Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[Thorne]

Terrorism is committing the war crime of targeting civilians to get your way - whether that goal is "freedom" or anything else.

Like firebombing entire cities to "reduce the enemy's resistance"? It's a matter of perspective. If you're in one of the planes dropping the bombs, it's a cruel but necessary strategy. If you're in the city it's a terrorist act.

The guys in Libya fighting against Gaddaffi's regime? Not terrorists: they were fighting Gaddaffi's military.

I'm sure the soldiers thought they were terrorists, or rebels, or whatever other name they might put on them.

If they'd hidden and fired missiles into or planted bombs in the middle of Tripoli then they'd have been terrorists - as well as rather less popular, of course, and less likely to be seen as fighting against oppression.

Naturally, the people who were being bombed wouldn't particularly like them. But if they were doing those things in, say, Chad or Tunisia, the Libyan people would consider them Freedom Fighters.

As for 'freedom to determine his own fate', Atta had that from the outset: born in Egypt, studied in Germany then trained in Afghanistan. He could have killed himself any time he wanted, but he wanted to deprive thousands of other people of that right - the very antithesis of a "freedom fighter".

It makes me think of the Egyptian Pharaohs, and other royalty, who killed dozens, if not hundreds, of their loyal subjects to have servants in the afterlife. It's a case of being afraid to face death alone, so they have to bring as many people along with them as possible. I suppose they figure that they can get lost in the crowd and their god won't realize they've slipped into heaven, or wherever.

But regardless of Atta's motives or methods, I can pretty much guarantee that there are those who felt he was justified, and died to set his people free from the Great Satan.

[js207]

I'm sure the soldiers thought they were terrorists, or rebels, or whatever other name they might put on them.

Rebels, yes - they were rebelling against Gaddaffi's regime - and as that conflict went on, quite a few of his troops decided the rebels were actually the lesser evil - but "terrorist" is not just a label: it has an actual meaning. Maybe some of Gaddaffi's troops did believe that label fitted the rebels, just as some of the Taleban mistakenly believed the Northern Alliance were Christian rather than Muslim, but neither makes it true or changes the actual meaning of the word being misused.

The bombing of Dresden was legally questionable, in part because the relevant law had last been updated in 1907 when the nearest equivalent would have been firing rather inaccurate artillery pieces in that direction, though there was certainly no clear-cut prohibition. This was a factor in the subsequent Geneva Conventions. Terrorism, though? No: it was direct destruction of enemy assets, rather than a psychological ploy.

But regardless of Atta's motives or methods, I can pretty much guarantee that there are those who felt he was justified, and died to set his people free from the Great Satan.

No, not to set anyone free - just to hurt their enemy. Never mind freedom, it's about hurting someone you hate. We all know there were those in the Middle East who literally cheered the massacre, but "set his people free"? Pull the other one.

[Thorne]

but "terrorist" is not just a label: it has an actual meaning.

I agree. But one of the problems of civilization is trying to get people to agree on those meanings. While we in the West might view the act of flying planes into buildings to be terrorism, can we be sure that all other cultures see it the same way? My observations, cynical though they may be, shows that if they do it to us, it's terrorism, but if we do it to them, it's patriotism.

Maybe some of Gaddaffi's troops did believe that label fitted the rebels, just as some of the Taleban mistakenly believed the Northern Alliance were Christian rather than Muslim, but neither makes it true or changes the actual meaning of the word being misused.

No: it was direct destruction of enemy assets, rather than a psychological ploy.

It was the indiscriminate destruction of assets along with men, women and children, without consideration of who would be harmed. Industry or military assets were not the target. The entire city was the target. And there was a psychological component as well. It was believed by some that such destruction would provide the impetus for the German people to rise up against their government. Of course, it did just the opposite.

No, not to set anyone free - just to hurt their enemy.

Which is the point of any war, is it not? Each individual action is designed not to win the war, but to hurt the enemy. It's the total accumulation of such actions which determine who wins or loses. Along with the enemy's ability, and determination, to absorb such hurt while causing as much hurt to you as possible.

[js207]

I agree. But one of the problems of civilization is trying to get people to agree on those meanings. While we in the West might view the act of flying planes into buildings to be terrorism, can we be sure that all other cultures see it the same way? My observations, cynical though they may be, shows that if they do it to us, it's terrorism, but if we do it to them, it's patriotism.

It's not about "civilisation", but a simple matter of linguistics: 'terrorism' is an English word used to describe a particular type of act, the instillation of terror. It isn't a moral judgement, it's a particular tactic. One most of us in the West, excluding Martin Sheen, consider wrong, but that's another issue. If you were to ask anyone in Al Qaeda and get a candid response, they would agree it is indeed terrorism, they are a terrorist group - they just believe their terrorism is morally right and that terror is an appropriate tactic for them to use.

(I did feel from the outset that 'war on terror' was a stupid name, analogous to 'war on pincer movements' or 'war on vertical envelopment' - though of course the more accurate 'war on Islamic extremists' would be politically problematic and 'war on Al Qaeda' raises the obvious but awkward question of 'so why are you fighting the Taleban then'.)

It was the indiscriminate destruction of assets along with men, women and children, without consideration of who would be harmed. Industry or military assets were not the target. The entire city was the target. And there was a psychological component as well. It was believed by some that such destruction would provide the impetus for the German people to rise up against their government. Of course, it did just the opposite.

I've italicised the key bit there: yes, 'the entire city' was targeted, and legally the city as a whole was a valid target. A target was prohibited only if completely free from military value.

Which is the point of any war, is it not? Each individual action is designed not to win the war, but to hurt the enemy. It's the total accumulation of such actions which determine who wins or loses. Along with the enemy's ability, and determination, to absorb such hurt while causing as much hurt to you as possible.

It's a bit more selective than that: not 'hurt the enemy' but 'hurt the enemy's military' - more recently, trying much harder to minimise damage to non-military aspects.

[Thorne]

It's not about "civilisation", but a simple matter of linguistics: 'terrorism' is an English word used to describe a particular type of act, the instillation of terror.

Linguistically speaking, you are right. An act of terror can be a legitimate military tactic. But I maintain that a terrorist is a label which may be applied differently by the perpetrators of the act and its victims.

yes, 'the entire city' was targeted, and legally the city as a whole was a valid target. A target was prohibited only if completely free from military value.

I imagine the citizens of Dresden would question the legality. As would the citizens of London, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What about Nanking, then? Would the atrocities performed there be considered a "legal" act? They were, after all, supporting the enemy.

It's a bit more selective than that: not 'hurt the enemy' but 'hurt the enemy's military'

Exactly! It's doubtful that the bombing of Dresden, for example, did anything to "hurt" the German military. They were already hurt badly, and the actual area of the city destroyed had little or no military significance. It can be argued that it was, indeed, an act of terror. And I will agree that the acts perpetrated on 9/11/01 were acts of terror as well, by anyone's definition. My only point is that those who committed the acts, whether in New York or Germany, were considered patriots by their own people.

[js207]

Linguistically speaking, you are right. An act of terror can be a legitimate military tactic. But I maintain that a terrorist is a label which may be applied differently by the perpetrators of the act and its victims.

It may be misused, yes - as is true of most words.

I imagine the citizens of Dresden would question the legality. As would the citizens of London, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What about Nanking, then? Would the atrocities performed there be considered a "legal" act? They were, after all, supporting the enemy.

Nanking, no, because civilians were targeted - which is and was a war crime. In a nutshell, if I shoot at you, a civilian, or drop a bomb aimed at your house, it's illegal; if I shoot at the enemy soldier next to you, or drop a bomb on the barracks next door to your house, that's fine, even if you die as a result.

Exactly! It's doubtful that the bombing of Dresden, for example, did anything to "hurt" the German military. They were already hurt badly, and the actual area of the city destroyed had little or no military significance. It can be argued that it was, indeed, an act of terror. And I will agree that the acts perpetrated on 9/11/01 were acts of terror as well, by anyone's definition. My only point is that those who committed the acts, whether in New York or Germany, were considered patriots by their own people.

Conflating "little or no military significance" misses the point, since the law protects only the latter situation. The general consensus seems to be that they had little military significance, which makes the attacks lawful. (In 1963, a Japanese judicial review disagreed, but the ruling rested in part on a piece of international law which had been drafted but never actually signed or accepted.)

You're getting caught in false dichotomies here, too. Most of the 9/11 hijackers, along with bin Laden himself, are arguably considered traitors not patriots, being Saudi nationals (at least until they revoked OBL's citizenship) - a country which was, at the time, partly defended by the US military from the hostile country next door - and of course whether their actions were considered patriotic or not by their own supporters, it doesn't stop them also being terrorism. McVeigh's antigovernment actions probably have a better claim to the "patriot" label from his supporters than Al Qaeda's, considering that group doesn't even have a home country or common nationality, but certainly qualify as terrorism, don't they?

[Thorne]

Nanking, no, because civilians were targeted - which is and was a war crime. In a nutshell, if I shoot at you, a civilian, or drop a bomb aimed at your house, it's illegal; if I shoot at the enemy soldier next to you, or drop a bomb on the barracks next door to your house, that's fine, even if you die as a result.

The problem is that the Allies did NOT bomb military targets, specifically. They bombed the entire city! Indiscriminately. They weren't aiming at the barracks next door, they were aiming at everything. Hospitals, churches, stores, homes, everything. Regardless of military significance.

whether their actions were considered patriotic or not by their own supporters, it doesn't stop them also being terrorism.

No, it does not. I'm not denying that fact at all. Only that there ARE supporters who consider them to be patriots. That's the point of the statement made by denuseri: "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

And I make the same claim about those who orchestrated the fire-bombings of German cities, or Japanese cities, or the indiscriminate bombings of English cities, or the atomic bombings of Japanese cities. To some, the men who performed these acts are considered heroes and patriots. to others they are no different than terrorists. It's all a matter of your point of view.