3 ms·

I wish I could remember who made this comparison (I'm guessing it was Jeremy Scahill?), but I agree with the idea that the primary hallmark of terrorism is the

by lukifer 12y ago

I wish I could remember who made this comparison (I'm guessing it was Jeremy Scahill?), but I agree with the idea that the primary hallmark of terrorism is the feeling of utter powerlessness to respond or defend yourself, making drone warfare just as terrorizing as a suicide bomber. I remember when Maryland residents lived in constant fear of going outside for a few weeks in 2002, due to a pair of uncaught snipers [1]. If I lived in Yemen, I would feel that way 100% of the time. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

kaybe 12y ago
I find the official phrase 'counter-terrorism' quite fitting in this context.
davidf18 12y ago
The primary hallmark of terrorism is targeting civilians (as opposed to military or infrastructure targets such as trains or refineries or factories). If a drone is used to attack a factory or a military target that is not terrorism. If a drone is intentionally used to attack a civilian, non-infrastructure target (eg, a wedding) then that is terrorism.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  This is a very modern definition. Most historical terrorism has been committed against property, rather than civilians.
- lukifer 12y ago
  I think "terror" can't help but be about perception, regardless of legal definitions. If only a single attack per year kills a civilian through accident, yet it is dramatic and publicized every time, it can still lead to a reaction of public terror, even if it is a less likely cause of death than slipping in the bathroom. Suicide bombers and UAVs are equally capable of creating this mass psychological effect; intent (both real and perceived) is a secondary factor.
pessimizer 12y ago
To be really clear about the definition of terrorism from when anarchists were proud to be called terrorists: "terrorism" is an action during a conflict that is meant to defeat the opposition by creating fear, rather than by removing its physical ability to resist. Example: If a street gang occupies your neighborhood, you and your neighbors could remove them by 1) taking up arms and confronting them until they take enough casualties that they they have to retreat or surrender, or 2) kidnapping a straggler once every week or so, skinning him alive, recording it on videotape, and hanging him from a lamppost with the videotape around his neck. 1) is an attack on the ability to fight, 2) is an attack on the will to fight. So IMO Scahill is getting to the essence of it in your reference here.

by lukifer 12y ago

kaybe 12y ago

I find the official phrase 'counter-terrorism' quite fitting in this context.

davidf18 12y ago

The primary hallmark of terrorism is targeting civilians (as opposed to military or infrastructure targets such as trains or refineries or factories). If a drone is used to attack a factory or a military target that is not terrorism. If a drone is intentionally used to attack a civilian, non-infrastructure target (eg, a wedding) then that is terrorism.

pessimizer 12y ago
This is a very modern definition. Most historical terrorism has been committed against property, rather than civilians.
lukifer 12y ago
I think "terror" can't help but be about perception, regardless of legal definitions. If only a single attack per year kills a civilian through accident, yet it is dramatic and publicized every time, it can still lead to a reaction of public terror, even if it is a less likely cause of death than slipping in the bathroom. Suicide bombers and UAVs are equally capable of creating this mass psychological effect; intent (both real and perceived) is a secondary factor.

pessimizer 12y ago

To be really clear about the definition of terrorism from when anarchists were proud to be called terrorists: "terrorism" is an action during a conflict that is meant to defeat the opposition by creating fear, rather than by removing its physical ability to resist. Example: If a street gang occupies your neighborhood, you and your neighbors could remove them by 1) taking up arms and confronting them until they take enough casualties that they they have to retreat or surrender, or 2) kidnapping a straggler once every week or so, skinning him alive, recording it on videotape, and hanging him from a lamppost with the videotape around his neck. 1) is an attack on the ability to fight, 2) is an attack on the will to fight. So IMO Scahill is getting to the essence of it in your reference here.