Do you believe in terrorism?

[Marlow]

You must see nothing but great art wherever you experience Hallowe'en.

Ya lost me. Halloween bores me because nothing has 'fright'ed me since I was 12 (other than an occasion startlement from a 'BOO!').

[cullman]

I don't generally use the term terrorist. I prefer to be more specific.

cman

Please elaborate.

I refer to specific groups by their names whether it be Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Al-Quaeda, Taliban, IRA, Provisional IRA etc. It means a little bit of homework...but what the hey!

The term terrorism is highly subjective and perjorative. Turn the clock back to December 7, 1941 and I would be an enemy of the government and a terrorist regardless of the origin of my birth and allegiances. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that I would be incarcerated indefinitely without writ of habeas corpus.

cman

[jazzcyclist]

I refer to specific groups by their names whether it be Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Al-Quaeda, Taliban, IRA, Provisional IRA etc. It means a little bit of homework...but what the hey!

The word "terrorist" is kind of like the word "alcoholic." Getting drunk every New Year's Eve doesn't make you an alcoholic, and just because an organization has committed acts of terrorism in the past, doesn't make it a terrorist organiztion, IMO. Alcoholics get drunk on a regular basis, not just for special occasions. The U.S. has government has committed acts of terrorism in the past, but I wouldn't call it a terrorist organiztion because that's only a very small percentage of what it does. Therefore, I would call Al Qaeda a terrorist organiztion, but I wouldn't call Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist organiztions, because terrorism is only a small percentage what they do.

The term terrorism is highly subjective and perjorative. Turn the clock back to December 7, 1941 and I would be an enemy of the government and a terrorist regardless of the origin of my birth and allegiances. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that I would be incarcerated indefinitely without writ of habeas corpus.

cman

Why would you have been an enemy of the state and a terrorist back then?

[gh]

One would assume cman's family tree exhibits a taste for sushi.

[gm]

One would assume cman's family tree exhibits a taste for sushi.

Sushi?! That's a great reason for locking people up and throwing away the key

[jazzcyclist]

One would assume cman's family tree exhibits a taste for sushi.

Well, you know what they say when you ass-u-me? As for the internment of the Japanese-Americans, isn't that considered a huge Black mark on FDR's record and a mistake that the U.S. government has since apologized and paid restitution for. The thing that bothers me about that is that they didn't put the German-Americans or the Italian-Americans in camps, despite the fact that there were many of them who committed treason.

[cullman]

One would assume cman's family tree exhibits a taste for sushi.

Sushi?! That's a great reason for locking people up and throwing away the key

It goes well with bourbon.

cman

[gh]

One would assume cman's family tree exhibits a taste for sushi.

Well, you know what they say when you ass-u-me? As for the internment of the Japanese-Americans, isn't that considered a huge Black mark on FDR's record and a mistake that the U.S. government has since apologized and paid restitution for. The thing that bothers me about that is that they didn't put the German-Americans or the Italian-Americans in camps, despite the fact that there were many of them who committed treason.

It's equally a black mark on the Canadians, who did the same thing.

As in the case of that revered scholar, David Suzuki:

http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/top_ten/nomi ... -know.html

[jazzcyclist]

I'm really surprised at the percentage of yes's. I'm guessing that you folks have a much narrower definition of terrorism than I do.

[Daisy]

I'm really surprised at the percentage of yes's. I'm guessing that you folks have a much narrower definition of terrorism than I do.

Or they didn't understand the question

[Pego]

I'm really surprised at the percentage of yes's. I'm guessing that you folks have a much narrower definition of terrorism than I do.

I do, indeed. To me, Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations, even if they do other things as well.

[gh]

I'm really surprised at the percentage of yes's. I'm guessing that you folks have a much narrower definition of terrorism than I do.

Or they didn't understand the question

I never quite sorted it out (seriously).

[jazzcyclist]

I'm really surprised at the percentage of yes's. I'm guessing that you folks have a much narrower definition of terrorism than I do.

Or they didn't understand the question

I never quite sorted it out (seriously).

It's quite simple: Is an act which meets your definition of terrorism ever morally justifiable?

The 10 question were only meant to help you formulate your definition.

[EPelle]

It's quite simple: Is an act which meets your definition of terrorism ever morally justifiable?

No.

Here:s a spin-off question: Would terrorising a terrorist ever be morally justifiable?

[jazzcyclist]

It's quite simple: Is an act which meets your definition of terrorism ever morally justifiable?

No.

Here:s a spin-off question: Would terrorising a terrorist ever be morally justifiable?

Well, if you answer yes to this question, then you've also answered yes to the original question.

[jazzcyclist]

I'm really surprised at the percentage of yes's. I'm guessing that you folks have a much narrower definition of terrorism than I do.

Or perhaps there are a lot more passivists on this board than I suspected. By the way, how many of you folks would ever condone torture?

[SQUACKEE]

I'm really surprised at the percentage of yes's. I'm guessing that you folks have a much narrower definition of terrorism than I do.

Or perhaps there are a lot more passivists on this board than I suspected. By the way, how many of you folks would ever condone torture?

First you have to define torture.Having said that if we have a guy who is directly responsible for 3000 innocent dead and he gives up information that saves lives by pouring water on his face ..., Let me put it this way, if i murder 3000 innocent people you have my permission to pour water on MY face, deal?

[Pego]

I'm really surprised at the percentage of yes's. I'm guessing that you folks have a much narrower definition of terrorism than I do.

Or perhaps there are a lot more passivists on this board than I suspected. By the way, how many of you folks would ever condone torture?

First you have to define torture.Having said that if we have a guy who is directly responsible for 3000 innocent dead and he gives up information that saves lives by pouring water on his face ..., Let me put it this way, if i murder 3000 innocent people you have my permission to pour water on MY face, deal?

Even the Inquisition learned that torture produces false confessions and false information. You inflict something very painful, especially repeatedly, they'll say anything you want to hear.

[Marlow]

I've actually given this some long thought and find myself completely conflicted. When Jack is doing it, I understand it's to save lives. But I know that I cold not torture someone, therefore I cannot be a hypocrite and allow someone else do what I myself could not do. I guess the bottom line is that if my family's lives were dependent on me extracting info from someone else, I'd do it.

[bad hammy]

Even the Inquisition learned that torture produces false confessions and false information. You inflict something very painful, especially repeatedly, they'll say anything you want to hear.

Exactly . . .

[jazzcyclist]

I've actually given this some long thought and find myself completely conflicted.

I think that most people who give these questions serious thought, inevitably become conflicted, because people have a hard time giving their enemies the same moral latitude that they give themselves. For example, let's say that Saddam did have nuclear weapons when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Would it have been terrorism if he had retaliated by doing to New York and Washington D.C. what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is it torture when our enemies torture our soldiers if they are able to get information that saves the lives of its soldiers or citizens? Why isn't Nat Turner a terrorist? Not only was slavery the law of the land, but it was constitutional at the time he led his slave rebellion, and he did kill scores of innocent people during that rebellion. How is he different than an abortion clinic bomber? What about violent covert actions that are carried out by our CIA agents in foreign countries against countries that we are not at war with? Are these spooks terrorists? Are actions that are sanctioned and carried out by governments exempt from the terrorist label? If so, that would also exempt the bombing of Pan Am 103 from the terrorist label, since it was ordered by Muammar al-Gaddafi himself, the internationally recognized head-of-state of Libya.

[jazzcyclist]

Even the Inquisition learned that torture produces false confessions and false information. You inflict something very painful, especially repeatedly, they'll say anything you want to hear.

I think torture if most effective when you are looking for specific information that you know your victim has, but it's not a good tool to use to just go on a fishing expedition.

[Pego]

I've actually given this some long thought and find myself completely conflicted.

I think that most people who give these questions serious thought, inevitably become conflicted, because people have a hard time giving their enemies the same moral latitude that they give themselves. For example, let's say that Saddam did have nuclear weapons when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Would it have been terrorism if he had retaliated by doing to New York and Washington D.C. what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is it torture when our enemies torture our soldiers if they are able to get information that saves the lives of its soldiers or citizens? Why isn't Nat Turner a terrorist? Not only was slavery the law of the land, but it was constitutional at the time he led his slave rebellion, and he did kill scores of innocent people during that rebellion. How is he different than an abortion clinic bomber? What about violent covert actions that are carried out by our CIA agents in foreign countries against countries that we are not at war with? Are these spooks terrorists? Are actions that are sanctioned and carried out by governments exempt from the terrorist label? If so, that would also exempt the bombing of Pan Am 103 from the terrorist label, since it was ordered by Muammar al-Gaddafi himself, the internationally recognized head-of-state of Libya.

I am reminded here of Justice Potter Stewart's declaration (paraphrased) "I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

I think that individually, I would be able (at least to my own satisfaction) define terrorism, without being able to categorize it.

[jazzcyclist]

I am reminded here of Justice Potter Stewart's declaration (paraphrased) "I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

I think that individually, I would be able (at least to my own satisfaction) define terrorism, without being able to categorize it.

Unless you are willing to outline your definition with some types of objective criteria, then the word becomes meaningless, and what you're left with is "whatever my side does is not terrorism and whatever the other side does is". There is a tendency in American media, especially FOX News, to refer to all acts of Arab/Muslim violence against westerners as terrorism, even when those acts are directed at western military forces and even when they are acting in self-defense in their own country. I've witnessed this in news coverage of Afghanistan and Iraq, but it's more common in news reports from Israel, Lebanon and Palestine.

For example, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut by Hezbollah in 1983 is always referred to as an act of terrorism, despite the fact that only military personnel were targeted and they were acting in self-defense in their homeland. Here's how Colin Powell summed it up in his autobiography, My American Journey:

Against Weinberger’s protest, McFarlane, now in Beirut, persuaded the President to have the battleship U.S.S. New Jersey start hurling 16-inch shells into the mountains above Beirut, in World War II style, as if we were softening up the beaches on some Pacific atoll prior to an invasion. What we tend to overlook in such situations is that other people will react much as we would. When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American “referee” had taken sides against them. And since they could not reach the battleship, they found a more vulnerable target, the exposed Marines at the airport.

I also routinely hear pundits and anchormen refer to killing of Israeli soldiers in the West Bank as terrorism despite the fact that U.N. Resolution 242 passed unanimously and every nation in the world, including the U.S., considers the West Bank to be under an illegal military occupation.

Then we have the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War which was studied extensively by the U.S. Army War College. Of course there is no doubt that Hezbollah started the war, and even Hassan Nasrallah had to publicly apologize to the Lebanese people, saying that he would not have snatched the two Israeli soldiers if he had known that Israel would react the way they did, but this has nothing to do with the conduct of the war itself. The conclusion of the USAWC is that the reason that Hezbollah was so effective against the Israeli Defense Forces is that it more resembles a conventional army than a guerrilla army or a terrorist group. And since Israel has become so accustomed to fighting terrorist groups and guerrilla armies, it was woefully unprepared to take on a conventional army, that was better prepared than any Arab army that Israel had ever fought in its history. Here are the best casualty figures that I've been able to find:

Israeli soldiers 120
Israeli civilians 39
Hezbollah soldiers 250
Lebanese civilians 1000+

Based on the casualty figures of the war, and U.N. reports which cited Israel for indiscriminate bombing, you have to wonder under which criteria could Hezbollah be considered a terrorist organization and the IDF not.

Personally I view terrorism the same way I view war. It's a necessary evil, but sometimes it is necessary. I believe that the actions of Nat Turner, Nelson Mandela, the French Maquis, some of the actions of the IRA, pre-2000 Hezbollah and some of the actions of the PLO were morally justifiable. Even Shimon Peres once reluctantly conceded in an interview that if the Palestinians had never resorted to violence, perhaps their cause wouldn't even be on the geopolitical map. I also would have no problem nuking a city of an enemy country that I'm at war with under certain circumstances, but feel that what Truman did was premature and unnecessary.

[Marlow]

There is a tendency in American media, especially FOX News, to refer to all acts of Arab/Muslim violence against westerners as terrorism

I saw a grocery store tabloid with a headline (paraphrasing):

"Secrets of the Muslim World. Learn More About the Enemy!"

[gm]

Which IRA actions do you feel were morally justifiable?

[jazzcyclist]

Which IRA actions do you feel were morally justifiable?

Certainly a violent response was in order after Bloody Sunday on January 30, 1972. This is when 27 peaceful civil rights protesters were shot down in cold blood by the British military. Originally the British said that they only fired after the protesters fired on them, but from the beginning, the Catholic protesters denied that there were any weapons fired from within their ranks. After more than a 30-year and $400-million investigation by the British government into the events of the day, it was finally concluded that the protesters were indeed shot down in cold blood like they said from the beginning.

Did you know that as late as the 1960's, Catholics in Northern Ireland were still being denied the right to vote, to live where they wanted and to work in certain jobs because of their religious faith? Does that sound familiar? Why do you think NORAID was so successful at raising funds in the U.S. among Irish-Americans? Why do you think IRA leaders like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were always so well-received by the most prominent Irish-American politicians on both sides of the aisle? W.E.B. Du Bois summed it up this way:

No people can more exactly interpret the inmost meaning of the present situation in Ireland than the American Negro. The scheme is simple. You knock a man down and then have him arrested for assault. You kill a man and then hang the corpse.

By the way, I also condone the actions of the Deacons for Defense of which my father's best friend, A.Z. Young, was a founding member.

[Marlow]

Certainly a violent response was in order after Bloody Sunday on January 30, 1972.

Hey, let's kill some of them, cuz they killed some of us - That'll teach 'em right! (Rich irony)

As GB2 found out, trying to avenge terrorism can be an expensive ($$ and lives) business. Cutting off one head sprouts two more venomous heads. There's no good answer to it, except eternal vigilance.

[jazzcyclist]

Certainly a violent response was in order after Bloody Sunday on January 30, 1972.

Hey, let's kill some of them, cuz they killed some of us - That'll teach 'em right! (Rich irony)

As GB2 found out, trying to avenge terrorism can be an expensive ($$ and lives) business. Cutting off one head sprouts two more venomous heads. There's no good answer to it, except eternal vigilance.

Did they not have the right of self-defense? Does a government have a right to slaughter its citizens with impunity? When the official law enforcement officers are also the terrorists, do people owe them the same respect and deference that they would give law enforcement officers who are acting in good faith, but just made a mistake. In the U.S. during the Jim Crow era, many law enforcement officers were also card-carrying members of the Ku Klux Klan. Should their badge have given them a license to kill with impunity? The Deacons for Defense answered with an emphatic "NO". As A.Z. Young asked his fellow Deacons in the movie about his life, "We killed bad White folks in Europe because our government said they were bad, so why shouldn't we kill bad White folks here at home?"

[Marlow]

1. Did they not have the right of self-defense?
2. Does a government have a right to slaughter its citizens with impunity?
3. When the official law enforcement officers are also the terrorists, do people owe them the same respect and deference that they would give law enforcement officers who are acting in good faith, but just made a mistake.
4. As A.Z. Young asked his fellow Deacons in the movie about his life, "We killed bad White folks in Europe because our government said they were bad, so why shouldn't we kill bad White folks here at home?"

1. During the riot, yes. Afterwards, no. That's just murder (as was what the Brits did there)
2. It does it all the time with the Death Penalty.
3. Nope, but they may also not take the law into their own hands. That's called anarchy.
4. Because it's OK in war, and not in Peace.

It's a matter of a little thing called the law. Just because a government commits atrocities doesn't mean we all should. Now . . . if a government continues to show malice towards its constituency, we have the right to overthrow it. That is what yesterday (4ofJ) was about. If you want to start a revolution, go for it. Good luck with that.

[EPelle]

How is the death penalty slaughtering citizens with impunity? You are, in essence, stating that the USA, without liability for its actions, condones massacres of the people it was meant to govern, and to whom it is meant to provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Slaughter is a very harsh word used here. Is the government assassinating these criminals? Butchering them? I think of slaughter and I think of mass murdering folks. Hitler had people slaughtered... annihilated... wiped out... exterminated. The USA government? They're following through on a promise made to take a life for a life in felony cases -- one which folks know is abundantly clear in certain states before they decide, themselves, to snuff someone out on purpose, or to misuse force and kill someone in an unplanned fit of rage.

[jazzcyclist]

It's a matter of a little thing called the law. Just because a government commits atrocities doesn't mean we all should. Now . . . if a government continues to show malice towards its constituency, we have the right to overthrow it. That is what yesterday (4ofJ) was about. If you want to start a revolution, go for it. Good luck with that.

When the official law enforcement officers become outlaws, you already have anarchy. I'm not talking about a few bad cops in a system that is otherwise operating on the up-and-up. I'm talking about governments that are corrupt from the top to the bottom. During Jim Crow, the governors were just as dirty as the local cops, so you had no recourse. Haven't you ever heard of the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission? And how can you overthrow a government peacefully when you don't even have the right to vote? Wasn't it JFK who said that "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable?" And your comment about the death penalty is absolutely silly with regards to this debate.

[EPelle]

Though defenseless as one, it is not impossible to induce change with the power of others sympathetic to one's cause where the course of two becomes one.

[Pego]

Unless you are willing to outline your definition with some types of objective criteria, then the word becomes meaningless

Let me try a feeble attempt to narrow it down (far from a comprehensive definition).

In principle, targeting primarily civilian objects, I'd consider terrorism, targeting military installation, no.

Slave, as well as serf peasant revolts I would consider justifiable in spite of their targeting anybody they considered an enemy. I'd include Nat Turner in this category even though its scope was incomparably smaller than uprisings such as Spartacus', Razin's and Pugachov's in Russia, Dózsa's in Hungary that counted in many thousands, as compared to less than 200 or so (as I recall). BTW, according to a possibly true legend, after the army defeated Dózsa's peasants, they seated him on a hot iron throne, roasted him alive and forced his troops to eat him.

So in practical terms of today, I consider Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA terrorist organization. While I am aware of their grievances, their methods I don't consider justifiable. Tamil Tigers seem to have fallen in the same category. The Cuban that blew up a plane and Bush's Justice Department let him go was one just as well. The Somali pirates are interested in money only, I'd call them bandits, not terrorists. There is probably a narrow line between the two.

[jazzcyclist]

Though defenseless as one, it is not impossible to induce change with the power of others sympathetic to one's cause where the course of two becomes one.

I think I know what you're saying, but break it down to kindergarten language for me. In the case of ending Jim Crow in the U.S., change through peaceful means became possible once Dwight Eisenhower broke the longstanding taboo of using federal troops to get involved in issues that had previously been considered matters of states' rights. Make no mistake, without the threat of force by the federal government, MLK would have been just another dead protester.