On the Concept of Terrorism

[bigdaddy1204]

Moved from the Mudpit by request, post in response to this characterisation of terrorism:

"any form of violence with political background by non-state actors against non-combattants"

~Iskar

Hello Iskar, I hope this isn't off-topic but the definition of terrorism as "by non-state actors" is an interesting subject which I think could be discussed. One possible criticism of the term "terrorism" in general is that it condemns actions done by non-state individuals, but not actions done by states. One could argue that this is a form of hypocrisy on the part of society and governments, because governments often kill more people than even the worst terrorist.

Isn't this a case of double standards? For example, on 9/11 there were 3,000 fatalities. In response, the George W. Bush government in the USA launched the "War on terror", which killed 1.3 million people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Why is the attack on the trade centre called "terrorism", but the invasion and bombing of several Muslim countries and the indescriminate slaughter of thousands of people is not? Who is the real terrorist here?

In my opinion, while you are correct that the mainstream definition of terrorism is action by "non-state" actors, such a definition is actually just a self-serving tool of oppressive, evil governments to label their political opponents, or anyone who disagrees with them. By using it in this way, we are perpetuating certain myths, which plays into the hands of said governments. In the worst case, governments use this word "terrorism" to shut down civil rights and persecute anyone who strive for genuine equality, freedom and the rule of law.

My point is that ALL terrorism is bad. And that should include action by states as well as non-state actors. We should condemn both, and not use this kind of loaded language which seems to be a tool of those who hold power to vilify those who do not.

[athanaric]

Well, here we go again, then.

Isn't this a case of double standards? For example, on 9/11 there were 3,000 fatalities. In response, the George W. Bush government in the USA launched the "War on terror", which killed 1.3 million people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Why is the attack on the trade centre called "terrorism", but the invasion and bombing of several Muslim countries and the indescriminate slaughter of thousands of people is not? Who is the real terrorist here?

I've heard this argument brought up again and again by many people, and it's still stupid and lazy. Please just take the time to think about it for five minutes, with as little ethnic and religious bias as possible.
Here's some helpful clues:
1) Those 1.3 million people (where does the number come from?) weren't all killed by allied forces.
2) The crucial difference is and always (well, since the mid-twentieth century) has been that Western powers and all who operate on the same ethical level as them, i.e. everyone who adheres to the Geneva convention etc., don't purposefully target non-combatants, whereas most terrorists (especially Islamic ones) deliberately kill civilians along with everyone else. If you disagree, show us proof that US and other allied forces have committed wanton and indiscriminate slaughter.
When you see things like drone strikes on the wrong targets, those are mistakes. This being war, mistakes usually get lots of people killed. That's why war leaders try to avoid them (unless you really think that President Obama ordered his commanders to strike a wedding reception, and everyone obeyed, while cackling manically). The recent string of terrorist attacks across Europe, Asia, and Africa (remember Garissa?) was deliberate. Any mistakes they may have made were of the "I'm sorry I couldn't kill even more infidels, because my suicide belt malfunctioned" nature.
3) Couldn't it be that the US and its allies - granted, with their own agenda of profiting as much as possible - merely intervened in ongoing local conflicts of sectarian and/or ethnic nature? Because the evidence (sustained population growth + endemic corruption + repressive local regimes = no perspective for most young men = violence) suggests that is what happened.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Then you have US support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen, when the US knows that the Saudis are likely to kill large numbers of civilians:

“The strikes are not intentionally indiscriminate but rather result from a lack of Saudi experience with dropping munitions and firing missiles,” the specialist said, according to a Department account of the meeting seen by Reuters.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7355771.html

Well, as long as you didn't mean to I guess that's all that matters - what happened to gross negligence? And yet they support, arm and fund them regardless. Whoops didn't mean to does not strike me as the best defense, especially when you know it's a likely outcome. If we're going to take a more historical approach, Vietnam offers countless examples of US strikes on civilian targets where it was known that civilians were present. It's the difference between the US apologizing for the fact that civilians happened to be standing near a terrorist and a terrorist apologizing for the fact that some believers happened to be near the infidels.

[DaVinci]

Vietnam offers countless examples of US strikes on civilian targets where it was known that civilians were present.

That's not exclusive a case of Vietnam. Checkout WW2 for the start. Or historically diverse wars.

Ehm, nonetheless it is not the same.

I interprete but war by the state to another state as terror, insofar that war in itself is just terror, war-terrorism, to use the word-connection. War tactics and strategy contain without doubt the goal of "terrifying the enemy" as much as possible, for the victory. This includes civilians.

Fe. an entire huge industry-complex develops (partially rather developed) mass-killing-weapons encouraged by the state. Iirc., there was fe. the neutron-bomb which was inspired to kill people but not the infrastructure (this detail could be wrong, correct me if so), same idea sticks behind B and C weapons. There are still diverse bomb and mine products which are there to not targeting directly the military enemy alone (i think it is in principle needless to point to the many minefields, and that probably still daily civilians get killed or heavily injured by them). Heavy explosive air-bombs with an extreme far radius are another example. There is more, one needs only to think more about the diverse weapons and tactics. Every war is the live-test playing-ground for the weapon experts.

War-crime is an old theme, no? First the public discussion (raised by the piece-movement) about the according matters brought up the question for the state, if this is morally overall bearable, and nowadays it is a theme within the military to avoid collateral victims, i would say, for the latter mainly by the public pressure aka the moral progress in our societies, because military (without prejudice to the moral of the single officer) has "technical" issues to avoid collateral damages.

[bigdaddy1204]

Western powers... don't purposefully target non-combatants. If you disagree, show us proof that US and other allied forces have committed wanton and indiscriminate slaughter.

This video indicates otherwise...

[athanaric]

This video indicates otherwise...

I'm always a bit skeptical of this kind of proof. Has the US government taken responsibility? In any case, from the video, it's really hard to see what the targeted people are doing. Looks more like a mistake to my eyes.
But now to the main point: Has the US government (over the last four decades), or any active US military commander, ever advised or encouraged the deliberate targeting of non-combatants? Have they ever made attempts to forcibly convert people in war zones to another religion? etc.
What I can remember is campaigns to "win the hearts and minds" of the locals on the ground. I find it extremely hypocritical to try and construe a case for systematic US war crimes in the Middle East, when taking into consideration what the Americans could do when truly unfettered (even without any ABC weapons).

Then you have US support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen, when the US knows that the Saudis are likely to kill large numbers of civilians:

And then you have Saudi support for terrorism in the rest of the world, by spreading Wahhabism.
More to the point, KSA isn't a client state of the US, or any other Western power. They are responsible for their own deeds.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7355771.html

Well, as long as you didn't mean to I guess that's all that matters - what happened to gross negligence? And yet they support, arm and fund them regardless. Whoops didn't mean to does not strike me as the best defense, especially when you know it's a likely outcome.

Never said the US were perfect. They're still a selfish empire (patricularly when a Clinton happens to be involved), like many others. And yet, somehow I think you prefer a Pax Americana to a Pax Sinense or a Pax Arabica...

If we're going to take a more historical approach, Vietnam offers countless examples of US strikes on civilian targets where it was known that civilians were present. It's the difference between the US apologizing for the fact that civilians happened to be standing near a terrorist and a terrorist apologizing for the fact that some believers happened to be near the infidels.

And yet, can you deny that there has been a gradual development of rules of engagement and treatment of non-combatants in the Western world over the last century or so? And that this development has been entirely absent among religious fanatics and violent separatists?

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

And then you have Saudi support for terrorism in the rest of the world, by spreading Wahhabism.

Well exactly, it just makes US support for them even more dubious.

More to the point, KSA isn't a client state of the US, or any other Western power. They are responsible for their own deeds.

And if someone is drunk and asks to borrow your car, do you bear no responsibility when they crash into someone? The US admits Saudi ineptitude, but arms them regardless.

Never said the US were perfect. They're still a selfish empire (patricularly when a Clinton happens to be involved), like many others. And yet, somehow I think you prefer a Pax Americana to a Pax Sinense or a Pax Arabica...

Indeed I would, but that has no bearing on the subject of if states can commit terror and if the US specifically has. Is terrorism acceptable when for the right reasons?

And yet, can you deny that there has been a gradual development of rules of engagement and treatment of non-combatants in the Western world over the last century or so? And that this development has been entirely absent among religious fanatics and violent separatists?

By all means, there clearly has been. It does not change the fact that the US has engaged in and supported numerous acts of terrorism, murder, torture and kidnapping. A good defense against a murder charge is not "but that other guy has killed more people than me, and for worse reasons".

[hellheaven1987]

What is "RT" stands for?

[bigdaddy1204]

Russia Today, probably. I'm not a fan of that news outlet, however that does not change the fact of what the video contains. More to the point, it's not their video anyway; I've seen it shared by plenty of other outlets. This just happened to be the first one that came up when I Googled it.

[sumskilz]

And if someone is drunk and asks to borrow your car, do you bear no responsibility when they crash into someone? The US admits Saudi ineptitude, but arms them regardless.

The US doesn't give them arms, it sells them arms. Do you believe that they couldn't find another seller if the US didn't? Would they cause less collateral damage with Russian-made arms for example? I recently read that Saudi Arabia spends more on arms per capita than any country in the world, something like four times per capita what the US spends. I don't like Saudi Arabia, but what's the solution? Cut them off and convince the rest of the world to do so to, so their population can rise up against them and create a utopia? At least at this point, we have some influence on them, although I think we should exercise that power more, stand on their chests a little, but not pressuring them enough is not the same as being responsible for their behavior.

[KEA]

This video indicates otherwise...

No, it doesn't. It starts with the operator identifying armed persons in a war-zone that were not from the own side: i.e enemy fighting personal. As far as I see it, at no point in the video this identification was recalled. And that's the difference between collateral damage (be it accidentally or mistakenly) and deliberate targeting of civilians.

[Sharukinu]

I've heard this argument brought up again and again by many people, and it's still stupid and lazy.

2) The crucial difference is and always (well, since the mid-twentieth century) has been that Western powers and all who operate on the same ethical level as them, i.e. everyone who adheres to the Geneva convention etc., don't purposefully target non-combatants, whereas most terrorists (especially Islamic ones) deliberately kill civilians along with everyone else. If you disagree, show us proof that US and other allied forces have committed wanton and indiscriminate slaughter.
When you see things like drone strikes on the wrong targets, those are mistakes. This being war, mistakes usually get lots of people killed. That's why war leaders try to avoid them (unless you really think that President Obama ordered his commanders to strike a wedding reception, and everyone obeyed, while cackling manically). The recent string of terrorist attacks across Europe, Asia, and Africa (remember Garissa?) was deliberate. Any mistakes they may have made were of the "I'm sorry I couldn't kill even more infidels, because my suicide belt malfunctioned" nature.

Which completely ignores the fact the terrorism and state-terrorism are essential elements of the way Western powers operate both inside and outside the battlefield. What to make of the fact that uniformed American criminals in Iraq for example kept terrorizing the local population during the war and the occupation? Veteran criminals would tell you how it was routine to break into random houses, line residents up, terrorise and abuse and sometimes even kill and rape them just for fun and intimidation and how their officers ordered these routine operations and rewarded them. Or consider how "collateral damage" is rarely a mistake but actually often a calculated cold move of extreme apathy and precision with total disregard for civilian lives. Also, state-terrorism in "peacetime" reigns supreme, where deliberate and sanctioned police brutality against unarmed civilians, assassinations both on native and foreign soil, as well as constant threats (sometimes even nuclear ones) against sovereign countries that don't kowtow. This is all state-terrorism, but Western non-state terrorism is also present and has been so for a very long time, it comes in the form of "white" terrorism and Christian as well as Jewish terrorism too, with quite a record I must say. These are witnessing a resurgence today after a brief hiatus, since we are in the Brexit-Trump circus season.

[Love Mountain]

Which completely ignores the fact the terrorism and state-terrorism are essential elements of the way Western powers operate both inside and outside the battlefield.

Citation needed.

What to make of the fact that uniformed American criminals in Iraq for example kept terrorizing the local population during the war and the occupation? Veteran criminals would tell you how it was routine to break into random houses, line residents up, terrorise and abuse and sometimes even kill and rape them just for fun and intimidation and how their officers ordered these routine operations and rewarded them.

Citation needed.

Or consider how "collateral damage" is rarely a mistake but actually often a calculated cold move of extreme apathy and precision with total disregard for civilian lives.

It's wartime, what do you think is gonna happen? We do not have total control over troops and troops have been charged with war crimes where it was proven. I also agree that United States "War on Terror" is also illegal and some of the actions border on terrorism but the difference is that United States does not purposely target civilians. Unlike Islamic radicals.

Also, state-terrorism in "peacetime" reigns supreme, where deliberate and sanctioned police brutality against unarmed civilians, assassinations both on native and foreign soil, as well as constant threats (sometimes even nuclear ones) against sovereign countries that don't kowtow. This is all state-terrorism, but Western non-state terrorism is also present and has been so for a very long time, it comes in the form of "white" terrorism and Christian as well as Jewish terrorism too, with quite a record I must say. These are witnessing a resurgence today after a brief hiatus, since we are in the Brexit-Trump circus season.

Citations needed for all of these. Also police brutality isn't state terrorism. For one thing, it's not used to achieve an ideological(or otherwise) aim. Second, it's not sponsored by the Federal Government of the United States. Most law enforcement agencies that people know as "police" are municipality, county, or state based and have little to do with the Federal Government.

[Sharukinu]

Citation needed.

...

Citation needed.

...

Citations needed for all of these.

"Citations", LoL. WTF do you think I'm getting my facts from, Herodotus and Strabo?

Get real and go do your own homework. Google Jon Michael Turner or Army of God or something.

It's wartime, what do you think is gonna happen? We do not have total control over troops and troops have been charged with war crimes where it was proven. I also agree that United States "War on Terror" is also illegal and some of the actions border on terrorism but the difference is that United States does not purposely target civilians.

It actually does.

Also police brutality isn't state terrorism. For one thing, it's not used to achieve an ideological(or otherwise) aim. Second, it's not sponsored by the Federal Government of the United States. Most law enforcement agencies that people know as "police" are municipality, county, or state based and have little to do with the Federal Government.

A distinction without a difference.

[Love Mountain]

"Citations", LoL. WTF do you think I'm getting my facts from, Herodotus and Strabo?

Get real and go do your own homework. Google Jon Michael Turner or Army of God or something.

You're the one making the claims. "Get real".

It actually does. A distinction without a difference.

Terrorism is use of violence and intimidation to achieve a political aim. Police violence is simply overzealous or nefarious cops. Otherwise I can call hitting my girlfriend terrorism. Stop diluting the meaning of the word.

[Sharukinu]

You're the one making the claims. "Get real".

That's like asking for "citations" to prove ISIS crimes. It's utterly moronic.

Step your game up.

Terrorism is use of violence and intimidation to achieve a political aim. Police violence is simply overzealous or nefarious cops. Otherwise I can call hitting my girlfriend terrorism. Stop diluting the meaning of the word.

It's not always about politics, and your English dictionary is not objectively universal.

[Love Mountain]

That's like asking for "citations" to prove ISIS crimes. It's utterly moronic.

Except I'm not asking citations for ISIS crimes. You're accusing the conduct of Western powers on and off the battlefield. Accusing U.S. of state-sponsored terrorism against foreign and domestic citizens. These are hardly "common" positions. Burden of proof lies on the guy making the claims.

Step your game up.

Step up your game. What, did you think we were all gonna swallow up your rhetoric because you're "somebody"?

It's not always about politics, and your English dictionary is not objectively universal.

You're right, that's why in the post before this one I said ideological or otherwise. Again, police brutality isn't terrorism sponsored by the United States. As you've so eloquently put it, "Get Real".

[Sharukinu]

Except I'm not asking citations for ISIS crimes. You're accusing the conduct of Western powers on and off the battlefield. Accusing U.S. of state-sponsored terrorism against foreign and domestic citizens. These are hardly "common" positions. Burden of proof lies on the guy making the claims.

You want "citations" for American police brutality and American war crimes.

Step up your game. What, did you think we were all gonna swallow up your rhetoric because you're "somebody"?

Did you use Google as instructed? No? Come back after you do.

You're right, that's why in the post before this one I said ideological or otherwise. Again, police brutality isn't terrorism sponsored by the United States. As you've so eloquently put it, "Get Real".

You mock your own post. You explicitly said it was political, not ideological or otherwise. And besides, police brutality driven by white racism is an ideology.

[Harith]

The US doesn't give them arms, it sells them arms. Do you believe that they couldn't find another seller if the US didn't?

Im all for pragmatism when it comes to making international deals. This, however is blood money.

You realize very well that the arm deals, of the kind that equips an entire national army, is done on the basis of shared common interests. By giving them access to arms and ammunition, they are in fact enabling the killing.

It's a great way to avoid direct responsibility on the legal level. On the moral level however, not so much.

At least at this point, we have some influence on them

Having military bases with capabilities that are sufficient to take over the whole country in a matter of days is not sufficient influence?

[sumskilz]

By giving them access to arms and ammunition, they are in fact enabling the killing.

Okay but again, would they cause less collateral damage with Russian-made arms? Would not selling to the Saudis actually prevent anything? To be clear, me not thinking the US is responsible for Saudi actions doesn't mean I actually like or support the US relationship with them.

Having military bases with capabilities that are sufficient to take over the whole country in a matter of days is not sufficient influence?

The US could easily crush the Iranian military as well, do they do what we tell them to?