Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Just what IS terrorism?
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 112 (164110)
11-30-2004 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by AdminHambre
11-30-2004 11:16 AM


Re: Blah blah blah
quote:
You're not fooling anyone.
Ah yes - you start by by accusing me of rhetorical overload and name-calling, and then suggest that I'm trying to fool you. But if I suggested that this might be hypocrisy this would be another strike against me, wouldn't it?
If I wanted to call you names I would fucking do so. Get over your self-importance and parochialism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by AdminHambre, posted 11-30-2004 11:16 AM AdminHambre has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 112 (164162)
11-30-2004 5:18 PM


I've been following this thread quite closely, its a shame its starting to degenerate.
A while back I had a similar, though much shorter debate with Quetzal - I maintained that while you might not be able to show that the US was intentionally killing civilians in Iraq, there seemed to be a continuing pattern of criminal negligence and disregard for human life.
It seems to me that negligence falls somewhere in between intent and non-intent and, like contacycle says, can be exploited by any state apparatus to claim that the killings were necessary. Even if say, we regard the bombing of the Al-Ameriya bunker in Baghdad as an accident, I can't see how the definition of terrorism Quetzal suggests, based on intent, is helpful in preventing a repeat of the incident. Again, I share contracycle's view that defining the word to include the rather nebulous concept of intent, which any self respecting state apparatus with banks of lawyers should be able to muddy, actually makes incidents like Al-Ameriya more likely. Its the difference between murder and manslaughter by drunk driving, if you ask me.
Without wishing to get bogged down in the side issues, I find myself agreeing with contracycle (its a view I also formed myself only very recently) that actually the hang-up on the word "terrorism", rather like "WMD" is a boogyman and actually distracts from the real issues. (WMD aren't pleasant, but neither is white phosphor, which isn't technically a chemical weapon - its primary impact is incendiary - but why does that make it any less abominable that the US used it in civilian areas of Fallujah?).
But then, if we do away with the word "terrorism", does this mean that civilians will be unprotected from assault during a war? I don't see why this is the case, or indeed why it makes any difference - especially when its near impossible to police the military machine concerned in any sort of objective, independent way. What good is a law which is irrelevant to the situation on the ground?
One definition I once heard for terrorism was 'the peacetime equivalent of war crimes', which I think is quite good, but ultimately, its scrambling about for a definition of the word and I don't see any tangible benefit from having it defined.
I realise I might have missed one in the posts above - but can anyone suggest a real, positive and tangible benefit that a universally agreed definition of terrorism would provide?
PE
This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 11-30-2004 05:25 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Quetzal, posted 12-01-2004 9:23 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 108 of 112 (164305)
12-01-2004 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by contracycle
11-30-2004 10:28 AM


Re: Rhetoric Overload
An allegation of hypocrisy is perfectly legitimate. I don;t care whether he LIKES it; I neither care nor said that he APPROVES of it; the FACT of the matter is his definiition is IN USE in a hypocrtiical manner. If he doesn;t like it he can go sulk in a corner - and while he and his fellows legitimised the atrocities of the South African statr.
Whatever, junior. Feel free to continue talking to yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by contracycle, posted 11-30-2004 10:28 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 109 of 112 (164310)
12-01-2004 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Primordial Egg
11-30-2004 5:18 PM


Hi PE.
A while back I had a similar, though much shorter debate with Quetzal - I maintained that while you might not be able to show that the US was intentionally killing civilians in Iraq, there seemed to be a continuing pattern of criminal negligence and disregard for human life.
Although I don't concede the point on "criminal" negligence, which has rather specific connotations, I will concede that a) the invasion of Iraq itself was illegal under international law, and b) in that context any loss of civilian life is therefore unjustified by definition. The US's entire approach to Iraq is wrong. However, I don't believe anyone has made a conclusive case for systematic disregard for human rights OR human life. I would be willing to be convinced, however, if it could be shown that a deliberate policy of either indiscriminate destruction of civilian areas or civilian (i.e., protected) structures was being undertaken.
Even if say, we regard the bombing of the Al-Ameriya bunker in Baghdad as an accident, I can't see how the definition of terrorism Quetzal suggests, based on intent, is helpful in preventing a repeat of the incident. Again, I share contracycle's view that defining the word to include the rather nebulous concept of intent, which any self respecting state apparatus with banks of lawyers should be able to muddy, actually makes incidents like Al-Ameriya more likely. Its the difference between murder and manslaughter by drunk driving, if you ask me.
It would not, nor was it intended, to prevent incidents such as Al-Ameriyah. IMO, there is probably no way short of mutually-agreed-upon set-piece battles where both sides line up on an open plain where no civilians can possibly be harmed - sort of like a football game - to avoid civilian casualties in a conflict situation. Nor is it possible to avoid civilian deaths when the combat takes place in built-up areas. As the only other way to conduct combat operations in urban areas is by seige, which entails as much if not more civilian suffering (see, for example, the seige of Lenningrad in WWII), it isn't clear to me that there is any way to avoid civilian casualties except by conceding defeat as soon as urban areas are involved. And that IS unrealistic.
But then, if we do away with the word "terrorism", does this mean that civilians will be unprotected from assault during a war? I don't see why this is the case, or indeed why it makes any difference - especially when its near impossible to police the military machine concerned in any sort of objective, independent way. What good is a law which is irrelevant to the situation on the ground?
This is a very valid question that goes to the heart of the entire dispute. If we do away with the word "terrorism" because of its overuse/misuse and the extraneous baggage that has been attached to the word (as contracycle suggests, and as I have agreed, the word has become mere propaganda in the hands of state actors that wish to stigmatize their opponents, regardless of justification), rather than attempting to narrow and operationalize the existing definition, what do we have left? How do we delegitimize the use of terror tactics directed at civilians - e.g., the deliberate targeting of civilian populations and structures whether in the context of Clauswitzian "true war" between states or in the context of non-state actors? The point is it doesn't matter if we use "terrorism" or "ylzcgvawse" to describe what we are trying to eliminate: the objective is to eliminate the one cause of civilian casualties during conflict that it is possible to eliminate. I submit that using an already existing term (that everyone claims to "understand" but no one has effectively defined), regardless of existing connotations AND at the same time convincing state actors of the utter futility of this tactic for the accomplishment of their political-military objectives, then we have gone a very long way down the road to eliminating the deliberate targeting of civilians as a tool of war. With this accomplished, it seems to me to be a logical continuation that other tools that cause suffering in a civilian population during conflict can ALSO be addressed. Or at least we have a better shot at it.
I am open to alternative suggestions. Does anyone see any other possible way of accomplishing what we all are quite clearly attempting?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-30-2004 5:18 PM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-01-2004 2:47 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 110 of 112 (164314)
12-01-2004 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by AdminHambre
11-30-2004 11:16 AM


Re: Blah blah blah
With all due respect (yeah, right ), it wasn't the name calling (e.g., hypocrite) that convinced me to consign contracycle to the dustbin. The name-calling is merely infantile and easily ignored. It was the continued, deliberate, and egregious mischaracterizations of my statements and position, as well as the repeated failure to even acknowledge my points (let alone admit he was flat out wrong, as in the Cromwell case), rather expending tremendous amounts of virtual ink to denigrate and insult, not to mention simply repeating his mantra, that convinced me he is completely not worth the time it takes to respond to him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by AdminHambre, posted 11-30-2004 11:16 AM AdminHambre has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 112 (164392)
12-01-2004 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Quetzal
12-01-2004 9:23 AM


Hi Quetzal,
Quetzal writes:
Although I don't concede the point on "criminal" negligence, which has rather specific connotations, I will concede that a) the invasion of Iraq itself was illegal under international law, and b) in that context any loss of civilian life is therefore unjustified by definition. The US's entire approach to Iraq is wrong. However, I don't believe anyone has made a conclusive case for systematic disregard for human rights OR human life. I would be willing to be convinced, however, if it could be shown that a deliberate policy of either indiscriminate destruction of civilian areas or civilian (i.e., protected) structures was being undertaken.
Yes I remember. Its difficult to know how to resolve this disagreement without me barraging you with (what I perceive as) evidence to support this. I still don't have the time to do this properly tho' so we'll have to continue to agree to disagree on this. I agree with your tangential point about the legality of the war, but in addition I think there are aspects within the prosecution of the war which smack of plain negligence to me.
It would not, nor was it intended, to prevent incidents such as Al-Ameriyah. IMO, there is probably no way short of mutually-agreed-upon set-piece battles where both sides line up on an open plain where no civilians can possibly be harmed - sort of like a football game - to avoid civilian casualties in a conflict situation. Nor is it possible to avoid civilian deaths when the combat takes place in built-up areas. As the only other way to conduct combat operations in urban areas is by seige, which entails as much if not more civilian suffering (see, for example, the seige of Lenningrad in WWII), it isn't clear to me that there is any way to avoid civilian casualties except by conceding defeat as soon as urban areas are involved. And that IS unrealistic.
Apolgies if this is strawmanning you, but the terrorism charge is often used in the same tones as those who proclaim that the bombing of cities is somehow morally superior to the beheading of hostages, because the civilain deaths from the bombing weren't intentional. This is why I think, that although a definition of terrorism based around intent might not actually prevent a repeat of Al-Ameriyah, it might make similar incidents more likely. As long as one could claim that one wasn't acting deliberately, it allows one of the parties, and in this case, the party with the overwhelmingly powerful firepower carte blanche to slip into negligent behaviour whilst maintaining the facade of moral superiority.
I said I wasn't going to bombard you with examples, but one in particular springs to my mind, during the War in Afghanistan. I remember the news report where I think four US bombs hit a village killing about 30-40 people. At first, the US military denied that the village wasn't a legitimate military target and then, a few days later the claim was that somebody had punched in the wrong ordnance co-ordinates somewhere along the chain.
I find this mind-boggling. Nobody checks what somebody else is manually punching in, on a bomb? Imagine the outrage if a bomb had accidentally been dropped on a US city. If the military stationed in the US exercise more care in their operations then is it fair to say that at least some of the US military is negligent? Is it fair on the dead to put this down to the stresses of modern combat?
(Having said that, I can't find the news article from a websearch - seem to remember it pretty clearly though).
I submit that using an already existing term (that everyone claims to "understand" but no one has effectively defined), regardless of existing connotations AND at the same time convincing state actors of the utter futility of this tactic for the accomplishment of their political-military objectives, then we have gone a very long way down the road to eliminating the deliberate targeting of civilians as a tool of war. With this accomplished, it seems to me to be a logical continuation that other tools that cause suffering in a civilian population during conflict can ALSO be addressed. Or at least we have a better shot at it.
This is fair enough - as long as we do continue down the path. My intuition tells me that this continuation won't happen though, especially in a war where your opponent is deliberately targetting civilians, one side will always be able to use the "accidnet" defense for atrocities. In a war where neither side is being deliberate, then "accidents" will happen on both sides.
Unless we also recognise negligent behaviour for the war crime that it is, and we do this at the same time as we address deliberate targeting of civilians then I don't think we'll ever see a continuation along the road you suggest.
We do need a real body with teeth to observe armed conflicts and if necessary to bring criminal behaviour (I almost used 'evildoers' there!) to account. sadly, the UN has been delegitimised by the most powerful country in the world and I don't see this happening any time soon. Until then, any defintion of terrorism will be used as an excuse to meet any resistance whatsoever with disproportionate violence, and then claim accident afterwards.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Quetzal, posted 12-01-2004 9:23 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Quetzal, posted 12-08-2004 2:44 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 112 of 112 (166270)
12-08-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Primordial Egg
12-01-2004 2:47 PM


Hi PE:
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I hadn't realized you'd replied until I checked my message log today (I've been a tad busy).
Yes I remember. Its difficult to know how to resolve this disagreement without me barraging you with (what I perceive as) evidence to support this. I still don't have the time to do this properly tho' so we'll have to continue to agree to disagree on this. I agree with your tangential point about the legality of the war, but in addition I think there are aspects within the prosecution of the war which smack of plain negligence to me.
Agree to disagree sounds reasonable. I think there are a lot of aspects to this conflict which are truly "plain negligence" - beginning with the failure to develop contingency plans for what was surely a fairly predictable outcome of the ground offensive. In any event, perhaps another time.
Apolgies if this is strawmanning you, but the terrorism charge is often used in the same tones as those who proclaim that the bombing of cities is somehow morally superior to the beheading of hostages, because the civilain deaths from the bombing weren't intentional. This is why I think, that although a definition of terrorism based around intent might not actually prevent a repeat of Al-Ameriyah, it might make similar incidents more likely. As long as one could claim that one wasn't acting deliberately, it allows one of the parties, and in this case, the party with the overwhelmingly powerful firepower carte blanche to slip into negligent behaviour whilst maintaining the facade of moral superiority.
I agree with you that there is a moral equivalency between hostage beheadings and carpet bombing cities. OTOH, as you said, defining terrorism via intent won't prevent repeats of Al-Ameriyah. I'm not sure anything CAN prevent a repetition of something like this. However, I'm also not sure that simply ignoring the rather specific dimensions of terrorism - or lumping ALL casualties (intended or not) into the same rubric - will accomplish anything either. In an ideal world, there would be no conflict, which is the only way I can think of to completely eliminate civilian casualties. In the current world, we need to develop ideas, tools and yes, moral view, that takes reality of conflict into consideration, rather than simply hoping it will go away - or making war crimes accusations against militaries who accidently kill civilians during the course of conflict.
I said I wasn't going to bombard you with examples, but one in particular springs to my mind, during the War in Afghanistan. I remember the news report where I think four US bombs hit a village killing about 30-40 people. At first, the US military denied that the village wasn't a legitimate military target and then, a few days later the claim was that somebody had punched in the wrong ordnance co-ordinates somewhere along the chain.
I find this mind-boggling. Nobody checks what somebody else is manually punching in, on a bomb? Imagine the outrage if a bomb had accidentally been dropped on a US city. If the military stationed in the US exercise more care in their operations then is it fair to say that at least some of the US military is negligent? Is it fair on the dead to put this down to the stresses of modern combat?
Theoretically, yes: someone does check the coordinates. A call for artillery fire or air support has built in checks. I don't know what specifically happened to circumvent those checks in this instance. However, we have training accidents all the time in the US where an incorrect coordinate or incorrect manual azimuth setting sends a round off in a direction not intended. In combat, when the pressure is much higher, it is practically inevitable. During Desert Storm, not only was an armored unit chewed up by DU munitions in an air attack during the ground war, but a Marine company belonging to 6th RCT (I can't remember which battalion - it may have been 1/6) was "attacked" by US aircraft using Rockeye cluster even before the ground war started - and they were still in Saudi Arabia in a prepared position south of the berm (thank doctrine they were dug in, no one was hurt). This pilot didn't even bomb the right country. Human error is an inevitable adjunct to any human endeavor. Unfortunately, such errors in combat invariably cost lives - whether among civilians or fratricide (i.e., so-called "friendly fire" incidents). Not just Iraq: the shoot-down of the Iranian airliner (a clear error in judgement under pressure), the accidental shelling of an allied position during the Suk el Gharb offensive in Beirut (Sep 83 - technical error), the bombing of the village in Afghanistan (clear human error), etc. A list of such errors can be gleaned from every conflict of the modern world: none however indicate sustained and consistent policy. This doesn't mean we shouldn't work to minimize them - and there should never be any "excuse". An explanation is not an excuse - it's a way of learning from mistakes.
However, only a repeated and consistent pattern of continual "errors" can reasonably be used as a basis for claims of criminal negligence.
This is fair enough - as long as we do continue down the path. My intuition tells me that this continuation won't happen though, especially in a war where your opponent is deliberately targetting civilians, one side will always be able to use the "accidnet" defense for atrocities. In a war where neither side is being deliberate, then "accidents" will happen on both sides.
I don't disagree completely. I admit that my hope is probably illusion. We obviously have to do something, however. What's happening now - both in Iraq and elsewhere - is unacceptable. Even a partial solution is better that nothing.
We do need a real body with teeth to observe armed conflicts and if necessary to bring criminal behaviour (I almost used 'evildoers' there!) to account. sadly, the UN has been delegitimised by the most powerful country in the world and I don't see this happening any time soon. Until then, any defintion of terrorism will be used as an excuse to meet any resistance whatsoever with disproportionate violence, and then claim accident afterwards.
I don't think the UN has ever had the capability you state is needed. The "toothlessness" of this body has been inherent since its beginning. However, as Churchill said about democracy: "[It] is the worst form of government on the planet - except for all the others." In the UN's defense, I don't think it was ever really envisioned as the world's policeman. I think a case can be made that for what it was intended, it hasn't done a bad job overall. Few states have ever paid much more than lipservice to the UN when it conflicted with their interests.
However, I'm not sure that defining terrorism will necessarily automatically create a ready-made excuse for states to do what they want. Certainly some definitions, for instance the "political violence" type, do even more damage than what you're worried about: they allow states to declare their own, legitimate internal opposition to be terrorists. At least with mine, we're trying to get away from this kind of doublespeak at least as concerns statal armed forces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-01-2004 2:47 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024