The History of Terrorism
 

Okay, I've done no research on this. But I was wondering if we could come up with a working definition of terrorism and then argue about the history of it.

MaggieL posted this "World War III will be a guerilla information war with no division between civilian and military participation." --Marshall McLuhan on another thread. It sort of implies that the phenomena is new or at least increasing, but I'd argue that terrorism is tactically as common as symetrical warfare...


First try: Terrorism- The use of asymetrical military tactics against civilians and military alike, with the purpose of instilling fear in a population and overthrowing an existing power structure.

A few examples:

Before Hitler gained power the Nazis successfully staged just such a campaign.
The Israelis successfully chased the Brits out of Palestine.
Palestinians vs Israelis
The Irish vs Britain
countless South American...
Unsuccessful American Indian campaigns v US
Successful US campaigns vs AmerIndians

Punch holes where you please because I get the idea that left, right, and center are not working with the same definition.

Terrorism in the sense of 'people using emotions, not physical force, to achieve their goal' has been going on for centuries.

Terrorism in the sense that Bush uses has been going on since, oh, 9-10-2001. Didn't you know? It's only terrorism if it's modern muslim arabs doing it against the US.

Well, we can argue about the definition first, especially since infowar, psyops and terrorism aren't the same thing.

I think one fundamental problem here is that the "war on terror" is actually a codeword for "defending against islamofacism" to deflect spurious accusations of "racists" and "crusaders".

Infowar--at least on the scale it is practiced and with the importance has now...*is* new. Terrorism is not.
Of course, McLuhan died in 1980...

The simplest terrorist is an idiot easily perverted into extremist ideas. The kid who writes terroristic sounding letters. It changes when principles that create terrorism are justified. One need only look at some terrorists - Gandhi, Mandela, Viet Cong, most all early leaders of what would eventually be called Israel, etc - to appreciate these are also terrorists and yet they have so little in common with the kid. In that kind of terrorism, the driving principles were indeed justified AND ignorant power brokers never understood they had created (justified) the problem.

xoxoxoBruce noted in Iraq; Bad as it has been a symptom of terrorism that is based in justified principles: When terrorism really becomes 'dangerous', then intelligent people are driven into the ranks of extremists. xoxoxoBruce has demonstrated what changes to make terrorism either dangerous - or implies that terrorism is also justified by injustice.

We remember those successful terrorist organizations - because their justified cause could attract centrists - smart people. Israel is doing an excellent job recruiting centrists into terrorist ranks. Hezbollah was created because of an Israeli extremist Likud - and Ariel Sharon in particular.

is probably a valid definition once we eliminate the 'example' of terrorists: Asymmetrical means conventional power brokers don't know how to categorize something that they also refuse to knowledge and that got serious because of naive power brokers.

The word terrorism has this implication that all terrorists are dangerous or evil. Neither is true. Terrorism that is dangerous occurs when principles that justify terrorism are justified. So justified as to attract the intelligent from centrist ranks.

You may not like what bin Laden did. But if you don't understand why from their perspective, then you cannot 'solve' or 'grasp' the problem. To understand terrorism means you must acknowledge a world chock full of perspective - not view in terms of 'good verses evil'. Terrorism that is dangerous is due to ignorance of why terrorism was justified.

Those who only view in terms of 'black and white' will never understand why some terrorist organizations attract so many intelligent people - ie Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, why is Israel's outright attack on Beirut's airport and innocent cities such as Tyre and Sidon also not called terrorism? It is driven by extremist rhetoric that just happens to exist in a recognized government. Why then is that not terrorism when Israel's purpose was to "install fear in a population and overthrow the existing power structure"?

11 September was not some isolated event directly traceable to hate. America made itself a target when it promised to leave the Middle East and did not. You may not think that was justified or a serious problem. But your perspective is not relevant. To those who regarded that lie as serious as the Crusades: intelligent people were then easily recruited to extremism politics. That 'justification' is what makes a dumb terrorist group become so dangerous. That outright 'denial' of why some terrorist organizations are so smart is directly traceable to myopic political perspectives that even assume everything in terms of 'black and white' / 'good verses evil'.

What makes defining terrorism difficult are those who first want to view the world in 'good verses evil' rather than first learn about a world where all perspectives are both good and evil. With so much bias, then terrorism only exists in the 'eye of the beholder'? Well then, beholder, why are some terrorist groups lead by people who then became world famous and respected leaders in Israel, India, and S Africa?

Too often people want to define terrorists in emotional terms such as hate rather than first learn the other's perspectives. A definition that does not emcompass all perspectives cannot be an honest definition. And yet that is what too many want to do. They want to define terrorists only in terms of their emotional biases. IOW as Maggiel said

I think that Israel's attack wasn't regarded as terrorism because it was not aimed to cause terror among the civillians of Lebanon. It may HAVE caused terror, but the AIM of the attack was to shut down the infrastrucure in preperation for invasion.

There's that whole little "stop the constant bombardment with untargeted missles" thing, too. If that could have been accomplished without "invasion" it likely would have.

In compiling a list of terrorists don't forget Torquemada, Paul Revere, Sitting Bull, Fidel Castro, Jim Jones, etc, ad nauseum.

There are so many people, with so many causes, that have been blanket with the title, it boils down to anyone "I" think is bad.

All I got is, Terrorism = Unofficial violence for political gain. :fuse:

This question of Israel’s objectives is discussed elsewhere in Iraq; Bad as it has been

Was the Boston Tea Party an act of terror?

Yes.

Using what definition?

Department of Defense sez: the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

Bostontea party was not an act of terrosim. It was conducted in order to prevent the tea from entering the economic stream w/o clearing customs and paying duty. The shipment was intended to undercut in price not only legitimately imported tea, but also smuggled (i.e. untaxed) tea and thus disrupt the economy.

The attack was peaceful, no one was harmed. The only property other than the tea that was damaged was a padlock and it was replaced. Adams and Co. were clear to point out this was not an attack on property.

Now the other thign we are failing to mention is the actions of the colonists vis a vis (or vis a behind a wall) against the redcoats during the revolutionary war. By many contemporary definitions, these colonists were terrorists.

Whenever one side departs form the rules of the marquis of queensbury the other side shouts "no fair" Until that new form of cambat becomes not only popular, but de riguerre (get it? a pun and I don't even speak french)

sorry. Anyway, what doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me about war is that the idea is to impose your will on someone else despite their wishes to the contrary. What does it matter how you do that?

And then, if someone attacks you, you fight back.

So as an agressor why should you follow rules? I mean you're out there to rape and pillage so...

As a defender you've gotta do what you've gotta do to protect yourself.

Unfortunately, I bet most soldiers if they had their druthers wouldn't be in war

I don't know where I'm going with this. it's hot and I've had a long day.

Therefore the "Mission Accomplished" war is terrorism?

Griff has asked a very good, obvious, and mostly overlooked question.

Better late than never, I suppose. But sooner would have been better.