I recall a definition of "terrorism" from my childhood in the 1970s, one that seems to have gone down the memory hole: "Guerrillas attack military targets. Terrorists attack civilians."
The 1970s was a time when terrorism was much in the news. You had the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Red Brigades, the Weather Underground. The IRA and PLO were also much active. So terrorism was much talked about, even in the Weekly Reader, the paper of record for the grammar school set. :-)
I don't recall the above as a controversial distinction between guerrillas and terrorists, though I never hear it used any more. Instead, the definition of "terrorist" seems to have broadened. But does anyone else remember this 1970s distinction?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jon Sobel
I do remember it, and I don't think the definition of terrorist has changed much. It still means what is implied in the word itself: someone who commits acts of violence intended to cause terror in the population, and that means civilian targets.
2 - Thomas M. Sipos
The useage has changed somewhat. For instance, whenever US troops are attacked in Iraq, it's often said to be done by terrorists.
3 - RealCon
Re: Comment 1
Terrorist …“still means what is implied in the word itself: someone who commits acts of violence intended to cause terror in the population, and that means civilian targets.”…
That would imply that acts such as the incendiary bombing of civilian populations during WWII (e.g., Dresden) were “terrorist acts”…
Keep in mind that “terrorism” is a tactic -- not a cause… and in many cases -- it is based on “nationalism”…
4 - Natalie Davis
And is perpetrated by governments. Of course, because they are governments, when they bomb or kill civilians, it can't be called terrorism. Can't have that.
5 - eloise
I do recall some distinction between terrorists and guerrillas, but you fail to mention the new term "insurgency" that is being used by those who are fighting against any foreigners in Iraq and anyone who tries to bring democracy to Iraq. We see these people with masks covering their faces and they throw grenades at innocent people. This might classify them as terrorists, because they are committing random acts of terror not only against foreign military and contracter's, but also against innocent people in their own country. One might imagine that the insurgency or resistance movement in Iraq is made up of deranged Islamic men, but this is not the case. I know someone who was over in Iraq as a photojournalist just before the US invaded Iraq. She was imprisoned for seven days in Abu Grahib prison and ultimately driven to freedom at the Jordanian border after the fall of Saddam. She returned to the US for a less than two week and then decided she needed to go back to Bagdhad. During her time there, she interviewed members of the insurgency and found out that they are not what people imagine them to be. They are people from all walks of life, teachers, women, shopkeepers, people who work at jobs and are insurgents on the side. They hold very strong beliefs about their country and are willing to die for their beliefs. Mothers send their sons off and say don't return home alive, return home as a martyr. Would the so-called insurgency have evolved to such a widespread movement if the US and Britain had not invaded Iraq. I don't believe it would have. As far as terrorists within our own country, I vaguely remember the Symbionese Liberation Army. If I remember correctly, they evolved out of a small group of people who felt that the government was not helping the people who needed it most. If I remember correctly, it evolved into a faction fighting for a primarily black population in the San Francisco area...and yet the majority of the movement was comprised of young white idealists. I am digressing, but I think that terrorism is a tactic which emerges from a cause. The current insurgency movement in Iraq uses terrorism to further their cause. When they attack innocent people/foreign troops, etc. it is called terrorism. If I were an Iraqi citizen, whose country has been overtaken by foreign powers, I would be truly terrified. So, if I were an Iraqi woman, I would consider the acts of the US to be terrorism. They did not invade our country. They were not behind 9/11. We chose to go into Iraq for reasons that are not as noble as some would like to believe. I in no way blame our soldiers. I realize that Saddam was a madman who terrorized his own people. But we never went into Rwanda to prevent the genocide which was going on there. We seem to selectively get ourselves involved in "terrorist" acts, only when it benefits our own personal interests. We have done little to stop the genocide in Dahar. They have no oil, they have no diamonds. They are just poor black people who can do nothing for us. Any country, such as the US, who goes into only countries that can benefit US interests can technically be said to be inflicting terrorism. If the North Korean goverment came over to the US and controlled our streets...I would be just as terrified as the Iraqi citizens are of the US.
6 - RealCon
If what you are saying is that our government is hypocritical -- I could not argue with you…
7 - SFC SKI
Terrorism is basically acts of violence committed against a civilian populace. Guerrilla warfare is one way of fighting, you could call it unconventional warfare, or call guerrilla forces irregular forces.
Guerrilla forces have been used against military targets, so not all guerrilas are terrorists by the definition above.
8 - Dave Nalle
Guerilla - someone who fights without standard military tactics and organization. Identified by how they fight.
Insurgent - someone who fights in an uprising against an established power or government in order to seize power in their country. Identified by who they fight.
Revolutionary - someone who seeks the overthrow of an established government by any means - not necessarily warfare. Identified by their objectives. Identified by why they fight.
Terrorist - someone who makes indiscriminate attacks on targets of opportunity to spread terror in a general population. Identified by how they fight.
War Criminal - someone who targets civilian non-combatants while making war. Identified by who they fight.
These are basically the four classes of people we're dealing with when we talk about the war in Iraq. If you combine these class characteristics together you can describe just about any group involved in fighting in Iraq.
Just some thoughts...or at least the kernels of a system for clarifying who's who and what's what.
Dave
9 - eloise
Dave - You have stated so simply the very complicated nature of the war in Iraq. You are correct in saying that there are many different (at least four or five)classifications for those whom are fighting in Iraq. You are also correct as to the nature of how these classifications can interact and at times seem to overlap each other. Most of the insurgents in Iraq could be catagorized as terrorists, war criminals, guerillas, and revolutionary in their tactics. They have strong beliefs and are more than willing to die for them. Many of these people were not even political in nature until the US invaded their country. Is the world better off without Saddam in power? Probably. But for every evil dictator you take down, another one is waiting in the wings to take over. Especially when there is a lot of money at stake. How we could possibly have let the ethnic cleansing go on in Bosnia and Rwanda, and now in Darfur and then jump right into Iraq is extremely hypocritical. We could have easily intervened very quickly in the case of Rwanda and we did nothing for 100 days of horrific ethnic cleansing and unthinkable numbers of humans lives lost. Lets face it, Iraq was about OIL and Rwanda was just a bunch of black and colored people who had nothing to offer us in return. We only value lives of those who are similiar to us or can give us something. The rich shall inherit the earth...if they don't destroy it first!!!!
10 - SFC SKI
Nice job of oversimplification, Eloise.
11 - Dave Nalle
>>Lets face it, Iraq was about OIL and Rwanda was just a bunch of black and colored people who had nothing to offer us in return. <<
Sorry if I contributed to your confusion, Eloise. The Iraq war is hardly about oil, and the Rwanda situation was entirely beyond our control. The UN was there and failed miserably. Do you expect us to second guess them in every situation in the world? That sounds like unilateralism.
What we have to gain in Iraq is stabilization and a foothold in a key area of the world so we can fight terrorism. Iraq is about defending ourselves by keeping the enemy on the defensive.
Reprehensible though the situations in Darfur and Rwanda may be, they weren't a threat to us. That makes them a lower priority.
Dave
12 - Nancy
Bullhockey! Far too many in the upper reaches of the Bush administration (especially Fearless Leader himself) have ties to Big Oil, an incestuous relationship w/the Saudi royals, and have vastly enriched themselves at the expense of their own country, the US. And that's not my opinion, it's a matter of record. You can even go to the conservative sources to check it out, altho they don't play it up as much as a scandal as do the liberal media - probably since most of them are owned & operated by Bush's fellow oligarchs. Or have you conveniently forgotten Haliburton already? The ONLY reason Haliburton toned down their raking in of obscene profits thru overcharging at the expense of the US military is because it got publicized and everyone let out such a stink over such egregious theft and conflicts of interest that they had to back off. And who holds major interests in Haliburton, do you think? Why, surprise, surprise! Bush's best buddies! In one sense, you're right: this war was not just about oil; it was also about Bush's ego. He was intent on being a 'war president' before he ever got elected, probably to both 'avenge'and 'outscore' the old man, give his sorry-ass military record a boost (he's SO brave with other people's lives! WHAT a macho shithead!) without having to do anything dangerous as usual, AND he got to give paybacks to all his rich friends who bought the election for him, at no cost to himself: paid for by the ever-gullible, over-credulous American public, who didn't object because they've been assured over and over again that this is a matter of PATRIOTISM. Of SELF-PROTECTION. Of FIGHTING THEM OVER THERE SO WE WON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM OVER HERE. Well, those arguments won't wash, either. We're still fighting them over here: they've got us tied in knots trying to secure ourselves. We lost more people 9/11 than we've lost so far in the military in Iraq - they were all on American soil, or did you think they were in Baghdad? Bush regularly tells us out of one side of his mouth "we're safer", and with the next breath about how "we're in greater danger here than ever before". Well, y'can't have it both ways, Dubya Boy, which is it? His lies are so blatant, he's embarrassing. He doesn't even TRY to keep them straight and consistent anymore. And people who are so devoted to the conservative cause at any cost swallow his bullcrap hook, line, and sinker, even tho Bush has blasted every tenet of the historic and traditional conservative platform to hell with increasingly huge, intrusive government, exploding budget w/no end in sight, etc. What does it take in black & white for people dedicated to the traditional values of the Republican party to wake up and smell the hummus? They've been taken to the cleaners - as have we all - by this sham macho cowboy wannabe wartime hero president whose main assets are a slickness even Bill can't match and a fake, carefully cultivated 'aw-shucks' facade. And anybody who dare to question him he paints as a traitor to the US. What a fraud! The first refuges of a scoundrel are patriotism and religion, to paraphrase the quote, and this one does nothing BUT spout patriotism and religion.
One final: just because someone takes a different view than you does not qualify you to adopt the hectoring, snide, superior tone you take and reply to them as if they were retards. Doubtless Eloise could have mounted a far more complex argument, but didn't for want of time & space. You yourself use summations and simplifications for the sake of making your points; why shouldn't she?
13 - Shark
Here's a fun game; In DaveNalle's [pedantic] dictionary for the rest of us rubes THE UNITED STATES OF BUSH fits EVERY DEFINITION!
==============
Guerilla [sic] - someone who fights without standard military tactics and organization. Identified by how they fight.
(see Iraq)
Insurgent - someone who fights in an uprising against an established power or government in order to seize power in their country. Identified by who they fight.
(See Iraq Invasion, Bush vs Saddam)
Revolutionary - someone who seeks the overthrow of an established government by any means - not necessarily warfare. Identified by their objectives. Identified by why they fight.
(See Iraq, Bush support of Kurds)
Terrorist - someone who makes indiscriminate attacks on targets of opportunity to spread terror in a general population. Identified by how they fight.
(see Iraq, Ramalla; see also Israel vs Palestinians, bulldozers vs houses)
War Criminal - someone who targets civilian non-combatants while making war. Identified by who they fight.
(see Bush vs Iraqi wedding parties)
That's SO much fun! And stimulating too! Thanks, Professor Nalle!
=========
By the way, I think I'm with Ski(?) on this:
A Guerrilla is a rebel who takes out military and civil targets ONLY, ie, murder of government authorities + sabotage of government properties, ie FFI in WW II.
A Terrorist doesn't give a shit who he kills.
============
Oh -- and as of today -- a guerrilla/"freedom fighter" is also an "honorable" TERRORIST *guy who bombs an airliner, but has extradition requests from *countries **Bush hates.
*Posada, google news
** FUCKING HYPOCRITE
14 - Shark
PS: Dave, in your haste to look like you're actually smarter than you are, your definitions are less than accurate or helpful, especially this one:
"War Criminal - someone who targets civilian non-combatants while making war. Identified by who they fight."
Take yer time -- and rewrite this while actually thinking about it.
Thanks,
The Management.
15 - Nancy
Good morning, Shark; I see you're up early and raring to go ;)
16 - Dave Nalle
Nancy, it was Ski who accused Eloise of oversimplification, not me. I just responded to her and disagreed.
As for your ranting, I've got nothing to say. It's the same old unsubstantiated emotional anti-Bush ranting. Come back with something rational and we can have a discussion.
Dave
17 - Dave Nalle
Well Shark, it was just a starting point. If you have a better definition of War Criminal that you'd like to submit, feel free.
As for all of my definitions applying to the Bush administration I don't entirely see it, but I wasn't trying to exclude them.
I was actually thinking in much more general terms than just Iraq or the curent situation.
The Neocons could certainly be seen as revolutionaries.
I know some people would like to see the US Army as war criminals - presumably you included, shark - but they don't target civilians intentionally. The whole wedding party thing has been demonstrated to be fraudulent - who holds a wedding party with cases of rocket launchers? And it would only be a war crime if those attacking the 'wedding party' knew it to be a wedding party when they attacked and there's no indication of that.
As for being Terrorists, you could apply that to some of the religious right as well as to some of the extreme left.
Guerilla warfare is a technique. The US has used it as have many others.
Dave
18 - Natalie Davis
The Shrub in Proper Uniform
19 - Dave Nalle
Damn, Bush wears tweed? Hang him!
Dave
20 - Natalie Davis
I am opposed to hanging or any form of killing on principle.
The tweed jacket was SO funny!
21 - Robert B. Crim
Has anyone ever read the famous story about Immanuael Kant, "Was ist ein Moerder?" (What is a murderer?). Kant leads the pursuer of a wanted man through a sequence of definitions which concludes that "murderer" is a synonym for "medical doctor."
I suppose if we CHOOSE to be careless about our definitions, we can call anyone a terrorist -- it's such a bad thing to be these days.
The basic strategy of the Symbionese Liberation Army was summed up by one of its members, Joe Remiro (still in jail for the murder of Marcus Foster), who once said, "We are going to get our asses kicked, and we are going to win." The Symbionese believed that, if they could just induce the powers that be into calling down enough arbitrary violence on themselves and the people around them, eventually, the people would arise in reaction and join them in the revolution. Thus, for the SLA, terrorism was only a means to an end -- a first step in generating the outrage necessary for fomenting terroristic countermeasures by their claimed opponents, "the pigs." In effect, what they were trying to do was hook "a whole string of suckers."
The foregoing should stand as a dire warning to all who REALLY would oppose terrorist tactics: Pursuers must keep in mind that, in the long run, JUSTICE is the objective, not mere retribution. The terrorist must be suppressed, but not by means which only can swell their ranks.
If the case of Patty Hearst can teach us anything, I would hope it can teach us that. The Attorney General of the United States, and other public officials such as the Mayor of San Francisco, stepped in it by making highly inflammatory remarks after Hearst was filmed participating in a bank robbery; the result was that they eventually drove her right into the arms of her abductors. Later, when she was linked to another bank robbery in which a woman was murdered, it became too embarrassing to prosecute the government's offenders who had helped incite the incident, so of course the evidence was altered to pin it all on the kidnapping victim.
Sometimes, terrorism is just a question of whose ox is gored.
22 - Shark
Dave, coupla point:
* re fixing your terribly innacurate, amateurish definitions: I don't do others homework.
* Re: your statement: "I know some people would like to see the US Army as war criminals, presumably you included, shark"
1) My exercise above (based on your junior high definitions) was a semantics GAME. I stated as such at the start.
2) You presume wrong: I don't want see any American SOLDIER written off as a war criminal -- and don't believe that in most of these Iraqi cases, they qualify at all.
3) Fuck you. Seriously, just FUCK YOU.
kay?
'kay.
23 - Dave Nalle
>>1) My exercise above (based on your junior high definitions) was a semantics GAME. I stated as such at the start. <<
Oh, I see. Didn't seem like a fun game, so I chose not to play.
>>2) You presume wrong: I don't want see any American SOLDIER written off as a war criminal -- and don't believe that in most of these Iraqi cases, they qualify at all.<<
Ok, then where do you draw the line? Would you like to bring the entirety of Congress up on trial?
>>3) Fuck you. Seriously, just FUCK YOU.<<
Well that goes without saying, Shark.
Dave
24 - The Duke
Alreety... Alrighty...
Whilst bidness may function off of a risk mitigation model...
Power, real power... "comes from the barrel of a gun" Mao.
Motive, foul motive, or "good" motive requires power (which comes from the barrel of a gun) in order to establish presence.
Guerrilla's and/or Terrorists are cut from the same cloth, and do not subscribe to the western order of battle, or concept of arms. That was pretty clear 200+ years ago when large groups of men in red coats marched down game trails and retired their scalps in the process.
What's unconventional? The only unconventional aspect I can see in the world today is that gun control is allowing practitioners of power grabs to run rampant over benign populations (i.e. civilians). Take away a persons ability to defend themselves, and the door is open for those defensless souls to be terrorized unconventionally (by western standards). Furthermore, it is western standards alone which this threads definitions ascribes to. Other cultures view hidious acts of violence much differently, and react much differently than western culture does.
The ethics of Gengis Khan, are much different than the ethics of Hitler, or the ethics of Stalin or the ethics of Clinton, or Bush.... cultural background and quests for power are 2 undeniable influences.
Unconventionality is relevent only to the dynamic which spawns it and the culture which abhors it.
25 - Demi
Does anyone think we should have hunkered down and waited for another blow from Bin Laden? I get the impression that it might be the case.
Do you think the next attack would have been less or worse than the twin towers?
Do we as work-a-day innocents deserve to have a nuclear power plant destroy us... a sort of scourging... the more we suffer, the less our guilt... catholic sort of groupthink?
Are people really suggesting that we should allow "special interest" groups such as Al Quida impale us on their weaponry, for the sake of twisted logic?
Let me know what you REALLY think. This is interesting. It reminds me of a bluegrass tune which states that... "everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to die" (sung nasaly and high pitched).
Should we have done absolutely nothing, or turned inward... which could have meant shutting down borders, trade, immigration... selecting or targeting certain ethnic groups.... or
Should we have done nothing... brushed it away as one waves a gnat away from their ear. Applied a dicriminator or filter to rid ourselves of the bothersome noise. Marched to sea, lemming like, and continued to take the abuse of additional attacks.
Is that the implication here?
I'm puzzled, survivability instincts are state otherwise? Was Darwin wrong?
Are we more than mere animals... when lions attack the Zebra's on the Serengeti, they run... dodge... feed the pride, and continue grazing as if nothing happened. Is that what we are supposed to do?