That's rubbish. Terrorism is rarely the last resort and it almost never grows organically either. Its usually the exclusive preserve of a radicalized group inside a broader movement.
Like colonialist warfare among the democratically inclined?
No, they wouldn't and by what metric do you assert they would.
They were non-state actors who perpetrated violent acts against the legally recognized government.
I hate to say it to you but he would probably have been jailed as such by almost any state if he had carried out similar actions. The morality of the act isn't the important part.
So what? He's an example that "terrorism" works? Is that your argument?
So you've conflated George Washintgon, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Nelson Mandela with Osama Bin Laden? Great sleight of hand.
It's not sleight of hand. What's sleight of hand is convincing people that "they hate our freedom." It's a load of rubbish. People don't undertake suicide attacks without serious aims, which they perceive as potentially attainable by violence.
Well, hell. You have a minority of irate religious fanatics (and that's what they are) deciding to get offended at something their government, other Muslim governments and the vast majority of Muslims weren't really that bothered by and your willing to equate it to the War of Independence and the Ending of Apartheid. That's quite apart from the frankly disgusting moral implications which you've ascribed to terrorism.
1 - I did not "equate" those things. I made a comparison.
2 - And I'd like to see where you're getting your info that a vast majority of Muslims weren't (aren't) bothered by US military presence in KSA. I know a few Muslims, and they generally refuse to even discuss it - I presume because they fear being dragged off without due process.
3 - It's "terrorism" only when they do it. When the US instills terror by way of violence to achieve a political ends, it is "Shock and Awe." And who kills more innocent civilians, btw? If there is anyone on the "immoral" side it's the one defending a term which justifies mass murder. I made no claims as to the morality of the tactics - only that they were understandable given the balance of power, and based on a valid complaint.
That's rubbish as well. I've given you six objective definitions by renowned scholars in the field. It's not materially different to asking economists exactly what economics is. You get different opinions. That doesn't mean the term is completely useless. Most scholars are in broad agreement as to what constitutes terrorism.
1 - Any definition which uses the term "non-state actor" or any synonym, is pure, grade-A BS. It's a term used to reserve the use of violence to recognized powers, and precludes the possibility of self determination in the face of tyranny.
2 - Any definition that does not include "non-state actor" or a synonym ends up including a large number of actions of the US, UK an any number of other countries. These actions are usually undertaken to "combat terrorism." Orwell is rolling in his grave.
Morality has nothing to do with terrorism.
No, it doesn't. So let's exclude morality. Killing 3000 civilians for a political aim, by whatever tactics, is equal to killing 3000 civilians for a political aim. Now...why was 9-11 terrorism? Oh, yeah. They weren't working for a government.
It was perpetrated by non-state actors with no standing to launch an attack under international law. By definition it couldn't have been legal.
I don't think it's legal that the US invaded Iraq. Or afghanistan, for that matter. The Cole attack was clearly a militia v military engagement - warfare.
That was permissible. They wore colors, had a military structure and so forth.
Huh? The British were incensed by the tactics of the Revolutionaries, who often wore no colors and operated in loosely organized militias. (not all, but many)
That's immaterial. I would also like to hear how Jemaah Islamiyah was politically disenfranchised. They could vote. They could found political parties (and have). They could talk to their elected representatives. They were not oppressed. But they still resorted to terrorism without attempting to do any of that.
I am not all that familiar with that particular group, or the domestic politics of Indonesia. I do think they existed originally as opponents of Suharto, and as such, certainly suffered political disenfranchisement at some point. Whether their access to the political process is improved, I cannot say.
Your whole explanation is framed on a faulty assumption that terrorism arises solely because of political disenfranchisement.
No, You are missing my argument altogether. I am saying that revolutionary action is pejoratively labelled terrorism. The correct term, in a military sense, is "asymmetrical warfare."
Your central problem is you see the tactics, and automatically discount the motives. I can certainly understand the feelings involved in so doing. That doesn't make it a rational argument to attach inflammatory labels to violent political movements or their actions. You may agree or disagree with the motives of Al Qaeda, but the maintenance of cultural identity in the face of global capitalism is certainly an understandable motive to me, even if I think these people are stuck in the 12th century and heading to the 11th.
