3 ms·

By that definition, ANY fighting would be terrorism. Was the Vietnam war terrorism? We definitely terrified some members of the local population. Were the actio

By that definition, ANY fighting would be terrorism. Was the Vietnam war terrorism? We definitely terrified some members of the local population. Were the actions by Japan or Germany in WWII terrorism? By some definitions of terrorism, all of the above would count as terrorism. At that point, the term seems to be pretty useless.

mullingitover 12y ago
Germany, Japan, the UK and the US (among others) all did things in WWII that count as terrorism, and no, the term isn't useless. The textbook definition, "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" is exactly what was happening in the war, although I would add the caveat that it's violence and intimidation against civilians. Using violence and intimidation against enemy troops is just regular warfare.
- SixSigma 12y ago
  So beheading Lee Rigby on the streets of the UK was regular warfare? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby
  - thomasfoster96 12y ago
    I think the attackers used that exact defense during legal proceedings.
    - SixSigma 12y ago
      I agree with them tbh. but that means they should have been shot on the spot instead of arrested. I don't mean I agree with their cause but I am surprised attacks on service men & women don't happen more on their home soil which, from one perspective, is behind enemy lines.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  When most people say "terrorism", they are referring to a very specific thing, not "warfare and violence in general". You've made the word useless, just so that you can use it's connotations where they don't belong. Connotations which wouldn't exist if it was really defined that way.
- ufmace 12y ago
  I don't know where you got that textbook definition, but it sounds useless to me. What violence and intimidation is not done in the pursuit of political aims, aside from low-level street crime? Even adding the qualifier against civilians doesn't seem to help much, as civilians not being deliberately targeted is very much the exception in warfare historically. My definition is "Violence and intimidation, conducted by an organization not directly under the control of a national government, targeted deliberately at civilians, for a political purpose". Much of what is popularly referred to as terrorism is closer to guerrilla warfare. I don't entirely agree with the linked post above, but I would also not call ISIS a terrorist organization. They may be major-league assholes who need to be dealt with somehow, but they're more of a statelet attempting to practice regular warfare, including controlling a specific territory, establishing their own political system, etc.
  - xerophyte12932 12y ago
    > Violence and intimidation, conducted by an organization not directly under the control of a national government, targeted deliberately at civilians, for a political purpose I kinda like this as this separates attacks by these militants on military bases as "guerrilla warfare". But what do you call when the attack is "targeted" at an armed force but with complete disregard to high number of civilian casualties? Examples: 1) Bombing a marketplace or mosque or any public place just because their might be SOME people or the opposing force there (apparently a lot of suicide bombings use this justification) 2) Missile strike on a UN school just because u suspect there are some members of the opposing forces hiding there (israel vs Hammas) 3) Drone strikes on villages to eradicate militants (with considerably high civilian casualties). (we all know who does this)
    - ufmace 12y ago
      I think that the name of the tactic is dependant on the intent of the attack, rather than the results. This does admittedly get dicey at times. If the intent of the attack is direct attrition against an enemy force and supporting infrastructure, then it's guerilla warfare, even if most of the victims are civilians due to poor planning, bad information, etc. This may get particularly tricky in the case of suicide bombings in Israel - since virtually the entire country is part of the reserves, you could make the argument that any attack is an attack against the military infrastructure. I'd say that for it to be legitimate guerilla warfare, there must be at least a vaguely plausible plan for success. In the case of suicide bombings in Israel, they would then have to have a plan of killing the entire population of the country as a way of ending the fight, and their tactics would have to be a plausible way to carry that out. I don't think it fits that definition, so that would make it terrorism. 2 and 3 are ordinary warfare IMO, because they are both done by states and have the intent of attacking enemy forces. They may or may not be done with flimsy information, and the state in question and the militant group they are fighting against may both be in violation of assorted laws of war under various legal systems, but it's still conventional warfare.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

mullingitover 12y ago

Germany, Japan, the UK and the US (among others) all did things in WWII that count as terrorism, and no, the term isn't useless. The textbook definition, "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" is exactly what was happening in the war, although I would add the caveat that it's violence and intimidation against civilians. Using violence and intimidation against enemy troops is just regular warfare.

SixSigma 12y ago
So beheading Lee Rigby on the streets of the UK was regular warfare? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby
- thomasfoster96 12y ago
  I think the attackers used that exact defense during legal proceedings.
  - SixSigma 12y ago
    I agree with them tbh. but that means they should have been shot on the spot instead of arrested. I don't mean I agree with their cause but I am surprised attacks on service men & women don't happen more on their home soil which, from one perspective, is behind enemy lines.
Houshalter 12y ago
When most people say "terrorism", they are referring to a very specific thing, not "warfare and violence in general". You've made the word useless, just so that you can use it's connotations where they don't belong. Connotations which wouldn't exist if it was really defined that way.
ufmace 12y ago
I don't know where you got that textbook definition, but it sounds useless to me. What violence and intimidation is not done in the pursuit of political aims, aside from low-level street crime? Even adding the qualifier against civilians doesn't seem to help much, as civilians not being deliberately targeted is very much the exception in warfare historically. My definition is "Violence and intimidation, conducted by an organization not directly under the control of a national government, targeted deliberately at civilians, for a political purpose". Much of what is popularly referred to as terrorism is closer to guerrilla warfare. I don't entirely agree with the linked post above, but I would also not call ISIS a terrorist organization. They may be major-league assholes who need to be dealt with somehow, but they're more of a statelet attempting to practice regular warfare, including controlling a specific territory, establishing their own political system, etc.
- xerophyte12932 12y ago
  > Violence and intimidation, conducted by an organization not directly under the control of a national government, targeted deliberately at civilians, for a political purpose I kinda like this as this separates attacks by these militants on military bases as "guerrilla warfare". But what do you call when the attack is "targeted" at an armed force but with complete disregard to high number of civilian casualties? Examples: 1) Bombing a marketplace or mosque or any public place just because their might be SOME people or the opposing force there (apparently a lot of suicide bombings use this justification) 2) Missile strike on a UN school just because u suspect there are some members of the opposing forces hiding there (israel vs Hammas) 3) Drone strikes on villages to eradicate militants (with considerably high civilian casualties). (we all know who does this)
  - ufmace 12y ago
    I think that the name of the tactic is dependant on the intent of the attack, rather than the results. This does admittedly get dicey at times. If the intent of the attack is direct attrition against an enemy force and supporting infrastructure, then it's guerilla warfare, even if most of the victims are civilians due to poor planning, bad information, etc. This may get particularly tricky in the case of suicide bombings in Israel - since virtually the entire country is part of the reserves, you could make the argument that any attack is an attack against the military infrastructure. I'd say that for it to be legitimate guerilla warfare, there must be at least a vaguely plausible plan for success. In the case of suicide bombings in Israel, they would then have to have a plan of killing the entire population of the country as a way of ending the fight, and their tactics would have to be a plausible way to carry that out. I don't think it fits that definition, so that would make it terrorism. 2 and 3 are ordinary warfare IMO, because they are both done by states and have the intent of attacking enemy forces. They may or may not be done with flimsy information, and the state in question and the militant group they are fighting against may both be in violation of assorted laws of war under various legal systems, but it's still conventional warfare.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]