Remember, the FBI definition is designed to allow ease of prosecution, it is not a philosophical treatise.
I think there is general agreement on what terrorism is, I think the philosophical jury is still out on whether it is by definition always wrong, or if it can be used in a justifiable way. (Beyond simple “its in the eye of the beholder” relativism.) That is a more interesting question to me.
That being said, I think some of their definition is there for ease of prosecution… “violating of State and Federal Law,” some of it is more philosophical. FBI and mine has some similarities:
If I would offer a simple definition: “A strategy of violence where force is employed to shock or frighten a population into becoming complicit in a political outcome, often times employed in asymmetrical power relations when a side wishing to employ lawful violence (war) or other strategies are not likely to succeed, or in other relationships when one side does not wish to pay the expected price of using conventional/lawful force or measures.” It can be religiously motivated, doesn’t need to be, but does have to be employed with the intent of a strategic outcome. I agree that it does not include a chaos figure/psychotic actions.
examples:
Invade Japan during WWII with the Marines= lawful act of war
Bomb factories producing tanks=problematic expansion of the concept of collateral damage, to include targets significant to a military and not just the military. Its purpose was not to fight army versus army, but to disrupt the future supply of army material. It was also not to terrorize the factory workers into quitting- they were collateral, therefore not terrorism, despite targeting civilians.
London Blitz=terrorism campaign to elicit the political outcome of a British Separate Peace with Germany, failed.
Dresden=Revenge+Terror?, I am open to argument here, I am not convinced it was completely strategic, nor do I think they expected a particular political outcome. It was more likely eye for an eye punishment.
Rape of Nanking etc- Japanese occupation clearly meant to pacify through terror as a cheap alternative to traditional occupation.= Terrorism
Atomic Bombs / target “dual targets” of military and civilian populations with atomic bombs in order to shock the Japanese civilian population into applying pressure on the government to withdraw its armed forces. The use employed the strategy to avoid the casualties of conventional fighting=Terrorism.
Osama Bin Laden and 9/11- attack on population that was designed to accomplish two goals: 1) to gain local political capital as the most significant jihadi leader by accomplishing such an audacious attack, 2) and to goad the US into costly retaliation that would make it too expensive to maintain its hegemony in the Middle East in the face of growing opposition that would likely result if it was the case that the US went into a protracted war in the region. He had met with success after the Herat Uprising drew the USSR into a costly campaign that contributed heavily to its disintegration and loss of influence in the region. He calculated terrorism as the best strategy to employ on the other asymmetrical power relationship in the area that he wished to alter- the US. Since then, several western backed regimes have fallen to popular uprisings, of which Wahhabi inspired groups have largely benefited. = Clearly “Terror” and not merely “revenge.”
Unlike a few others… I think you could create an argument for justifiable terrorism in the case of the Atomic bombs. Given historical realities and calculations, that “act of terror” can be reasonably argued to have saved lives compared to the “lawful exercise of conventional forces” alternatives available. It is not the only valid interpretation, but is well worth considering when being realistic about possible alternatives.
Osama’s actions I would argue as not justifiable, because there were other political strategies left open that may have helped achieve the same goal without the loss of so many lives- UN, civil disobedience, peaceful political evolution in key Arab states… etc…
Terrorism is any act designed to intimidate people. It can be organized and include many peope, such as the terrorism of the World Trade Center bombings , or it can be one lone gunman in a school or shopping mall. A shot doesn’t have to be fired and no one has to die or be physically injured for the act to qualify as terrorism. The defining aspect is intimidation, it can be the intimidation of millions of people or one, sometimes its poitical, sometimes it’s personal–such as the kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard and similar acts.
Terrorists are all around us. It can be your neighbor who threatens to cause you harm if you set foot on his property. It can be a schoolteacher or parent who disciplines with threats. It can be a domestic partner who intimidates by physical or emotional abuse. We do ourselves a disservice when we assume terrorism can be carried out only by large, powerful groups.
Lois
Unlike a few others… I think you could create an argument for justifiable terrorism in the case of the Atomic bombs. Given historical realities and calculations, that “act of terror" can be reasonably argued to have saved lives compared to the “lawful exercise of conventional forces" alternatives available. It is not the only valid interpretation, but is well worth considering when being realistic about possible alternatives.I see your point FP but disagree that your historical references would fall under terrorists acts. These were blanketed by formal declarations of war, in each case excepting the Rape of Nanking for which the perpetrator was hanged as a war criminal, the acts fell under the purview of military planners who adopted the concept of total war, i.e. destroying the enemy's ability and will to fight. This meant that collateral damage was necessary to subdue the enemy state and more quickly end the war. I do agree however that the Dresden Bombing was unnecessary and overkill. Blame Curtis LeMay. I also agree that dropping the Atomic bombs were a way to minimize allied casualties and not as a terrorist act. Leaflets were dropped forty eight hours before the attack warning the civilians to get out of the city. Cap't Jack
Like most arguments, our differences probably all come down to definitions. If you take the Henry Stimson Harper's Weekly at face value, there is no question that Atomic bombs were by the FBI definition, and most others definition "terrorism." Total war is not codified to include targeting civilians for political gain, though it might be a logical outgrowth of it. Nor do I think it ultimately matters, perhaps what you imply is that there isnt just justifiable terrorism, but also lawful terrorism? Nor does the fact that it is within or not within the purview of military planners seem to be relevant to me, or my definition. My definition revolves around target and intent, whether or not the act is planned or executed under the blanket of declarations of war or not is beside the point. Who was the target, what was the intent? According to Secy. Stimson, the bomb sites were chosen specifically for the purpose of shocking and scaring the civilian population into producing political pressure on the government, which in turn could pull the Army out of the field. How was the bombs supposed to minimize casualties? What was the intent? That is the key. The intent to bomb a factory is to cripple the war effort by crippling supply of the military apparatus, certainly that means targeting civilians (you know they are in there in the same way the Germans knew there were civilians on the Lusitania) but it does not fit my definition of terrorism because the intent is not to target those civilians in order to use fear for a political outcome. Clearly when Stimson and his team targeted "virgin" targets that were "dual targets" in order to shock the Japanese civilian population into withdrawing support for the imperial government, it was not conventional military strategy, not mere collateral damage, it was something else- terrorism. Total War does present some interesting challenges to the military and civilian distinction in conventional war theory- it is also why we are seen as hypocrites when our presidents state categorically that "it is always and everywhere wrong to target innocent civilians," when clearly our war planners (and myself) would concede, that it is indeed justifiable in some cases to target innocent civilians. Hiroshima being one example in my mind. Justifiable targeting of civilians to shock and cower the population into uprising against its own government- it was terrorism, but I do believe in that case it saved lives over the supposed "lawful form of war." Not to open another can of worms- as a humanist/feminist I also fail to recognize that any number of 18 year old males drafted into a conscript army should be required to die before a single civilian man woman or child does in a war situation. That just seems like one area where the patriarchy gave the dirty end of the stick to young men and devalued their lives relative to others. That however is a different argument for another day. I will stick to my definition- justifiable terrorism.Unlike a few others… I think you could create an argument for justifiable terrorism in the case of the Atomic bombs. Given historical realities and calculations, that “act of terror" can be reasonably argued to have saved lives compared to the “lawful exercise of conventional forces" alternatives available. It is not the only valid interpretation, but is well worth considering when being realistic about possible alternatives.I see your point FP but disagree that your historical references would fall under terrorists acts. These were blanketed by formal declarations of war, in each case excepting the Rape of Nanking for which the perpetrator was hanged as a war criminal, the acts fell under the purview of military planners who adopted the concept of total war, i.e. destroying the enemy's ability and will to fight. This meant that collateral damage was necessary to subdue the enemy state and more quickly end the war. I do agree however that the Dresden Bombing was unnecessary and overkill. Blame Curtis LeMay. I also agree that dropping the Atomic bombs were a way to minimize allied casualties and not as a terrorist act. Leaflets were dropped forty eight hours before the attack warning the civilians to get out of the city. Cap't Jack
Total War does present some interesting challenges to the military and civilian distinction in conventional war theory- it is also why we are seen as hypocrites when our presidents state categorically that “it is always and everywhere wrong to target innocent civilians," when clearly our war planners (and myself) would concede, that it is indeed justifiable in some cases to target innocent civilians. Hiroshima being one example in my mind. Justifiable targeting of civilians to shock and cower the population into uprising against its own government- it was terrorism, but I do believe in that case it saved lives over the supposed “lawful form of war." Not to open another can of worms- as a humanist/feminist I also fail to recognize that any number of 18 year old males drafted into a conscript army should be required to die before a single civilian man woman or child does in a war situation. That just seems like one area where the patriarchy gave the dirty end of the stick to young men and devalued their lives relative to others. That however is a different argument for another day. I will stick to my definition- justifiable terrorism.But the concept of total war in a modern sense, as first used as a campaign to end the American Civil War and planned by Grant and Sherman had a military purpose. The concept was two fold, one to destroy the Southern ability to resupply it's armies in the field by destroying the supplies, foodstuffs and forage, and the other to destroy the enemy's will to resist. This is essentially the same for the subsequent wars. I still don't see this concept as being labeled a terrorist act however. on this issue we may have to agree to disagree. Also remember that the bombs did litte to cower the Japanese population into surrendering as they were well prepared to defend the mainland to the death. It took the Emperor to declare a surrender and he almost didn't have the opportunity. Thankfully he saved the lives of millions of loyal subjects and allies. I want to give him a personal shout out because if there had been an invasion I probably wouldn't be answering your post. BTW, I'm a Humanist married to a feminist. And all wars are fought by the young men, and now women. The average age of any soldier in antiquity and modern is 19. Cap't Jack
Terrorism is any act designed to intimidate people. It can be organized and include many peope, such as the terrorism of the World Trade Center bombings , or it can be one lone gunman in a school or shopping mall. A shot doesn't have to be fired and no one has to die or be physically injured for the act to qualify as terrorism. The defining aspect is intimidation, it can be the intimidation of millions of people or one, sometimes its poitical, sometimes it's personal--such as the kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard and similar acts. Terrorists are all around us. It can be your neighbor who threatens to cause you harm if you set foot on his property. It can be a schoolteacer or parent who disciplines with threats. It can be a domestic partner who intimidates by physical or emotional abuse. We do ourselves a disservice when we assume terrorism can be carried out only by large, powerful groups. LoisDamn, this is a loose description of terrorism. Practically everybody in the world is a terrorist then.
Terrorism, I guess, is the idea that you can subdue a giant by violence.
If you can’t gather enough following to start a revolution and yet want to win you pick your best shot, violence and the play on fear.
In this sense terrorism is the expression of a fringe group trying to gain ground, eventually undermining itself by its own methods.
Terrorism is any act designed to intimidate people. It can be organized and include many peope, such as the terrorism of the World Trade Center bombings , or it can be one lone gunman in a school or shopping mall. A shot doesn't have to be fired and no one has to die or be physically injured for the act to qualify as terrorism. The defining aspect is intimidation, it can be the intimidation of millions of people or one, sometimes its poitical, sometimes it's personal--such as the kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard and similar acts. Terrorists are all around us. It can be your neighbor who threatens to cause you harm if you set foot on his property. It can be a schoolteacer or parent who disciplines with threats. It can be a domestic partner who intimidates by physical or emotional abuse. We do ourselves a disservice when we assume terrorism can be carried out only by large, powerful groups. LoisDamn, this is a loose description of terrorism. Practically everybody in the world is a terrorist then. Have you tried to intimidate someone with violence or threats of violence, then? I never have. Do you really think practically everyone in the world does this? Lois
Terrorism is any act designed to intimidate people. It can be organized and include many peope, such as the terrorism of the World Trade Center bombings , or it can be one lone gunman in a school or shopping mall. A shot doesn't have to be fired and no one has to die or be physically injured for the act to qualify as terrorism. The defining aspect is intimidation, it can be the intimidation of millions of people or one, sometimes its poitical, sometimes it's personal--such as the kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard and similar acts. Terrorists are all around us. It can be your neighbor who threatens to cause you harm if you set foot on his property. It can be a schoolteacer or parent who disciplines with threats. It can be a domestic partner who intimidates by physical or emotional abuse. We do ourselves a disservice when we assume terrorism can be carried out only by large, powerful groups. LoisDamn, this is a loose description of terrorism. Practically everybody in the world is a terrorist then. Have you tried to intimidate someone with violence or threats of violence, then? I never have. Do you really think practically everyone in the world does this? LoisYes to both.
Sort of an oversimplification. First, how do we define terrorism? Basically, small time bombers are terrorists, but if you drop 2,000 pound bombs out of a B52, then you’re a patriot. This is of course a matter of perspective, where you’re sitting relative to the incoming bomb. It’s also judgment clouded by emotion triggered by tribalism.
Some violent revolutions have worked (the United States is a product of one, the Bolsheviks, etc.), so I think this point needs to be qualified. Violence is ineffective in our current society. First and foremost, conditions are not bad enough to morally justify violence. Secondly, the probability of success is absurdly low. So I agree that (in the context of our current society) violence is a bad idea. But if conditions were to change, if it became more viable and justifiable, then it may not be unwise.
Sort of an oversimplification. First, how do we define terrorism? Basically, small time bombers are terrorists, but if you drop 2,000 pound bombs out of a B52, then you're a patriot. This is of course a matter of perspective, where you're sitting relative to the incoming bomb. It's also judgment clouded by emotion triggered by tribalism. Some violent revolutions have worked (the United States is a product of one, the Bolsheviks, etc.), so I think this point needs to be qualified. Violence is ineffective in our current society. First and foremost, conditions are not bad enough to morally justify violence. Secondly, the probability of success is absurdly low. So I agree that (in the context of our current society) violence is a bad idea. But if conditions were to change, if it became more viable and justifiable, then it may not be unwise.As with so many other things, any definition of terrorism depends on whose ox is being gored. Lois
The problems with modern revolution by violence against a well organized government are first, that many citizens will be killed, the social and economic structure will be damaged so the normal amenities like food, medical care, utilities, etc. will be disrupted, and second, that the people who move to the leadership positions if the revolution starts to be successful are almost always at least as corrupt and vicious as the prior regime.
As I see it, we have to move slowly to upgrade education greatly, get rid of things like gerrymandering, make elections publically funded, gradually move to a fairer taxation system, and institute controls to inhibit lobbying through large funding.
Occam
One of the most disheartening things I’ve noticed during my three years spent as an activist, is activists rarely attempt to reach out to their adversaries. I’m not sure how you change minds, how you advance legislation, or how we can accomplish any change at all … if we’re just screaming inside of our own echo chamber. I think there are issues where super majority support exists (e.g. money in politics), but that broad support is not reflected in the positions of our elected officials (and this to me is an opportunity to reach across the political divide and begin building broad coalitions that circumvent our systems attempts at keeping us divided).
When I was younger I shared the disheartenment, however, I learned over the years that no matter how logical and rational one’s information is, it’s almost impossible to change minds. For years I’ve had two weekly lunches with two different Libertarians, both of whom are very intelligent and “well-informed” (If one considers Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, etc. good sources). We respect each other and argue strongly, but the only value I get is sharpening my thinking about my ideas. Neither they nor I ever convert the other.
A major road block is that primitive self-interest seems to be the motivation of so many people at all levels from voter to Senator or Supreme Court Justice.
Occam
I’ve convinced several friends who are staunch lifelong republicans on issues like Medicare for all and public financing of political campaigns. Mathematical reality dictates that in order to effect peaceful change, a percentage of the population will have to change their minds about some things. If the current status quo is locked in stone, we’re done for (might as well start thinking about how to migrate to Germany or Scandinavia). There’s also independents, but republicans have done a real good job at gerrymandering, and the Supreme Court has shifted to the right. So the only real option left is changing minds (although changing the mind of someone who’s well read and a fairly intellectual libertarian isn’t likely, but that’s only descriptive of a small segment of the population). I’ve also come across more radical ideas for change, but the activist scene has died down considerably since 2011, so the numbers aren’t really there for more radical projects, and since activists are utterly incapable of getting along with each other, better off looking to mainstream organizations.