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. :p

[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

[jackfaire]

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

Rapscallion

And if the people decided it was just a cycle of corruption? I am not talking some people I mean the majority.

Say a state wanted to leave the union? Wouldn't the act of civil war make the winning party an illegitmate government since they forced it on the losing side?

[Boozy]

Wars of secession aren't usually considered terrorist acts, although they can get pretty nasty. Chechnya is a good example. Neither the Chechen rebels nor the Russian federation were considered terrorist groups by the international community, although I suppose the term was bandied about by some.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Terrorism is never justified. Take the 7/7 bombings, for example. The people who died were not military; they were just ordinary people, going about their business. The terrorists were not interested in protest, they just wanted to murder innocent people for no good reason.

[Slytovhand]

Terrorism is never justified. Take the 7/7 bombings, for example. The people who died were not military; they were just ordinary people, going about their business. The terrorists were not interested in protest, they just wanted to murder innocent people for no good reason.

Well, 7/7 certainly wouldn't fit the 'fighting for survival' idea I was OPing with, and I certainly wouldn't be suggesting that all terrorism is 'justified' anyway.

But, all I ask is - is there any terrorism which can be justified? You've said 'yes', but then provided an extreme opposite example for what I was getting at.

And, as a thought that just came to mind, while we've got this word 'terrorism' and the ideas that come with it, what about what happened in Rwanda?? Tutsi's vs Hutu... complete one-sided battle with machetes and guns - wouldn't that be a form of terrorism?

[Tanasi]

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?

I'll answer your question with another question. In the world today or within the last 100 years name me a benevolent dictator or military government?

[Boozy]

I'll answer your question with another question. In the world today or within the last 100 years name me a benevolent dictator or military government?

Would you consider a monarchy to be a form of dictatorship?

[jackfaire]

Would you consider a monarchy to be a form of dictatorship?

a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Monarchy means their heirs can inherit it's only a dictatorship as long as their rules say no one inherits through blood.

People seem to forget how goverments used to come to power.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

IMO the biggest fault in the 'revolutionary war' line of logic is a subtle but important difference.

What happened there was a revolution, resistance, rebellion, whatever you want to call it, seeking to end a perceived injustice that was forced on them.

What terrorists do, by and large, is attempt to destroy people and things they don't agree with despite the fact that they aren't effected.

That's the basic divide between illegitimate (terrorist) and legitimate (rebel) insurrection/warfare.

Another subtle difference is in the area of methodology.

Ill-legitimate being an attack on civilians and legitimate being an engagement with military forces.

The revolutionary war is legit in both respects. Otherwise we would have followed up victory on NA soil with an attack on Britain and the mass genocide of British people.

[jackfaire]

The revolutionary war is legit in both respects. Otherwise we would have followed up victory on NA soil with an attack on Britain and the mass genocide of British people.

Even if some historians are correct and we cared more about wealth than freedom it would have made no sense for us to do that an ocean seperated us.

[Slytovhand]

I'll answer your question with another question. In the world today or within the last 100 years name me a benevolent dictator or military government?

Fiji......

[Tanasi]

Fiji......

Denied:

Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs)
The Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) is the highest assembly of the traditional chiefs of Fiji, with a small number of specially qualified commoners, who meet at least once a year to discuss matters of concern to the Fijian people. In earlier days this Council had the power to pass laws and regulations binding Fijians but this was removed towards the end of the colonial era when separate Fijian regulations were abolished.

Despite this, the Council's advice is always sought on matters affecting the Fijian people, and it continues to be held in high esteem by all communities in Fiji. The BLV appoints the President of the Republic of Fiji Islands. Currently, the BLV consists of 55 members. Three each are nominated from the 14 provinces, 3 from the island of Rotuma and 6 nominated by the Minister for Fijian Affairs in consultation with the President of Fiji. The current Prime Minister, President and Vice-President are also automatic members while former Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka is a life-member of the Council.

http://www.fiji.gov.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=645&Itemid=196

[Tanasi]

Would you consider a monarchy to be a form of dictatorship?

Using this (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monarchy) definition, Yes. I understand there's been kings/queens/pricesses/princes that have been considered to be good but somewhere along the way they've all had to surpress someone(s).
Ultimately when power resides with one person that power will be abused.

[Slytovhand]

Denied:

Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs)
The Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) is the highest assembly of the traditional chiefs of Fiji, with a small number of specially qualified commoners, who meet at least once a year to discuss matters of concern to the Fijian people. In earlier days this Council had the power to pass laws and regulations binding Fijians but this was removed towards the end of the colonial era when separate Fijian regulations were abolished.

Despite this, the Council's advice is always sought on matters affecting the Fijian people, and it continues to be held in high esteem by all communities in Fiji. The BLV appoints the President of the Republic of Fiji Islands. Currently, the BLV consists of 55 members. Three each are nominated from the 14 provinces, 3 from the island of Rotuma and 6 nominated by the Minister for Fijian Affairs in consultation with the President of Fiji. The current Prime Minister, President and Vice-President are also automatic members while former Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka is a life-member of the Council.

http://www.fiji.gov.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=645&Itemid=196

Countered:

So, you are suggesting that when the military moves against the democratically elected government and forces them out of their rightfully elected positions, and then hands it back to a more acceptable government - that it's either not implying a 'military dictatorship' (for as long or short as you like) or that it's not being 'benevolent'?

[Nyoibo]

If so then what about Saddam?

[Boozy]

Using this (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monarchy) definition, Yes. I understand there's been kings/queens/pricesses/princes that have been considered to be good but somewhere along the way they've all had to surpress someone(s).
Ultimately when power resides with one person that power will be abused.

Then I submit the recently-abdicated King of Bhutan for your consideration as a "benevolent dictator" (at least, a benevolent non-elected ruler). He ruled a traditional Buddhist country. His subjects were very happy with monarchic rule up until recently. When it was peacefully determined that the people of Bhutan would be happier trying a democracy, the King stepped down.

[Tanasi]

Countered:

So, you are suggesting that when the military moves against the democratically elected government and forces them out of their rightfully elected positions, and then hands it back to a more acceptable government - that it's either not implying a 'military dictatorship' (for as long or short as you like) or that it's not being 'benevolent'?

I think you're speaking of Honduras. Was the president deposed by the military? Yes, but on the order of the Honduran Surpreme Court because the president was trying to violate their constitution. I happen to think their SC, their military and the interim president did the right thing and followed their constitution. The milatary didn't keep control of the government but turned it over to civilian control. IIRC the old president has been return to office but under the watchful eyes of their legislature, SC and military.
If you're speaking of Iraq, Sadam was hardly democratically elected.
If neither of these then what country are you speaking of?


Then I submit the recently-abdicated King of Bhutan for your consideration as a "benevolent dictator" (at least, a benevolent non-elected ruler). He ruled a traditional Buddhist country. His subjects were very happy with monarchic rule up until recently. When it was peacefully determined that the people of Bhutan would be happier trying a democracy, the King stepped down.

Did the King of Bhutan have ultimate and surpreme control? Could he have called out the military and stop it? If not then was he truly a dictator or monarch in reality or just in name?
I don't claim to know it all, I'm just saying that I don't know of any benevolent dictators or Kings/Queens. Frankly it would restore some of my faith in the human race if there was one.

[Slytovhand]

If neither of these then what country are you speaking of?
No no, Fiji... island country in the Pacific. Lots of disputes between ethnic Fijians and immigrated Indian Fijians. Laws were being passed to help one group at the expense of the other. The generals in the military staged a coup, and made demands to the government (effectively neutralising their power). Later, after their demands were met, they handed it back to the hands of the governing bodies.... Happy times were had by all!

Don't know of any benevolonet dictators or Kings/Queens??? Sheesh! You really need to do some homework!

From Wiki (C&P): Absolute monarchies:

Specifically, monarchies in which the monarch's exercise of power is unconstrained by any substantive constitutional law.

* Brunei
* Oman
* Qatar
* Saudi Arabia
* Swaziland

Constitutional monarchies with active monarchs:

The prime minister is the nation's active executive but the monarch still has considerable political powers that can be used at their own discretion.

* Bahrain
* Bhutan
* Jordan
* Kuwait
* Liechtenstein
* Monaco
* Morocco
* Tonga
* United Arab Emirates[13]


Constitutional monarchies:

These are systems in which the head of state is a constitutional monarch; the existence of their office and their ability to exercise their authority is established and constrained by constitutional law.
Constitutional monarchies with ceremonial monarchs

Systems in which a prime minister is the active head of the executive branch of government. In some cases the prime minister is also leader of the legislature, in other cases the executive branch is clearly separated from legislature although the entire cabinet or individual ministers must step down in the case of vote of no confidence. The head of state is a constitutional monarch who only exercises his or her powers with the consent of the government, the people or their representatives.

* Andorra[11]
* Antigua and Barbuda[12]
* Australia[12]
* Bahamas[12]
* Barbados[12]
* Belgium
* Belize[12]
* Cambodia
* Canada[12]
* Denmark
* Grenada[12]
* Jamaica[12]
* Japan
* Lesotho
* Luxembourg
* Malaysia
* Netherlands
* New Zealand[12]
* Norway
* Papua New Guinea[12]
* Saint Kitts and Nevis[12]
* Saint Lucia[12]
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[12]
* Solomon Islands[12]
* Spain
* Sweden
* Thailand
* Tuvalu[12]
* United Kingdom[12]

As for Military Dictatorships... how about Military junta states:

The nation's military control the organs of government and all high-ranking political executives are also members of the military hierarchy.

* Fiji (until 2010)
* Libya
* Myanmar
* Mauritania
* Guinea



Not sure how many of those fall under the category of 'benevolent', but that's the current listing...

[Boozy]

Did the King of Bhutan have ultimate and surpreme control?

He did at the time of his abdication. He was also very popular with his people at the time.

They now have a constititional monarchy with his son as head of state. The plan is to slowly move Bhutan into a UK-style constitutional monarchy with the King as a mostly ceremonial figurehead.

[Tanasi]

No no, Fiji... island country in the Pacific. Lots of disputes between ethnic Fijians and immigrated Indian Fijians. Laws were being passed to help one group at the expense of the other. The generals in the military staged a coup, and made demands to the government (effectively neutralising their power). Later, after their demands were met, they handed it back to the hands of the governing bodies.... Happy times were had by all!

Don't know of any benevolonet dictators or Kings/Queens??? Sheesh! You really need to do some homework!

From Wiki (C&P):

As for Military Dictatorships... how about

Not sure how many of those fall under the category of 'benevolent', but that's the current listing...

He did at the time of his abdication. He was also very popular with his people at the time.

They now have a constititional monarchy with his son as head of state. The plan is to slowly move Bhutan into a UK-style constitutional monarchy with the King as a mostly ceremonial figurehead.



Well there you go we've all learned something and that makes it a good day.:)