Thread: Defining Terrorism

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

I think Tito may have been both MIT, I know The Chetniks had no love for him and were pretty much terrorised into compliance but as that story was related to me when I was drinking sleepinaditch with them, I cannot vouch for its veracity!

The results of his death seem to indicate that, in his case anyway, the ends justify the means. Until his death there was no genocide.

The Germans called the RAF "Terror Fleigers". However, one could argue that the technological restrictions of the kit precluded anything but area bombing ergo collateral damage was a regrettable but unavoidable consequence of attacking the military industrial complex of Germany.

When the decision was taken at a political level that civilian workers were part of that military industrial complex then perhaps thats when it became terrorism, albeit using the enemy's own tactic against them. After all, the germans were the agressor.

In my opinion there has to be a moral component to using political violence.

Perhaps the argument shouldn't be about defining what constitutes terrorism, but about whether it can ever be justified as a tactic... ie targetted assasination by drone.

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

The Germans called the RAF "Terror Fleigers". However, one could argue that the technological restrictions of the kit precluded anything but area bombing ergo collateral damage was a regrettable but unavoidable consequence of attacking the military industrial complex of Germany.

When the decision was taken at a political level that civilian workers were part of that military industrial complex then perhaps thats when it became terrorism, albeit using the enemy's own tactic against them. After all, the germans were the agressor.

In my opinion there has to be a moral component to using political violence.

Perhaps the argument shouldn't be about defining what constitutes terrorism, but about whether it can ever be justified as a tactic... ie targetted assasination by drone.

A very good point, it's OK to carpet bomb if you're actually trying to hit a defined target with poor and unreliable equipment.
Yes the Germans were the aggressor but two wrongs don't make a right and there were Germans who were tried as war criminals after the war for carrying out acts very similar to those that allied troops had carried out.

Edited to add: Hitler declared commandos as terrorists yet German officers were executed for trying and executing commandos as terrorists. They were obeying the law of their land as it was written at that time, we ourselves shot spies, was there that much of a difference, especially as many commandos used to wear a very ad hoc collection of clothing.

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

The Germans called the RAF "Terror Fleigers". However, one could argue that the technological restrictions of the kit precluded anything but area bombing ergo collateral damage was a regrettable but unavoidable consequence of attacking the military industrial complex of Germany.

When the decision was taken at a political level that civilian workers were part of that military industrial complex then perhaps thats when it became terrorism, albeit using the enemy's own tactic against them. After all, the germans were the agressor.

In my opinion there has to be a moral component to using political violence.

Perhaps the argument shouldn't be about defining what constitutes terrorism, but about whether it can ever be justified as a tactic... ie targetted assasination by drone.

A very good point, it's OK to carpet bomb if you're actually trying to hit a defined target with poor and unreliable equipment.
Yes the Germans were the aggressor but two wrongs don't make a right and there were Germans who were tried as war criminals after the war for carrying out acts very similar to those that allied troops had carried out.

Edited to add: Hitler declared commandos as terrorists yet German officers were executed for trying and executing commandos as terrorists. They were obeying the law of their land as it was written at that time, we ourselves shot spies, was there that much of a difference, especially as many commandos used to wear a very ad hoc collection of clothing.

The infamous "Commando Order" if they were identifiable as uniformed combatants then they were protected by LOAC and the geneva conventions which Germany was a signatory to. Ergo the officers who carried out the executions were war criminals. The same protections did not exist for spies.

' Every time a British soldier is killed in Palestine,' wrote the American playwright Ben Hecht, 'I make a little holiday in my heart'.

IMO, accountability, targeting, and the end goal of an organization is what delineates a terrorist from all others.

Terrorist organizations are loyal to no state, nation, or accountable government. Only their own internal leadership. While they may get funded from governments, none will take proper ownership of them, hence avoiding being accountable for their actions.

They do not openly carry arms, wear any type of distinctive uniform, carry identification, or carry out their operations openly. ALL to avoid accountability for their actions.

Terrorists rarely select targets that do anything significant for their cause besides create shock value, and they use murder and torture to maintain their secrecy. They wantonly murder innocent people in their operations, despite the fact that those they kill can NOT effect the changes they desire. Even when they do attempt to target military or police, the methods of engagement are generally more hazardous to innocent bystanders than to the intended target. They don't care.

Lastly, the end goals of a terrorist organization, and the manner selected to obtain those goals, are generally not accepted, or desired, by the majority of citizens. Citizens will indeed use violence to achieve their goals, however, the violence used must be justified by the perceived benefit when that goal is reached.

Terrorist organizations are small and cellular because the goal of the organization, and the means they use to obtain those goals, are not supported by the people, hence, the organizations can not get the manpower and support they need if they were legitimate.


When no nation, state, or masses of the people will support you, and you are accountable to no one but your group, when you are intentionally and indiscriminately killing men, women, and children, and when you can't raise a force large enough to take on more than a squad sized element and must hide among the populace like a cockroach, you just might be a terrorist.

Originally Posted by littlejim

' Every time a British soldier is killed in Palestine,' wrote the American playwright Ben Hecht, 'I make a little holiday in my heart'.

And so did a lot of Americans until the twin towers then they had to dislike terrorists and pretend not to like the IRA and all it stands for.

Don't do it to yourself, but if you must, then I like Louise Richardson's definition from 'What Terrorists Want': Terrorism is what the bad guys do.

If you do want to pursue a definition, then there are lots of papers available at the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV) at the University of St Andrews.

Once you've cracked it, could you 'pm' me with the definition of 'facism'.

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

[Snips]
Those who use terror as a tactic are by definition terrorists irrespective of ideology or the legitimacy of their cause.

I don't disagree with you IVV but where do you place Churchill and Arthur Harris?

Freedom fighters who used terrorism against a monstrous tyranny.

First of all, I think it's quite wrong to believe that "those who use terror as a tactic are by definition terrorists". For example: flamethrowers are known to derive most of their operational effectiveness (I can quote WW2 OR papers at you on the subject if you wish) from the terrifying effect of flame. That does not make flamethrower operators "terrorists" in any accepted meaning of the term (indeed, as Churchill Crocodiles were proven to produce a disproportionately high number of surrenders compared to deaths, it could be argued that they were in fact humane weapons).

Second, I think it's a gross mistake to class either Churchill or Harris as "terrorists". On the issue of bombing German cities, yes, it is clear that the area-bombing policy was deliberately intended to break the morale of the German working class. Note carefully, though, this was not prohibited by any LOAC in force at the time, as Harris was careful to check. Nor were any Axis officers ever condemned for aerial bombardment of civilians at Nuremburg, just as none were ever convicted for conducting unrestructed submarine warfare (violating the pre-war Prize Rules), so it is quite wrong to say that Axis combatants were punished for the same acts as those committed by the Allies).

Coming back to my definition of terrorism, Bomber Command's area bombing does not qualify, as it was never intended to achieve its effects by producing a disproportionate response from the enemy.

All the best,

John.

After reading other points of view on the subject, I'd like to clarify my point, even though it was, in my opinion, the true definition of terrorism.

Terrorists seek and want to frighten and destroy civilians and their way of life. Fact. By doing so they believe they can influence those same citizens, who can then influence the ruling Government. You really only need to look as far as Spain to see how this approach is achieved.

Madrid bombings for those not so sure.

Originally Posted by Regalia

I can't go for a full definition, but the following bullet points should be worth a mention:
1. Usually a minority group without clear political mandate
2. Usually male - all that testosterone
3. Quasi-religious mantra - dodgy justification for the unpalatable
4. Appeals to impressionable teenage recruits.
5. Usually traceable to a male self-appointed leader with "issues".

sorry, my head hurts now.

Agreed 100%.

Sounds familiar, in fact its a good description of those idiots who inhabit our governmental institutions. No wonder a working definition of terrorism cannot be found when the lunatics who have taken over the asylum.

Originally Posted by Pompey_Jock

Cant remember where I read/heard it.... but it sounds like something from Noam Chomsky...

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."

For analysis of that and related views/comments:- click here

Uncle noam and Gilbert Achcar brainstorm 'DefiningTerrorism' in the book "Perilous Powers". The guy is a genius as far as I am concerned. He has a brilliant mind and really critiques the issue.....something that is lacking with most 10 cent academics.

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

I think Tito may have been both MIT, I know The Chetniks had no love for him and were pretty much terrorised into compliance but as that story was related to me when I was drinking sleepinaditch with them, I cannot vouch for its veracity!

The results of his death seem to indicate that, in his case anyway, the ends justify the means. Until his death there was no genocide.

Historicaly speaking, there have always disputes in the Balkans, whether this can be called genocide is open to debate. But you are spot on in regards to Tito MT. He did bring cohesion and a sense of nationhood to a very ethnically diverse society.

The indiscriminate targetting of soft targets* for idealogical gain, contrary to the laws of that country at that time. The use of intimidation to enforce that idealogy, contrary to internationally-accepted Rules of Engagement by martial forces either of that government or by accepted international agreement.



* not able to readily defend themselves

The key term in most definitions of Terrorism is the use of the term "Unlawful" violence. As mentioned while the State has the monopoly on violence in international law, where does that leave the terror state? If it is using unlawful violence against it's own citizens (Recent killings in Iran for example and Irans open state sponsorship of Terrorism) would an armed resistance against that regime be considered terrorism?