Defining Terrorism
In order to 'understand' terrorism it first needs to have a definition that is accurate enough to actually know if what we are looking at is really terrorism.
The FBI defines it as, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. "
It can be seen that this definition lacks a clear meaning because any revolutionary force could fall under this definition and here's how:
Group A is fed up with the current government for whatever reason, and decide to take action. This in itself - staging a coup - should not be considered terrorism because as Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787, "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
This grants the rights to people to take arms against governments they find to be oppressive. It would make sense that Jefferson feels this way since the United States ended up having a bloody revolution in the end.
And in the end the US Revolution was about coercing the current king of England to giving up control of the colonies. We did indeed convince his to back off, and had to again 1812.
When examining the three points of the FBI definiton, the colonists were acting illegally of course, and violently in the end; these actions were of course to coerce the king to let us go, what other reason does one fight a government but to make them see things in a different light? And since these actions were all around things like the Townshend duties and the Intolerable Acts, thus their initiation was deeply founded in political and social issues and objectives.
It is for this reason that we need to give a better definition to terrorism. Here is a beginning (though probably not complete in itself it is a start).
Terrorism is the willful and targeted destruction of life and property of those who are not in direct control, nor have direct authority, of the political or social cause the enactors are against. Exceptions would be the military or other tools of the government structure directly involved with the enforcement of the political or social policies in question.
This basically enables our Revolution to happen without any significant number of people being called terrorists. It also enables the French Resistance and many other groups to not be called terrorists.
It does however make just about any attack on the US Military a non-terrorist activity, but in the end those actions are not the same as killing people who are not armed, trained, nor in the service of the government to enforce the desires of the government.
You can not compare the Cole bombing to a bus load of civilians being blown up because one is there on official US government business, the others are not there on the part of any government business, they are simply trying to mind their own.
The Marine Barracks in Lebanon is another one. This is not a terrorist act because of the same criteria. Taking a plane of civilians and flying it into another building full of civilians is definitely terrorism.
What about a nuclear attack against Hiroshima? What about firebombing Dresden? How about V-2s over England? These are all questions that need to be asked to see if the definition stands the test.
War blurs the lines - it is true. For example, when there was a sensible peace after the First World War (i.e. no unconditional surrender, the aggressors were left relatively intact) there was only a lull in the fighting. To say that there was a First and a Second World War is actually not to look at the history of the time in between. It was nothing more but a ceasefire and a time to regroup and reorganize.
France knew this, proof is the Maginot Line.
As a matter of fact there longer and more prosperous times in breaks of fighting during the 100 years war. The Peloponnesian War was a fight amongst make Greek groups, but mainly between Athens and Sparta. At one point, after ten years of fierce fighting, Athens agreed to a treaty called the Peace of Nicias that said there would be no more fighting for fifty years. In all her ancient wisdom Athens did not realize that Sparta only used this time to rebuild the war machine - not the cities. Athens, with all her sophistication was too busy talking about peace to realize the outcome.
Sparta attacked after a failed campaign by Athens against Sicily and eventually sacking Athens and destroying her society. Sparta was allied with the Persians who waited until the time was right and then moved in as well. Nothing remained except what you can see as a tourist today.
What does that have to do with the questions mentioned above?
When nations battle each other the aim is to conquer. Perhaps not in the empire-building sense, but to take over and at least start over. In order to start over there must be a willful commitment from those who lost not to attack or do it again. Promises are not enough as those in Athens and France and England can attest.
The victorious side must take the will to fight away from the enemy. With terrorism there is no real way the terrorists would conquer a city let alone a nation so the ends are not the same. The ends is to manipulate the current government and population for the terrorists desires. This difference is key. And while yes the bombing of Dresden was to destroy the capability of the city to produce weapons to be used against allies we also understood the secondary result of taking the will to fight out of the people.
Scorched Earth Policy is the same. Make the enemy understand that to do this again will be even more costly and horrible, thus the desire to rebel, attack, or attempt to conquer will not be as likely.
V-2s over England had the same effect. It was to frustrate the English, show them that Germany had technology that they could not stop, and to slowly erode the will to fight. Those bombs unto themselves could not win the war, but they could cause attrition of will which is a good start.
Nation versus Nation fighting is very different that a group versus a nation, or a group versus a society.
Sparta knew what Athens did not - fighting will continue forever without decisive victory because people have pride. Any victory must eliminate all pride in the previous government and its accomplishments. The Treaty of Versailles failed this, and the result is well known.
Thus terrorism is not possible when one nation engages another, despite the horrors of combat and war on the population.
The FBI defines it as, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. "
It can be seen that this definition lacks a clear meaning because any revolutionary force could fall under this definition and here's how:
Group A is fed up with the current government for whatever reason, and decide to take action. This in itself - staging a coup - should not be considered terrorism because as Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787, "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
This grants the rights to people to take arms against governments they find to be oppressive. It would make sense that Jefferson feels this way since the United States ended up having a bloody revolution in the end.
And in the end the US Revolution was about coercing the current king of England to giving up control of the colonies. We did indeed convince his to back off, and had to again 1812.
When examining the three points of the FBI definiton, the colonists were acting illegally of course, and violently in the end; these actions were of course to coerce the king to let us go, what other reason does one fight a government but to make them see things in a different light? And since these actions were all around things like the Townshend duties and the Intolerable Acts, thus their initiation was deeply founded in political and social issues and objectives.
It is for this reason that we need to give a better definition to terrorism. Here is a beginning (though probably not complete in itself it is a start).
Terrorism is the willful and targeted destruction of life and property of those who are not in direct control, nor have direct authority, of the political or social cause the enactors are against. Exceptions would be the military or other tools of the government structure directly involved with the enforcement of the political or social policies in question.
This basically enables our Revolution to happen without any significant number of people being called terrorists. It also enables the French Resistance and many other groups to not be called terrorists.
It does however make just about any attack on the US Military a non-terrorist activity, but in the end those actions are not the same as killing people who are not armed, trained, nor in the service of the government to enforce the desires of the government.
You can not compare the Cole bombing to a bus load of civilians being blown up because one is there on official US government business, the others are not there on the part of any government business, they are simply trying to mind their own.
The Marine Barracks in Lebanon is another one. This is not a terrorist act because of the same criteria. Taking a plane of civilians and flying it into another building full of civilians is definitely terrorism.
What about a nuclear attack against Hiroshima? What about firebombing Dresden? How about V-2s over England? These are all questions that need to be asked to see if the definition stands the test.
War blurs the lines - it is true. For example, when there was a sensible peace after the First World War (i.e. no unconditional surrender, the aggressors were left relatively intact) there was only a lull in the fighting. To say that there was a First and a Second World War is actually not to look at the history of the time in between. It was nothing more but a ceasefire and a time to regroup and reorganize.
France knew this, proof is the Maginot Line.
As a matter of fact there longer and more prosperous times in breaks of fighting during the 100 years war. The Peloponnesian War was a fight amongst make Greek groups, but mainly between Athens and Sparta. At one point, after ten years of fierce fighting, Athens agreed to a treaty called the Peace of Nicias that said there would be no more fighting for fifty years. In all her ancient wisdom Athens did not realize that Sparta only used this time to rebuild the war machine - not the cities. Athens, with all her sophistication was too busy talking about peace to realize the outcome.
Sparta attacked after a failed campaign by Athens against Sicily and eventually sacking Athens and destroying her society. Sparta was allied with the Persians who waited until the time was right and then moved in as well. Nothing remained except what you can see as a tourist today.
What does that have to do with the questions mentioned above?
When nations battle each other the aim is to conquer. Perhaps not in the empire-building sense, but to take over and at least start over. In order to start over there must be a willful commitment from those who lost not to attack or do it again. Promises are not enough as those in Athens and France and England can attest.
The victorious side must take the will to fight away from the enemy. With terrorism there is no real way the terrorists would conquer a city let alone a nation so the ends are not the same. The ends is to manipulate the current government and population for the terrorists desires. This difference is key. And while yes the bombing of Dresden was to destroy the capability of the city to produce weapons to be used against allies we also understood the secondary result of taking the will to fight out of the people.
Scorched Earth Policy is the same. Make the enemy understand that to do this again will be even more costly and horrible, thus the desire to rebel, attack, or attempt to conquer will not be as likely.
V-2s over England had the same effect. It was to frustrate the English, show them that Germany had technology that they could not stop, and to slowly erode the will to fight. Those bombs unto themselves could not win the war, but they could cause attrition of will which is a good start.
Nation versus Nation fighting is very different that a group versus a nation, or a group versus a society.
Sparta knew what Athens did not - fighting will continue forever without decisive victory because people have pride. Any victory must eliminate all pride in the previous government and its accomplishments. The Treaty of Versailles failed this, and the result is well known.
Thus terrorism is not possible when one nation engages another, despite the horrors of combat and war on the population.
posted by Edward W. Prather at 08:44
<< Home