Because those people are terrorists. And the way the right and the media use the term, it's had an implicit adjective "Islamic" added to it. Therefore, the militia types or the murderer of Dr. Tiller can't be terrorists, and neither can the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building.
I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Again, Dresden, committed by state actor, so it's an act of war. We actually already have a term for this, it's called total war
Also 9/11 was done because of the US's involvement in the middle east and particularly their backing of Israel. Al-Qaeda made it pretty blatant they want to remove US support of Israel. So in their eyes, 9/11 was for a greater good, and wasn't just some kind of religion thing (although certain aspects of Islamic extremism created the method of the attack)
haha, what?
This.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.
Edit: Metal Gear Solid 2, re: FF7 and Star Wars—I guess I should explain. The extent to which "rebels" and "freedom fighters" are celebrated in our popular culture, and the complete lack of moral ambiguity over their actions and killings, really bothers me. The Empire (or Shinra, or Cocoon Sanctum, or whatever incarnation) is always cast as evil, and every person working for the Empire, every soldier fighting for the Empire, can be killed without any moral compunction.
In modern first world countries, sure. Go outside that to places where the state actor doesn't really mind a few mass graves, and not so much.
Eh the king was kind of a dick
You realize that in many places and times a peaceful march results in lots of dead peaceful people?
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I don't think Qingu's doing a great job at advocating his point, but he does have one. Consider the dichotomy between India's civil disobedience against the backdrop of all the violent revolutions that took place towards the end of Colonialism. The violent legacy of post-colonialism is still playing out in Africa today, in the form of unstable governments and not-infrequent attempts at genocide. India, by contrast, is today the world's largest democracy.
Or to quote the Third Countess of Kent you are:
If you discount a whole ton of other factors sure
I'm not saying it's wrong for people to risk their lives to fight for basic dignity. I'm saying it's usually wrong, and often counterproductive, to risk your lives to fight for basic dignity by attacking the soldiers.
You're going to have to define "usually" because right now it just reads like "I'm not saying it's wrong but it's wrong"
Because truly, there was no violent legacy in post-colonial India.
I should probably say that "my point" is sort of based on the assumption that over time things naturally (and without need of violence) get better.
Those circumstances are pretty different, with a lot more issues than just how they gained independence. Just to start, India is at least somewhat homogenous ethnically and religiously, but many African nations are hodgepodges of tribes put together near randomly by European powers divvying up Africa amongst themselves.
Even if they rebelled peacefully, they still probably would have collapsed into civil wars.
Edit: Enlightenedbum is right, India was a violent place before and after the British left.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Slavery? I am not sure. It's something I've thought a lot about—was it worth the death of 600,000 people to stop slavery in America? I am of the opinion that slavery would have disappeared naturally with the spread of industrialism. However, this doesn't answer whether fighting back violently against a state trying to enslave you would be morally justified in a time long before industrialization; I'm willing to say it is, but I'm really not sure.
The reason India is homogeneous is because they violently split up. The Partition of India was a human rights disaster which still has a massive impact on politics and violence in the sub-continent.
I'd find it pretty hard to argue that the thousands of bombs dropped on the civilian populations of Axis countries in the Second World War wasn't terrorism, insomuch as it was absolutely intended to utterly terrorize the civilian population, as well as limit their warfare making capability, indiscriminately. A broken enemy population is not just a huge advantageous it is, potentially, the greatest advantage you could hope for in total war.
That being said, I can completely understand why it was done. Just like I can completely understand why German bombers struck at London.
So, either war effectively negates anything as terrorism, or terrorism--in as far as spreading terror--just goes hand-in-hand with older (though not necessarily our current) methods of making war.
Soviet Partisans absolutely relied on terror as a tool against the German Army. And I can appreciate why they thought they were absolutely justified in doing it. Was it terrorism? Yeah, probably. I certainly bet the Germans did.
(I have a feeling this is all already discussed, but I wanted to state my agreement.)
I mean, I don't think you're arguing that India would have been more stable or peaceful had Ghandi used violence.
It would be nice if the Government leader and Gorilla Leader fought it out 1v1 in person, preferably with lightsabers, but the reality is that grunts on both sides of a conflict die.
Armed conflict happens, you can say the aggressors were wrong to invade, you can say the oppressed are wrong to rebel with violence, but sometimes there just aren't alternatives available.