Terrorism - a definition

Jayop

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well actually they many are, those fighting in Muslim Lands are not fighting for equality or to protect the communities like the IRA did, infact the IRA acted as a form of neighbourhood watch. Today's terrorists are not. They just attack for no reason other than to unleash violence. A callous act of unreasonableness.

Well, that's not exactly accurate. The violence does have a goal. Not a goal you or I agree with or see as in any way reasonably but there is reasoning behind it.

KingBrian2

Jayop wrote: »

Well, that's not exactly accurate. The violence does have a goal. Not a goal you or I agree with or see as in any way reasonably but there is reasoning behind it.

No their is not. That is a lie. A lie told often on the media that these people have reasons for going over there. They do not. They are not in jeopardy nor are people they love dearly are in danger. They voluntary (indoctrinated) into consenting to engage in unlawful violence.

Jayop

KingBrian2 wrote: »

No their is not. That is a lie. A lie told often on the media that these people have reasons for going over there. They do not. They are not in jeopardy nor are people they love dearly are in danger. They voluntary (indoctrinated) into consenting to engage in unlawful violence.

I didn't say the reason was self preservation or anything of the sort. They want to eliminate Western Culture and have the whole world one big muslim state. That's their goals, and that's the reasoning behind their being.

Victor

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well actually they many are, those fighting in Muslim Lands are not fighting for equality or to protect the communities like the IRA did, infact the IRA acted as a form of neighbourhood watch. Today's terrorists are not. They just attack for no reason other than to unleash violence. A callous act of unreasonableness.

The IRA was not a neighbourhood watch. Neighbourhood watches (outside Texas ) do not use military weapons. I think what you are searching for is a 'self defence force', but that is not a neighbourhood watch. And while self defence force might have been accurate for a time, it changed quickly.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

No their is not. That is a lie. A lie told often on the media that these people have reasons for going over there. They do not. They are not in jeopardy nor are people they love dearly are in danger. They voluntary (indoctrinated) into consenting to engage in unlawful violence.

I think you need to realise that in different places, there are different people fight for different reasons - self defence, power, adventure, they like killing people, etc.

Jayop

I also think a clear difference between the PIRA and the likes of ISIS is that with the ra it was never about religion apart from picking their targets. The ra were never religious fanatics.

Not sure if that makes a difference. They sure we're ruthless but for my money not on the same level as this new wave of terrorism.

Peregrinus

Jayop wrote: »

I also think a clear difference between the PIRA and the likes of ISIS is that with the ra it was never about religion apart from picking their targets. The ra were never religious fanatics.

Not sure if that makes a difference. They sure we're ruthless but for my money not on the same level as this new wave of terrorism.

Well, there are clear differences between all terrorist groups, since they may fight in different struggles, pursue different aims, employ different forms of terrorism, etc, etc.

So what? Even if it's true that for the IRA "it was never about religion apart from picking their targets" (which is a pretty big "apart", by the way!) that wouldn't make them one whit less terrorist, or make their terrorism one whit less objectionable.

jank

Jayop wrote: »

I'd dispute the idea that a majority of nationalists didn't support the IRA in the beginning too.

Dispute it away but the polls showed the fact that Sinn Fein had hardly any support in the beginning. The SDLP were the largest block of nationalist votes for decades.

Peregrinus

Yes, but at the time voting for the SDLP and supporting or sympathising with the IRA were not at all inconsistent.

Victor

Jayop wrote: »

I also think a clear difference between the PIRA and the likes of ISIS is that with the ra it was never about religion

Are you suggesting that Provisional Republicanism wasn't a religion / fundamentalism?

Jayop

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, there are clear differences between all terrorist groups, since they may fight in different struggles, pursue different aims, employ different forms of terrorism, etc, etc.

So what? Even if it's true that for the IRA "it was never about religion apart from picking their targets" (which is a pretty big "apart", by the way!) that wouldn't make them one whit less terrorist, or make their terrorism one whit less objectionable.

I didn't in any way claim that it made them less terrorist or less objectionable.

DavidRamsay99

digzy wrote: »

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

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

Jayop

Victor wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Provisional Republicanism wasn't a religion / fundamentalism?

Yeah, I'd say that the last 30 years of Republican Terrorism has little to do with religion. There was a clear religious divide between unionism and nationalism but those fighting we're religious fundamentalists. They weren't fighting to try to force others to follow their religion or their religions rules.

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

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

Different people have different definitions of freedom.

DavidRamsay99

Jayop wrote: »

Different people have different definitions of freedom.

If someone is fighting for fascism, communism or to impose their religion on others then by definition they are not fighting for freedom.

Jayop

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

If someone is fighting for fascism, communism or to impose their religion on others then by definition they are not fighting for freedom.

Communism as a concept isn't a bad thing per se so that's not entirely accurate. If a pure communist state was able to operate without the human greed that always corrupts it, it would be as close to a utopian society as you could get.

Crooked Jack

conorh91 wrote: »

I disagree with the definition that characterizes terrorism as an attempt to subvert democracy. That would suggest that terrorism cannot exist outside of democracies, and limit terrorists' objectives much too narrowly.

A better definition might hold that terrorism is the arbitrary use of violence, contrary to the law of war, which intends to precipitate political change.

Which would make many "legitimate" armies across the world "terrorists."
The word terrorist has no definition, it's a meaningless label thrown out to differentiate between violence you happen to like and violence you dont happen to like. It's a way of legitimising the violence of one side while demonising and dehumanising others engaged in violence. It's self-contradictory and hypocritical.

Crooked Jack

Peregrinus wrote: »

All of this is highly arguable. But none of it is relevant to the question of whether the IRA was a terrorist movement, which is answered simply by looking at the tactics and strategies they employed. Did they employ terrorist tactics? Did they practice terrorism? If so, they they were terrorists. The goals which they sought to acheive through terrorism are not relevant. They may have been admirable goals, but it's perfectly possible to seek to attain admirable goals through terrorism, and if you do that you're terrorist.

What are terrorist tactics? What differentiates them from guerrilla or conventional warfare?

Peregrinus

Crooked Jack wrote: »

What are terrorist tactics? What differentiates them from guerrilla or conventional warfare?

To avoid going round in circles, I offered a definition, and an explanation of what I thought its implications were, earlier in the thread here.

Peregrinus

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Which would make many "legitimate" armies across the world "terrorists."

Yes. Why not? As pointed out, the first form of terrorism to be named as such was state terrorism.

Crooked Jack

Peregrinus wrote: »

To avoid going round in circles, I offered a definition, and an explanation of what I thought its implications were, earlier in the thread here.

Well given that explanation it could be quite easily argued that the IRA were not terrorists. There was very little "use of violence to create terror as a tactic for achieving political ends." The vast majority of assassinations had political or military objectives directly related to the targets. The vast majority of bombs, again, were for specific targets or to create economic damage. You could certainly argue that loyalists and the British through collusion attempted to create this sense of terror among the general populace but by and large the IRA did not and had fairly set political and military aims for their actions.

conorh91

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Which would make many "legitimate" armies across the world "terrorists."

That's (I suspect a deliberately) vague statement. What armies are you talking about? What circumstances?

Crooked Jack

conorh91 wrote: »

That's (I suspect a deliberately) vague statement. What armies are you talking about? What circumstances?

Well that was the point of it. There is no definition of terrorism that cant also be applied to the americans in the middle east or south america, the british in ireland or africa, the french in algeria, the japanese in china, etc...
However, another poster has already pointed out that they arent seeking to differentiate state terrorism from terrorism in general (though id argue that having another name for it does just that.)
My main point stands that it's a largely meaningless word; a flag of convenience to apply to opponents you are seeking to demonise

Peregrinus

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well given that explanation it could be quite easily argued that the IRA were not terrorists. There was very little "use of violence to create terror as a tactic for achieving political ends." The vast majority of assassinations had political or military objectives directly related to the targets. The vast majority of bombs, again, were for specific targets or to create economic damage. You could certainly argue that loyalists and the British through collusion attempted to create this sense of terror among the general populace but by and large the IRA did not and had fairly set political and military aims for their actions.

No, no. Not everything the IRA did was terrorist, but it's easy to point to operations they conducted which were unquestonably terrorist, in my defntion. Pub bombing campaigns, for example. The La Mon House bombing. The Enniskllen bombing. The Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings. Bomb scare campaigns targeting public buildings are terrorist in nature, even if there is in fact no bomb; the point is to create terror.

Peregrinus

Crooked Jack wrote: »

However, another poster has already pointed out that they arent seeking to differentiate state terrorism from terrorism in general (though id argue that having another name for it does just that.)

No, it doesn't. State terrorism isn't different from terrorism; it's a particular kind of terrorism. I would have thought that a term like "state terrorism" calls attention to the fact that the phenomenon is, in fact, terrorism, which is pretty much the opposite of differentiating it from terrorism.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

My main point stands that it's a largely meaningless word; a flag of convenience to apply to opponents you are seeking to demonise

It is used in that way, but that doesn't make it meaningless. Terrorism is a real phenomenon, and while my choice to use the word, or not to use it, in a particular context may tell you something about me, it may also tell you something about the phenomenon I am describing.

Besided, you can't argue at the same time that the word is meaningless and that the actionso of the IRA were not terrorist; the second claim requires that the word does have a fairly clear meaning.

conorh91

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well that was the point of it. There is no definition of terrorism that cant also be applied to the americans in the middle east or south america, the british in ireland or africa, the french in algeria, the japanese in china, etc...

My definition of terrorism wouldn't apply to those situations generally, even if there were illegality involved.

Terrorism is a perfectly valid, and indeed useful, designation in political science for those who arbitrarily use violence contrary to law, for political ends.

The importance of this, and similar, definitions is that it can potentially include state actors engaged in war, but not by default.

Crooked Jack

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, no. Not everything the IRA did was terrorist, but it's easy to point to operations they conducted which were unquestonably terrorist, in my defntion. Pub bombing campaigns, for example.

There was no pub bombing campaign. Were there certain pubs bombed for a number of reasons? Certainly, but to suggest that there was a pub bombing campaign is simply wrong.

The La Mon House bombing.

Was a tragedy because a vandalised phone box meant volunteers couldnt deliver the warning in time. (I should point out at this stage, given that discussion of these events leads to the usual pontificating from certain posters, that i am not justifying these actions. We are talking specifically about the targets and intentions and whether or not these can be considered terrorist actions so Id ask the usual crowd (not yourself incidentally) to engage on that basis and leave the faux moral outrage on the sidelines for this one). La Mon was targeted as part of a concerted economic campaign, not to spread a climate of fear or terror

The Enniskllen bombing.

Bomb was poorly placed but its quite clear the military band were the target

The Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings.

Again, quite clear the military were the target

Bomb scare campaigns targeting public buildings are terrorist in nature, even if there is in fact no bomb; the point is to create terror.

Generally the point is economic disruption or to divert attention from another operation. The IRA had nothing to gain from spreading terror. Britain wasnt going to be driven out by spreading terror among Irish people. Their methods were direct military, symbolic or economic targets.

Crooked Jack

Victor wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Provisional Republicanism wasn't a religion / fundamentalism?

Are you suggesting it was??

Crooked Jack

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it doesn't. State terrorism isn't different from terrorism; it's a particular kind of terrorism. I would have thought that a term like "state terrorism" calls attention to the fact that the phenomenon is, in fact, terrorism, which is pretty much the opposite of differentiating it from terrorism.

To be honest that's a minor side issue for me that I have no desire to get segwayed into

It is used in that way, but that doesn't make it meaningless. Terrorism is a real phenomenon, and while my choice to use the word, or not to use it, in a particular context may tell you something about me, it may also tell you something about the phenomenon I am describing.

While I can see you clearly know what youre talking about regarding this issue I simply disagree. The definitions and uses, as this thread shows, are so broad and fluid that in my opinion they render the word meaningless.

Besided, you can't argue at the same time that the word is meaningless and that the actionso of the IRA were not terrorist; the second claim requires that the word does have a fairly clear meaning.

I'm basing that assertion on your own, and other definitions here, for the sake of argument. Like I said, in my opinion it's a meaningless and unhelpful word

Crooked Jack

conorh91 wrote: »

My definition of terrorism wouldn't apply to those situations generally, even if there were illegality involved.

Terrorism is a perfectly valid, and indeed useful, designation in political science for those who arbitrarily use violence contrary to law, for political ends.

The importance of this, and similar, definitions is that it can potentially include state actors engaged in war, but not by default.

Are you suggesting the aggressors in those examples didnt "use violence contrary to law, for political ends"?

Peregrinus

Crooked Jack wrote: »

There was no pub bombing campaign. Were there certain pubs bombed for a number of reasons? Certainly, but to suggest that there was a pub bombing campaign is simply wrong.

I disagree. The Birminghand and Guildford pub bombings in October/November 1974 can reasonably be descrived as a pub bombing campaign.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

[The La Mon House bombing] was a tragedy because a vandalised phone box meant volunteers couldnt deliver the warning in time . . . La Mon was targeted as part of a concerted economic campaign, not to spread a climate of fear or terror.

Most terrorist actions are tragedies. The La Mon bombing would have been a terrorist action even if the warning had been delivered; nothing in my definition of terrorism says that people have to die before an act can be considered terrorist; it's enough that they are terrorised. There is no inconsistency in the same action being part of an "economic campaign" and a terrorist action, if the strategy is to terrorise people in a way that leads to economic disruption.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Bomb was poorly placed but its quite clear the military band were the target . . . Again, quite clear the military were the target

Again, so what? The combat value of a military band is negligible; I am satisfied that an band was targetted at a public performance in a public park in order to terrorise. The fact that it was an army band doesn't magically make this action not terrorist.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Generally the point is economic disruption or to divert attention from another operation. The IRA had nothing to gain from spreading terror. Britain wasnt going to be driven out by spreading terror among Irish people. Their methods were direct military, symbolic or economic targets.

Again, none of this is inconsistent with the use of terror at a tactic.

Crooked Jack

Peregrinus wrote: »

I disagree. The Birminghand and Guildford pub bombings in October/November 1974 can reasonably be descrived as a pub bombing campaign.

I dont see how two bombing can be described as a campaign and the issuing of (admittedly inadequate warnings) again would indicate this doesnt really fit your definition of terrorism

Most terrorist actions are tragedies. The La Mon bombing would have been a terrorist action even if the warning had been delivered; nothing in my definition of terrorism says that people have to die before an act can be considered terrorist; it's enough that they are terrorised. There is no inconsistency in the same action being part of an "economic campaign" and a terrorist action, if the strategy is to terrorise people in a way that leads to economic disruption.

But there was no attempt to terrorise people to cause economic disruption. There were attacks on businesses and buildings to cause economic disruption

Again, so what? The combat value of a military band is negligible; I am satisfied that an band was targetted at a public performance in a public park in order to terrorise. The fact that it was an army band doesn't magically make this action not terrorist.

Then why go to the bother of attacking the military. Why not just launch wide scale no warning bombs in public places. It was an attack on the British military in Britain. Did RAF bombers stop to make sure all the German soldiers in a certain building were active infantry before they bombed it?

Again, none of this is inconsistent with the use of terror at a tactic.

So attacking military, symbolic and economic targets are all terrorist tactics? What then is left for "legitimate" armies?