Justifying the Empire with the War on Terror

[Captain Seafort]

Reality is that tyrannical governments deserve to be overthrown.

That depends on what replaces them. Take Syria, for example - would it be a good thing if Assad were overthrown? Not if ISIS is his replacement.

The idea that the Empire was in any way in the right to destroy Alderaan (an entire planet full of civilians)

Try reading the thread before making stupid comments - I've already said further up that blowing the whole thing up was disproportionate.

that the Rebellion was wrong to destroy the Death Star (a military installation) simply because the Empire happened to be in power at the time is asinine.

Right and wrong don't affect the question of whether it was an act of terrorism, and I demonstrated that it certainly was. More generally, without the EU, and beyond the generic statement in the opening crawl of ANH that the Empire is "evil", we know next to nothing of the political context of the rebellion. Everything we know about the conduct of the war is tactical-level, and while we have ample evidence of the Empire's grossly disproportionate approach to counter terrorism, we have no evidence one way or the other of the rebellion's treatment of prisoners, or of it's political goals. If the films were depicting events taking place on Earth today, I'd want a lot more detail before I made a decision one way or the other about who was the lesser evil.

[Simon_Jester]

Question: I do not watch the recent TV show Rebels. Does it portray the Rebellion doing the bad things Thanas says?

That's the law, not the dictionary.

Ergo, a better source, because it has to be shaped to deal with reality, not just theory.

If you think that Western governments' laws on terrorism are the right shape to deal with reality...

Well, let's look at the results. Do western governments have a good track record of neutralizing terrorist threats? I would go with 'no.' Do they have a good record of securing their people against terrorist threats? Again, sure doesn't seem like it. Do they have a good record of at least using resources efficiently against terrorism? Yet again, 'no.'

The immediately post-9/11 terrorism laws' entire problem is that they're overbroad; in fact, that's the fucking point.

Look at the date on it - the Terrorism Act 2000. It wasn't designed to deal with al-Qa'ida, it was designed to deal with the IRA and their offshoots, and therefore drew on over thirty years experience of what constitutes terrorism.

It was also designed to provide certain legal advantages to the British military- specifically, the right to treat guerillas attacking them and terrorists attacking the civilian population of Britain* on the same footing, as a bunch of criminals.

In fairness, so far as I know the IRA hadn't hesitated to do both at the same time, to commit guerilla warfare with one hand and terrorism with the other, at any time in living memory.

But one can hardly claim that this is a uniquely 'practical' law or a 'well suited' law to dealing with reality. Except insofar as the 'reality' is that the state has an incentive to discourage small groups of guerillas from fighting its military, and labeling the guerillas as 'terrorists' may help with that.
_____________________

*Including, of course, Northern Ireland...

[Thanas]

Question: I do not watch the recent TV show Rebels. Does it portray the Rebellion doing the bad things Thanas says?

No, but Tie Fighter, which is still canon, does. X-wing does too.

[Simon_Jester]

Ah.

I was unfamiliar with the provenance of the statement; my knowledge of the EU is very spotty.

[Thanas]

Honestly, you never thought the Rebels deal with very bad people (like pirates and guerillas) on a regular basis?

[Captain Seafort]

Well, let's look at the results. Do western governments have a good track record of neutralizing terrorist threats? I would go with 'no.' Do they have a good record of securing their people against terrorist threats? Again, sure doesn't seem like it. Do they have a good record of at least using resources efficiently against terrorism? Yet again, 'no.'

You're now moving the goalposts from "what is terrorism?" to "have counter terrorism measures over the last fifteen years been effective?" Incidentally, given how rare attacks have been over the last decade or so compared with the height of the Troubles, I think they've done pretty well.

It was also designed to provide certain legal advantages to the British military- specifically, the right to treat guerillas attacking them and terrorists attacking the civilian population of Britain* on the same footing, as a bunch of criminals.

In fairness, so far as I know the IRA hadn't hesitated to do both at the same time, to commit guerilla warfare with one hand and terrorism with the other, at any time in living memory.

*Including, of course, Northern Ireland...

A terrorist does not cease to be a terrorist based on the target chosen or the method employed - the aim is no different, so why should a different definition be applied? This is the lesson that the 2000 definition incorporates.

But one can hardly claim that this is a uniquely 'practical' law or a 'well suited' law to dealing with reality. Except insofar as the 'reality' is that the state has an incentive to discourage small groups of guerillas from fighting its military, and labeling the guerillas as 'terrorists' may help with that.

All laws are framed in the context of countering behaviour contrary to the public good - in this case the use of violence by non-state actors to influence the the government. The state has a both right and a duty to defend itself and its population from these attempts to influence it, including those responsible for doing the defending. It therefore has an interest in emphasising that the murder of a soldier by a non-state actor attempting to influence the state is morally indistinguishable from the murder of a civilian by the same actor with the same aim.

[Captain Seafort]

No, but Tie Fighter, which is still canon, does. X-wing does too.

Huh? My understanding was that the games had been thrown out along with everything else apart from the films, the Clone Wars and Rebels.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, let's look at the results. Do western governments have a good track record of neutralizing terrorist threats? I would go with 'no.' Do they have a good record of securing their people against terrorist threats? Again, sure doesn't seem like it. Do they have a good record of at least using resources efficiently against terrorism? Yet again, 'no.'

You're now moving the goalposts from "what is terrorism?" to "have counter terrorism measures over the last fifteen years been effective?"

My general observation (because nearly all governments do this thing, of defining attacks against their military as 'terrorism') is that the character of Western laws on terrorism cannot be all that practical unless they have achieved practical success.

If Western governments are not showing an effective understanding of terrorism, then it is very doubtful that they know how to draft laws which define terrorism in a useful way. Certainly you cannot use "Western governments have drafted laws saying so" as justification for arguing that all guerillas are terrorists purely because guerillas try to change government policies by attacking the military of that government.

Incidentally, given how rare attacks have been over the last decade or so compared with the height of the Troubles, I think they've done pretty well.

And you are arguing that this improvement has come about as a result of the British government officially calling it terrorism when the IRA attacks their military? Since that is the focus of the discussion.

A terrorist does not cease to be a terrorist based on the target chosen or the method employed - the aim is no different, so why should a different definition be applied? This is the lesson that the 2000 definition incorporates.

In that case, isn't everyone who seeks to alter a government policy by any means a terrorist?

Your probable response will be something like "Obviously not, Simon you fool, terrorists are the ones who use violence. People who don't use violence aren't terrorists."

[I could be wrong about that, but I'm trying to save some time here. And that's usually what sensible people say, and I'm figuring that you are sensible]

To which I reply, though...

If not being violent makes you not a terrorist, then clearly your actions do have something to do with whether you're a terrorist.

Conversely, if not being violent does NOT make you not-a-terrorist, then governments are entitled to use 'terrorist' as a label for literally anyone they don't like who has political goals.

In which case we need to stop using "terrorist" like it's a bad word and mentally substitute "person with a political agenda the current government disapproves of" whenever we hear or read the word "terrorist." Which is exactly the sort of thing that makes accusing people of 'terrorism' problematic and a waste of time.

So basically, either being a 'terrorist' is something that has to do with what actions you carry out, or it is a meaningless word that exists solely so governments can gratify their desire to insult and punish people they dislike.

But one can hardly claim that this is a uniquely 'practical' law or a 'well suited' law to dealing with reality. Except insofar as the 'reality' is that the state has an incentive to discourage small groups of guerillas from fighting its military, and labeling the guerillas as 'terrorists' may help with that.

All laws are framed in the context of countering behaviour contrary to the public good - in this case the use of violence by non-state actors to influence the the government. The state has a both right and a duty to defend itself and its population from these attempts to influence it, including those responsible for doing the defending. It therefore has an interest in emphasising that the murder of a soldier by a non-state actor attempting to influence the state is morally indistinguishable from the murder of a civilian by the same actor with the same aim.

The question, then, is how we address the question of non-state actors with reasonable ambitions of becoming a state.

If a group declares themselves to be the legitimate government of a territory, and a foreign government sends soldiers to suppress the group, and the group fights, does that make the group terrorists in and of itself? I can see why the British government would have an incentive to say so, since they've been having trouble with people doing this sort of thing since, I don't know, the 1500s.

But if your definition of terrorism is so broad that it covers, oh, the Young Pretender, then your definition of terrorism is meaningless.

I mean, Charles did raise a rebellion in hopes of overthrowing the existing monarchy, reinstating his family (and himself) in Buckingham Palace, and altering the political positions of the British government to embrace tolerance of Catholicism and support for the divine right of kings.

He also had overwhelming popular support in a considerable part of Britain, and so far as I know, his acts of violence were devoted almost entirely to the breaking and humiliation of British field armies.

Terrorist, or not-a-terrorist?

[Adam Reynolds]

Because of the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force. As an exemplar, if an armed robber posed an immediate threat to the life of an armed policeman, or nearby civilians, it would be legal for the cop to shoot him. It would not be legal for the robber to shoot the policeman.

Police officers arresting criminals is not the same thing as an unjust state committing crimes against its own populace. It would not be just for a state to massacre a demonstration with machine gun fire, even if the demonstrators threw rocks at police. It would also not be just for that police officer to call in an air strike to kill that single robber, even if he was a threat to others.

Or for an extreme example, did the French resistance have the moral high ground against the Nazis that were occupying Paris? How about the Jewish resistance during the Warsaw uprising? Or the German officers in the July 20th plot? They were even legally committing treason.

For a more recent example, the US defined the attack against the USS Cole as a terrorist attack, even though it only killed US sailors, but considers its own drone attacks that have killed thousands of civilians collateral damage. How is that morally just?

For that matter, by your current definition, George Washington and Samuel Adams were terrorist leaders.

Honestly, you never thought the Rebels deal with very bad people (like pirates and guerillas) on a regular basis?

Look at the character Sabine in Rebels for that matter. She is an graffiti artist/bomber that considers explosions a work of art. That tells you something. I realize her character is more complex than that simple description, but that tells you something about the types of people that were involved in the Rebel Alliance. Especially before it was formally established.

We can also always make the point that the New Republic altered the historical record to make themselves look better in this respect. It doesn't change the fact that they were morally in the right, but if the Rebel Alliance did something akin to the Laconia incident, you can bet they would cover it up if they had the chance. It would certainly not something that Rey would read about in history class, though Finn probably did. Though given that she doesn't really know what the Jedi are, I suspect she doesn't fully know what the Rebel Alliance did in the first place.

[Thanas]

No, but Tie Fighter, which is still canon, does. X-wing does too.

Huh? My understanding was that the games had been thrown out along with everything else apart from the films, the Clone Wars and Rebels.

Not to my knowledge.

[Captain Seafort]

My general observation (because nearly all governments do this thing, of defining attacks against their military as 'terrorism') is that the character of Western laws on terrorism cannot be all that practical unless they have achieved practical success.

I don't see how success can be used as means of determining the appropriateness of a definition, because it's dependent of so many other factors in addition to that definition.

Certainly you cannot use "Western governments have drafted laws saying so" as justification for arguing that all guerillas are terrorists purely because guerillas try to change government policies by attacking the military of that government.

It's not merely a case of "western governments have drafted laws saying so", but "western governments have drafted laws saying so as a response to thirty years experience of the problem". It's largely a matter of principle to me - a murderer is a murderer, and the identity of his victim alone is irrelevant to that question. If that murder is carried out in an effort to influence the government, then that murder is terrorism.

And you are arguing that this improvement has come about as a result of the British government officially calling it terrorism when the IRA attacks their military? Since that is the focus of the discussion.

Not particularly - that was mainly in response to your assertion of their ineffectiveness, which I disagree with. As I said above, success is dependent of so many interwoven factors that it's not useful as a means of determining whether the definition is appropriate.

In that case, isn't everyone who seeks to alter a government policy by any means a terrorist?

Your probable response will be something like "Obviously not, Simon you fool, terrorists are the ones who use violence. People who don't use violence aren't terrorists."

Indeed. You should therefore mentally edit that and similar statements to "the method of violence employed". As should be clear from the fact that none of the organisations discussed have been the placards-and-speeches variety, and the initial succinct definition I posted that kicked this whole argument off explicitly used the word "violence".

So basically, either being a 'terrorist' is something that has to do with what actions you carry out, or it is a meaningless word that exists solely so governments can gratify their desire to insult and punish people they dislike.

Indeed - the word "violence" is central to the definition.

If a group declares themselves to be the legitimate government of a territory, and a foreign government sends soldiers to suppress the group, and the group fights, does that make the group terrorists in and of itself?

Yes, because simple ambition does not a state make.

But if your definition of terrorism is so broad that it covers, oh, the Young Pretender, then your definition of terrorism is meaningless.

Why? Of course, the '45 is a different kettle of fish, because it's questionable whether its actions should be attributed to a non-state group (in which case it was certainly terrorism, despite having the trappings of a regular army, and requiring conventional military operations to defeat), or the Kingdom of France, which the Pretenders had been clients of for decades, as part of France's overall military strategy in the War of the Austrian Succession. I'd call it a French invasion. Likewise, Monmouth's rebellion was terrorism, William of Orange's invasion was a Dutch invasion, and James II's campaign in Ireland a French invasion.

[Adam Reynolds]

No, but Tie Fighter, which is still canon, does. X-wing does too.

Huh? My understanding was that the games had been thrown out along with everything else apart from the films, the Clone Wars and Rebels.

Not to my knowledge.

They are no longer canon. On the downside we lose KOTOR and TIE Fighter, on the upside we lose The Force Unleashed.

If nothing else, the Jedi Knight series of games had to go with the new continuity as they took place after ROTJ and featured Luke rebuilding the Jedi Order. Though Jedi Academy is still my favorite Jedi action game of all time. I hope they make something of a remake of it.

[Joun_Lord]

I don't think the Rebels are actually terrorists, atleast most of them. They are closer to insurgents to compare them to the War on Terror. They may not use terror to achieve their goals (though with shit like Unibomber Mand'oh Rainbow Dash as part of the Rebellion they probably have kersploded civie shit, I don't care enough to watch Rebel Scum to find out) but are still attacking and killing government troops in aid of revolt while hiding behind and blending into civilians. However when the dastardly bastards strike they don't do so with the purpose of attacking civilians. Any civilians caught in the crossfire are collateral damage but not intentional targets. They didn't attack the Death Stars to attack the civilian contractors but to take out enemy weapons with civilians dying in the process.

The argument could be made that the Empire was terrorists. The aim of the Tarkin Doctrine and the destruction of Alderaan was to use fear to keep the local systems in line. I guess thats "state terrorism".

Of course by that definition one might consider Murica terrorists too considering the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were I guess to terrorize the Japanese into surrendering through fear of total annihilation. Though I suppose most any war the aim is to bully the enemy into capitulating and the argument could be made the atomic bombings were more of the same, just far more destructive then before.

I dunno. Either way, terrorists or not I think the Rebels are a bunch of deluded fools fighting for a bunch of kidnapping traitorous rich cunts pissed they couldn't plunder the public coffers as they did during the bloated and decrepit rein of the Old Republic. But thats just like my opinion man.

[Captain Seafort]

Police officers arresting criminals is not the same thing as an unjust state committing crimes against its own populace. It would not be just for a state to massacre a demonstration with machine gun fire, even if the demonstrators threw rocks at police. It would also not be just for that police officer to call in an air strike to kill that single robber, even if he was a threat to others.

At which point we're not talking about the definition of the state's opponents, but about the proportionality of the state's response.

For a more recent example, the US defined the attack against the USS Cole as a terrorist attack, even though it only killed US sailors, but considers its own drone attacks that have killed thousands of civilians collateral damage. How is that morally just?

The Cole was certainly a terrorist attack - once again, why should the murder of military personnel be considered differently to the murder of civilians? The drone strikes, as above, aren't a question of definition but of proportionality, and I suggest you take note of the fact that at no point in this thread have I spoken of "morality". It's far too individualistic to be used as the basis of the definition of anything.

For that matter, by your current definition, George Washington and Samuel Adams were terrorist leaders.

Certainly.

[Thanas]

Huh? My understanding was that the games had been thrown out along with everything else apart from the films, the Clone Wars and Rebels.

Not to my knowledge.

They are no longer canon. On the downside we lose KOTOR and TIE Fighter, on the upside we lose The Force Unleashed. .

Only applies to post RotJ things from my reading of it.

[Simon_Jester]

My general observation (because nearly all governments do this thing, of defining attacks against their military as 'terrorism') is that the character of Western laws on terrorism cannot be all that practical unless they have achieved practical success.

I don't see how success can be used as means of determining the appropriateness of a definition, because it's dependent of so many other factors in addition to that definition.

You have asserted that the definition of 'terrorist' given by 2000-era British law is superior to the common usage definition of 'terrorist,' on the grounds that a legal definition is better than a 'theoretical' definition. You supported this latter claim by arguing that the legal definition is more practical because it is based on facts and experience.

If so, then it seems quite reasonable for us to put the alleged 'practicality' of this definition to the test, by assessing it on its practical merits.

How well is it working out for us, this refusal to distinguish between armed guerillas fighting occupation forces, and terrorists attacking civilians with the intent of causing widespread panic and psychological revulsion among the general public?

Of course, you are free to point out (correctly) that you can't assume a definition is 'better' just because it is more successful, or 'worse' because it is less successful in real life.

The problem is that you then cannot use the 'practicality' of a definition to prove that it is the right definition. Or a logically consistent one. Or a sensible one.

Either you can judge the definition by the track record of success and experience associated with it, or you can't.

It's largely a matter of principle to me - a murderer is a murderer, and the identity of his victim alone is irrelevant to that question. If that murder is carried out in an effort to influence the government, then that murder is terrorism.

Now, this is at least an honorable and understandable argument, and I would be happy to pursue it further- once we cut out the doublespeak.

So basically, either being a 'terrorist' is something that has to do with what actions you carry out, or it is a meaningless word that exists solely so governments can gratify their desire to insult and punish people they dislike.

Indeed - the word "violence" is central to the definition.[/quote]In which case your argument that "it doesn't matter what they do, a terrorist is a terrorist" falls flat.

And debate over what terrorists do, that distinguishes them from non-terrorists, is legitimate. Your attempt to quell it is unjustified. But by all means, let us return to that debate.

I believe you still argue that what terrorists do, that distinguishes them from non-terrorists, is "practice violence with a political objective in mind while not being a state government."

If a group declares themselves to be the legitimate government of a territory, and a foreign government sends soldiers to suppress the group, and the group fights, does that make the group terrorists in and of itself?

Yes, because simple ambition does not a state make.

So literally ALL those violent anticolonialist movements fighting the British military during the early and mid-20th century to drive them out of various nations in Asia and Africa were terrorists? The Plains Indians were terrorists for fighting the US government? The French Resistance were terrorists for fighting the Germans?

How convenient.

Why? Of course, the '45 is a different kettle of fish, because it's questionable whether its actions should be attributed to a non-state group (in which case it was certainly terrorism, despite having the trappings of a regular army, and requiring conventional military operations to defeat), or the Kingdom of France, which the Pretenders had been clients of for decades, as part of France's overall military strategy in the War of the Austrian Succession. I'd call it a French invasion.

That makes no sense; the troops themselves weren't French. Certainly they weren't in French uniform, either. At most they were a local revolt operating with French support- in which case, again, terrorists... backed by Louis XV, but still terrorists.

The problem is that a definition under which the Highland revolt of 1745 is terrorism is so wildly at odds with the common-use definition of the term that it makes the concept of terrorism into a joke. It means there can be 'good terrorists' and 'bad terrorists' and 'neutral terrorists' and 'benevolent terrorists' who fight in an honorable manner as opposed to 'treacherous terrorists' who don't. There can be 'armies of terrorists' who fight in an organized manner indistinguishable from the armed forces of a nation state, except for the fact that foreign countries do not see fit to extend them formal recognition as a lawful government.

The net result is that if we adopt your standards, just saying someone is a 'terrorist' is about as relevant as saying they are a 'biped' or an 'oxygen-breather.' It is POINTLESS to declare someone a 'terrorist' because 'terrorist' has stopped being either a useful technical term, or a relevant insult.

So if you're right, then the British really have defined the term 'terrorist' until it is either meaningless, or means no more and no less than 'bunch of people Her Majesty's Government don't like."

I reject any such violence done against the English language. And I reject the notion that this legal definition is somehow superior to the common usage definition. Especially when the common usage definition is far more relevant and significant and if used consistently makes us far less vulnerable to governments who want to demonize their enemies as 'terrorists.'

[Captain Seafort]

You have asserted that the definition of 'terrorist' given by 2000-era British law is superior to the common usage definition of 'terrorist,' on the grounds that a legal definition is better than a 'theoretical' definition. You supported this latter claim by arguing that the legal definition is more practical because it is based on facts and experience.

I have never talked about the practical usage of the definition subsequent to the passage of the act - I have merely stated that the definition is based upon the UK government's thirty years experience of what terrorism is and looks like.

I believe you still argue that what terrorists do, that distinguishes them from non-terrorists, is "practice violence with a political objective in mind while not being a state government."

I've never deviated from that, although I may at points have been guilty of the imprecise use of language.

So literally ALL those violent anticolonialist movements fighting the British military during the early and mid-20th century to drive them out of various nations in Asia and Africa were terrorists?

Absolutely.

The Plains Indians were terrorists for fighting the US government?

No, they were nation states invaded by the US.

The French Resistance were terrorists for fighting the Germans?

Yes.

That makes no sense; the troops themselves weren't French.

The core of the force was a battalion of French army regulars, and the French supported the invasion as part of their overall strategy in the war. Sure, most of the army were Brits - that makes them traitors, but not terrorists.

The problem is that a definition under which the Highland revolt of 1745 is terrorism is so wildly at odds with the common-use definition of the term that it makes the concept of terrorism into a joke.

Not at all, it removes the ridiculous flaw in the "common" definition that changes the nature of the crime depending on the victim. A murderer is still a murderer regardless of the identity of the victim. A thief is still a thief regardless of the identity of the victim. A rapist is still a rapist regardless of the identity of the victim. The UK definition merely ensures that this principle remains true.

The net result is that if we adopt your standards, just saying someone is a 'terrorist' is about as relevant as saying they are a 'biped' or an 'oxygen-breather.' It is POINTLESS to declare someone a 'terrorist' because 'terrorist' has stopped being either a useful technical term, or a relevant insult.

You could say the same about murder. An individual who kills a dozen people because it's fun, someone who kills a single person because they looked at them the wrong way, a thief who kills a witness to avoid getting caught, someone who kills in revenge someone who attacked their child, someone who kills a terminally ill relative because they believe it will spare them suffering. All guilty of murder. I'd be worried about anyone who thought all those crimes morally indistinguishable, but they're all murderers.

[Simon_Jester]

The Plains Indians were terrorists for fighting the US government?

No, they were nation states invaded by the US.

Things get a bit more complicated than that in some of the later conflicts, but I will concede that under your standards this is mostly true.

That makes no sense; the troops themselves weren't French.

The core of the force was a battalion of French army regulars, and the French supported the invasion as part of their overall strategy in the war. Sure, most of the army were Brits - that makes them traitors, but not terrorists.

And yet, they were fighting for a domestic political objective. There was no realistic way the Highland revolt could have led to French rule over Britain, the rule the Highlanders were fighting to promote were British laws, the fighting force was, oh, 90% or more Scots by weight, calling it a French invasion as opposed to a Scottish rebellion is ridiculous.

And as a Scottish rebellion, it was clearly aimed at bringing about political change within the UK.

Or are you arguing that as soon as a state extends some tiny bit of support to a 'terrorist' movement, that movement ceases to become terrorists and become an instrument of a state which is therefore not terrorism? Because plenty of governments, Britain included, routinely talk about "state support of terrorism," whereas you would seem to be claiming that this is an oxymoron.

So literally ALL those violent anticolonialist movements fighting the British military during the early and mid-20th century to drive them out of various nations in Asia and Africa were terrorists?

Absolutely.

The French Resistance were terrorists for fighting the Germans?

Yes.

Congratulations!

You have succeeded in defining terrorism so broadly that while terrorism may be this, and terrorism may be that, and terrorism may be the other thing...

...You are effectively declaring that whatever terrorism may be, terrorism is not in itself bad.

It is, at most, the 'crime' of waging war without a license your enemy (who presumably hates you anyway) feels bound to acknowledge.

The problem is that a definition under which the Highland revolt of 1745 is terrorism is so wildly at odds with the common-use definition of the term that it makes the concept of terrorism into a joke.

Not at all, it removes the ridiculous flaw in the "common" definition that changes the nature of the crime depending on the victim. A murderer is still a murderer regardless of the identity of the victim. A thief is still a thief regardless of the identity of the victim. A rapist is still a rapist regardless of the identity of the victim. The UK definition merely ensures that this principle remains true.

This is more like defining "thief" to include people who pick up an unattended bucket of water in order to put out a fire. Did you steal my bucket of water? Sort of. Does it matter? No. Indeed, I myself might later applaud you for the taking and using of my property.

In which case, calling you a "thief" may meet some very very abstract standard of a 'simple, consistent definition.' But it leads to absurd results in practice, because how can I justly punish you for 'theft' of my unattended bucket of water that you used to put out a fire? To do so would be ridiculous and reflect my immorality, not the immorality of the alleged 'thief.'

By the same argument, how can I justly call people "terrorists" for fighting a tyrannical occupying army, and then punish them on that basis?

If we are to take your preferred definition of 'terrorism' seriously, then we call into question whether 'terrorism' can be considered a crime at all.

The net result is that if we adopt your standards, just saying someone is a 'terrorist' is about as relevant as saying they are a 'biped' or an 'oxygen-breather.' It is POINTLESS to declare someone a 'terrorist' because 'terrorist' has stopped being either a useful technical term, or a relevant insult.

You could say the same about murder. An individual who kills a dozen people because it's fun, someone who kills a single person because they looked at them the wrong way, a thief who kills a witness to avoid getting caught, someone who kills in revenge someone who attacked their child, someone who kills a terminally ill relative because they believe it will spare them suffering. All guilty of murder. I'd be worried about anyone who thought all those crimes morally indistinguishable, but they're all murderers.

Except that our definition of murder explicitly excludes certain types of killings and considers them legal or at least not punishable. Accidental killings are not murder, assuming there was no negligence. Killings committed in self-defense are not murder.

For your analogy between 'terrorism' and 'murder' to hold, we would have to remove self-defense exemptions and any other laws that make the definition of 'murder' more complex than the one word 'killing.'

[Patroklos]

EDIT: NM, I missed a page of replies.

[Captain Seafort]

And yet, they were fighting for a domestic political objective. There was no realistic way the Highland revolt could have led to French rule over Britain

Direct French rule? No. It would, however, have put a French client on the throne. As for its objectives, that doesn't change the fact that the core of the army were French regulars, and the only reason it was allowed to go ahead was because it served French war aims.

Because plenty of governments, Britain included, routinely talk about "state support of terrorism," whereas you would seem to be claiming that this is an oxymoron.

Not at all - the covert supply of money and weapons from Libya to the IRA, for example, is an example of such. That's different from directly sponsoring a full-blown invasion while the two states were at war with each other.

You have succeeded in defining terrorism so broadly that while terrorism may be this, and terrorism may be that, and terrorism may be the other thing...

...You are effectively declaring that whatever terrorism may be, terrorism is not in itself bad.

Terrorism is, at its root, a description of a particular category of actions conducted to achieve a particular category of means. Asking whether it's good or bad is like asking whether war is good or bad - the answer is dependent on far too many individual variables for a single definition to cover all specific cases. Afghanistan is a perfect example - R vs Gul, which I referenced above, involved an individual convicted of "disseminating terrorist publications with intent to encourage the commission of acts of terrorism" by posting videos of attacks on British and allied forces in Afghanistan, and encouraging others to conduct similar attacks. This is indisputably a Bad Thing. Thirty years ago, when similar (and probably, in some cases, the same) individuals were doing the same thing to the Russians, it would have been considered a Good Thing. Since defining something as "bad, except when done to someone we don't like" is moronic, we have to use a definition that applies in all circumstances.

This is more like defining "thief" to include people who pick up an unattended bucket of water in order to put out a fire. Did you steal my bucket of water? Sort of. Does it matter? No. Indeed, I myself might later applaud you for the taking and using of my property.

In which case, calling you a "thief" may meet some very very abstract standard of a 'simple, consistent definition.' But it leads to absurd results in practice, because how can I justly punish you for 'theft' of my unattended bucket of water that you used to put out a fire? To do so would be ridiculous and reflect my immorality, not the immorality of the alleged 'thief.'

The answer is actually quite simple. At least in the UK, one of the tests that has to be met before a prosecution is pursued is whether or not said prosecution is in the public interest. In the case of the theft of your bucket of water, the facts of the case are that the bucket was stolen. It would probably not, however, be in the public interest to prosecute the individual who took the bucket, and therefore the case would not be pursued. Likewise, the CPS would probably have a different view towards an individual fighting in Afghanistan thirty years ago than three. Their actions may have been identical, but the public interest involved would be very different.

Except that our definition of murder explicitly excludes certain types of killings and considers them legal or at least not punishable. Accidental killings are not murder, assuming there was no negligence. Killings committed in self-defense are not murder.

Indeed, which is why none of the examples I included could be described as self-defence or manslaughter.

For your analogy between 'terrorism' and 'murder' to hold, we would have to remove self-defense exemptions and any other laws that make the definition of 'murder' more complex than the one word 'killing.'

Not at all - the differences you describe would be equivalent to removing the political objectives (in which case the crimes would be murder, GBH, criminal damage, etc) or removing the use or threat of violence, in which case it wouldn't be a crime at all, but normal politics.

[Anacronian]

The best definition I have found of terrorism is: "Terrorism is when non-state militants take the war to attacking civilians and public property, rather than directly combating enemy soldiers directly. Terrorists manipulate the fear of common people so that they pressure the government to give into the terrorists' demands simply so that you will stop murdering them"

By that definition, the Rebels aren't terrorist at least not from what I have seen in the movies perhaps there is stuff in the EU I never saw but then again all that is void now.

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, this is a definition of 'terrorist' which explicitly excludes guerillas who engage in skirmishing irregular warfare against an enemy army. It's only terrorism if you are terrorizing someone, or trying to, or at the very least going after helpless targets that are not part of the actual fighting power of the enemy you oppose.

Whereas the definition I've been arguing against boils down to "using violence as a means to a political end without a license."

If we applied that definition, the Rebels would be terrorists... but being a terrorist would no longer be morally wrong in any absolute, consistent sense of the word. They'd be terrorists but none of us should care.

[Channel72]

Yeah, and the only reason this debate is even interesting, or even tends to produce passionate argumentation, is that the word "terrorist" explicitly has a negative connotation. Presumably, the word terrorist is supposed to indicate "bad guys", or at least it does in the vernacular. We can try to define terrorist in a way that makes it morally neutral, but that doesn't really help because most people will still react to the word negatively. It's for this reason that the language of propaganda only applies the word "terrorist" to groups fighting against a larger political establishment.

So yeah, I think the definition posted by Anacronian is the most useful definition, consistent with the vernacular usage and public perception of the word in general. Under that definition, groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS are terrorists, but the Rebel Alliance (at least as depicted in the films) or the French Resistance are not terrorists.

This definition is pretty useful, because it corresponds very closely with common perceptions. But I'd note it doesn't necessarily correspond 100% with how large governments, like the US or UK, officially define terrorism. Hezbollah, at least, which the US considers a terrorist organization, would likely not be considered a terrorist group under this definition because they usually (or perhaps always) try to hit military targets, rather than random civilians.

[Patroklos]

I am not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding terrorism is not always bad SJ. Or good or bad based on the perspective. One man's freedom fighter and all that.

Granted, we generally avoid calling "good" terrorism by that name because stupid people react emotionally to the label but surely rational people can set emotion and politics aside and agree the name we chose is as much semantics as a critique of tactics. In a dispassionate examination most of us applaud the actions of a good number of history's terrorists.

[The Romulan Republic]

The definition of terrorist I use (which is similar to a dictionary one), is more or less as follows:

"Acts/threats of violence intended to cause fear in order to advance a political/ideological agenda."

However, I think it would be best to exclude from that actions taken by legitimate military forces against other military targets during war.