Terrorism - a definition

K-9

Personally I'd see a bomb in a military barracks as arguably a legitimate target, bombing a public to target a military band is stretching it a bit for me. Its a easier target logisticly though.

Warrington is a perfect example of a terrorist attack for me, I can't see how it could be argued otherwise.

Irelandcool

When it comes to Roof I think its more or less his father's fault. Under US federal and south carolina state law against providing mentally ill people with firearms.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”.

South Carolina
no person shall possess or acquire a handgun if he or she:
Has been adjudicated mentally incompetent

In addition, patients and prisoners under the jurisdiction of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health may not have access to firearms.

Also under US federal law its against the law to provide people with history of drug abuse convictions a firearm.
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

I think his father should be charged.
Keep in mind just because someone belongs to hate group or hates a group of people does not make them a terrorist group.

ticklemetoe

whoever wins writes the history, the winner becomes the good guy and the loser the evil terrorist.
in 100 years time ISIS might be the good guys only time will tell

Crooked Jack

Victor wrote: »

But the ones suffering economically weren't the British government, but ordinary workers and businesses in Ireland (north & south)

Not true, by the time the IRA had perfected their bomb making techniques each device was costing the brits anywhere up to £1bn.

Yet, the IRA killed at least 510 civilians (using a narrow definition of civilian), usually by targeting them individually or by targeting non-military targets. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

Nope! For a start, your link doesnt go to anything except a list explaining what the various acronyms CAIN use. Anyway, I think you'll find the vast majority of uninvolved civilians by the IRA were killed unintentionally in explosions or crossfires.
I'd also point out that 510 civilians would put their civilian/combatant kill ratio at about 28% which is remarkable, almost unheard of, for any conflict in the world. The various brit/state forces (excluding collusion) are sitting at 50% while loyalists vary between 85 and 100% depending on the group.

While no civilian death is acceptable, 510 out of anywhere between 10 and 20,000 bombs and countless bullets fired would clearly indicate that far from there being an attempt to spread a climate of terror, as per perigrinus' definition, the IRA went out of their way to avoid such a scenario. Hardly the efforts of a terrorist organisation

Crooked Jack

K-9 wrote: »

Personally I'd see a bomb in a military barracks as arguably a legitimate target, bombing a public to target a military band is stretching it a bit for me. Its a easier target logisticly though.

Warrington is a perfect example of a terrorist attack for me, I can't see how it could be argued otherwise.

How? It was a main shopping thoroughfare that was preceded by an attack on a gas facility. Now, there's no doubting it was a disaster and a tragedy, mainly due to inexperienced volunteers with no grasp of local geography giving a bad warning, but the fact remains a warning was given. This was clearly an attempt to shut down the city centre, not to kill or terrify anyone.

As has been pointed out numerous times, if the IRA wanted to spread a climate of fear they were more than adequately equipped to do so. Yet they didnt.

Again, warrington was a horrendous tragedy but nothing about it indicates that it was meant to be anything other than just another bomb in the economic campaign in britain

Crooked Jack

Victor wrote: »

There are strong parallels between republican fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism - worship of the dead, unwavering assertions that leader X meant Y when talking about Z, all-or-nothing attitudes, ostracising and demonisisation of those that don't follow the adherent's rules, etc.

None of this describes Irish republicanism. The major problem with debating republicanism on this site is that people, rather than arguing about actual republican policies and actions, prefer instead to project what their own made up notion of it is and argue against that. As such I have no response to this post except to say that it does not in any way resemble Irish republicanism as I know it.

Crooked Jack

conorh91 wrote: »

You're leaving out the most crucial part of the definition -- the arbitrary use of violence, contrary to law, for political ends

Arbitrariness refers to a decision-making process that is not constrained by rules and procedures, and is not publicly deliberative in nature.

So for example, the 7/7 bombers were not constrained by rules and procedure; they could attack at any time and in any place they wanted, with any explosives they wanted, for any reason they chose. Or, if they preferred, they could choose not to attack, for no reason.

There was no public deliberation regarding their activities. They didn't argue their case against the Home Secretary on BBC Question Time, before an invited audience.

This is what is meant by arbitrariness, and it is an important component of my definition.

Whereas even if you disagree with the US & UK War in Iraq, belligerence was constrained by rules and procedures (democratic vote of public representatives) as well as intense public deliberation.

Really, because it seems to me US and British wars in Iraq were kicked off under false pretenses and, in Britain, in spite of an enormously popular anti-war movement that brought millions onto the streets to oppose the invasion.

Also, how much deliberation goes on when you are under attack. The IRA came back to the fore in 1969 due to a concerted campaign of loyalist invasions and burnings, backed up by the police. Should the IRA have gone on Question Time and asked for petitions and feedback before defending people? Would any defensive army?

No, nothing about any of your posts would indicate to me that the IRA were either a terrorist organisation or, more closely related to the OP, that "terrorism" can be defined in any set or meaningful way.

conorh91

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Really, because it seems to me US and British wars in Iraq were kicked off under false pretenses and, in Britain, in spite of an enormously popular anti-war movement that brought millions onto the streets to oppose the invasion.

"False pretenses" is irrelevant to any sensible definition of terrorism. Terrorism is not synonymous with fraud or misrepresentation.

A war may be illegal and still not be terrorist in nature, in my view, if its commission lacks the adequate arbitrariness. Arbitrariness, as I said, refers to a lack of of procedural constraints and public deliberation.

how much deliberation goes on when you are under attack.

I know of no war in recent history that was not deliberated upon to some extent.

In any case, what you are describing sounds like self-defence, which could never be terrorist in nature, because it lacks the requisite political component.

The IRA came back to the fore in 1969 due to a concerted campaign of loyalist invasions and burnings, backed up by the police. Should the IRA have gone on Question Time and asked for petitions and feedback before defending people? Would any defensive army?

Ask yourself this: what is the point of the arbitrariness component I referred to?

It is included in order to ensure that violent actions do accord with—or are constrained by—community values.

The IRA could never successfully have argued that its activities were in accordance with or constrained by community values in the Republic or in the UK including Northern Ireland itself. Combined with the illegal and political nature of the IRA's use of violence, this makes the IRA identifiable as a terrorist organization.

nothing about any of your posts would indicate to me that the IRA were either a terrorist organisation

That's because you're probably not interested in objectively defining terrorism, since any rational definition would lead you to a conclusion which displeases you.

The IRA was a terrorist organisation in all its forms and mutations.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

A person has to be fighting for freedom to be called a freedom fighter.

What if they're fighting freedom ?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Now, there's no doubting it was a disaster and a tragedy, mainly due to inexperienced volunteers with no grasp of local geography giving a bad warning,

Like Omagh ?

Victor

You do realise that you are coming across as a republican apologist, especially with the "Brit" comments?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Not true, by the time the IRA had perfected their bomb making techniques each device was costing the brits anywhere up to £1bn.

Whatever about the accuracy of "10 and 20,000 bombs", there were only a handful of major bombs targeting the City of London and Canary Wharf. Most of the other bombs were in Northern Ireland.

Nope! For a start, your link doesnt go to anything except a list explaining what the various acronyms CAIN use.

Try http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html - select 'Organisation' and 'Status'.

Anyway, I think you'll find the vast majority of uninvolved civilians by the IRA were killed unintentionally in explosions or crossfires.

"We didn't mean to blow off your legs when we put the bomb in the shop." is cold comfort.

I'd also point out that 510 civilians would put their civilian/combatant kill ratio at about 28% which is remarkable, almost unheard of, for any conflict in the world. The various brit/state forces (excluding collusion) are sitting at 50% while loyalists vary between 85 and 100% depending on the group.

As I said, the classification of civilian is exceptionally narrow and includes prison officers, former soldiers, Irish security forces, etc. Not to mention the disturbing levels of republican-republican deaths.

Crooked Jack

conorh91 wrote: »

"False pretenses" is irrelevant to any sensible definition of terrorism. Terrorism is not synonymous with fraud or misrepresentation.

A war may be illegal and still not be terrorist in nature, in my view, if its commission lacks the adequate arbitrariness. Arbitrariness, as I said, refers to a lack of of procedural constraints and public deliberation.

And how do "procedural constraints and public deliberation" mean damn all when the very reasons given for going to war are spurious.

I know of no war in recent history that was not deliberated upon to some extent.

In any case, what you are describing sounds like self-defence, which could never be terrorist in nature, because it lacks the requisite political component.

Ask yourself this: what is the point of the arbitrariness component I referred to?

There doesnt seem to be any point to it except to give some sort of cosmetic acceptability to one group's violence over another's.

It is included in order to ensure that violent actions do accord with—or are constrained by—community values.

The IRA could never successfully have argued that its activities were in accordance with or constrained by community values in the Republic or in the UK including Northern Ireland itself.

Apart from the fact they successfully fought a war for 30 years, something that would be simply impossible to do without the support of at the very least a significant section of the people.

Combined with the illegal and political nature of the IRA's use of violence, this makes the IRA identifiable as a terrorist organization.

It was the IRA's enemies who defined it as illegal. And your gonna throw "objectively defining" at me?? Ha!

That's because you're probably not interested in objectively defining terrorism, since any rational definition would lead you to a conclusion which displeases you.

At this stage I would almost accept any definition of it seeing as not a one of the various ones being thrown up here either match up with each other, match up with the actions of the IRA (or other groups) or match up with the actions of numerous "legitimate" armies and governments.
All this is only confirming for me further that the whole notion of "terrorism" as some distinct form of violence is is too broad, fluid and choppy to be in any way accurate or useful.

The IRA was a terrorist organisation in all its forms and mutations.

The various definitions thrown out here would state otherwise

Crooked Jack

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

Like Omagh ?

Hell, I'm the last person who's gonna defend dissidents but I doubt if there is anyone here who genuinely believes the plan there was to kill 28 people

Crooked Jack

Victor wrote: »

You do realise that you are coming across as a republican apologist, especially with the "Brit" comments?

Im using brit as short hand for british administration/gov/army etc... Im typing in work here.
Also, I've gone to pains to point out that what I'm talking about here is the motive behind these attacks and whether or not in conforms to any of the various definitions of terrorism. I have said repeatedly this is not about justifying attacks or the morality of them. I have made this point clearly so that we can have a conversation based on the OP without getting into unconnected moralising or pontificating.

Whatever about the accuracy of "10 and 20,000 bombs", there were only a handful of major bombs targeting the City of London and Canary Wharf. Most of the other bombs were in Northern Ireland.

With each bomb costing the British money in terms of insurance, security, lost revenue, etc... As I said, once they'd perfected their bomb making techniques, large bombs were causing up to £1bn in damage in England. It's also worth remembering that many of the bombs in the north, the main theatre of war, were of a military and not an economic nature.

"We didn't mean to blow off your legs when we put the bomb in the shop." is cold comfort.

Still at this I see. Generally what I find in these threads is that whenever someone cant argue factually they resort to this type of unrelated moralising and pontificating, as I mention earlier

As I said, the classification of civilian is exceptionally narrow and includes prison officers, former soldiers, Irish security forces, etc. Not to mention the disturbing levels of republican-republican deaths.

It also includes "civilians" who made themselves targets of the IRA, either through informing, criminal activities, encouraging attacks on nationalist communities or, in at least one scenario, putting a bounty out on IRA members.
Of course, there were also huge numbers of uninvolved civilians unintentionally killed and there is no excuse or justification for that. In the context of this thread however it's important to point out the exceptionally low civilian death ratio as compared to other conflicts