And I think when it does, it certainly falls under the definition of terrorism for me. Of course others may disagree with that, but that's just my view.

I also think that the firebombing of German cities in retaliation for the Blitz, were it defined as terrorism (and I've accepted before that it possibly could be) would be justified as it was retaliatory in nature. I'm a big believer that during a war, "in-kind" retaliation is not only justified but expected.

Note, Dresden is still considered by some historians to this day to be a war crime. It probably is, but I'd say the fact it was in retaliation mitigates this.

All I'm really saying here is, things are a lot more subjective than might originally be assumed.

I think I'd have to accept that, given my earlier answer.

In other words, terrorism (by some definitions) worked, politically (by some definitions)

And hence there's still debate over whether they were freedom fighters or terrorists. I think, to an extent, both are valid descriptions.

But surprisingly, I don't go as far here as Moderate does.

I'm a man who strongly believes in accountability, even if it's your own side that's in the wrong (or maybe even especially then?). For example I believe we the British have some responsibility for the current problems in Israel.

The Balfour Declaration was a bad idea from the start.

St. Patrick himself (a British slave, at one point in his life)

Sorry, this sentence was a little unclear. Do you mean he was a slave of the British? If so, that doesn't fit with my own history lessons. I'm sure I read that St Patrick was born in England and taken to Ireland as a slave by the Irish pagans, not the other way around. I'm certain he was a Briton.

I do not agree that bombing Christmas shoppers in London was the equivalent, though.

The IRA attacks with convenient warnings happened a bit later in the process

To be fair I wasn't even born when the Provos were formed, and by the time I was old enough to actually know what was going on, we were in the 1990s, when the attacks were often of the "warning" variety. I was 9 in 1990, so you have to forgive my naivety of what preceded that point in time.

I wouldn't consider bombings without warnings to be equivalent, no. That it worked doesn't make it acceptable in my eyes either, so there we agree.

(Iron Maggie Thatcher, if I'm not mistaken)

Nope. Was planned for Thatcher but she'd been ousted a few months before by her own party (a terrible incident). It was John Major who was PM for the mortar attack on 10 Downing Street. Thatcher was their number one target though, one of the many reasons I loved her. She was never intimidated.

Was blowing up Lord Mountbatten's yacht terrorism, or a valid guerrilla military attack?

Probably a valid guerrilla attack. Sure, innocent people were killed too, but it was clearly Mountbatten who was targeted, and he was a political figure and former military man. That he was pro-unification makes it more tragic that he was the one they chose to target, but I think the target was legitimate.

It was also a key event without which the Good Friday agreements wouldn't have ever come about. That it outraged Catholics as much as Protestants is noteworthy but I don't think it rendered it a terrorist act. It was legitimate.

Here's an alternative view on the subject.

Moderate -

My point about Dresden is that the Germans could see the Allies' bombing in the same vein as Londoners saw the V2 attacks. It was an ongoing effort to bomb German cities, after all, it wasn't just Dresden.

My point about the people on the airplane attacking the Pentagon was that the US certainly accepts "collateral damage" (civilian casualties) in their war attacks, so Al Qaeda would likely put the civilians on the airplanes in the same category as we do when our bombs blow something up we wanted them to, but inadvertently kill some civilians.

Please note, I am not equating the two in any way shape or form. I am just being devil's advocate here, in the interests of refining the definition of "terrorism." I certainly wouldn't want anyone to think I'm sympathetic in any way to Al Qaeda or their aims. But splitting these hairs sometimes involves positing how "the enemy" thinks. How the shoe would be seen from the other foot, in other words.

Again, we bombed Dresden, and then we went back and bombed a ring around the firestorm, in order to catch the firefighters at work. We firebombed Tokyo as well as a lot of other Japanese cities. These, by your definition, would be as much "terrorism" as the Blitz.

To put it bluntly, sometimes warfare, even legally declared between nation-states, involves terrorising populations.

The first instance of this, incidentally, that Americans learn about is Sherman's march to the sea. He burned the South, as much as he could. This destroyed the food the South needed for their populace, as well as their army. It is taught as the first instance of "total warfare" in this country at least. Was it terrorism? Debatable...

OK (sigh) let's get into the Irish question.

I agree with parts of what both of you (Moderate and Michale) are saying. And I disagree with parts of both, as well.

Because history is written by the winners.

"Terrorism" is always used to describe acts used against such winners, by losers. Michale, I wouldn't use the slaughter of the American Indians here, I would use instead the tactic -- used by American revolutionaries -- of hiding behind walls and trees and firing at the British, who (in the best European tradition) lined up in a field and potted away at the enemy, who was likewise lined up in the same field against them. The Brits at the time called the American tactics (learned from the Indians themselves, who thought it ridiculous to conduct a war in such silly fashion) barbaric, and likely would have called it terrorism if such terminology existed back then (to say nothing of the actions of the "privateers" at the time on the high seas).

But American history doesn't use those terms. We won, after all.

All I'm really saying here is, things are a lot more subjective than might originally be assumed.

Now, while the IRA, or (to put it correctly) the Provisional IRA or "Provos" certainly made many mistakes, the fact remains that their campaign of terrorism actually made gains for the political (and we're all supposed to pretend, completely and utterly independent of the IRA) wing of the movement (Sinn Fein). In other words, terrorism (by some definitions) worked, politically (by some definitions).

But surprisingly, I don't go as far here as Moderate does. The history of the Irish/British problems goes back approximately since St. Patrick himself (a British slave, at one point in his life), and atrocities on both sides are many and well-remembered. A good read for anyone outside this dynamic for some historical info is Leon Uris' "Trinity."

I agree that Northern Irish police stations were fair military targets during the Troubles. I do not agree that bombing Christmas shoppers in London was the equivalent, though. To be fair, it did raise the insurance costs to merchants in central London so high that they eventually go on board solving the Irish problem once and for all, but I simply don't agree that that was acceptible warfare, even if it did work.

The IRA attacks with convenient warnings happened a bit later in the process, though, and while Moderate is right in that the warnings became the whole point of the exercise (the IRA would plant fake bombs in the Underground and call them in, just to shut down the subway service without risk to anyone) -- but that was much later in the game.

But, while homemade mortar attacks on the PM (Iron Maggie Thatcher, if I'm not mistaken) were also acceptible military targets, the thing it boils down to (as a litmus test) that I've personally found is the question:

Was blowing up Lord Mountbatten's yacht terrorism, or a valid guerrilla military attack?

That's the question, from my experience, that separates the sheep from the goats, as it were.

-CW

I think so.

Au contraire. They were the culmination of almost 3 years of ongoing and systematic attacks.

But they themselves were isolated incidents that were markedly different from the rest of the war campaign. I would argue that they were not truly part of the ongoing warfare. The war could have easily been ended without the nuclear attack; let's call a spade a spade, Truman wanted to nuke them.

The attacks were ongoing and systematic, true. But so were ALL attacks of World War II..

The Blitz was markedly different. Hitler is quoted as ordering "disruptive attacks on the population". They were attacks designed solely to create fear amongst the civilian population, not to disrupt the war effort. The goal was to lower morale amongst the civilian population.

Your response to Chris regarding the WTC attack referenced the conduct of the terrorists and their choice of weapons. Well, the Germans used a slew of incendiary devices in the heart of London. Not only did they use weapons designed to create a massive fire throughout the city (which they managed; it's been called the Second Great Fire Of London) but they aimed these at areas where there was a large civilian population and little, if any, that could legitimately be considered a "military target". How's that any different?

I think you would have a hard case to make for labeling The Blitz as terrorism, if only for the reason that it was in the context of a Nation-on-Nation declared war.

That argument is one I could accept. But all that would do is render what I termed terrorism a war crime instead, so I'm not sure it's any better. During war, if you target weapons at civilians solely for the purpose of scaring them, that's either terrorism (in my view, as the goal of the attacks if to "terrorise" the population) or it's a war crime. I can accept either.

If the terrorists' had used a bomber and dropped a bomb on the WTC, then their argument of being a "military" attack would have more weight.

There I agree with you. The methods used define that as a terrorist attack.

But sometimes we must just take a step back and remember one of New York's finest when he said,

It was Justice Potter Stewart who said that and I'm fairly certain he wasn't a New Yorker. I believe he was originally from Michigan. Of course you've used a paraphrased version that may have been said by someone else but I think the Associate Justice coined the phrase and deserves credit for it.

And it's not to say that even a lot of what was terrorism wasn't justified.

I really have to take exception to this. Terrorism is NEVER justified.

It is if it's retaliatory against similar attacks on yourself. That was my point, Britain's military had committed some horrific atrocities against the civilian population in Ireland. People were murdered in their beds. Then there were incidents like Bloody Sunday where peaceful protesters were shot dead.

On the other hand, I am sure you meant something along the lines of retaliatory attacks against British military and police units as reprisals.

Not quite. Even their attacks on the civilians were a lot more acceptable than the ones we launched against them. Many IRA bomb attacks had warnings to allow the authorities to evacuate the public. The goal wasn't to actually kill civilians, but to disrupt things and show that they could kill us if they were so inclined. They actually, most of the time, took the high road.

By contrast when we attacked them it was either during night raids or when we were claiming to be there to protect them (Bloody Sunday, for example). Certainly they were never warned by the British before we massacred them.

Is it terrorism to attack a police station or a military outpost?

Nope. That's why I agreed with Chris that a lot of what they did (when they attacked our Prime Ministers, for example) wasn't terrorism. I was talking solely about their bombs against civilian targets, and I felt that these were not only justified (in retaliation for far worse atrocities by us) but handled with a lot more class and dignity (eg the warnings) than our were.

Except I know many survivors of the Blitz that would define it as terrorism.

But could they do so objectively.

I don't think so and therein lies my point.

It's the same reason why our system of justice doesn't rely on victims and/or victims' families to determine guilt and/or punishment.

They {Hiroshima & Nagasaki} were also not part of a systemic ongoing attack.

Au contraire. They were the culmination of almost 3 years of ongoing and systematic attacks.

You use the word "systemic" and I used "systematic" and I think that is where the confusion is.

But Michale, your definition would include the Blitz. It was ongoing and systemic in nature.

The attacks were ongoing and systematic, true. But so were ALL attacks of World War II..

It was targeted at civilian targets.

Not necessarily. I don't know the history as well as you obviously do, but unless there is documented evidence that innocent civilian persons
were specifically targeted, as opposed to say civilian infrastructure, then the definition of terrorism does not apply.

Even with such documented evidence, one would be hard pressed to label it terrorism, as the context of the times would be the overriding consideration.

For example, the brutal slaughter of native Americans in the 1800s could well be labeled as "terrorism". But the context of the times would preclude such a label from having any real meaning. While the first documented use of the word "terrorism" was in a 1795 edition of The Times, I doubt it would have the same meaning as it does today.

I think you would have a hard case to make for labeling The Blitz as terrorism, if only for the reason that it was in the context of a Nation-on-Nation declared war.

CW,

OK, see, this is just what I was talking about. Reasonable people disagree on the definition of the term.

Watch it, bub! Who you calling "reasonable"!! :D

So, if you count Hiroshima and Nagasaki as legitimate targets, I am interested to hear what you would call the World Trade Center attack? The reasoning is similar, after all.

Not necessarily.

The infrastructure of Hiroshima & Nagasaki was geared up to directly support the war effort.

On the other hand, let's postulate a scenario where Allies bombed a banking center that was providing critical support funds and logistical (where have I heard that word before?? :D) support for the war effort.

THAT would be a similar situation to the WTC attack.

But the comparison falls apart when (as I mention above) one considers the context of the times and a declared Nation-On-Nation war.

I suppose, if one were to play Lucifer's advocate, and make the terrorist's argument that they simply attacked a banking center that was contributing to the "war" effort, that might have SOME logic to it.

But that logic falls apart when one considers the conduct of the terrorists and their choice of delivery weapons.

If the terrorists' had used a bomber and dropped a bomb on the WTC, then their argument of being a "military" attack would have more weight.

Not MUCH more, to be sure, but a little more than it would have now.

But, you do raise a good point and illustrate very nicely why the definition of terrorism is such a gray area.

But sometimes we must just take a step back and remember one of New York's finest when he said,

"I may not be able to define pornography, but I sure as hell know it when I see it!"

Moderate,

And it's not to say that even a lot of what was terrorism wasn't justified.

I really have to take exception to this. Terrorism is NEVER justified.

On the other hand, I am sure you meant something along the lines of retaliatory attacks against British military and police units as reprisals.

Such retaliatory attacks against such targets are an even bigger grey area than terrorism itself.

Is it terrorism to attack a police station or a military outpost?

Consider the Fort Hood attack. Many want to label that terrorism, when it really isn't..

Michale.....

Depends on whether you consider two days of bombing the same as two years. Dresden lasted two days, the Blitz lasted close to two years. Oh, and Dresden wasn't something for the Allies to be proud of either. Not sure it was terrorism under Michale's definition (is two days ongoing and systematic? Possibly) but it wasn't the finest act of warfare either.

While you are correct to point out that the people on the plane which attacked the Pentagon were innocent civilians, they were the method (the weapon) used, and not the target. Not to split hairs here, but it is an important difference.

Not sure that's true. Their deaths were part of the death toll that those who were planning the terrorist attacks intended to inflict. The Pentagon might well have been the target of the crash, but the "attack" was, if we want to be pedantic, the collision between the plane and the Pentagon. So the target of the attack included the plane.

For example, Flight 93 is considered part of the 9/11 attacks, right? Well, there the target of the crash was (we believe) the White House, but the plane never reached its "destination". Does that mean it wasn't an attack? Clearly the plane formed part of the attack, not simply as the method, but also the target too.

The World Trade Center attack is also in a grey area for some. On the one hand, totally filled with civilian, and not military personnel. On the other hand, in warfare, it is acceptible to target, say, a munitions factory. Or any infrastructure which is being used to support the military, inclulding industry. So, it could be argued, the WTC was an economic target supporting American war efforts.

But that's just it. Traditionally even in warfare "industry" has been considered a separate entity from "commerce". The WTC was clearly involved in activity that could be called "commerce" but was it "industry"? For example bombing farms to destroy the food supply would, I think, be considered wrong even during times of war. At least, I'd consider it wrong. Innocent civilians depend on that food too, whereas munitions or steel factories are either wholly or mostly beneficial to the military during times of war.

Part of the problem, in this country at least, is that we simply have never experienced anything comparable. We (with a few technical exceptions) have never been on the receiving end of bombs.

I think that's a big part of the problem. You've not really had to define what terrorism is until now, as you've not (prior to 9/11) been on the receiving end of it in your own country. It's easier to define terrorism when it's "far away" but much harder when it's happening all around you.

As for the Irish, well, the one I lay down to sleep with every night isn't a terrorist, I can attest to that!

Heh, so the missus is Irish, eh? Good on you, Irish women are wonderful.

ome of what the IRA did was clearly terrorism, and some was not. That's all I'll say for the moment.

Oh I definitely agree with that. And it's not to say that even a lot of what was terrorism wasn't justified. The British didn't exactly treat the Irish well, shall we say. But I'm sure your wife knows a heck of a lot more about that than I.

So, if you count Hiroshima and Nagasaki as legitimate targets, I am interested to hear what you would call the World Trade Center attack? The reasoning is similar, after all.

I know the question wasn't levelled at me, but I'd like to say I never actually considered them legitimate targets. I've long believed Truman just had to play with his new "toy". Not sure if FDR would've dropped the bombs, my own opinion is he wouldn't have.

Moderate -

OK, I have a question for you. Do you consider the firebombing of Dresden by the Allies "terrorism" or an act of legal warfare? Would survivors of it label it such, do you think?

While you are correct to point out that the people on the plane which attacked the Pentagon were innocent civilians, they were the method (the weapon) used, and not the target. Not to split hairs here, but it is an important difference.

The World Trade Center attack is also in a grey area for some. On the one hand, totally filled with civilian, and not military personnel. On the other hand, in warfare, it is acceptible to target, say, a munitions factory. Or any infrastructure which is being used to support the military, inclulding industry. So, it could be argued, the WTC was an economic target supporting American war efforts, for instance, in Saudi Arabia. I'm not saying I subscribe to this thinking, but just tossing it out there for discussion. Again, was bombing Dresden justifiable?

Now, the V-2s were indiscriminate (even the height of technology at the time was pretty crude when measured against today's cruise missiles and smart bombs), but was London a valid military target at the time?

Part of the problem, in this country at least, is that we simply have never experienced anything comparable. We (with a few technical exceptions) have never been on the receiving end of bombs. We just haven't. Which colors our thinking. So you'll find what Europeans would call a "naive" outlook here, which mostly cannot be bridged. 9/11 is the closest we have ever come to experiencing what it is like for civilians to cower in their homes while listening to bombs fall over the city.

nypoet22's also right -- we tend to separate "domestic terrorism" from "real terrorism" here as well. The KKK were nothing but a terrorist organization, but it is jarring to an American to hear it said in such bald terms.

As for the Irish, well, the one I lay down to sleep with every night isn't a terrorist, I can attest to that! Heh heh. But don't get me started on that subject, as it's a whole 'nother thing. Some of what the IRA did was clearly terrorism, and some was not. That's all I'll say for the moment.

Michale -

So, if you count Hiroshima and Nagasaki as legitimate targets, I am interested to hear what you would call the World Trade Center attack? The reasoning is similar, after all.

- CW

Except I know many survivors of the Blitz that would define it as terrorism.

Many consider the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "terrorist" acts, even though both were legitimate military targets.

They were also not part of a systemic ongoing attack. The Blitz, on the other hand, was clearly a military strategy (hence the term still being used in that context to this day) aimed at destabilising Britain by causing civil unrest.

It's always been my belief that, as hard is it can be with emotions running so high, the definition of terrorism must be applied logically, rationally and, above all else, objectively..

But Michale, your definition would include the Blitz. It was ongoing and systemic in nature. It was targeted at civilian targets. And it was to further an ideological war (the spread of Nazism) by giving credence to groups like Mosley's Black Shirts. Hitler's overarching hope was that Mosley would be able to use the chaos of the Blitz like Hitler himself had used the sorry state of Germany post WWI to rise to power in Britain and provide Hitler an ally.

Even taking all emotional connection aside, the Blitz certainly qualifies as terrorism. And I agree wholeheartedly with you that the term "terrorism" has to be reserved for certain conduct. There's little doubt that both the Blitz and the IRA qualify.

It's hard to apply current definitions to events that took place that long ago.

Many consider the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "terrorist" acts, even though both were legitimate military targets. Nagasaki, due to it's deep harbor ports and Hiroshima because of the military industry complexes, including it's iron foundries.

Even targeting civilians in wartime back then was, while not "acceptable" was accepted as they ways of war.

"Death, disease, destruction. That is what war is. THAT is what makes it a thing to be avoided."
-Captain James T Kirk, A TASTE OF ARMEGEDDON

Another example, though not very well known, is the Irgun attack on the King David Hotel. Many Israel bashers like to point to that as an example of how terrorism gave birth to the nation of Israel.

But the KDH was a legitimate military target, due to the moronic actions of the British Military.

No offense intended.. :D

It's always been my belief that, as hard is it can be with emotions running so high, the definition of terrorism must be applied logically, rationally and, above all else, objectively..

By simply applying the 'terrorism' label to whatever pisses us off at the moment, the label loses the impact IT MUST HAVE so as to be a thing to be avoided and combat'ed against..

Must like the "Holocaust" comparisons we discussed in an earlier commentary..

Michale.....

It's partly because of familiarity. We in the UK have had a terrorist organisation on our doorstep (the IRA) for over a quarter of a century. Therefore we know terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, with all sorts of warped ideologies to support their actions. Hell, at least the IRA warned us.

We also learnt from that experience that not all Irish people were terrorists, just like not all Muslims are terrorists. That's an area I think America can still learn in. I remember my reaction to all the "Obama is a Muslim" rumours was along the lines of "So what?" Of course he isn't, but even if he were, that is utterly irrelevant to his suitability to be President. The "birther" rumours were at least relevant to his candidacy, even if they were utter BS.

For me war and terrorism are not mutually exclusive. The only thing that "being at war" changes, for me, is whether the military are a legitimate target, because if you're not at war then even an attack on a military target can be terrorism, if driven by an ideological agenda (which they often are).

As for the Pentagon, the key issue there is that they used a plane full of innocent civilians to perpetrate the attack. Even if we accept the argument that "the west" was at war with Al Qaeda but didn't know it, they still used a plane full of civilians to perpetrate the attack. I don't believe the west was at war with Al Qaeda, but even if it were, it wouldn't have changed anything.

Speaking as one who has been there and done that, I have a definition that I follow that has yet to be successfully refuted or disputed...

"Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian/non-combatant persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda."

Note that the definition is COMPLETELY objective and does not get into semantics such as "unlawful" and other such subjective terminology.

As to the rest, I agree completely..

People with their agendas will use this attack to further said agendas..

But by labeling this attack (or the Fort Hood attack, etc etc) as terrorism simply displays their ignorance of what terrorism is.

Whether by pipe bomb or by suicidal airplane attack, they deserve the right to life and liberty that everyone else in this country does. Again, I think we can all agree on that, at the very least.

Couldn't agree more... Fortunately, it seems that there were no casualties in this "attack" save the deranged pilot himself..

Michale.....