What constitutes terrorism?

[Mr Q]

Discuss:

We all like to think we know what constitutes terrorism and what doesn't, and we'd all probably agree that Al Qaeda are a bunch of terrorists while a UN peacekeeping force would not be.

However where is the line drawn. Our young Jewish friend ^Eagle^ was given a hypothetical in another thread that sits right in the grey area:

A Palestinian bomb goes off in a beside an IDF post killing say 3 Soldiers and wound say 5 more. Also killed and wounded are a large number of civilians. Terrorist attack or justifiable targetting?

The question is: Is this an act of terrorism, or otherwise? The target is clearly of a military nature, the people nearby would likely know that. If its terrorism then what difference can be made from the acts of the IDF in the occupied territories? If its not, then at what point do we call a loss of collateral civilian life not terrorism?

Similar scenario from our favourite hotspot: Palestinian suicide bomber sets off a bomb in a crowded restaurant with the intent to kill a senior IDF member who is eating there. Senior army man dies along with 35 civilians.

In this case its likely that the civilian casualties would have been unlikely to know their danger, and it sounds like terrorism to me, but there is the murky area where there was a legitimate military target in the line of fire.

Sometimes its easy - September 11 was an act of terrorism, the Battle of the Somme was not. However in many cases the line isn't that easy to determine. So how can we come up with a definition of a terrorist act that can once and for all define such acts (I wouldn't imagine this is a trivial issue either given new laws on terrorism in Australia).

 

[jim boy]

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[B2..]

Great post, Q.

Hmm, place Saddam, Hitler or any number of "tryrant" in there instead of senior IDF member, and you wouldn't have too many arguing that it wasn't a reasonable trade-off.

Perhaps not rasonable if you are the deceased or related, though.

Originally posted by Mr Q
Similar scenario from our favourite hotspot: Palestinian suicide bomber sets off a bomb in a crowded restaurant with the intent to kill a senior IDF member who is eating there. Senior army man dies along with 35 civilians.

 

[evo]

When subjects like this arise it always makes me wonder why on earth anyone would want to join the armed forces.The majority of people seem to feel your "fair game",only outraged when civilians are killed.
Are not Israeli soldiers drafted? In that case any violent act against any soldier forced against their will to become a soldier could be construed as terrorism.(I only use the Israeli example because I was under the impression they are forced to do 2 years service)

 

[Pessimistic]

The founding fathers of the USA employed soem good terrorist methods to liberate the US from britain, as did the israelis in the mid east.

If you are ultimately successful, you can call it something else.

Hence terrorism is methods employed by losing sides.

 

[Mickey]

Originally posted by Mr Q
Similar scenario from our favourite hotspot: Palestinian suicide bomber sets off a bomb in a crowded restaurant with the intent to kill a senior IDF member who is eating there. Senior army man dies along with 35 civilians.

In this case its likely that the civilian casualties would have been unlikely to know their danger, and it sounds like terrorism to me, but there is the murky area where there was a legitimate military target in the line of fire.

Why use a suicide bomber in that situation when you can use a sniper rifle - you kill the target, but the civilians are untouched...........a suicide bomber is a terrorist IMO. There are other ways.

 

[otaku]

anything that is designed to cause mass panic and/r damage to an unarmed civilian populace is terrorism.

This includes everything from suicide bombers to "shock and awe" campaigns. But it is (as Pessimistic said) only terrorism if you are on the losing side. Otherwise it is justifiable use of force.

justifiable in that your use of force caused you to be the victor.

 

[Dry Rot]

Originally posted by Jim Boy
Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

Spot on - seen any old Nazi propaganda films in which the French Resisitance is described as "terrorists"?

 

[RaMa]

Palestinians suicide bombers have one goal and one goal only, to kill as many ISRAELI civilians as possible, they do not target army officers at all.

This is terrorism.

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by RaMa
Palestinians suicide bombers have one goal and one goal only, to kill as many ISRAELI civilians as possible, they do not target army officers at all.

To create a Palestinian state and get the occupied territories back the Israelis need to be brought to the negotiation table, and arrive there determined to strike a deal, not just talk.

The best way of getting this to happen is to put great pressure on the government.

To do this propoganda and passive protest etc have proven of limited effect. Blowing up civilians causes panic and fear and these civilians in turn demand that their government negotiate a solution so that they can live safely.

The logic makes sense, whether it is justified or effective is another question.

If you support their cause they are freedom fighters conducting war by the only means available to them. If you are opposed to their cause they are cowardly terrorists.

The one question I would ask is ...

What would you be prepared to do if NationX occupied Australia, denied you and your family access to housing, education and jobs. Placed restrictions on your movements, language and religion. Draw your own scenario, but what would you be prepared to do to liberate Australia? Would you be prepared to detonate a bomb at Southbank that killed 300 NationXians even if 20 Aussies got caught in the blast?

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by Weaver
To create a Palestinian state and get the occupied territories back the Israelis need to be brought to the negotiation table, and arrive there determined to strike a deal, not just talk.

The best way of getting this to happen is to put great pressure on the government.

To do this propoganda and passive protest etc have proven of limited effect. Blowing up civilians causes panic and fear and these civilians in turn demand that their government negotiate a solution so that they can live safely.

The logic makes sense, whether it is justified or effective is another question.

If you support their cause they are freedom fighters conducting war by the only means available to them. If you are opposed to their cause they are cowardly terrorists.

The one question I would ask is ...

What would you be prepared to do if NationX occupied Australia, denied you and your family access to housing, education and jobs. Placed restrictions on your movements, language and religion. Draw your own scenario, but what would you be prepared to do to liberate Australia? Would you be prepared to detonate a bomb at Southbank that killed 300 NationXians even if 20 Aussies got caught in the blast?

no, i wouldnt be willing to do that.

If all the nationXers were military people it would be worth killing them, but if they were innocent citezen of nationX i would not want them to be killed.

Assassinate the leader of NationX, cool.

Attack military targets, again - cool.

Attack civilians who were just in the wrong place - bad bad karma man.

 

[evo]

Originally posted by Weaver



The one question I would ask is ...

What would you be prepared to do if NationX occupied Australia, denied you and your family access to housing, education and jobs. Placed restrictions on your movements, language and religion. Draw your own scenario, but what would you be prepared to do to liberate Australia? Would you be prepared to detonate a bomb at Southbank that killed 300 NationXians even if 20 Aussies got caught in the blast?

Way too simplitic but anyway.If the above happened I would not start blowing up my fellow man.I would migrate to another country.New Zealand is nice,Canada, U.S.,Sweden in fact anywhere in Europe would be preferable to blowing people up.
You will never see me on these boards posting against refugees.I respect them for trying to improve their life.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by otaku
no, i wouldnt be willing to do that.

If all the nationXers were military people it would be worth killing them, but if they were innocent citezen of nationX i would not want them to be killed.

Assassinate the leader of NationX, cool.

Attack military targets, again - cool.

Attack civilians who were just in the wrong place - bad bad karma man.

Agreed.

As far as I'm concerned, terrorism is the deliberate targetting of civilian populations to attempt to create fear, panic, or (strangely enough) terror.

It might be cold comfort to an innocent caught in a laser guided bomb blast, but there is a difference between civilians being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and being actively targetted. Admittedly, you might be just as dead in either situation, but thats not terrorism,

Hamas suicide bombing military outpost and killing a few civilians = military attack, with collateral damage- even if there are a hundred civilians dead, and one soldier. Its the intention which is important.

Hamas suicide bombing a mall to try and kill as many civilians as possible = terrorism, and murder.

Israeli missile strike on Hamas leader's car, which kills several bystanders = military attack, collateral damage.

Israelis intentionally demolishing civilian houses to retaliate after bombing = terrorism (sans actual murder)

In a historical sense, the firebombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and the London Blitz were all terrorist attacks, ie the deliberate targetting of civilian populations to attempt to create fear, panic, or terror.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by RaMa
Palestinians suicide bombers have one goal and one goal only, to kill as many ISRAELI civilians as possible, they do not target army officers at all.

This is terrorism.

Read the scenarios. Remove the words Palestinian and IDF if it makes it easier to answer. Your answer is simplistic and somewhat trite - everyone would agree that deliberate targetting of civilians is terrorism, but the scenarios ask about grey areas where an attack is on a military target among civilians - if you don't think that a fair portion of all Palestinian attacks are based upon this then you would have to be deluded.

What I'm trying to find out is where the line is drawn - read Mead's post above for a good example of how to draw that line and then agree or redefine that line as you see fit.

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by Mead
It might be cold comfort to an innocent caught in a laser guided bomb blast, but there is a difference between civilians being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and being actively targetted. Admittedly, you might be just as dead in either situation, but thats not terrorism

The IRA are a terrorist organisation in most people's minds, but their standard method is to ring though a warning and have the area evacuated before a blast. The intention is not to kill cilivilans, but to bring the 'war' into their loungerooms.

If I give someone a gun and tell them to go and shoot someone, in most people's minds I am guilty or murder. You can't simply claim that you have not pulled the trigger. Where a civilian population lives under the protection of a military, can they simply claim "I didn't pull the trigger". Can a civilian Israeli be 'innocent' when their elected government is in essence pulling the trigger on their behalf? Is a civilian who lives in the occupied terretories really a non-combatant, or are they part of the support network and decision making body behind the 'enemy'?

On a different sort of issue, is someone who builds a bomb and gives it to someone else a terrorist, is someone who shelters a bomber a terrorist? If someone plants this hypothetical bomb in Southbank and you don't hand them over to police are you a terrorist open to a military action?

 

[moistie]

Originally posted by evo
Way too simplitic but anyway.If the above happened I would not start blowing up my fellow man.I would migrate to another country.New Zealand is nice,Canada, U.S.,Sweden in fact anywhere in Europe would be preferable to blowing people up.

But what if the NationXians would not allow you to get out of the country?

What is they started killing your family and friends and banned things dear to you (like the footy, perhaps)?

What if the NationXians were completely technologically superior so there were no means of fighting back using conventional warfare?

What if the rest of the world turned a blind eye?

What would you do then?

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by moistie
But what if the NationXians would not allow you to get out of the country?

And what if those countries refused to take you and had a policy of imprisoning you without trial if you happened to make your own way there?

 

[moistie]

Originally posted by Weaver
And what if those countries refused to take you and had a policy of imprisoning you without trial if you happened to make your own way there?

Sad but true.... but I want to establish that there is no chance of escape and no hope for fighting back through conventional warfare. In such a situation what would you do to liberate your homeland? Its the age old debate, is it terrorism or patriotism?

 

[Tim56]

Originally posted by moistie
But what if the NationXians would not allow you to get out of the country?

What is they started killing your family and friends and banned things dear to you (like the footy, perhaps)?

What if the NationXians were completely technologically superior so there were no means of fighting back using conventional warfare?

What if the rest of the world turned a blind eye?

What would you do then?

I wouldn't put a bomb in a cafe, or blow up a bus.

 

[moistie]

Originally posted by Tim56
I wouldn't put a bomb in a cafe, or blow up a bus.

Fair enough. What would you do to free your society?

Would you partake in passive resistance?

Join an underground group?

Ambush patrols?

Would you kill off duty military personnel?

Would you kill military personnel even if this involved risks to non-military people?

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Surely a terrorist attack involves a ploy to deliberately kill or injure a person or persons not consciously engaging in, or not consciously planning to engage in, activities endangering the welfare of others.


A few examples, maybe :

A person catching a bus to the supermarket would not be fair game, but a person catching a bus with the intention of blowing up those on the way to the supermarket would be.

Military personnel in a hospital should not be fair game, but military personnel in an army barracks would be.

A soldier involved in peacekeeping missions should not be fair game, but a soldier taking part in a mission aimed at endangering the welfare of innocent civilians should be.

Children living near a military target should definitely not be fair game, but those forcing them to live near a military target definitely should be.

 

[^Eagle^]

Originally posted by Mr Q
Discuss:
A Palestinian bomb goes off in a beside an IDF post killing say 3 Soldiers and wound say 5 more. Also killed and wounded are a large number of civilians. Terrorist attack or justifiable targetting?
Palestinian suicide bomber sets off a bomb in a crowded restaurant with the intent to kill a senior IDF member who is eating there. Senior army man dies along with 35 civilians.

hmm, well, the Palestinian bomb goes off beside an IDF post, an army area, ie warfare, something unforunately uncommon for the Palestinians

However, the bomb in the crowded restrurant is in PUBLIC AREA, and would make Jews and Israeli Arabs afraid to go to restrurants.

 

[evo]

Originally posted by moistie
But what if the NationXians would not allow you to get out of the country?

What is they started killing your family and friends and banned things dear to you (like the footy, perhaps)?

What if the NationXians were completely technologically superior so there were no means of fighting back using conventional warfare?

What if the rest of the world turned a blind eye?

What would you do then?

Still leave. I wont beleive in nearly all situations the NationXers are able to block all exits. A good example is Zimbabwe,most of the white people saw the writing on the wall years ago,cashed in and left. I'm not taking sides here, I just beleive in most cases its sheer bloody mindedness. I was born in Australia,I love it here but I sure wouldn't daily risky my and my families life here to live under persecution if the NationXers occupied Melbourne for instance. As I said above I have great respect for refugees,they are proactive and Imo are just the sort of people Australia within reason,should be welcoming.

 

[RaMa]

There is no point of trying to justify suicide bombing attacks,
THEY ARE WRONG. That is all.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by RaMa
There is no point of trying to justify suicide bombing attacks,
THEY ARE WRONG. That is all.

A suicide bomber is a weapon, no different from a cruise missile or a tank round or a laser guided bomb. I wasn't aware that some weapons were morally right and others were morally wrong? If anything, you could say that a suicide bomber at least requires the guy hitting the button to have a rather significantly greater strength of conviction than a airforce pilot.

As I said before, its the intention which is significant. Suicide bombing with the intention to kill and maim civilians is identical to using advanced weaponry with intention of killing and maiming civilians- both are simply murder.

At the other end of the scale, it doesn't matter how you choose to whack someone in an enemy uniform. I suppose the real reason armies first started to issue uniforms were to make it clear who is 'fair game' in a war.

As for the collateral damage issue, I think you just need to look at the intention. I n general, accidental killing of civilians in the course of pursuing a military objective is just the way it goes- even if you take all due care to prevent it happening, there's still a chance of something going wrong..
I guess you could grade it as entirely accidental, reasonable risk, callous enough to constitute manslaughter (eg firing a tank round at someone standing in a crowd of civilians), and actual murder. I think perhaps the line is drawn when you would know with pretty much total certainty that any one given act would definitely kill civilians.