State-sponsored terrorism

[IrishHand]

Chris Alger's debate thread on whether state-sponsored actions can/should be considered terrorism is certainly interesting reading. However, there are some sub-issues that I wanted to address.

One or more posters raised the comparison to at least 3 WWII-era incidents:
- Churchill apparently directing the RAF bombings of German residential areas to encourage the Luftwaffe to do the same (and spare military targets in the process)
- the RAF firebombing Dresden (among others)
- the a-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

First of all, since I hate inaccuracy - as regards the first, the Luftwaffe's switch of emphasis from military targets to the bombing of London (and other British cities) was indeed partially a response to the first RAF bombing of Berlin. However, it certainly wasn't part of some Churchill scheme to aid the British military effort. From Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: "To begin with, there was a minor navigational error by the pilots of a dozen German bombers on the night of August 23 [1940]. Directed to drop their loads on aircraft factories and oil tanks on the outskirts of London, they missed their mark and dropped bombs on the center of the capital, blowing up some homes and killing some civilians. The British thought it was deliberate and as retaliation bombed Berlin the next evening."

Regardless, the latter two examples (1943-45 RAF bombing of residential areas, A-bombs on Hiroshima/Nagasaki), would clearly fit within Chris' definition of terrorism, to the extent that it would include state-sponsored terrorism. However, I think there is a flaw in that analysis. Both of those examples were acts of war. They were iniated by a nation at war with another, and the bombings were decided on to further the war effort. Now, the ethics or rules of war may certainly be debated, but to me, there is a huge difference between a peacetime nation engaging in what would otherwise be "terrorist" acts and a nation at war committing "terrorist" acts against non-combatant targets of a combatant nation.

My take, for what it's worth:

(1) States not at war another nation can and do commit terrorist acts upon or against that nation. Saying that only smaller, less-recognized groups can commit terrorist acts is self-serving, to say the least. Frankly, I'm not sure what rational argument you can raise to support the notion that states can't commit terrorism using any reasonable definition of the term.

(2) States at war can commit terrorism, but within a much smaller range. Nearly all otherwise 'terrorist' acts can be justified as furthering the war effort. I'm certainly not arguing that those acts are humane, but neither is war. To use the most common examples, the residential portions of cities, while not a directly military target, supply a critical part of the military-industrial machine - the labor. It is undisputed that destroying their homes, their streets and their ability to sleep results in decreased war production. Of course, many nations choose to take part in agreements or negotiations not to engage in certain activities (bombing cities, using certain types of weapons, etc). In that case, it becomes more debatable as to whether the commission of those acts is terrorism. I guess my fundamental problem is that war, by it's very nature, exposes it's participants to many forms of "terrorist" acts. In a sense, the willing (or unwilling) participation in a war is an acceptance or understanding of the fact that your nation is now a target for a wide range of undesireable and destructive activities - bombings, commando activities, artillery/ground force attacks on cities, etc, etc.

[Clarkmeister]

Where the hell have you been hiding? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Chris Alger]

I think most people agree (certainly if the poll is any indicator) that states can commit terrorism. By itself, this renders nearly all official and other public discussions of "terrorism" (conventionally defined) misleading and ultimately absurd. Every reference promoting are even tending to acknowledge a U.S. "war on terrorism" conveys nothing but cheap propaganda. Worse, it suggests that only "terrorists" target civilians. It allows commentators to treat acts like Israel's deliberate targeting of civilians as being on a different moral plane than pizzeria bombings by the Qassam Brigade.

The problem I have with the word "terrorism" is that it's not very useful other than a shorthand description for targeting innocents, less so given its more corrupted use today. You're right that it becomes murky when states are at war, but I think this distinction doesn't help much.

For one, the European paradigm of mobilized populations and declared wars is an exception today. At the other end, and far more common, are nations or subnational groups "at war" that don't have armies or often formal governments. For another, consider the problems of "dual purpose" violence and hostage-taking. In the first, states at war might bomb a civilian area with little or no military objective, or it might have a small one that didn't determine the decision to bomb. Sounds like "terrorism," but obviously there's a sliding scale. Further, real "terrorists" can do the same. For example, IRA, PIJ and Irgun "terrorists" occasionally bombed civilian targets that had military uses or were frequented by military personnel. Yet few besides partisans accept that these were "military" acts.

Then there's the problem of hostage-taking: deliberately provoking attacks on one's own civilians, such as by putting military targets near civilians. When the civilian targets are hit, sorting out who the "terrorists" are can be hard and ultimately comes down to a question of defining the mental intent of a state. I'm not saying these questions can never be answered, but answering them so often requires many facts and hair-splitting that using a term like "terrorism" to describe them is problematic.

The only useful definition of "terrorism" I can imagine are when the political goals behind it are so remote or nonsensical that the act appears to be closer to that of madmen that revel in killing for its own sake than desperate people with an actual agenda and few alternatives. Bin laden might be an example. The problem with this definition is that it isn't politically correct. It contemplates the possibility that some "terrorist" groups could have grievances so legitimate that their methods can't be morally distinguished from those of many governments (like ours).

[Gamblor]

Then there's the problem of hostage-taking: deliberately provoking attacks on one's own civilians, such as by putting military targets near civilians. When the civilian targets are hit, sorting out who the "terrorists" are can be hard and ultimately comes down to a question of defining the mental intent of a state. I'm not saying these questions can never be answered, but answering them so often requires many facts and hair-splitting that using a term like "terrorism" to describe them is problematic.

This is a valid description of the actions of Palestinian terrorists, correct?

Assuming, that on some level, Arafat and the PA are involved in financial, manpower, or even implicit support of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Al-Aqsa (who, I might add, are all members of Fatah, can Arafat and the PA not be implicated as "state" terrorists, regardless of the opinion of the Palestinian street?

And finally, you, who admit that [i]I'm not saying these questions can never be answered, but answering them so often requires many facts and hair-splitting that using a term like "terrorism" to describe them is problematic[i], purport to identify the intentions and motivations behind Sharon's (and Begin's, and even Herzl's) actions? You think a 50 year old, 75 year old, a 100 year old quote (from a time when misquotes were the norm) is evidence enough of a desire for ethnic cleansing?

That's like reading "The Nazis; they are mostly German. They should all be killed." and turning it into "They are German. They should all be killed."

[Gamblor]

Then there's the problem of hostage-taking: deliberately provoking attacks on one's own civilians, such as by putting military targets near civilians. When the civilian targets are hit, sorting out who the "terrorists" are can be hard and ultimately comes down to a question of defining the mental intent of a state. I'm not saying these questions can never be answered, but answering them so often requires many facts and hair-splitting that using a term like "terrorism" to describe them is problematic.

This is a valid description of the actions of Palestinian terrorists, correct?

Assuming, that on some level, Arafat and the PA are involved in financial, manpower, or even implicit support of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Al-Aqsa (who, I might add, are all members of Fatah), can Arafat and the PA not be implicated as "state" terrorists -official international recognition notwithstanding? And we want to allow them to organize their way of doing this?

And finally, you, who admit that I'm not saying these questions can never be answered, but answering them so often requires many facts and hair-splitting that using a term like "terrorism" to describe them is problematic, purport to identify the intentions and motivations behind Sharon's (and Begin's, and even Herzl's) actions? You think a 50 year old, 75 year old, a 100 year old quote (from a time when misquotes were the norm) is evidence enough of a desire for ethnic cleansing?

That's like reading "The Nazis; they are mostly German. They should all be killed." and turning it into "They are German. They should all be killed." And shouting "ethnic cleansing." Especially when considering the entire world's history of opinions of Jews, even 50-75 years ago, do you think it would be wise to take those claims at face value?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a valid description of the actions of Palestinian terrorists, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it describes Israeli actions. By "deliberately provoking attacks on one's own civilians," I'm asuming a choice, not cases where resistance fighters are backed into a corner with civilians by an invading occupier. Palestinian resistance fighters in the West Bank and Gaza have no choice about where to fight (not the case with the suicide bombers). They either shoot at the invaders from their homes, towns and refugee camps or don't shoot at all. One can argue that they shouldn't do that, but it's the same argument that one shouldn't use deadly force to defend one's home against an intruder. Calling it "terrorism" doesn't make any sense.

OTOH, we've seen so many cease-fires and "lulls" broken by deliberate Israeli provocations to terrorism that one has to conclude that Sharon's government welcomes terror against Israeli civilians as the necessary price of justifying the occupation, settlements and land-stealing.

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming, that on some level, Arafat and the PA are involved in financial, manpower, or even implicit support of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Al-Aqsa (who, I might add, are all members of Fatah, can Arafat and the PA not be implicated as "state" terrorists, regardless of the opinion of the Palestinian street?

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the assumption, sure. (AAM started as a Fatah/Tanzim offshoot but Fatah apparently can't control it. In fact, AAM militants are probably outside the control of any hierarchy, and most of their members are disaffected and hate Arafat).

[ QUOTE ]
You think a 50 year old, 75 year old, a 100 year old quote (from a time when misquotes were the norm) is evidence enough of a desire for ethnic cleansing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect the "quotes" you're referring to relate to the academic debate over whether the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1947-48 was, in Morris's phrase, "born of war and not by design." Why it occurred is interesting, but that it occurred isn't in dispute. 90% of the Palestinians behind the Green Line, between 700,000--800,000 people, were either killed, expelled or fled and precluded from returning by Israel, and the property they left beind was confiscated. That's what I mean by "ethnic cleansing."

[Gamblor]

The Israeli government, and Israeli army, explicitly avoids targeting civilians as official policy. Having been a soldier in the Zahal, I can say this as fact. After all, why not simply bomb the whole thing? Why send in soldiers to make arrests instead of just blasting the s*** out of every civilian in the camp?

People like you, they read that once every 2 weeks there's a shootout in a refugee camp. They don't see that every single day, soldiers are going in, risking their lives to arrest one man, instead of just bombing the house. The extreme few (maybe a half dozen) who are so well-guarded, there is too high a risk to Israeli soldiers' lives, and a strike is necessary.

Palestinian resistance fighters in the West Bank and Gaza have no choice about where to fight (not the case with the suicide bombers).

Resistance fighters are the same as terrorists. Proof? Suicide bombers cause 1/5th of the Israeli deaths that the random shootings of those driving on the street, or walking in the fields, or singing a lullabye in their beds at night on the kibbutz cause - is it a coincidence the shooters happen to belong to the same organizations as the "resistance fighters"?

How many of these acts (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ia50) are suicide bombings?
(For the purposes of the thread, ignore any incidences that involve soldiers as they can not be labelled terrorism)


Does the name Shalhavet Pass ring a bell? How about the Hevron massacre? How are those "resistance"?

we've seen so many cease-fires and "lulls" broken by deliberate Israeli provocations to terrorism

This is retarded. It is during these cease-fires and "lulls" that the Hamas, IJ, and AAM all "reload". When Palestinian informants and satellite images notify the IDF of terrorist activity, planning, and "training camps" the IDF takes action against the planners, which forces the terrorists to quickly put together many more attacks, if only haphazardly.

Sharon's government welcomes terror against Israeli civilians as the necessary price of justifying the occupation, settlements and land-stealing

Wow. You are truly insane.

Didn't you contradict this not one post ago, that "When the civilian targets are hit, sorting out who the "terrorists" are can be hard and ultimately comes down to a question of defining the mental intent of a state."

Your implication of some sort of moral equivalence between Palestinian terror and Israeli collateral damage is appalling. Don't even attempt to defend yourself.

Your mind-f***ing of otherwise intelligent readers is abominable. Go to basic training in the Zahal, then talk to me about Israeli policy.