Making "terrorism" subjective confuses the matter. More clarity comes from defining terrorism as a tactic that is based on horrific violence against civilians. It's the same behavior and the same outcome no matter who does it: Russian missiles over Ukraine, V-2 rockets over Britain, or British bombers over German cities. Then the unfudged question is this: Is terrorism ever justified?
Making "terrorism" subjective confuses the matter. More clarity comes from defining terrorism as a tactic that is based on horrific violence against civilians. It's the same behavior and the same outcome no matter who does it: Russian missiles over Ukraine, V-2 rockets over Britain, or British bombers over German cities. Then the unfudged question is this: Is terrorism ever justified?
Oddly enough, I think I would distinguish between military objectives and political objectives.
So I don't think of Sherman's March, the German V-2 rockets, the British/American saturation bombing as terrorism.
And the initial Russian bombing of Ukraine is despicable but not necessarily terrorism. (At this point, Russia is bombing so they can tell their own people there's still a shot at victory - that feels more like terrorism.)
All of them are war crimes, possibly, but terrorism?
Are the Viet cong terrorists? Were they terrorists before they won the war?
Part of my reluctance is a belief that in wars after 1800 there are no civilians. It was one thing when nobles are fighting over who will be the monarch, but in modern wars, are civilian factories manufacturing munitions fair game? How about the farms feeding the troops?
If you wanted to take out the US or the UK, as an unfriendly foreign power, is Wall Street or London fair game?
If you're a political actor, that's terrorism. If you're a Nazi general during WWII, it's not.
When the V.C. ambushed American patrols, they were engaged in warfare. When the V.C. slaughtered peasant villagers, they were engaged in terrorism. Terrorism is an act or series of acts. The term terrorIST only makes sense in relation to an individual or group devoted entirely or almost entirely to acts of terrorism. The noun is probably apt for cells that repeatedly send suicide bombers to kill large numbers of civilians in nonmilitary locations.
However moralistic some may be about it, there is a real conceptual difference between terrorism and collateral damage. If civilians die because they're working in a factory that feeds the war machine, that's collateral damage. If civilians die because the aggressor targeted a school or a hospital or an apartment building (as the Russians are doing), that's terrorism. As far as medieval romance is concerned, as far as I know the only time that nobles took the full brunt of aggression was in the lists. On the battlefield they sent mobs of commoners against each other, poorly armed and without armor. They also burned villages and fields. If anything changed after 1800 (or maybe 1918) there were generally agreed upon rules of warfare, however irregularly they might be followed. Wall Street is not a legitimate military target. Most of London is not a legitimate military target. The bridge that brings military supplies from Russia into Crimea IS a legitimate military target even if a civilian truck driver is so unfortunate to be caught on it by a missile. Finally, the whole point of formulating an objective definition of terrorism is to do away with the idea that a Nazi general's definition is as good as anyone else's. If you accept that, then you're ready to accept Trump's claim that the election was rigged, just because he says so.
You make good points. And as I said, I don't know.
It's been a long time since I read up on religious wars in the 16th & 17th centuries so my memory that the commoners were trained men of arms and not serfs and herdsmen is unreliable. If I figure out whether my source is an actual historian or Shakespeare, I'll let you know.
I used a Nazi general because I wanted a military leader from a declared war vs. a Bin Laden type. But for the reasons, you stated, not a great example.
I am going to disagree with you about Wall Street or any other concentration of banking and finance. Both WWI & WWII were won because the US financial system provided the funds to beat Germany - both for us and our allies.
Currently, the system has back ups and distributed files so taking out NYC or London isn't going to cripple us.
But the strength of our financial system has in the past been as much a part of the victory as Lockheed or DuPont.
A country's finances are a legit target.
It's why we've blocked the Russians from using SWIFT.
Good point about finances. But wouldn't destroying Wall Street kill a lot of people who have nothing to with war while leaving others across the country who do? There is a thin line at the border between terrorism and war. Apologists will claim that the bombing of German cities or of Hiroshima took out military targets, but the primary result (and the purpose of the RAF commander, according to a new book) was to terrorize civilian populations and government officials. In any case, particular targets can be discussed rationally if clear basic principles exist. To be clear about the Nazi general, someone like Rommel was fighting a war. Others, however, were directing actions that were terrorism by any reasonable objective definition.
Making "terrorism" subjective confuses the matter. More clarity comes from defining terrorism as a tactic that is based on horrific violence against civilians. It's the same behavior and the same outcome no matter who does it: Russian missiles over Ukraine, V-2 rockets over Britain, or British bombers over German cities. Then the unfudged question is this: Is terrorism ever justified?
I don't know.
Oddly enough, I think I would distinguish between military objectives and political objectives.
So I don't think of Sherman's March, the German V-2 rockets, the British/American saturation bombing as terrorism.
And the initial Russian bombing of Ukraine is despicable but not necessarily terrorism. (At this point, Russia is bombing so they can tell their own people there's still a shot at victory - that feels more like terrorism.)
All of them are war crimes, possibly, but terrorism?
Are the Viet cong terrorists? Were they terrorists before they won the war?
Part of my reluctance is a belief that in wars after 1800 there are no civilians. It was one thing when nobles are fighting over who will be the monarch, but in modern wars, are civilian factories manufacturing munitions fair game? How about the farms feeding the troops?
If you wanted to take out the US or the UK, as an unfriendly foreign power, is Wall Street or London fair game?
If you're a political actor, that's terrorism. If you're a Nazi general during WWII, it's not.
Great point.
When the V.C. ambushed American patrols, they were engaged in warfare. When the V.C. slaughtered peasant villagers, they were engaged in terrorism. Terrorism is an act or series of acts. The term terrorIST only makes sense in relation to an individual or group devoted entirely or almost entirely to acts of terrorism. The noun is probably apt for cells that repeatedly send suicide bombers to kill large numbers of civilians in nonmilitary locations.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/7-deadliest-weapons-crusades/
Perfect.
Thank you for finding this.
However moralistic some may be about it, there is a real conceptual difference between terrorism and collateral damage. If civilians die because they're working in a factory that feeds the war machine, that's collateral damage. If civilians die because the aggressor targeted a school or a hospital or an apartment building (as the Russians are doing), that's terrorism. As far as medieval romance is concerned, as far as I know the only time that nobles took the full brunt of aggression was in the lists. On the battlefield they sent mobs of commoners against each other, poorly armed and without armor. They also burned villages and fields. If anything changed after 1800 (or maybe 1918) there were generally agreed upon rules of warfare, however irregularly they might be followed. Wall Street is not a legitimate military target. Most of London is not a legitimate military target. The bridge that brings military supplies from Russia into Crimea IS a legitimate military target even if a civilian truck driver is so unfortunate to be caught on it by a missile. Finally, the whole point of formulating an objective definition of terrorism is to do away with the idea that a Nazi general's definition is as good as anyone else's. If you accept that, then you're ready to accept Trump's claim that the election was rigged, just because he says so.
P.S. Nice to have a discussion rather than an exchange of rants.
Same. It's nice to be debating.
You make good points. And as I said, I don't know.
It's been a long time since I read up on religious wars in the 16th & 17th centuries so my memory that the commoners were trained men of arms and not serfs and herdsmen is unreliable. If I figure out whether my source is an actual historian or Shakespeare, I'll let you know.
I used a Nazi general because I wanted a military leader from a declared war vs. a Bin Laden type. But for the reasons, you stated, not a great example.
I am going to disagree with you about Wall Street or any other concentration of banking and finance. Both WWI & WWII were won because the US financial system provided the funds to beat Germany - both for us and our allies.
Currently, the system has back ups and distributed files so taking out NYC or London isn't going to cripple us.
But the strength of our financial system has in the past been as much a part of the victory as Lockheed or DuPont.
A country's finances are a legit target.
It's why we've blocked the Russians from using SWIFT.
Good point about finances. But wouldn't destroying Wall Street kill a lot of people who have nothing to with war while leaving others across the country who do? There is a thin line at the border between terrorism and war. Apologists will claim that the bombing of German cities or of Hiroshima took out military targets, but the primary result (and the purpose of the RAF commander, according to a new book) was to terrorize civilian populations and government officials. In any case, particular targets can be discussed rationally if clear basic principles exist. To be clear about the Nazi general, someone like Rommel was fighting a war. Others, however, were directing actions that were terrorism by any reasonable objective definition.