Terrorism? Or fighting for survival

[Slytovhand]

Yeah, there's a couple of similar threads, but cos of how the eco-terrorism is going, I thought I'd get a bit more specific on another angle.

Let me start with an example or 2.

Burma has been living with a military dictatorship for decades. If some of those suffering under it were to acquire weapons and bombs, should they use them in a 'terrorist' way - ie, car-bombing of military and police forces?

Cambodia lost millions of its citizens over a couple of decades under Pol Pot's regime. Again, if their citizens had access to weapons of minor destruction such as car-bombs, would they be a legitimate form of warfare?




Thoughts?

[gremcint]

Here's a post I may regret later.

If you use terror as a weapon it is terrorism no matter what the cause, sometimes the cause is just. In other words sometimes terrorism is a good thing. I'm not willing to comment on specific incedents and events for the most part due to lack of knowledge.

For the record 911 was bad terrorism before people start jumping at me.

[Boozy]

Your examples aren't really considered terrorism in my mind, Slyt. If the people of Burma decided to rise up against an illegitimate dictatorship, then that would be a civil war, not terrorism.

Now, if some folks in Canada decided to start bombing the Parliament buildings because they don't like the lawfully elected government, that THAT would be terrorism.

[Fryk]

I think terrorism is more about the tactics employed in a struggle than the reason for the struggle itself. To me, terrorism would be any tactic used to incite terror in the general public, breaking its will to fight.

[Stormraven]

I tend to a more restrictive definition, myself. If any separatist group restricts itself to attacking military / armed government forces, I'm willing to consider them according to their stated beliefs.

If, on the other hand, they target civilians or unarmed government forces (outside of the military) then they're terrorists.

I tend to view that definition as standing even when the antagonists are prosecuting a 'legally' declared war. Terrorism is still terrorism.

[Gerrinson]

Terrorism uses violence (generally) to engender fear in <insert target populace>. Generally speaking, that populace is large and general, i.e. 9/11 was targeted at causing fear in US citizens, in general. Also, terrorists usually go out of their way to target civilians as well as non-civilians.

In my opinion, if a group of rebels is fighting their government by only targeting officials of that government, then it does not constitute terrorism, as they have specific targets, specific goals, and are not trying to create a general state of terror.

You can't label every revolutionary a 'terrorist' simply because that is the label du jour. But then, not every revolutionary fights for a just cause, either, and even those fighting for just causes can go over the line in the manner of 'if they don't side with us, they are the enemy' and begin targeting the civilian population.

*sigh* Even with myself, I wind up talking in circles. It is a touchy subject, at best, and makes most everyone tetchy. I think my point is clear, if not, I apologize for the murk but I blame it on humans for being so gray rather than black and white.

Humans - fence straddling, middle of the road, color outside the line bastards is what they are.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

There's a subtle but important line between terrorism and guerrilla warfare. Namely, it's the spilling over into targeting civilians that's key to it all. A terrorist act is anything meant to inspire fear in order to accomplish a goal, but terrorists as we describe them are specifically targeting a demographic(s) military and civilian alike in order to accomplish their goals. Whereas guerrillas are pursuing a military campaign via hit-and-run tactics.

On a related note, I had a discussion with a classmate over whether or not the bombing of enemy cities in WWII was terrorism (specifically the US bombing certain Japanese cities). I made the point that in those cases at least the aim was to destroy manufacturing facilities specifically. Just because something causes fear doesn't make it terrorist, if it did, more or less everything one does in battle could be considered terrorist (and SWAT teams would be elite terrorists).

[Mr Slugger]

I agree with most of the posters. If you target is the military then it's warfare, even if at times there's some civilians deaths, because let's face it you can't fight a war and not kill a few civilians. So long as the intended target was a military installation, a tank, soldiers, etc. it's war.

Bombing a market place is terrorism

[fireheart17]

Here's a post I may regret later.

If you use terror as a weapon it is terrorism no matter what the cause, sometimes the cause is just. In other words sometimes terrorism is a good thing. I'm not willing to comment on specific incedents and events for the most part due to lack of knowledge.

For the record 911 was bad terrorism before people start jumping at me.

Funnily enough, one of my readings at uni talked about just that. "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." so to speak.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I'm really getting tired of the "This is the definition of the word" argument. While the official definition is important, common usage is equally if not more so.

The fear factor/intimidation has been an essential part of military strategy through the ages. Including modern rapid dominance doctrine. Inflicting terror upon one's enemies is a vital part of most if not all military operations (to say nothing of domestic LE operations). By that token more or less anyone who engages in any kind of combat is a terrorist at least for the moment. What we mean when we say 'terrorist' is far more specific. In that only those trying to scare others into following their ideological path are referred to as "terrorists"

IMO, of course.

[jackfaire]

Your examples aren't really considered terrorism in my mind, Slyt. If the people of Burma decided to rise up against an illegitimate dictatorship, then that would be a civil war, not terrorism.

What makes a government illegitimate? I ask because people always say this.

Our government was created out of war.

We left Britain's rule and called it revolution.

We conquered people took their land and called it manifest destiny.

How is our government any more legitimate than say another government that does the same but decides instead of democracy everyone will answer to one guy?

[Boozy]

What makes a government illegitimate? I ask because people always say this.

Governments that hold power by exerting military force on their subjected populations are illegitimate, in my mind.

[Fryk]

The reason I said that about the definition of terrorism is that it seems some people are confusing a military strategy with the entire conflict. If the people of Burma rose up against their government, that would be a rebellion, or a civil war. If, during the conflict, they used car bombs and suicide bombers to attack civilian buildings in an effort to keep the general populace from standing on the side of the government, that would be terrorism.
Yes, fear is usually a component of military strategy, but that fear is usually inflicted on the opposing military, not on the general populace. Yes, in this line of thought, the Hiroshima bombings would be defined as terrorism.

[jackfaire]

Governments that hold power by exerting military force on their subjected populations are illegitimate, in my mind.

What government would peacefully say, "Okay you don't like us let's step aside"

[Rapscallion]

What government would peacefully say, "Okay you don't like us let's step aside"

In the UK, and the US, and most genuinely democratic countries, it's the ones who lose the election.

Rapscallion