Posted: 4/27/2011 5:34:38 AM EDT
|
In a recent discussion, accusations of terrorism were made against a historical American military leader. I made them. Some objected strenuously. Some objected by hiking up their skirts, having their huffs brought round to the front door, and departing in them. None was able to offer a coherent objection to the accusation. All seemed to base their responses on unexamined and unarticulated presuppositions to the effect that American leaders aren't terrorists, that soldiers cannot be terrorists, or that regardless of their character, acts committed on behalf of the United States cannot rightly be identified as terrorist acts.
Needless to say, the discussion became pointless. You cannot refute a man's angry moans. I say that terrorism is the deliberate application of violence or the threat of violence specifically to private persons or their property for the purpose of inducing in private persons a state of mind which will alter the political climate within the target population, usually for the achievement of goals which might legitimately be pursued by the application of violence to military personnel and resources. The attack on the USS Cole was not terrorism, because the target was a military target; if the attack on the Cole was terrorism, so was the sinking of the Bismarck . When Sherman destroyed crops, livestock, private buildings, and some private lives during the Georgia and Carolina Campaigns, it was terrorism; if it was not terrorism, neither were the attacks of 9-11. What says ArfCom? |
|
Quoted:
When Sherman destroyed crops, livestock, private buildings, and some private lives during the Georgia and Carolina Campaigns, it was terrorism; if it was not terrorism, neither were the attacks of 9-11. In war, would these things be defined as terrorism if done, for example, by a retreating army to deny resources to an advancing foe? |
|
Would the "Sherman" logic also apply to the U.S. firebombing of cities during WW2, as well as the London Blitz?
It seems difficult for me to figure out where to draw the line between (1) terrorizing civilians during a time of war (2) trying to damage infrastructure or limit supplies/materiel, that may involve some civilian casualties (3) deliberately attacking civilians (as in the above examples), but as a way of weakening resolve in the population of your enemy 
Not really a challenge - more of an honest question. Because I worry that the extension of this logic opens the door to considering many acts of the U.S. during WW2 to be "terrorism" - which I would not agree with. |
|
Quoted:
I say that terrorism is the deliberate application of violence or the threat of violence specifically to private persons or their property for the purpose of inducing in private persons a state of mind which will alter the political climate within the target population, usually for the achievement of goals which might legitimately be pursued by the application of violence to military personnel and resources. ? "Your primary object will be the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic system and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened."
"Any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb."
"It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. Kyoto had the advantage of being an important center for military industry, as well an intellectual center and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon
Why do you hate the bomber crews over Germany and Japan? ETA: Note that Kyoto was considered due to the military industry was located there. SECWAR Stimson cut it from the list because he honeymooned there and liked the place. Indicating that military importance and targets didn't matter. The effect on the civilian population of Japan did. |
|
Quoted:
That's interesting. I came in here to make the point that terrorism can only be committed by non-state actors, but after doing a bit of research I've found that isn't true. So yeah, Sherman was a terrorist. You learn something new everyday I guess. Yep, it can be state terrorism. The REALLY hard part is defining the difference between war crimes and terrorism. That's where it gets sticky. |
|
Quoted:
In a recent discussion, accusations of terrorism were made against a historical American military leader. I made them. Some objected strenuously. Some objected by hiking up their skirts, having their huffs brought round to the front door, and departing in them. None was able to offer a coherent objection to the accusation. All seemed to base their responses on unexamined and unarticulated presuppositions to the effect that American leaders aren't terrorists, that soldiers cannot be terrorists, or that regardless of their character, acts committed on behalf of the United States cannot rightly be identified as terrorist acts. Needless to say, the discussion became pointless. You cannot refute a man's angry moans. I say that terrorism is the deliberate application of violence or the threat of violence specifically to private persons or their property for the purpose of inducing in private persons a state of mind which will alter the political climate within the target population, usually for the achievement of goals which might legitimately be pursued by the application of violence to military personnel and resources. The attack on the USS Cole was not terrorism, because the target was a military target; if the attack on the Cole was terrorism, so was the sinking of the Bismarck . When Sherman destroyed crops, livestock, private buildings, and some private lives during the Georgia and Carolina Campaigns, it was terrorism; if it was not terrorism, neither were the attacks of 9-11. What says ArfCom? double post |
|
Quoted:
In a recent discussion, accusations of terrorism were made against a historical American military leader. I made them. Some objected strenuously. Some objected by hiking up their skirts, having their huffs brought round to the front door, and departing in them. None was able to offer a coherent objection to the accusation. All seemed to base their responses on unexamined and unarticulated presuppositions to the effect that American leaders aren't terrorists, that soldiers cannot be terrorists, or that regardless of their character, acts committed on behalf of the United States cannot rightly be identified as terrorist acts. Needless to say, the discussion became pointless. You cannot refute a man's angry moans. I say that terrorism is the deliberate application of violence or the threat of violence specifically to private persons or their property for the purpose of inducing in private persons a state of mind which will alter the political climate within the target population, usually for the achievement of goals which might legitimately be pursued by the application of violence to military personnel and resources. The attack on the USS Cole was not terrorism, because the target was a military target; if the attack on the Cole was terrorism, so was the sinking of the Bismarck . When Sherman destroyed crops, livestock, private buildings, and some private lives during the Georgia and Carolina Campaigns, it was terrorism; if it was not terrorism, neither were the attacks of 9-11. What says ArfCom? OP consider that every US government agency has its own slightly different definition of terrorism. So your definition is just one of many. Every class I took over the last 20 years relating to terrorism always started with "lets define terrorism." But I will play, I disagree with part of your definition. The threat of or act of violence is usually done since the goals cannot be achieved through peaceful means. |
|
Quoted:
I've maintained for many years that Lord Admiral Nelson was a terrorist and a criminal. I guess stealing the Coldstream Guards' uniform blouses is your revenge for Copenhagen. The attack on Copenhagen seems to have been a bit of genuine barbarity, by the way. |
|
Quoted:
Would the "Sherman" logic also apply to the U.S. firebombing of cities during WW2, as well as the London Blitz? It seems difficult for me to figure out where to draw the line between (1) terrorizing civilians during a time of war (2) trying to damage infrastructure or limit supplies/materiel, that may involve some civilian casualties (3) deliberately attacking civilians (as in the above examples), but as a way of weakening resolve in the population of your enemy
Not really a challenge - more of an honest question. Because I worry that the extension of this logic opens the door to considering many acts of the U.S. during WW2 to be "terrorism" - which I would not agree with. Every thing I have ever read shows the Allied decision makers targeting Schultz Ballbearingfabrik, but acknowledging that there would be civilian deaths because of the proximity of worker housing to factories. The target was always military, AFAIK except for Dresden which I believe was privately acknowledged to be a revenge terror attack for the bombing of Coventry. The WWII practice was to bomb vital war industry without regard to collateral damage, which is not the same as attacking civilians deliberately. Sherman burned courthouses and private corn cribs without the excuse of trying to hit military or even industrial targets with 500 lb dumb bombs dropped from 3 miles up. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I say that terrorism is the deliberate application of violence or the threat of violence specifically to private persons or their property for the purpose of inducing in private persons a state of mind which will alter the political climate within the target population, usually for the achievement of goals which might legitimately be pursued by the application of violence to military personnel and resources. ? "Your primary object will be the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic system and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened."
"Any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb."
"It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. Kyoto had the advantage of being an important center for military industry, as well an intellectual center and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon
Why do you hate the bomber crews over Germany and Japan? ETA: Note that Kyoto was considered due to the military industry was located there. SECWAR Stimson cut it from the list because he honeymooned there and liked the place. Indicating that military importance and targets didn't matter. The effect on the civilian population of Japan did. I would ask why you seem to be so dense, but of course if you actually are as dense you seem, you'd be unable to answer. I do not think that WWII Allied bomber crews were terrorists. Without exception, your own examples of what you seem to believe was Allied terrorism demonstrate that there was at a minumum a coincident legitimate military target for each event you mention. ETA: If you have sufficient intellectual wattage, offer a more accurate definition of terrorism. If not, just keep bleating. |
ter·ror·ism[ter-uh-riz-uh m] –noun 1. Any and all enemies that don't fall under the command of a country 2. Scary people 3. Anyone with an Arabic sounding name 4. A power word that motivates people who disagree with you to agree with you so that they don't sound unpatriotic 5. Expensive  |
|
Quoted:
I consider terrorism to be acts which would be consider acts of war/ if they were done by the Military of country. Since there is no "real" country to pin these acts to, it becomes terrorism. You would classify the engagement of nonstate actors in conventional combat with national troops as terrorism? Doesn't that make every insurgent who is faced by the military of the regnant regime a terrorist, regardless of whom he attacks and why? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would the "Sherman" logic also apply to the U.S. firebombing of cities during WW2, as well as the London Blitz? It seems difficult for me to figure out where to draw the line between (1) terrorizing civilians during a time of war (2) trying to damage infrastructure or limit supplies/materiel, that may involve some civilian casualties (3) deliberately attacking civilians (as in the above examples), but as a way of weakening resolve in the population of your enemy
Not really a challenge - more of an honest question. Because I worry that the extension of this logic opens the door to considering many acts of the U.S. during WW2 to be "terrorism" - which I would not agree with. Every thing I have ever read shows the Allied decision makers targeting Schultz Ballbearingfabrik, but acknowledging that there would be civilian deaths because of the proximity of worker housing to factories. The target was always military, AFAIK except for Dresden which I believe was privately acknowledged to be a revenge terror attack for the bombing of Coventry. The WWII practice was to bomb vital war industry without regard to collateral damage, which is not the same as attacking civilians deliberately. Sherman burned courthouses and private corn cribs without the excuse of trying to hit military or even industrial targets with 500 lb dumb bombs dropped from 3 miles up. I generally agree,but I also get the impression that a big part of daylight bombing - which absolutely had the goal of hitting industry - was ALSO intended to have the side-effect of demoralizing the German population, and breaking their "will" for continuing the war. Look at photos of Berlin at the end of WW2 suggests that a lot more than just industrial/military targets were being hit by daylight bombing. Certianly it can be argued the LeMay was VERY AWARE that bombing of japanese cities - whether directed at ports/industry or at urban areas in the cities - often resulted in massive civilian casualties. Particularly the use of incindiary weapons against cities with the Japanese construction techniques. So while I agree with your point in principle - I think that the line becomes very smudgy and grey when I look at specifics.
|
|
Quoted:
I consider terrorism to be acts which would be consider acts of war/ if they were done by the Military of country. Since there is no "real" country to pin these acts to, it becomes terrorism. That's pretty much how I see it. Total war sucks, but that is why one should not go into war lightly. Terrorist is non-state actors engaging in violent action action another country or it's citizens. |
|
Quoted:
Certianly it can be argued the LeMay was VERY AWARE that bombing of japanese cities - whether directed at ports/industry or at urban areas in the cities - often resulted in massive civilian casualties. Particularly the use of incindiary weapons against cities with the Japanese construction techniques. ] LeMay's planners calculated out how many civilians they thought would be killed, wounded, made homeless, and forced to flee as a result of incendiary weapons. Attacking civilians was a direct goal of the incendiary attacks. They were, directly or indirectly, supporting the Japanese war effort. There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn't bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders. - Curtis LeMay
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I consider terrorism to be acts which would be consider acts of war/ if they were done by the Military of country. Since there is no "real" country to pin these acts to, it becomes terrorism. You would classify the engagement of nonstate actors in conventional combat with national troops as terrorism? Doesn't that make every insurgent who is faced by the military of the regnant regime a terrorist, regardless of whom he attacks and why? YES |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I consider terrorism to be acts which would be consider acts of war/ if they were done by the Military of country. Since there is no "real" country to pin these acts to, it becomes terrorism. You would classify the engagement of nonstate actors in conventional combat with national troops as terrorism? Doesn't that make every insurgent who is faced by the military of the regnant regime a terrorist, regardless of whom he attacks and why? One man's terrorist is another's legitimate rebel. Depends on how you think of their means/objective. |
|
Depends on who is doing the defining...........but things like killing military personnel on ships and aircraft being hijacked, taking out military couriers, blowing up USO clubs, kidnapping NATO generals, etc.............................................................that's terrorism to me.
_____________________________________________________________ ("I suppose it's all relative, Baron, but 400 million dollars is a HELL OF A LOT of money to me!"––Auctioneer, (w,stte), "Sweet Chasity") |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I consider terrorism to be acts which would be consider acts of war/ if they were done by the Military of country. Since there is no "real" country to pin these acts to, it becomes terrorism. You would classify the engagement of nonstate actors in conventional combat with national troops as terrorism? Doesn't that make every insurgent who is faced by the military of the regnant regime a terrorist, regardless of whom he attacks and why? One man's terrorist is another's legitimate rebel. Depends on how you think of their means/objective. I believe that this statement is grossly erroneous, and represents a dangerous reluctance to discriminate between unlike things. It is an abdication of the responsibility to judge the world around you, and a betrayal of reason. Is attacking the USS Cole distinguishable from attacking the WTC? Is Patton detroying a German infantry column distinguishable from Abdul al-Whatever the Sunni blowing up a car bomb in a crowd of Shiite civilians leaving Friday worship at the mosque? Clearly, those two questions each juxtapose a pair of unlike things. Terrorism is distinguishable from legitimate warfare, and it is precisely the people and things targeted for destruction that distinguishes them. The goal is immaterial (except as it might distinguish legitimate warfare and terrorism from common crime) . The statement I highlighted says that there is no difference between Israeli soldiers storming the Golan Heights and Palestinians murdering schoolchildren at Ma'alot, and that is horseshit. If you (it grieves me to type next bit) and Spade are correct, then both William Sherman and David Petraeus are morally indistinguishable from Bin Laden. |
|
A good definition of terroism is one that fits your opponents, but not you. I've seen some pretty complicated definitions of the word, and it was clear that the point was to declare that only the enemy is a terrorist.
The point is that the word is simply a propganda term, and is always used to describe the "bad guys." The good guys –– us –– are never terrorists. Such word games are just another means of trying to pretend that warfare is something other than us versus them. Yes, in WW2 our enemies were quite nasty, but were they any worse than our allies, the Soviets? Maybe our air campaigns against Germany and Japan could be justified, maybe not. But the fact remains that when our side is less than morally perfect, we are left with a few choices about how to deal with it:
|
|
Quoted:
I believe that this statement is grossly erroneous, and represents a dangerous reluctance to discriminate between unlike things. It is an abdication of the responsibility to judge the world around you, and a betrayal of reason. Is attacking the USS Cole distinguishable from attacking the WTC? Is Patton detroying a German infantry column distinguishable from Abdul al-Whatever the Sunni blowing up a car bomb in a crowd of Shiite civilians leaving Friday worship at the mosque? Clearly, those two questions each juxtapose a pair of unlike things. Terrorism is distinguishable from legitimate warfare, and it is precisely the people and things targeted for destruction that distinguishes them. The goal is immaterial (except as it might distinguish legitimate warfare and terrorism from common crime) . The statement I highlighted says that there is no difference between Israeli soldiers storming the Golan Heights and Palestinians murdering schoolchildren at Ma'alot, and that is horseshit. If you (it grieves me to type next bit) and Spade are correct, then both William Sherman and David Petraeus are morally indistinguishable from Bin Laden. Whoa there, lets not detach ourselves from the original idea, shall we? You would classify the engagement of nonstate actors in conventional combat with national troops as terrorism? Doesn't that make every insurgent who is faced by the military of the regnant regime a terrorist, regardless of whom he attacks and why?
Yes, sorta. I don't consider state actors to be terrorists. What they are doing is an act of war. If they slip up, its a war crime. Very clearly defined in international law. When non-state actors are engaged in combat with state-backed forces, we call them unlawful combatants. Again, very clearly defined in international law. When non-state actors are attacking civilians, I call them terrorists. Now, to my controversial point. Non-state actors, to their particular detractors, are terrorists. Al-Qaeda is a bunch of terrorist shitstains to us, but to the Islamists who support them, they are the good guys. Thats the perspective I'm talking about, above. This is not a comment on the the objective morality of their actions. |
