BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Is Terrorism Ever OK?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
bio k9
18:53 / 29.10.02
From the Moscow Theatre Hostages :

The desperate, suicidal, and pointlessly brutal tactics on the part of the Chechen rebels and other would-be terrorists like them is the direct cause of this kind of violence.

This brings up something I've been thinking about for a while now: How are nations with little or no military power supposed to defend themselves against foreign aggression? I imagine that everyone here would say that killing civilians is wrong (unless its the only way to kill terrorists, of course) but, what other options are there for the Palistinians, Chechens, ect. When, if ever, does terrorism become an acceptable last resort?
 
 
MJ-12
19:03 / 29.10.02
Since terrorism seems to be fairly ineffective at accomplishing stated goals of national liberation/defense, I would say that terrorism is not really an option at all, so much as it is a spasm response.
 
 
higuita
19:51 / 29.10.02
But isn't it the case that the word 'terrorist' is applied generally by the party/military/whoever happens to be in charge? Castro was called a terrorist, after all, as was Nelson Mandela.
I don't want to say that attacking civilians is in any way okay, because it's clearly not. Any action of the military against civilians, such as that of Israel in Palestine, can also be equated as a form of terrorism.
It's a tricky one as no-one wants to end up in a situation where their argument appears to justify atrocities like the twin towers but at the same time, what option does that offer to people in a situation where there appears to be no political way out?
Is 'by any means necessary' only an admirable statement when we agree with what you're saying?
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
20:13 / 29.10.02
I tend to prefer Noam Chomsky's definition of terrorism as the use or threat of force to coerce others (or something along those lines). Every state is guilty of terror, but some of them are powerful enough to use subtler forms like economic strangulation. What we call 'terrorists' are just groups acting as states but without the control of media outlets to spin things their way or cover them up. And I think there probably is something to MJ-12's idea of that kind of terror -- that it's a spastic response to a "state's" utter deprivation of power.

Ultimately, and as I understand the history of the thing, you don't fight an unbeatable enemy. You either find a way to work with it or escape it, find powerful allies, or are extinguished by it (or some combination thereof).

As for "acceptable" ... I go back and forth on this but my initial response was that states are amoral. Their only job is to compete successfully against other states. Any discussion of justice or moral action on the part of the state is a discussion of mechanics but hardly concerns eternal principals of Good or Truth. Those are individual human values. States don't need to justify their actions and, when they control individuals through layers of blame-absorbing brainwash, individual action can be just as amoral. Each individual has to decide whether he can afford to be an amoral operative of an amoral state, but of course most of us never get the opportunity to choose for ourselves.
 
 
jeff
21:30 / 29.10.02
Stop trying to paint everything monochrome.
Unless you want to pin your flag to one system of ethics or another, you cant really use morality as a tool of argument. Emotive language does tend to get in the way of reason.
Terrorism is an option, just like any other. At times there are others, and at others there are none.
 
 
The Monkey
21:48 / 29.10.02
Castro and Mandela were guerillas, and to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge their tactics fit within their mold...that is, their end was the undermining of the resident hegemony via strikes against its infrastructure, economy, and military; coupled with the pursuit of local and distal popular support of a full rebellion. One can think is this in terms of specific activities such as the assassination or kidnapping of key figures, sabotage and theft, ambushes and strike-and-retreat raids. But aside from it's clandestine-ness, guerilla tactics operate much like a conventional military operation: key targets are identified and crippled in order that the cumulative damage produces a final objective. Like a game of chess, it a matter of coordinating smaller units of success into a total victory. Soldiering and guerilla warfare views the opponent as a structure to be disassembled.

Eek. Must go study for midterm; will come back with contrasting assessment of the thinking behind terrorist tactics.
 
 
the Fool
23:16 / 29.10.02
Terrorism is an option, just like any other. At times there are others, and at others there are none.

Terrorism is nolonger an option. I would agree with MJ12 on this. Terrorism has been successfully absorbed by that which it seeks to destory. Terrorism is now a tool of the first world military/governments, to oppress their own people and silence opposition. Terrorism is also a comodity to the media for dissection and reprocessing.

It makes sense for authoritarian regimes to instill fear in their own populous. It makes them easier to control. Terrorism helps governments control population and push right-wing agenda.

Terrorists now only aid the governments they oppose through terrorist attacks.
 
 
jeff
23:56 / 29.10.02
How would you apply this to a situation like that in Chechnya?
If it is grossly simplified, and you ignore the various factions and antics of Basayev, Maskhadov et al, how does a country desperate for its independence possibly fight against a foe which outnumbers them in every possible way?
 
 
bjacques
00:20 / 30.10.02
By targeting obviously powerless civilians, terrorists have already
lost. Governments consider their non-key citizens expendable
anyway. Western governments may wring their hands more, but
they'll still rush the building. Everyone cheers the cops because the
terrorists have already advertised their willingness to do something
nasty. Once in power, or in a some permenent position to dictate
terms, people can expect more of the same. The rest of us will
happily watch our governments exterminate the terrorists or anyone
who looks like them. Better the devil you know...

If groups want to win public support, they really should target the
people most actively responsible for their misery. Kill, beggar,
castrate or terminally embarrass them, whatever, and time is no
object. Getting someone years into retirement, as was done to
Somoza, shows that memories don't fade easily. Alternatively,
get some real bastard like Murdoch, Kissinger or Ken Lay
(from Enron), and I guarantee that if Bush or Blair cries "terrorism,"
the people will piss themselves laughing. Unfortunately, that sort of
thing only happens in cool comic books and Stewart Home novels.

(DISCLAIMER: The above is wishful thinking, not an incitement)
 
 
The Monkey
02:20 / 30.10.02
"Terrorism has been successfully absorbed by that which it seeks to destory. Terrorism is now a tool of the first world military/governments, to oppress their own people and silence opposition. Terrorism is also a comodity to the media for dissection and reprocessing. "

Fool, what on earth are you trying to say...that terrorism isn't viable because it's been co-opted? As opposed to that hoary day in the past when random bombing producing sweeping social progress? For god's sakes, stop trying to create a dialectic between terrorists and hegemons. It's bloody silly. Just because someone's the underdog doesn't mean they aren't equally evil, thoughtless, and dictatorial.

Also, I want to point out that terrorists have never truly represented anyone's interests but there own little cultic interpretation of how things are...historically they have rarely, if ever, represented the will of an oppressed "people"...which is precisely why I was posting about the difference between guerilla military philosophy...which has been the province of the underpriveledged and 3rd-world for three centuries at least...and terrorist philosophy.

Hostage taking and bombing operate upon the premise of a failure to negotiate: the opposing government/group in the terrorist mind have become an idealized "other" with whom discourse is impossible. These actions are not initiated to open dialogue, but rather to sever them wholely: the demands made are not designed for the ears of the opponent, but rather for the sympathetic. The message to the subject of terrorist actions is implicit: it is the extortive threat of stochastic violence if demands are not met...not merely within the microcontext of a hostage-taking or bombing, but the endless possibility of continuation; event after event. What a guerilla sees as a structural problem a terrorist perceives an ingrained flaw: it is the evaluative difference between choosing to act as a surgeon and a butcher. The opponent, as "other," is irreconcilably different and subordinate in intelligence, morals, and human value. Generalized violence against the other is justifiable within this perception: guilt is an ascribed status of the terrorist's ideological opponent, and there is thus no need to discriminate in the selection of targets. All violent actions thus also contain a punitive component responding to perceived breaches...some of which of justifiable grievances, others in which the sense of malicious agency is essential paranoiac. [I note in the discussions following the World Trade Center attacks that many people on the board, while not condoning the actions of the bombers, projected onto those men the elements of liberal critique of the US's economic and colonial policy that are held on this board...not considering that Al-Quaeda and other Muslim extremist groups do not share their agenda of protest against economic imbalances, but rather act out of a sense of cultural persecution and the sense that Islam has been degenerated by the diffusion of democratic and individualistic ideas that most of us on the board would consider to be 'good']
 
 
J Mellott
02:44 / 30.10.02
I remember watching a speech by Chomsky on TV a few weeks ago. The definition he uses, IIRC comes from a UN resolution against terrorism that the US refused to support. Mainly because someone with brains in the state department realized that not only was the US guilty of terrorism under this definition, but most multinationals would be as well.

In some cases, the word "terrorist" is used by the politically strong to demonize legitimate people's organizations (Chiapas comes to mind). But groups like Al Quida seem to operate more as "symbolic" terrorists. Rather than pursuing a strategy that actually weakens the US economy in the long term, they strike out at symbols of America's imperial might. This strategy is doomed to failure. Civilian casualties don't mean anything to those in power. bjaques suggestions about attacking corporate leaders would possibly be more effective.

The real problem is that terrorism tries to use the Master's tools (namely violence and intimidation) to dismantle the Master's house.
This is usually a poor technique. Still, if Chechnya wants Russia gone, its best bet is to hire a PR firm (or do something equally media savvy).
 
 
the Fool
03:04 / 30.10.02
Fool, what on earth are you trying to say?

Terrorism is helping US foriegn policy.

Terrorism is almost a tool of the superpowers, used to give a reason to interfer in other governments (Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan). As a reason to oppress minorities. As a reason to suppress civil liberties. To increase military spending, to increase CIA funding.

The US government, CIA, FBI, military etc. have more to gain out of terrorism than the terrorists themselves.

How would you apply this to a situation like that in Chechnya?

The recent hostage crisis gives credence to the Russian Governments insistence that Chechnya is dangerous and should be crushed. However the whole gassing thing may undermine this.
 
 
Slim
03:22 / 30.10.02
The US should reject Chomsky's definition not because it would imply that the US is a terrorism but because Chomsky's definition is incorrect. Chomsky leaves out the part where terrorism is the use of asymmetric means to force someone/thing into whatever it is you demand that they do. While not all military actions by a government are acts of terrorism, a government (like say, the US) is capable of commiting such acts.
 
 
Pepsi Max
09:34 / 30.10.02
You could say it's all in the name. Terrorism = the creation of terror. It's not about achieving a definite, material goal - the release of hostages, the change of laws, the acquisition of territory. As such, all terrorism is symbolic violence. It's about making people scared.

If you're a state, it's about making a group "repect your authority". Keep them demoralised and subservient.

If you're a NGO terrorist (e.g. Al Qaeda), it's about generating tension, confusion, and demoralisation. It's about provoking a response that may harm your supporters and tie them closer to you.

The lines between terrorism and guerilla warfare aren't clear cut. Terrorism is path of action that might be used by guerilla forces.

Terrorism is never "OK" because it replaces dialogue with pain and anger.

And more vexed question is: Does terrorism work?

And I have to say that sometimes I think acts of terrorism have effects that benefit those that commit them. For example, I think that Osama Bin Laden has gained kudos among some Muslims. Of course, equally he's pissed off loads more.
 
 
diz
13:09 / 30.10.02
"Since terrorism seems to be fairly ineffective at accomplishing stated goals of national liberation/defense, I would say that terrorism is not really an option at all, so much as it is a spasm response."

i think this is about as useful a framework for understanding terrorism as we are likely to get. we could get tripped up in the ethics of terrorism all day, but if we understand it more in terms of an automatic response we can make more progress in dealing with it.

simply put, if you put any given group of people in certain situations, some of them will take it upon themselves to start making bombs. whether they should or not is besides the point; experience dictates that they will. add oppression, subtract the possibility of direct military victory, and you will get terrorism.

however, many people, especially in most of the US, tend to resist this reading because it appears to deny free will and makes individual accountability a moot point.

Americans in particular tend to find discussions of social and historical context to be distasteful; the idea that individual will can triumph over external circumstances is deeply ingrained in our culture, as is fitting for a country which perceives itself to be the product of a revolutionary movement.

this is a serious blindspot in American culture and impedes us in any attempt to address terrorism as a symptom of systemic issues.
 
 
grant
14:31 / 30.10.02
Monkey: Historical point - Mandela may have been organizing a guerilla resistance, but he was also planting bombs in public places. Or ordering them placed, which is (legally) the same thing.

I suspect that the ANC eventually won *because* Mandela spent so much time in jail, not despite it.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
14:53 / 30.10.02
Let's be perfectly frank, in human terms:

"Terrorism" is acceptable if it protects me and mine. It is unnacceptable if it harms me and mine.

If it has nothing to do with me and mine, then I'm free to discuss morality up and down the ladder because it's got absolutely nothing to do with my actual experience.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
16:47 / 30.10.02
But Ray, terrorism doesn't protect anyone. I very much doubt anyone in Al-Aqsa or the Real IRA or FARC who plans terrorist action believes they're protecting themselves. I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with protection.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
16:59 / 30.10.02
It's pretty clear we're getting bogged down in semantics here. I'm working with Pepsi Max's definition, which seems to be the best put forward on the forum: Terrorism = the creation of terror. Symbolic violence as opposed to clear military engagement.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
17:13 / 30.10.02
And to this:

terrorism doesn't protect anyone...I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with protection.

I invite you to consider the apparent intent of the Chechnyan terrorists in Moscow. They demanded Russian withdrawal from Chechnya, and were prepared to die in hopes (it seems) of sparking international discussion on the issue.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
17:22 / 30.10.02
Oh, I think it's perfectly legitimate to pick up on that point - the use of the word 'protects' jarred with me in this context. I think 'represents me and mine' might perhaps have been better (though of course that's from my viewpoint). Clarity *is* important...

I think Monkey's post says what I think about it more clearly than I could myself. I do think it is helpful to emphasise the random nature of terrorism - that terrorists seem to be so concerned with the symbolic nature of their acts that they don't care whether the people who suffer have anything to do with the regime (or whatever) with which the terrorists quarrel. That's obviously true of state terror as well.

However, there might well be times when legitimate resistance has to take covert forms (i.e. guerrilla warfare, I suppose, when directed against state targets) because the resistance has no official status and no access to the type of equipment which would allow 'clear military engagement'.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
17:23 / 30.10.02
And wrt your last point on the Chechens, I still think that has more to do with representation than protection.
 
 
cusm
18:59 / 30.10.02
I think it may help to look back on the original use and meaning of war. When you remove the illusion of states, war is a conflict of one people against another, often over land or resources, and often with the goal of the extermination or subjugation of the opposing people, not just their military. When the opposing people generate a military to oppose yours, the real conflict of people vs people is abstracted into military vs military.

Terrorism is people fighting people directly. Military structure serves to protect people against foreign hostile forces. Terrorism bypasses the unbeatable military and attacks the people they protect, there by serving their prime goals without being drawn into a fight that can't be won.

As for war, war is a practice of hurting another people until they give in to your demands. Is there really a moral difference between blowing up a schoolbus and dropping an H-bomb in Heiroshima? Both are acts of terrorism, attacks against the people directly bypassing the interveining military, in an attempt to bully the opposing side to give in to demands. Perhaps if they blow up enough schoolbusses, the opposition will give in, once the price of combat is greater than the price of submission. Certainly, the price of the possibility of losing another city was enough to stop the agression of Japan. Why should it be any different in Palistine?

I dare say "terrorism" is the right of every people who fight for a cause, as it has been since the dawn of humanity, and is always an option, though it may be the last. Terrorism is nothign more than people acting as military against people, striking in the only way they can against their ememy. It is painted as a horrible inhuman crime by American media, but the reality is that it is war, something inherent to humanity itself.

Remember that terrorists are not just blowing things up to cause trouble. They want something. They have goals, and a tangible enemy. The tactic used is only to make the enemy suffer enough loss that they are willing to give you what you want.

And yea, its horrible and uncivilized. So is war. This is no different.
 
 
Torquemada
00:33 / 31.10.02
Terror that Backfires

I've never figured it out...have't terrorists ever considered (in democratic countries at least) that, once frightened by terrorist, your average joe might then be *more frightened* of what could happen if he/we started 'giving in' to such terrorism, and therefore become even more resolved? I know this is the case with, say, the IRA and the Basque seperatists, but what about others?

If the Chechens were willing to die for their cause, then they could have just (for a wild example) set themselves on fire in a public area of a major city - it would have generated the same amount of publicity and debate (assuming that this was indeed their goal, not that they were directly trying to make the Russians withdraw). Remember that classic photo of the Hindu setting himself on fire (and burning to death) to protest against the vietnam war...or even the Chinese students, standing in front of the tank and the like...is it possible that peaceful protest by a minority can have a longer lasting impression and therefore can actually do more 'damage'? Or are there hundreds of examples to the contrary and I'm being a hopeless optimist?
 
 
Slim
02:51 / 31.10.02
Sorry cusm but there's a difference between a battle of two trained and prepared soldiers on a battlefield and someone shooting a man/woman/child who simply picked the wrong day to see a movie. War is far more civilized than terrorism as in a war one strives to avoid harming innocent civilians and target only enemy combatants while a terrorist makes no such attempts. One is far more despicable than the other.

And why single out the American media when it comes to condemning terrorism? America is hardly the only nation in the world that "villifies" terrorism.
 
 
Pepsi Max
08:21 / 31.10.02
cusm> Terrorism is people fighting people directly.

Most terrorists do not know their victims. Terrorism is still 'violence at a distance'.

Is there really a moral difference between blowing up a schoolbus and dropping an H-bomb in Heiroshima?

Difficult choice. A moral decision only makes sense in terms of its context and outcomes. If blowing up that school bus saved lives in the longer term then maybe it is. But 'the ends justifies the means' response puts you on slippery ground. Anyway, I think the use of the A-Bomb (the H-bomb wasn't developed unti the 1950s) on Hiroshima was a use of terror. If you're contrasting ordinary military with terroist action you'd probably compare the something like the trenches in the WWI or the seige of Stalingrad with, say, the bomb in Bali.


Military structure serves to protect people against foreign hostile forces. Terrorism bypasses the unbeatable military and attacks the people they protect

Well, if you approve of the idea of 'total war' (an 'anything goes' approach) then there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing women, children, the sick, etc. Those who prefer a 'just war' that limits the deaths of non-combatants might be rather more squeamish.

And some groups labelled 'terrorists' specifically focus on the armed forces (e.g. the Maoists in Nepal), rather than using indiscriminate terror tactics.

Remember that terrorists are not just blowing things up to cause trouble.

Er, that's kinda what the word 'terrorism' means. Terrorist tactics aim to cause as much trouble as possible.

They want something. They have goals

Not always. And how do we know if those goals are worthwhile anyway? Ideally, the army of a liberal deomcratic state is accountable to the populace of that state. Terrorists are not accountable to anyone.

In short, I think your post strives to elide the differences between legitimate military action and terrorism tactics (altho both are deployed by both states and NGos). And you fail.

Torque> Remember that classic photo of the Hindu setting himself on fire

It was a Buddhist monk.

is it possible that peaceful protest by a minority can have a longer lasting impression and therefore can actually do more 'damage'?

Well, talking of Hindus, the best example of a majority group using non-violent means to secure their aims is probably the Indian Independence movement under Gandhi.

You might even want to explore the notion of ahimsa
 
 
Torquemada
15:31 / 31.10.02
Oh...right.

'...and the like' makes the issue singular as part of a plural dynamic - read the sentence again. I'll spell the difficult bits for you if you like.

You carry on picking and baiting, Haus - it really promotes debate.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:11 / 31.10.02
On the whole, I would condemn acts of violence that one might put under the umbrella of terrorism. The reason this is not absolute is because I am not a pacifist. And for the same reasons that I can imagine a justifiable - if not just - war, I can imagine a justified resistance confronting an overwhelmingly superior military foe. I would probably prefer peaceful resistance, but I am not sure that that would be appropriate in every case.

Also - and perhaps I have chosen the wrong word to use -my "condemnation" would not be an outright and wholesale dismissal of a cause. Talk is always the way forward. I think it is worth bearing in mind that terrorist movements are not usually, if ever, founded on a principle of violence for violence sake. Mostly, a terrorist organisation is successful if it has a genuine grievance that is not being addressed. Thus Torquemada's point,

your average joe might then be *more frightened* of what could happen if he/we started 'giving in' to such terrorism, and therefore become even more resolved?

is a touch misleading. The IRA want NI to join Ireland - there is no reason to believe that they would continue bombing England if that desire were met. Making partial concessions has resulted in a cease-fire, rather than an intensification. I think that fits in with my point about the suport being based on a grievance. (Of course it is more complicated than this, but thinking of them as insatiable oppurtunists is entirely wrong.) The example of ETA is even worse, since IIRC, the majority of the Basque country wants independence.

One might argue that "giving in" to one group encourages another. But I wonder - and this is wild speculation - if one could have made a similar argument before the advent of universally applicable national laws? That is, I wonder if an international framework of laws that bind nations to discuss issues of sovereignty might alleviate the problem of terrorism? Of course there are always fanatics, but fanatics do not generally form the backbone of popular support.
 
 
cusm
17:52 / 31.10.02
War is far more civilized than terrorism

Sanitized, you mean. We're abstracted from it, our social and international conventions limit our involvment in it in an attempt to get further away from the reality of what war really is: The bullying of another people through force to get what you want. We've abstracted it into a football game, but the reality is people killing each other and blowing shit up. We designate agents to meet on the field in a respectable manner, but the roots of war are in charging out of the bush and burning down the village, killing everyone you can. Terrorist are operating at this level. They are engaging in a type of war "civilized" nations have put behind them and refuse to acknowlege, yet have all been guilty of in their past. Terrorists are that past, and not having an elaborate body of state and military to play the football games of the big states, they fight it on the real level we would rather not have to be reminded of.

Ideally, the army of a liberal deomcratic state is accountable to the populace of that state. Terrorists are not accountable to anyone.

Yet, they are. They are their own state and in some cases, populous. That is what makes them dangerous. They act as a state, but at a much smaller scale, one the big states can't reach. Or in the case of Palistine, not so much smaller a scale nor seperated of a state. Though they can be as small as a state of one in some cases. The scale changes, but the behavior is still the same.

They want something. They have goals

Not always. And how do we know if those goals are worthwhile anyway?

Does it really matter? How can you judge them? The PLO's goals are the liberation of their state which has been conquered by imperial powers. Is that not a goal? Islamist goals are the destruction of the western way of life so that Islam can replace it. Again, a goal to fight for. These may be drasticly unequal in objective worth, but subjectively they are still goals the groups in question are fighting for as reasons for their actions. They might not be worthwhile to you, but they are to the people fighting for them, and isn't that all that matters at the end of the day?

Terrorism is not random. It is for a purpose. You can easily judge the purpose as "evil", but the purpose still exists for those who fight. Those joined together behind such a purpose form a state, and that state wages war. The only difference between their war and ours is the scale they can operate on. Its still war, only their war we can't ignore behind the abstractions of modern military conventions. They're war is "all out" because it is the only way they can fight it.

As for acceptable or not, I don't think modern warfare is any better, its just "cleaner". If you accept one form of warfare, you have to accept the possibility of others. Terrorism is just so shocking to us because we're not used to actual fighting. "Civilized" people don't do that. Unfortunately, "civilized" is still a highly subjective view, and all too fragile a reality.
 
 
Torquemada
17:58 / 31.10.02
The IRA - they did indeed want a re-integration with the rest of Ireland, but unfortunately the majority of peeps there disagreed. However, now they have gone down a more 'conventional' path, their true influence has become apparent - Sinn Fein got under 20% of the seats in the assembly, if memory serves. Which is why some political commentators are not surprised that they're now getting jittery - they know that they will never have the same influence once their guns are gone. This all backs up Lurid's point about any dialogue being good. That's another problem with terrorism - you are accepting the fact that in most cases, the symapthy factor for your cause will disappear (In cases like the IRA, at any rate).

Lurid - The ETA group - really? I must confess, nearly all my info has come from Spanish friends, so perhaps they were a bit one-sided...

I was think of peeps being 'more frightened' in terms of your latter statement, giving in = others might give it a go.

Not sure about applying this before national laws were around, tho - back then, would you still have had a seperate army/civilian divide?

I suppose the closest we have to an international framework of laws is the European Court of Human Rights. I can't see current dictatorships, etc. signing up to a binding 'world court' (I suppose you could force them, but that's another issue), so perhaps that sort of thing is far off until all populations have enough political freedom to agree that it's a good idea.
 
 
cusm
18:02 / 31.10.02
One might argue that "giving in" to one group encourages another.

Indeed. It shows that these tactics can work. That's why states are so adamant about not giving into acts of terrorism, for it validates that type of warfare. One hopes that by never allowing it to work, people will be discouraged from trying it. Unfortunately, one also realizes from the history of warfare that if you do enough damage, they will eventually be forced to give in. So, it remains a possible tactic, even if a near hopeless one.

That is, I wonder if an international framework of laws that bind nations to discuss issues of sovereignty might alleviate the problem of terrorism?

I'm sure it would, if the nations in question were not comprised of a mere handful of individuals. Nations can be civilized when they have holdings they can loose. Terrorist groups have nothing to loose but themselves, so it is rather hard to negotiate on that level.
 
 
Pepsi Max
04:51 / 01.11.02
cusm>

Yet, they are. They are their own state and in some cases, populous. That is what makes them dangerous. They act as a state, but at a much smaller scale, one the big states can't reach.

I think you're going to have to defend this statement, as it is a biggie. What makes a terrorist organization more like a state than say, the Women's Institute? Or the Boy Souts? The only thing I can think of is their willingness to use violence, normally a monopoly of the state.

Does it really matter? How can you judge them? The PLO's goals are the liberation of their state which has been conquered by imperial powers. Is that not a goal?

It does matter for those not in the terrorist group. For instance, a call for greater participation by a marginalised and persecuted group (e.g. the PLO, the IRA, etc) may be worth building dialogue with. For outsiders, it may be worth encouraging the relevant government (e.g. Israeli, British) to soften their line and allow more involvement. If, however, the terrorist organisation has goals that most people would reject as insane (e.g. the fascism of Combat 18), then there's no real point in requesting dialogue. That's what I'm getting at.

You seem to be implying that terrorism is more 'just' than standard interstate warfare and it's simply government-sponsored cant to think otherwise. Whilst I think there is an element of truth to this, I think there are some serious flaws with it.

Haus> Are either of your posts relevant to the topic? Please attempt to relocate your bottle of grown-up juice.
 
 
cusm
14:55 / 01.11.02
What makes a terrorist organization more like a state than say, the Women's Institute?

Who says the Women's Institute isn't a state? Any group of humans gathered around a designation is a form of a state. Political structures in human organization are pretty universal, troupe instincts and all. But yes, the type of group organization most commonly identified as a "state" is so due to its military. So, a smaller political group acting as a military is in function a state. Certainly if they do not hold alleigance to any other group than themselves, which is often the case with a terrorist group.

If, however, the terrorist organisation has goals that most people would reject as insane, then there's no real point in requesting dialogue. That's what I'm getting at.

Ok, I see your line. Of course, such a group really wouldn't be open to dialog in the first place, which is somewhat of the problem with negotiating with these groups. When their goal is your complete destruction and end to your continued existence, that does make it hard to find a compromise.

You seem to be implying that terrorism is more 'just' than standard interstate warfare

Not "just". More real, more honest, and in a way more natural. But certainly not just in any sense. Modern warfare may still be awful, but it is a far better alternative to terrorism when it comes to solving disputes. I just believe terrorist groups should be seen more as what they really are: war participants, rather than being labeled and dismissed as madmen. I'm not knocking modern war conventions so much as the automatic assumption that they are so very removed from those of terrorist groups. War is only terrorism on a large enough scale to define the battlefield.

I think my real beef is that the "War on Terrorism" is really a war on Islamism, and should be fessed up as such, but that's another rant.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:15 / 01.11.02
Pepsi: I think you are largely correct. Slapping the drag factor is a drag factor in itself, and as such unprofitable.

However, there is a relevant consideration here, I think. Torquesidriver argued the virtues of peaceful protest over acts of terror, as they were more impactful and therefore better at getting the message across.

However, he believed the Buddhist monk who set fire to himself to protest the Vietnam War (and what about it? America's involvement? The conflict between North and South Vietnam? Russian imperialism?) was, in fact, a Hindu. And, in his own lifetime, the best he can manage of the events at Tiananmen Square is that some students stood in front of tanks. And the like. If pressed, he could probably have recalled the location, but it is unlikely that discussions of the approaches of Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Xemin, the conflict between reforming and conservative wings of the Chinese Communist Party, or indeed the question of whether the need for entente between China and the Western powers has made the sacrifice of those students futile, or accelerated a process of liberalisation in China would then be forthcoming.

So, in a sense, those actions have failed, in a way that, for the moment at least, 9/11 or the latest happenings in Moscow have not. And, if we assume that Torqsidriver probably represents an approximately average level of political awareness (which may not be that far wrong) then we can see the appeal, in purely media terms, of blowing other people up rather than oneself.

This before we even begin to consider terrorism as a campaign by assymetric means to achieve political or military objectives...
 
 
Torquemada
16:02 / 04.11.02
Nut-Haus - you assume *a lot*.

'The Best he can manage....'. Really? Did I say that? Or was I keeping my T. Sqaure knowledge down to what I thought was relevant to my point? Oh yes, another assumption...and the list goes on. 'this before we consider...assymetric means...' - so we haven't mentioned Sinn Fein/ IRA yet?

And as for China - Mmmm. Very nice of you to post these things as 'unlikely' without actually bringing them up in the thread first, thereby looking clever and insulting me at the same time. Should I start putting 'Idiot' at the end of each paragraph yet, in true Haus fashion?.

The student demonstrations attracted almost global attention. I don't know how you can quantify these latter actions as 'successful' - in one, all the terrorist (and some of the hostages) were killed - And now Russia is to 'get tough' with Chechnya. In the other, the U.S. have invaded one country and look set to invade another.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply