I posted this exact question in the Mozillazine Afterdark forum almost two years ago. The only thing I am changing is removing any username that wouldn't make any sense here to <interested individual>. Given the totally inane accusation that the US attack in Pakistan recently was a terrorist attack, I felt it important to bring this up here as well.
<interested individual> posed an interesting question (actually a series of them) in the UN sanctions thread basically asking the simple question "What makes a terrorist a terrorist?".
Well, as your friendly neighborhood answer man, I am here to come to the rescue and will answer that question. The short answer is that it depends on the tactics involved, but that is a very limiting answer and doesn't really cover a lot of situations. I think the easiest way to do it is with a series of scenarios.
Scenario 1: Rebellion/Civil War
Rebellion against the lawful governing authority of a nation is not terrorism in and of itself. It is, however, a very interesting situation because the only thing that makes it legitimate is victory. Example - If the British had summarily stomped the holy living snot out of the colonies, then the leaders of the rebellion would all have most likely been hanged as traitors and the rebellion may not have been more than a footnote in the history of the British Empire. However, the colonies won and The British recognized the legitimacy of the new nation via The Treaty of Paris.
Now to apply this scenario to one of <interested individual> queries in which he asked "Are the Chechenians terrorists?". Those that are fighting the Russian soldiers and limiting their actions to those against soldiers or against infrastructure such as railroads aiding the soldiers movements I would say no, they are not terrorists. However, bombings in Moscow at movie theaters and the like..yes, that is a terrorist act.
It doesn't just apply to those fighting "against the system" either. It could be argued quite successfully that Sherman's march to the sea during the American Civil War was loaded with terrorist acts.
Scenario 2: Resistance/Guerilla fighters
This involves citizens of a conquered nation resisting the occupiers. Again, in and of itself this is not terrorism. But it depends entirely upon the tactics involved.
I'll tackle both sides of the issue with Iraq. Those Iraqis (and even maybe non-Iraqis) who are solely fighting against the military of the US or again against things like railroads, I would not call terrorists but rather resistance fighters. Those that are committing the bombings at hotels, the UN headquarters, etc are terrorists.
Now one may think that the Palestinian groups like Hamas should fall under this catagory, but they don't. The Palestinians have a legally recognized authority (the Palestinian Authority) which Hamas does not represent. They would fall under scenario 3.
Scenario 3: Acts of Violence commited by non-nation states.
This is where the vast majority of terrorism comes into play. Only Nations have the legal right to wage war except when covered by scenarios 1 and 2 above. Let's look at Al-quaeda. They are not a national army and they do not represent any nation. Let's take the bombing of the USS Cole as an example. It was taking on fuel in a Yemeni port when Al-quaeda blew a hole in its side. The US was at war with no nation at this time, and yet this group chose to commit an act of war where they have no authority to commit such acts, therefore it was a terrorist act. Even sadder, their targets are frequently not military but civilian with no direct link to military operations.
As stated before, this is where Hamas falls. The Palestinian Authority does not sanction their actions so they have no legal basis to carry out attacks against even Israeli soldiers. Now, if the Palestinian Authority decided war was the way to go and started official armed resistance against Israel, then attacks against soldiers and the like would fall under scenario 1. But, nothing can possibly justify blowing up a busload of schoolchildren even if a soldier happens to be riding the bus. Those types of acts are terrorism any way you slice it.
<interested individual> posed an interesting question (actually a series of them) in the UN sanctions thread basically asking the simple question "What makes a terrorist a terrorist?".
Well, as your friendly neighborhood answer man, I am here to come to the rescue and will answer that question. The short answer is that it depends on the tactics involved, but that is a very limiting answer and doesn't really cover a lot of situations. I think the easiest way to do it is with a series of scenarios.
Scenario 1: Rebellion/Civil War
Rebellion against the lawful governing authority of a nation is not terrorism in and of itself. It is, however, a very interesting situation because the only thing that makes it legitimate is victory. Example - If the British had summarily stomped the holy living snot out of the colonies, then the leaders of the rebellion would all have most likely been hanged as traitors and the rebellion may not have been more than a footnote in the history of the British Empire. However, the colonies won and The British recognized the legitimacy of the new nation via The Treaty of Paris.
Now to apply this scenario to one of <interested individual> queries in which he asked "Are the Chechenians terrorists?". Those that are fighting the Russian soldiers and limiting their actions to those against soldiers or against infrastructure such as railroads aiding the soldiers movements I would say no, they are not terrorists. However, bombings in Moscow at movie theaters and the like..yes, that is a terrorist act.
It doesn't just apply to those fighting "against the system" either. It could be argued quite successfully that Sherman's march to the sea during the American Civil War was loaded with terrorist acts.
Scenario 2: Resistance/Guerilla fighters
This involves citizens of a conquered nation resisting the occupiers. Again, in and of itself this is not terrorism. But it depends entirely upon the tactics involved.
I'll tackle both sides of the issue with Iraq. Those Iraqis (and even maybe non-Iraqis) who are solely fighting against the military of the US or again against things like railroads, I would not call terrorists but rather resistance fighters. Those that are committing the bombings at hotels, the UN headquarters, etc are terrorists.
Now one may think that the Palestinian groups like Hamas should fall under this catagory, but they don't. The Palestinians have a legally recognized authority (the Palestinian Authority) which Hamas does not represent. They would fall under scenario 3.
Scenario 3: Acts of Violence commited by non-nation states.
This is where the vast majority of terrorism comes into play. Only Nations have the legal right to wage war except when covered by scenarios 1 and 2 above. Let's look at Al-quaeda. They are not a national army and they do not represent any nation. Let's take the bombing of the USS Cole as an example. It was taking on fuel in a Yemeni port when Al-quaeda blew a hole in its side. The US was at war with no nation at this time, and yet this group chose to commit an act of war where they have no authority to commit such acts, therefore it was a terrorist act. Even sadder, their targets are frequently not military but civilian with no direct link to military operations.
As stated before, this is where Hamas falls. The Palestinian Authority does not sanction their actions so they have no legal basis to carry out attacks against even Israeli soldiers. Now, if the Palestinian Authority decided war was the way to go and started official armed resistance against Israel, then attacks against soldiers and the like would fall under scenario 1. But, nothing can possibly justify blowing up a busload of schoolchildren even if a soldier happens to be riding the bus. Those types of acts are terrorism any way you slice it.
