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
