Keith wrote: > Mishka wrote: > > the difference between "terrorists" and > > "freedom fighters" (or "partisans", "resistance", > > and so forth) has always been arbitrary. > > > > best, > > mishka > > Not really... > Terrorists attack seemingly indiscriminately, Russia, Israel, the U.S., > England, France, Spain...literally everywhere! > > These people hate everyone. They are not partisans...think about it. > They are mad dogs and deserve to be shot down like the animal they emulate.
The words "terrorist" and "terrorism' have been overused lately, to first mean, "anybody we disagree with who uses violence", and more recently, "anyone sufficiently _vehement_ we disagree with" or "anyone we really hope to discredit" (to the point that environmentalists and a teachers union have been described as terrorists, as have cybervandals). Really, there shouldn't be a line with "freedom fighters", "partisans", "rebels", "resistance", etc. on one side and "terrorists" on the other. Terrorism is a tool, a technique, and terrorists are those who employ or implement it. Some terrorists do so for partisan or ideological reasons. Some do so for money (at least in the movies; haven't checked for real world examples) or "because they hate everyone" (but tack on ideological or partisan rhetoric as a rationalization). I suspect some do it for _power_. A soldier attacks the enemy and the enemy's resources in an attempt to destroy said enemy or force him to withdraw. Violence is directed at accomplishing a goal. A terrorist attempts to influence others through fear, mostly fear of random violence, or blackmail (holding a population hostage in some sense). A simplistic and ill-considered terrorist may think he can scare the enemy's government into withdrawing (or scare a population into asking its government to withdraw), but that doesn't tend to work. A more sophisticated terrorist hopes to _goad_ others into doing something which helps the terrorist, whether that's to destabilize a region so the terrorist's organization can fill a power vacuum, or provoke an attack that will make the _local_ population so angry at the government the terrorist provoked that recruits will join the terrorist's organization. The appropriate response to terrirism depends on whether you think you're faced with a smart terrorist or a stupid terrorist. Er ... and on whether your own aim is to stop the violence or to use the existence of terrorism to justify increasing your own power over your own population, of course. Guerrila attacks on uniformed soldiers in a war zone are not terrorism. The targets are not civilian populations, the aim is to kill more than to instill horror or provoke anger, and the application of force is in line with the goals, not a tricky bank-shot off of bystanders and third-party governments. We've gotten in the habit of _calling_ them terrorists as a propoganda trick: "terrorist" is a dirty word, a Completely Unsympathetic label. Calling guerrillas "terrorists" cuts off any urge the listener has to consider "well there are two sides to this..." thoughts -- the enemy is presented as a _monster_ rather than an "opposing force". Unfortunately, this dilutes the meaning of the word "terrorist" and robs it of the impact it ought to have when used to describe real terrorists. Note that there are "grey areas" -- techniques of "legitimate" warfare designed more for their demoralizing effect than for their direct infliction of damage. Most of these fall into the "we know it when we see it" category; some can be argued. Consider them boundary conditions that test but do not completely invalidate the definition. Note also that although I am arguing that _some_ terrorists are _also_ "freedom fighters", I do not consider it a "legitimate" tactic (scare-quotes because that's an in-my-opinion and I'm ultimately not in charge of determining what techniques in warfare are legitimate and which are not -- though I'll be so bold as to say that torture is never legitimate on any side). A terrorist may (or may not) have had a repectable motivation at the outset, but in choosing terrorism as a means, he has chosen to become a monster. Bombing a city to remove its production from the enemy's supply chain and to cripple the enemy's economy is ... well, morally questionable at best, and definitely _ugly_, but at least recognized as a part of war. Blowing up a few dozen (or a few score) of commuters to provoke a reponse is terrorism. Setting traps for enemy soldiers in your homeland is something I wish wasn't happening, but isn't terrorism. Demonstrating the previously unheard of destructive power of a new kind of weapon to intimidate the enemy into surrender by destroying two cities in the blink of an eye is in the grey area. (Note that we had Good Motives there. And that my casting it as "grey" doesn't mean I disagree with the decision, only that I can see it legitimately being argued either way.) Yours for more precise speech, -- Glenn
