What is "terrorism", anyway?

[Lord Zentei]

Inspired by this thread: (Link)

Though the Administration does not wish to define "terrorism" precisely, how do you think it should be defined?

My suggestion: "An individual or organization not officially affiliated with a recognized state that uses violence to acheive a political objective and in so doing commits acts that would be considered war crimes or crimes against humanity if they were officially affiliated with a recognized state".

Thoughts? Alternatives?

[The Third Man]

Again from another current thread, I favour a definition along the lines of:

"An attempt to effect political change by inducing a state of terror in a population through direct attacks on civilians."

That's quite close to what you've suggested, where I say "direct attacks on civilians" you use the more-or-less equivalent "acts ... considered war crimes or crimes against humanity".

We could add something to my definition about the acts being perpetrated by "irregular forces" if we want to specifically exclude, for example, US attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which the above definition would include.

I'm not sure I agree, but some definitions require a number of attacks over a significant period of time - they don't allow one-off incidents.

[Lord Zentei]

The idea of including war crimes and crimes against humanity was that I wanted to exclude "legitimate" resistance movements against opressive regimes and such. Also, it places the same standards upon rebels and freedom fighters as upon states to respect human rights and rules of conduct. Of course they will be put at a bit of a disadvantage since the Geneva conventions do not recognize non-state combatants but that's just too bad.

[AMX]

Well, here's what our law has to say, more or less well translated by your truly...

(1)Terrorist acts are
1. murder
2. bodily injury according to §84 thru 87 [serious bodily injury, bodily injury with permanent effects, bodily injury leading to death, intentional bodily injury]
3. extortionate abduction
4. serious duress
5. grave threat acoording to §107 Abs 2 [the heavier kinds]
6. serious damage to property and data, if it creates a hazard for life or property to a great extent
7. intentional creation of a public danger, or intentional negative effect on the environment
8. skyjacking
9. intentional endangering of aviation or
10. acts punishable according to §50WaffG [possession of illegal or license-requiring weapons or materials-of-war without the proper permits, or handing them over to someone without the proper permits] or §7 Kriegsmaterialgesetz [import, export, or trading of materials-of-war without the proper permits],
if the acts are suited to create a serious or long lasting disturbance of public life or a serious disturbance of the economy, and are committed with the intention to frighten the population in a serious way, to force public authorities to an action, toleration or omission, or to seriously shake or destroy the political, constitutional, economical or social basic structures of a state or international organisation.

(2)[defines punishment]

(3) The act does not count as a terrorist act if it is intended to create or reinstate democratic and constitutional circumstances or to protect human rights.

[Lord Zentei]

The idea of including war crimes and crimes against humanity was that I wanted to exclude "legitimate" resistance movements against opressive regimes and such. Also, it places the same standards upon rebels and freedom fighters as upon states to respect human rights and rules of conduct. Of course they will be put at a bit of a disadvantage since the Geneva conventions do not recognize non-state combatants but that's just too bad.

Ghetto edit: but yeah, smaller crimes should qualify too.


AMX: Which country would that be? (seems to be fairly good).

[The Third Man]

The idea of including war crimes and crimes against humanity was that I wanted to exclude "legitimate" resistance movements against opressive regimes and such. Also, it places the same standards upon rebels and freedom fighters as upon states to respect human rights and rules of conduct. Of course they will be put at a bit of a disadvantage since the Geneva conventions do not recognize non-state combatants but that's just too bad.

OK, I can see the sense in that.

I still think it's important to include the bit about the attacks being intended to induce a state of terror in the population at large. To my way of thinking, it's not sufficient to say just that the attack be on civilians - I would say that killing railway workers as part of an attack on an enemy's war-fighting infrastructure would not, per se, qualify as an act of terrorism (even though it may qualify as a war crime). However, what definitely does count as terrorism (IMO) is killing the same railwayman on his day off at the shopping mall, in the hope that his community tires of the constant threat that the same could happen to them, and that said community will oust their government (or force whatever political change is the terrorist's goal).

Note that this definition allows for an act to be an act of terrorism, (and the perpetrator to therefore be a terrorist) even if the act is non-lethal - so long as the threat is there, and terror is caused in the civilian population, that's enough.

[AMX]

AMX: Which country would that be? (seems to be fairly good).

Austria.
That part is fairly new, however - a reaction to 9/11.

[Lord Zentei]

I still think it's important to include the bit about the attacks being intended to induce a state of terror in the population at large. To my way of thinking, it's not sufficient to say just that the attack be on civilians - I would say that killing railway workers as part of an attack on an enemy's war-fighting infrastructure would not, per se, qualify as an act of terrorism (even though it may qualify as a war crime). However, what definitely does count as terrorism (IMO) is killing the same railwayman on his day off at the shopping mall, in the hope that his community tires of the constant threat that the same could happen to them, and that said community will oust their government (or force whatever political change is the terrorist's goal).

Note that this definition allows for an act to be an act of terrorism, (and the perpetrator to therefore be a terrorist) even if the act is non-lethal - so long as the threat is there, and terror is caused in the civilian population, that's enough.

Agreed, though one has to consider intent versus effect: any murder is likely to cause disruption and fear, though not all are done for that express purpose and with a political motive in mind. There was a killing of a popular politician in Sweden a while ago that certainly would have qualified as "terrorist" by this definition were it not for the fact that the perp was simply a nutjob loser.

However, I disagree on one point: a resistance movement that perpetrates war crimes should logically be considered for terrorist status, as a way of blacklisting it.

[weemadando]

“The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”

[Construct]

According to Chomsky and the US Army, terrorism and counter-terrorism are the same thing. I saw him giving a speech on it three years ago.

[Alliance SpecForceTrooper]

How do you define terrorism?

The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

From CIA.gov

[General Brock]

Nation-states can sponsor terrorist acts against other states, or within, so the definition of terrorism would have to allow for state-sponsored activities, not just 'unaffiliated' groups.

[Construct]

Must be because the US was tried and found guilty of terrorism in '87 after what happened in Nicaragua during the 80's ... was probably the main reason why the US vetoed a UN resolution in 1987 on "...measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation."

[Lord Zentei]

Nation-states can sponsor terrorist acts against other states, or within, so the definition of terrorism would have to allow for state-sponsored activities, not just 'unaffiliated' groups.

I specified they had to be officially affiliated. If the organization were officially affiliated with a government it would be an act of war and a war crime. They can be unofficially affiliated with a state patron, of course, in which case the state is a terrorist sponsor.

[General Brock]

Lord Zentai wrote:

I specified they had to be officially affiliated. If the organization were officially affiliated with a government it would be an act of war and a war crime. They can be unofficially affiliated with a state patron, of course, in which case the state is a terrorist sponsor.

* ... Missed the 'officially' part, apparently.

How about privateering in the good old days of sail? You could buy a license from the monarch to appropriate the cargo of other nations' civillian merchant ships, and sink them if need be. That's official, and piracy can be a form of terrorism.

Official members of state forces sometimes engage in the violent destruction of civillian facilities, but if the victim state can't respond, they usually don't like to call it war. Israel's missile strike against Osiriq in Iraq, or the US missile strike on a suspicious pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998, for example.

Official members of US and indigen government forces engaged in violent activities against peaceful civillians in places like Guatamala. That's terrorism, but the states involved obviously weren't going to declare war on each other. During the Kosovo intervention, the US and NATO managed to accidentally blast a crowded Serbian train crossing a bridge, targeted Serbian civillian electrical power generating facilities, and somehow demolished the Chinese embassy with an expensive missile targeted from an 'outated' map. With Serbian civillians dying with a nudge and a wink, Milosovich was persuaded to surrender; winter was coming, and although his army could take care of itself, his civillians were in peril and he could not protect them.

Terrorism is not something a democratic government should be allowed to play equivocation games with; words like 'official' and 'unofficial' are fine for TV and movie drama, but not real life. Attacking civillian non-combatants, especially those in non-military roles, is terrorism, and where applicable, a war crime. Terrorism and war crimes are not mutually exclusive.

[Lord Zentei]

* ... Missed the 'officially' part, apparently.

How about privateering in the good old days of sail? You could buy a license from the monarch to appropriate the cargo of other nations' civillian merchant ships, and sink them if need be. That's official, and piracy can be a form of terrorism.

I did consider privateers. They could be considered mercenary bandits, and as such war criminals (though these were not explicitly defined at the time). Of course, often the sponsor nation would officially deny knowledge of their privateers, in which case they would be sponsored inofficial terrorists. But yes, they are certainly borderline. The Letter of Marque would then simply represent the paper trail that ties the terrorist to the sponsor.

Official members of state forces sometimes engage in the violent destruction of civillian facilities, but if the victim state can't respond, they usually don't like to call it war. Israel's missile strike against Osiriq in Iraq, or the US missile strike on a suspicious pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998, for example.

Still acts of war/war crimes/crimes against humanity though the participants won't officially declare war as a result.

Official members of US and indigen government forces engaged in violent activities against peaceful civillians in places like Guatamala. That's terrorism, but the states involved obviously weren't going to declare war on each other. During the Kosovo intervention, the US and NATO managed to accidentally blast a crowded Serbian train crossing a bridge, targeted Serbian civillian electrical power generating facilities, and somehow demolished the Chinese embassy with an expensive missile targeted from an 'outated' map. With Serbian civillians dying with a nudge and a wink, Milosovich was persuaded to surrender; winter was coming, and although his army could take care of itself, his civillians were in peril and he could not protect them.

War crimes.

Terrorism is not something a democratic government should be allowed to play equivocation games with; words like 'official' and 'unofficial' are fine for TV and movie drama, but not real life. Attacking civillian non-combatants, especially those in non-military roles, is terrorism, and where applicable, a war crime. Terrorism and war crimes are not mutually exclusive.

No, but "terrorism" is a redundant term in describing war crimes. The issue was finding a definition for such groups as Al-Quaeda, the IRA, FARC, Hizbollah and similar. The acts that you describe are already covered in the Geneva conventions, "terrorist" organizations are not.

[Lord Zentei]

GHETTO EDIT (good grief, General Brock):

Official members of US and indigen government forces engaged in violent activities against peaceful civillians in places like Guatamala. That's terrorism, but the states involved obviously weren't going to declare war on each other.

THIS was the war crime. If true.

During the Kosovo intervention, the US and NATO managed to accidentally blast a crowded Serbian train crossing a bridge,

Accident.

targeted Serbian civillian electrical power generating facilities,

That were used by the military.

and somehow demolished the Chinese embassy with an expensive missile targeted from an 'outated' map.

Accident.

With Serbian civillians dying with a nudge and a wink,

Unfounded allegation.

Milosovich was persuaded to surrender; winter was coming, and although his army could take care of itself, his civillians were in peril and he could not protect them.

His army could NOT take care of itself.

[weemadando]

State sponsored terrorism is common as shit nowadays. Not as readily in use as it was in the 80's and 90's, but its still there and there are very few that aren't responsible.

Shit, even Australia has what you could argue is state sponsored terrorism. Just look at the "alert, but not alarmed" campaign - use of fear to create a political response = terrorism.

[SPOOFE]

I think any definition of terrorism should mention that the target is a third party between the attacker and the body capable of bringing about the change they desire. That eliminates crimes such as murder or armed robbery... involving them, I think, starts bringing things into too much of a "gray area".

[Lord Zentei]

State sponsored terrorism is common as shit nowadays. Not as readily in use as it was in the 80's and 90's, but its still there and there are very few that aren't responsible.

Shit, even Australia has what you could argue is state sponsored terrorism. Just look at the "alert, but not alarmed" campaign - use of fear to create a political response = terrorism.

It would be nifty to have a link to some info on that.

I think any definition of terrorism should mention that the target is a third party between the attacker and the body capable of bringing about the change they desire. That eliminates crimes such as murder or armed robbery... involving them, I think, starts bringing things into too much of a "gray area".

Good point.

Though I wonder if one could not argue that terrorism cannot be used to cause ethnic cleansing - a war crime and crime against humanity. In this case the party that can effect the change are the people that choose to flee.

[Jaepheth]

Does disguising one's self as a native, boarding a ship, and throwing all its tea overboard into the Boston harbor count as terrorism?

[weemadando]

Does disguising one's self as a native, boarding a ship, and throwing all its tea overboard into the Boston harbor count as terrorism?

Sure as shit does.

Non-uniformed civilians raiding a vessel of a sovereign state.

Used to be called piracy, except of course, when the intention as it was in the case of the Boston Tea Party, was to cause a political reaction.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Terrorism as it was 700 years ago was killing 7/8ths of a village and letting the rest tell surrounding villages to just hand over the bloody gold.

Now it's killing a bunch of people so that in general people will fear for their lives and livelihoods so that they will do what the terrorists demand. Not much has changed, except terrorists now downplay use of the combine bow.

[weemadando]

And that most governments today use "terrorism" of their own to create fear amongst their own population to try and score better in the polls.

Remember. Terrorism can also be the THREAT of violence. Orange Alert anybody?

[General Brock]

No, but "terrorism" is a redundant term in describing war crimes. The issue was finding a definition for such groups as Al-Quaeda, the IRA, FARC, Hizbollah and similar. The acts that you describe are already covered in the Geneva conventions, "terrorist" organizations are not.

OK.