Terrorism, Uses and Consequences.

Éomer of Rohan

After encountering a lot of terrorist related material on several boards there are a few threads which require looking into IMO.

- Is there an objective view of terrorism rather than the terrorist / freedom fighter argument?
- Is there a situation in which the use of 'terrorism' is justified?
- Is state sponsored terrorism, practised by the USA among many other nations, ever justified?
- What are the differences between terrorist acts in a nominally peaceful situation and guerilla acts in a war zone? Are they two sides of the same coin?

How do I define terrorism? The act of creating terror for political ends? Maybe. Alternatively it could be 'making the price of occupation too high to pay' - in other words, if you kill enough people, the 'enemy' will withdraw or accede to demands. I am not saying that these are right - but they are definitions of terrorism. How do you define terrorism?
In Ireland, I think terrorism has a special relevence for many people - those that have experienced the effects and those that supported the goals of organisations like the PIRA and other paramilitaries. The goals of the Provisional IRA, to protect the Catholic population, mainly of Belfast, and to achieve a United Ireland was just - but the methods employed were cowardly and costly in terms of what the yanks call 'collateral damage' - civilian casualties.
Leon Trotsky once said that 'the end justifies the means so long as there is something to justify the end' and I agree up to a point with this. As terrorist groups become more advanced or more extremist, willing to detonate a nuclear device in a major population or economic centre or using suicide attacks, are they entitled to do so? What is the difference between dropping bombs out of the sky on to innocent civilians, and planting a bomb in the middle of a shopping market? Especially if both are for a 'just cause' - it strikes me as something that the various right wing supporters on this board will have an interest in; America kill innocents in a war to 'remove a tyrant' (though that is certainly not my point of view) and on the other side of that coin, Hamas detonate bombs in cities with the same effect as carpet bombing to free their people from concentration-style 'refugee' camps where they live under the boot of the Israeli military - are either right and if one is right, what is the difference between it and the other? I believe there is no difference and both are wrong.
If terrorism is wrong, is it right that people should live under an oppressive regime? I believe that 'terrorism' as defined as acts against and to hurt civilians in order to create terror is not the only answer - after all, wasn't the British Empire driven out of Ireland by a campaign of violence directly at the system that ran Ireland and the collaborators and G-men?
This is an interesting issue and I hope that Tom F, Cork, Slut and the other right wng crowd get involved.

Personally i call any action that targets civilians. That can be the palestinians in Israel, the Israel army when it attacks crowds, the US army when they bomb civilian areas, or when the CIA supply other groups that fall into the previous areas. Guilty by association. The CIA for supplying groups that have no regard for human life. The governments that bomb civilian areas. The governments that use terror tactics against its own population.

However any attacks in any form against military units of any type (with the exception of first aid/hospital), is acceptable.

Funky

KaBLaMo!

Sand

- Is there an objective view of terrorism rather than the terrorist / freedom fighter argument?

I think so. If your objective is civillian caualties then youre a terrorist. If your objective is to take out a strategic bridge/occupy a town/cut a supply line/ smach a command center then youre a soldier. Freedom fighter is a much bandied around term which is basically meaningless. Every volunteer will claim to be fighting for some cause, uaully freedom as a concept or for themselves/their people/nation anyway so Im not that convinced by the ones mans terrorist crap some people spout.

- Is there a situation in which the use of 'terrorism' is justified?

Never. Terrorism is self defeating - it errodes any sympathy I for one have for your cause, however valid and just it is. I hesitate to use the example, because I know where it will go but what the hell - Ive sympathy for the Palestinians and their struggle for a state of their own, but the fact that unashamedly utilise terrorism negates any claim they have to be the underdogs or deserving any pity in my eyes.

- Is state sponsored terrorism, practised by the USA among many other nations, ever justified?

You and I might (no, in all probability we do ) have wholly different ideas of what constitutes state terrorism.

- What are the differences between terrorist acts in a nominally peaceful situation and guerilla acts in a war zone? Are they two sides of the same coin?

A guerilla is simply a different type of soldier, one who must fight differently to say a regular army. As a guerilla can wage a war without targeting civillians then I dont see the link to terrorism which is directed against civillians by definition, imo.

Think of the difference between the Omagh bombers and WW2 resistance movements which targeted Axis forces and strategic targets during the D-Day landings for example.

The goals of the Provisional IRA, to protect the Catholic population, mainly of Belfast, and to achieve a United Ireland was just

Indeed but the PIRA killed more catholics than the British Army last time I checked. Terrorists always have a sob story, how do you think they justify leaving bombs in bins on english shopping streets?

Éomer of Rohan

You and I might (no, in all probability we do ) have wholly different ideas of what constitutes state terrorism.

Do elaborate.

Indeed but the PIRA killed more catholics than the British Army last time I checked. Terrorists always have a sob story, how do you think they justify leaving bombs in bins on english shopping streets?

Did you vote that an oppressed people had the right to rise up and defend themselves?

you vote that an oppressed people had the right to rise up and defend themselves?

Last time i checked the British were never oppressing the north. They opccupied it, and restricted some freedoms, however, it was only when the troubles occured that the came down hard.

I was raised in a very pro-collins house, and i like the concept of a united ireland, but even i'm not foolish enough to say that the british oppressed the north at any stage within the last 100 years.

Éomer of Rohan

Last time i checked the British were never oppressing the north. They opccupied it, and restricted some freedoms, however, it was only when the troubles occured that the came down hard.

If anyone cares to tell me that Catholics weren't oppressed by the Stormont Gov't and therefore with tacit British agreement, I will be pleased to destroy any such arguments. Sorry klaz but you're wrong.

It was Stormont that oppressed the North - not forgetting that they oppressed their 'own' people - the Protestant workers as well, but not as much as the Catholic. I feel obliged to point out that I am not Catholic or Protestant.

Eomer, i'm neither catholic or protestant. I'm an aethiest. Religion means squat to me, in fact i hate the thing for what its done to this nation.

If anyone cares to tell me that Catholics weren't oppressed by the Stormont Gov't and therefore with tacit British agreement, I will be pleased to destroy any such arguments. Sorry klaz but you're wrong

Fine, i agree that religious practice was suppressed. However, usually when people talk of oppression, they talk of actual violence. I'm not saying that the laws were neutral, however, the British didn't line up civilians and shoot them. Nor were churches searched and burned, nor were Catholics made to wear a cross on their shoulders.

The degree of oppression that you describe does not justify the attacks that the PIRA did, nor does it justify the IRA's bombings of civilian areas. I could understand, if the British had marched in with guns blazing, 10 Bloody Sundays a week, for 20 years.

Originally posted by klaz
however, the British didn't line up civilians and shoot them. Nor were churches searched and burned, nor were Catholics made to wear a cross on their shoulders.

*cough* bloody sunday *cough*
mm

Hobbes

Indeed but the PIRA killed more catholics than the British Army last time I checked. Terrorists always have a sob story, how do you think they justify leaving bombs in bins on english shopping streets?

Where did you get this magical figure from? Try this link for a scoreboard.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/sutton.htm

Man, you're taking one horrible incident. If there were multiple Bloody Sundays in the last 40 years, i would understand. It happened once, and i agree it was terrible. However, the degree of oppression that the British had in the north, does not even register to say, Cuba, or many african states.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
America kill innocents in a war to 'remove a tyrant' (though that is certainly not my point of view) and on the other side of that coin, Hamas detonate bombs in cities with the same effect as carpet bombing to free their people from concentration-style 'refugee' camps where they live under the boot of the Israeli military - are either right and if one is right, what is the difference between it and the other?

Intent. The US bends over backwards trying not to kill civilians; Hamas tries to kill as many civilians as possible. It's like the difference between murder and manslaughter.

i agree that they don't target civilians. But is there much difference between targeting civilians and knowing that splash damage will kill em? They don't drop the bombs directly on them, but they know that shrapnel, and concussion will kill many in the area..

Originally posted by klaz
i agree that they don't target civilians. But is there much difference between targeting civilians and knowing that splash damage will kill em? They don't drop the bombs directly on them, but they know that shrapnel, and concussion will kill many in the area..

I'm afraid Klaz, theres a big difference.
If you go by that, then , there would never be another war.
That might be a good thing, but it would end deterrent, and probably result in more tyranny,because, the tyrants get away with it.
mm

i don't think it would stop war, even if it was possible, however is such splash damage, allowable? If it is, then why not drop a daisy cutter on a tank in the middle of a city, and go "whoops, sorry abt that splash/collateral damage"...

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
I'm afraid Klaz, theres a big difference.

Generally only for those who advocate war as anything other than a defensive measure, though.

I find it hard for someone to say "we are invading, and its not really our fault that civilians will die because thats the reality of what happens when one nation invades another".

If its not their fauilt, then who's fault is it?

Defending nations have some degree of "this wasnt our choice" to fall back on, but invaders?

jc

Éomer of Rohan

I agree with Bonkey - there is little or no difference; the results are the same, the goal is ultimately the same (supposedly so at least) and those who pursue them are well aware in both cases of what they will do. Thus even in war, it is de facto intent - they do not care enough NOT to kill civilians thus they are just as bad as though they had deliberatle set out to kill civilians.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Thus even in war, it is de facto intent - they do not care enough NOT to kill civilians

Well, the US and UK would argue that this war is (depending on what their position of the day is, of course) :

1) Self-protection, cause Saddam has WMDs, supports Terrorism, and will cause them to be used against the West. (all caps deliberate - they seem to have confused terrorism as an ideology rather than a methodology).

2) We are making life better for the Iraqis, because this suffering is less than what they will suffer in the long term if we didnt invade.

Both are reasonable enough arguments for war on the surface of things - they offer reasonable reasons as to why they must accept the cost of innocents dying. In each case, its to prevent a greater implied loss of life. (Key word : implied).

The problem is that - in the first case - they have made spectacular amounts of unproven allegations, and eventually copped out of even trying to prove their case. Lets leave that one, because even finding WMDs in Iraq would never prove intent to distribute, or intent to use, nor that the invaders were certain of their existence in the first place.

In the second case, they have absolutely no credible track-record to show that this time they will stay the distance, and have the will to see it done right. Right, in this case, being what is best for Iraq, and not what is convenient for the West.

Lets assume that all goes well, and Saddam is defeated, a proto-government is set up which works better than the fiasco in Afghanistan. Stability returns to the nation. The US carries its fight against terrorism elsewhere and then the lashback occurs. Hell, it could begin even earlier. If I was a terrorist seeking to further my aims in Iraq today, I'd be keeping my head low until this round of fighting is over. Its in about a year or two's time that the situation will be ripe to take advantage of. If this - or anything similar - happens, and the nation falls back into oppression, will the war still have been worth it "to give them a chance"??? It will have probably caused a net increase in short-term suffering, and no appreciable long-term decrease, and another tyrant will be sitting in Saddam's throne. Would that be worth it?

Yes its a theoretical question. Here's why I ask it :

The US and UK may make Iraq a better place through regime change enforced by an external power, but I'm hard pressed to find anywhere since Germany and Japan where that has conclusively been achieved yet. I can find a ton of places (including most of the Middle East from when they gained independance, and repeatedly since) where it has been tried and failed. Even the best of the "newly arrived" are at best living in turbulent times.

So this whole "we're gonna make it hurt a little to make it a lot better" line is all well and good, but ask yourself this : If you had a doctor with a success/failure rate matching that of forced regime change in recent history...would you let him or her operate on you?

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Self-protection, cause Saddam has WMDs, supports Terrorism, and will cause them to be used against the West. (all caps deliberate - they seem to have confused terrorism as an ideology rather than a methodology).

This is ridiculous even on the surface! Iraq is a secular state and does not have nuclear weapons. Pakistan on the other hand is militantly Islamic and has nuclear weapons of devastating capacity! If the US wanted to employ that line of reasoning properly they would be after so many more nations than Iraq - but then the others don't have oil supplies. Saddam himself on national TV asked whether the enemy of his enemy was his friend - and then said no. There is no evidence of Saddam supporting terrorists such as OBL!

Lets assume that all goes well, and Saddam is defeated, a proto-government is set up which works better than the fiasco in Afghanistan. Stability returns to the nation

The best case scenario is that a pro-US democracy is installed and Iraq is exploited for all she is worth. I'd say although the theoretical right to do things may increase, it will be no use since the actual ability to do things will be zero since the country will probably be reduced to poverty.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I'd say although the theoretical right to do things may increase, it will be no use since the actual ability to do things will be zero since the country will probably be reduced to poverty.

I thought it was already reduced to poverty...except for the elete few,Sadam et al...
Assuming, a new government of sorts there can use the profits from oil to bring the country back up from the mire.
Time will tell.
mm

Éomer of Rohan

...except for the elete few,Sadam et al...
Assuming, a new government of sorts there can use the profits from oil to bring the country back up from the mire.

Actually Iraq is a relatively progressive nation as has been established before. The Americans will replace one elite with another and this time, it will be cultural, military and economic.

TomF

We read on this thread that Iraq as presently governed is a secular state, and that seems to be the case. But if that is so, how is it that the Iraqi Minister of Information recently came on Iraq radio and television to urge a holy war against the American and British invaders. Did someone downtown suddenly get religion?

Éomer of Rohan

Pragmatism at its best. The Iraqis need help and the volunteers from Syria must have gone down a treat - so they are asking for more. These are primarily religiously motivated thus the more 'religious' Iraq appears, the more volunteers.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Actually Iraq is a relatively progressive nation as has been established before. The Americans will replace one elite with another and this time, it will be cultural, military and economic.

I was referring to the fact that some Iraqi's despite the sanctions have all the trappings of wealth.
Needless to say I suspect that, this is a by product of smuggled oil and of course friendship with the Regime.
mm

) Self-protection, cause Saddam has WMDs, supports Terrorism, and will cause them to be used against the West. (all caps deliberate - they seem to have confused terrorism as an ideology rather than a methodology).

Surely by this argument, Saddam has the right to use terrorism, & WMD's since he might see the west as being a threat to his nation. Also to my knowledge, the application of terrorism to Saddam has been only applied in the last few weeks in regards to his tactics against allied troops.

Also he would have the right to have invaded Kuwait, since he felt them a threat to his security.

Éomer of Rohan

There again we can see the arrogance of the americans. Apply the Monroe doctrine, suitably adapted to ME geography, to Iraq, from Iraq's point of view. Under such a doctrine, Iraq would have the right to invade Saudi Arabia and Kuwait because both share common frontiers and are allies of Iraq's enemy - thus a threat to Iraqi stability. But of course the second Iraq attacks Kuwait, they are denounced as 'brutal' and 'immoral' and that crap while the Americans have had a similar doctrine in place for 150 years!

Sand

Where did you get this magical figure from? Try this link for a scoreboard.

Well I didnt actually mention a figure, rather a relationship. But ill help you to analyse the link youve provided in answer to my position that the so called defenders of the catholic community were their worst enemies.

British killed 194 civillians up to 1994, of whom most (only definiton ) were catholic - well guess 70%?

So were talking 136, rounding up.

On the other hand, the repubuplicans killed 65 alleged informers, 44 others as a result of feuds ( not defined - this is internal, or merely someone looked at them the wrong way? well say 50% for the sake of argument ) 158 others who are totally undefined, but seeing as they dont seem to fall under sectarian/loyalist we can safely assume theyre mostly if not all catholic. Then we come to the unintentional deaths, of 406 - theyre apparently random so we can say it was probably 40% catholic all other things being equal.

65+22+158+163 (rounding up ) > 136

Did you vote that an oppressed people had the right to rise up and defend themselves?

Oh I did, but Im confused as to how you draw a link between deliberately targeting civillians and defence of a people. Especially in the case noted, as the republicans were hardly successful at defending the community given they did most of the butchering of them.

Éomer of Rohan

Oh I did, but Im confused as to how you draw a link between deliberately targeting civillians and defence of a people

I was drawing the link between terrorists killing people and bombs killing people - not much difference.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Well considering that Bush is currently calling on God to support the US, i think its perfectly reasonable for Saddam to call for a Jihad. Listen to Bush speak, and he'll pepper his statements with references to god.

Éomer of Rohan

Like I said - the crusades all over. And once again, the morality is on the side of the Muslims.