Individual Terrorism and Ethics

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Hopefully this belongs here, it's a bit of a strange subject and doesn't fit neatly in either political or ethical forums.

Some of the discussion on the thread on the Yemeni Civil War has been about suicide bombing, and whether it is right to support forces who use suicide bombing as a tactic if it's against a foe who is much worse.(Such as Al Qaeda) Coming out of this line of thought, I think there are two questions which really can be asked:

1. Is suicide bombing necessarily a terrorist act, or does it have anything to do with whether the target is military or civilian, or on whether the enemy uses the same tactic?

2. If suicide bombing IS a terrorist act, can it be condoned under any set of circumstances?

Some of my thoughts:

There are some old arguments which claim that many things which would be considered terrorism in times of peace are more properly considered part and parcel to a larger struggle when you have a context like a civil war, or a foreign occupation. For example: Trotsky made the argument that terrorism was useless, but that if someone had managed to somehow assassinate or blow up General Franco and his chiefs of staff in the middle of the civil war, this would not be terrorism. Similarly we can consider the use of suicide bombing by Kurdish fighters against ISIL: Very few people will deny that the population of Rojava Kurdistan are currently fighting for their lives, and not just for some sectarian cause or another. Does the fact that they are likely to experience mass murder if they lose against ISIS something which excuses the use of suicide bombings, or is this a line that you just don't cross?

[Enros]

Suicide bombing isn't necessarily terrorism, it can be an act of self defense. If in 1973 the native population of Diego Garcia had started suicide bombing the British soldiers who came to force them into a Stalinist-style population transfer, that would simply be self defense and not terrorism (further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopul...os_Archipelago). There would be no civilian casualties as the only civilians were the native population.

As far as I'm concerned imperialists who are trying to commit crimes against humanity are outlaws who have no human rights. They have no right to expect protection from being killed. That goes for anyone who plays an active role, be they military, government or other. I think the debate about civilian casualties in this case is no different from the debate in other cases, such as war or hijacked aircraft.

[sumskilz]

I don't see how it can be considered terrorism if it's against military targets.

As far as I'm concerned imperialists who are trying to commit crimes against humanity are outlaws who have no human rights. They have no right to expect protection from being killed.

Look man, if the Chagos Islanders didn't want to be evicted, they shouldn't have been brought there as slaves.

[Denny Crane!]

If its against military targets its war therefore doesn't count. Does it cause terror sure, but then I presume bayonetting someone in the face is also pretty terrifying so I think we can assume that causing terror in war is just a thing that happens.

If its against civilians, well do I need to go further?

[hellheaven1987]

So if military was targeting civilian, is that terrorism too?

[Caligula's_Horse]

I never saw it as much of a question. Use of lethal force against civilians in order to impose political change is defined as terrorism, with suicide bombing being a popular way of doing it in certain parts of the world. Whether you see the terrorist's actions as "justified" has nothing to do with it; people do horrific things for what they think is good reasons all the time.
Up against a military target, I wouldn't define a suicide bombing as terrorism, I'd define it as an act of war. Probably worth mentioning though, that the difference between terrorist and enemy combatant mostly comes down to semantics in practical terms; you shoot them both in much the same way.

As for condoning it, I suppose it can be derided and defended just like any other violent act in the name of some grander goal. Though practically speaking, I have a hard time thinking of any scenario where use of suicide bombers against a civilian population would be beneficial to anyone involved. The vast majority of the time, it only convinces the other side that the people sending the suicide bombers are homicidal maniacs that are beyond reason and therefore need to be put down like rabid dogs.