Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Imad and Me
A couple of things struck me about the New York Times
coverage of Hezbollah leader Imad Mugniyah's assassination. First
of all, in this publicity shot from the Hezbollah Media Office,
Mugniyah looks like a an older, pudgier, camouflage-wearing
version of me:
I gather this picture was taken before the plastic surgery he supposedly had. Despite his Semitic looks (I know, I know: Arabs are Semites too!), this was a guy who considered blowing up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires a legitimate tactic in a war with Israel. In his view, killing any random Jew, anywhere in the world, was just retaliation for wrongs committed by the Israeli government. Yet I was still surprised to see the Times unambiguously call Mugniyah, who headed Hezbollah's Islamic Jihad Organization, a terrorist.
The headline over the main story about Mugniyah's death, "Bomb in Syria Kills Militant Sought as Terrorist," equivocates a bit, but the text calls him "one of the most wanted and elusive terrorists in the world." A sidebar summarizing his murderous career calls him "perhaps the world's most feared terrorist" before 9/11 and notes that "the list of those who might seek justice or revenge against him was a lengthy one." By contrast, the Times usually calls Arab terrorists who target Israelis "militants." The Times story about last week's suicide bombing at a shopping center in Dimona, for instance, called the Fatah-affiliated Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which initially claimed responsibility for killing an Israeli woman at the shopping center, "militant groups." (It also called the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades a "militia.") Later, when the Qassam Brigades took credit for the murder, the Times described that organization as "the military wing of Hamas," which it called a "militant Islamic group."
So what exactly does it take for a "militant" to be recognized as a "terrorist" in The New York Times? Evidently he needs to target Jewish civilians not only outside Gaza and the West Bank but outside of Israel, preferably on a different continent. I think it also helps if he attacks Americans, as Mugniyah repeatedly did. The Times does not seem to be squeamish about calling Al Qaeda "a terrorist group." If Osama bin Laden had crashed a plane into a building in Tel Aviv instead of New York City, would he be merely a militant?
|2.15.08 @ 1:44PM|#
Well, Mr. Mugniyah, I'm sure Reason is glad to have you on the staff. You'll be perfectly safe in the terrorist relocation program. Just make sure to read our policy on the slaughter of innocents. We take a dim view of it.
|2.15.08 @ 1:47PM|#
You can be both a militant and a terrorist. As a matter of fact,
I'd say that being a militant is a precondition for being a
terrorist.
If, in a story about a truck bomb destroying a community center,
the writer attributes the bombing to "the military group
Hezbollah," is anybody going to not understand that blowing up
civilians in a community center is terrorism?
lunchstealer|2.15.08 @ 1:50PM|#
If, in a story about a truck bomb destroying a community
center, the writer attributes the bombing to "the military group
Hezbollah," is anybody going to not understand that blowing up
civilians in a community center is terrorism?
You mean, aside from all the people who call that sort of thing
'resistance' or 'jihad' or 'martyrdom'? Not that that they'd give a
shit what the NYT wrote, mind you.
|2.15.08 @ 1:53PM|#
Yes, lunchstealer, aside from people on the other side of the planet who don't read the New York Times.
Ali|2.15.08 @ 1:55PM|#
What if Jacob Sullum is Mugniyah?
Then I have nothing to do with reason from hereon. Damn
it, those terrorists are everywhere nowadays.
|2.15.08 @ 1:57PM|#
I'm sorry, but the message that we're trying to get across is that Dubble Bubble doubles the taste, not...turns you into terrorists.
|2.15.08 @ 2:02PM|#
What if Jacob Sullum is Mugniyah?
Yeah, writing this seems like a bit-too-perfect of a cover story.
You can't fool us "Mr. Sullum."
Why do you hate freedom?
Bingo|2.15.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Hrm...
Drugs finance terrorists... Jacob Sullum wrote a book against the
War on Drugs...
It all makes sense now!
|2.15.08 @ 2:08PM|#
I always wondered how a guy with a beard can "nick himself
shaving" on the same day every year.
On the forehead.
Fluffy|2.15.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Actually, Sullum, since both Fatah and Hamas now constitute the
quasi-government of areas partially turned over to Palestinian
control by Israel, it's probably no longer appropriate to call
their actions terrorism no matter who or what they blow up.
When a state blows someone up, it's not terrorism. If this isn't
true, then the US government is a terrorist group.
Ali|2.15.08 @ 2:16PM|#
I liked Mugniyah's This is Spinal Tap.
Funny thing is that "mughniya" derives from "ughniya" which means
song in Arabic. Weird.
TallDave|2.15.08 @ 2:18PM|#
The Times does not seem to be squeamish about calling Al
Qaeda "a terrorist group."
Depends where they are. In Iraq, they're assiduously described by
the NYT as "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, sometimes called Al Qaeda in
Iraq, the homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group that American
intelligence agencies have concluded is foreign-led." The cost of
ink must be bankrupting them.
If Osama bin Laden had crashed a plane into a building in Tel
Aviv instead of New York City, would he be merely a
militant?
No, he would be a resistance fighter, and later a Nobel Prize
winner.
Shannon Love|2.15.08 @ 2:19PM|#
I think the problem in distinguishing between militants and
terrorist is that people confuse moral judgments with technical
descriptions. Saying that "one person's terrorist is another
person's freedom fighter" only makes sense if one believes that the
justice of the cause defines a terrorist.
Defined technically, terrorism is a collections of tactics that
maybe employed by advocates of any cause. Specifically, the tactics
that most define terrorism is the intentionally targeting of random
members of civilian populations for the primary purpose of
undermining the group moral via media propagation of the attack.
It's the use of this tactic, not the justice or injustice of the
cause that the people who use the tactic, that defines an
individual or a group as terrorist.
We have reached a consensus that such a tactic is an unacceptable
form of armed conflict, especially when employed by covert,
unaccountable and self-appointed actors. For that reason, saying
someone used the tactic of terrorist automatically carries moral
condemnation.
The NY Times and other Left leaning groups have always had trouble
separating the moral from the technical. Since they sympathize with
some of the goals of those who employ the tactic of terrorism, they
have trouble condemning the specific tactics employed.
Episiarch|2.15.08 @ 2:21PM|#
Wait. Sullum is a Jew? Reason has Jews working for it? I'm canceling my subscription. What next, Mexicans? Women? Canadians?
Paul|2.15.08 @ 2:29PM|#
quasi-government of areas partially turned over to
Palestinian control by Israel, it's probably no longer appropriate
to call their actions terrorism no matter who or what they blow
up.
Not true.
When a state blows someone up, it's not terrorism. If this
isn't true, then the US government is a terrorist group.
Some call our actions exactly that.
|2.15.08 @ 2:29PM|#
When a state blows someone up, it's not terrorism. If this
isn't true, then the US government is a terrorist group.
Actually, there is a difference. Terrorism targets
civilians, which is quite different than collateral damage
when they are the unfortunate side effect of a military attack. And
yes, I do consider targeting whole cities in Germany and Japan,
like we did in WWII, "terrorism."
|2.15.08 @ 2:33PM|#
That's a very good definition of terrorism, Shannon.
But it would exclude the Khobar Towers and Cole bombings. Do you
include either of those?
Danny|2.15.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Thanks, Episiarch...
DRINK!!
(I know it was on purpose, but it is a Friday.)
|2.15.08 @ 2:42PM|#
1. I don't think an attack on soldiers can be defined as
terrorism.
2. When a bombing happens in Israel they tend not to distinguish
civilian and soldier casualties.
3. There is a very fuzzy line between targeting civilians and
killing them on "accident" by collateral damage. I am not sure that
these two things are as different as people think they are, and
they probably deserve to share a name.
4. Looks like Sullum is bucking for another junket.
Fluffy|2.15.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Specifically, the tactics that most define terrorism is the
intentionally targeting of random members of civilian populations
for the primary purpose of undermining the group morale
This would make the United States Air Force a terrorist
organization, indisputably so in WWII, and arguably so in several
conflicts since then. [Not so much lately, to our great
credit.]
Some call our actions exactly that.
This is true. But the people who call our actions exactly that are
not the same people as the people who most loudly denounce Fatah
and Hamas.
If you are one of the ones who call our actions that, you can call
those groups whatever you want. If you are, OTOH, one of those who
would never concede that any US action could ever be described as
terroristic, then I don't want to hear you handing out the label to
anyone else.
Paul|2.15.08 @ 2:52PM|#
This would make the United States Air Force a terrorist
organization, indisputably so in WWII, and arguably so in several
conflicts since then. [Not so much lately, to our great
credit.]
And the British RAF and the German Luftwaffe and the... wow, the
list goes on.
Strategic bombing in WWII was imprecise and the large percentage of
U.S. strategic bombing was specifically against industrial and
military targets. The firebombing of Tokyo and Dresdin were
arguably acts which were designed to break the morale of an
entrenched enemy. They were deliberate attacks on non-military
targets. They were not, however conducted by non-regular civilian,
self-appointed actors. So even though one might agree that the
actions were designed to inspire terror, the actors were fully
tracable and accountable.
[...]If you are, OTOH, one of those who would never concede
that any US action could ever be described as terroristic, then I
don't want to hear you handing out the label to anyone
else.
What, there can be no middle ground? You *must* call all actions of
a certain type terrorism and then *never* call any action by the
U.S.-- ever-- terrorism?
Why can't we call Hamas a terrorist organization, defer that the
U.S. is not, by overall definition a terrorist organization, but
concede that some irresponsible actions by the U.S. may amount to
terrorist tactics?
Paul|2.15.08 @ 2:55PM|#
But it would exclude the Khobar Towers and Cole bombings. Do
you include either of those?
If I may, Joe, I do not call those actions, in their narrow scope,
terrorism. But they were carried out by terrorist groups. Again,
when one doesn't distinguish-- distinguish being the
operative word-- between civilian and military targets, then when
you do occasionally hit a military target, does that make you an
occasional terrorist organization?
|2.15.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Wait. Sullum is a Jew? Reason has Jews working for it? I'm canceling my subscription. What next, Mexicans? Women? Canadians?
Or even, you know...Canadians.
|2.15.08 @ 2:58PM|#
But it would exclude the Khobar Towers and Cole bombings. Do you include either of those?
I wouldn't consider the Cole bombings terrorism. The Khobar
bombings is a little iffy, as it is not exactly clear to me if it
was a specific attack on the U.S. airforce, or an attack in general
on 'Westerners' that happen to get lucky and kill a bunch of U.S.
military personel.
However, if you wanted to argue that said acts where not commited
by agents acting on behalf of a political entity (such as a
national government, local militia, etc.), and therefore terrorism,
I could buy that arguement. We general associate terrorism with
acts of violence commited by non-government organizations.
|2.15.08 @ 3:07PM|#
It seems to me people had no problem calling the attack on the
Marine barracks in Lebanon a terrorist attack.
Also, what about non-uniformed military (off duty and such)? What's
the difference between targeting militants in the middle of a
civilian population and targeting off-duty soldiers in the middle
of a civilian population?
|2.15.08 @ 3:11PM|#
By contrast, the Times usually calls Arab terrorists who
target Israelis "militants."
What does the Times or Reason call Israeli terrorists who target
Arabs?
|2.15.08 @ 3:11PM|#
Again, when one doesn't distinguish-- distinguish being the
operative word-- between civilian and military targets, then when
you do occasionally hit a military target, does that make you an
occasional terrorist organization?
I don't buy the "Oops" defense. If you try to thread the needle
with a bomb and miss, you know damn well there's a significant
chance you'll kill innocent civilians. The people killed are just
as innocent and just as dead, intentions don't matter at that point
(except when you try to go to sleep at night). That's why police
officers aren't supposed to shoot a perp in the middle of a
crowd.
|2.15.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Jacob, a little context would be helpful. First, acknowledge that Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing with terrorist tactics thrown into the mix for good measure. It has elected a terrorist (Begin) and a war criminal (Sharon) as Prime Minister. In its suppression of Palestinian resistance and continuing defiance of international law (resonoids are all in favor of the rule of law, aren't they ?) Israel has killed far more Palestinean civilians than it has lost by a ratio of about 10 to 1.
Episiarch|2.15.08 @ 3:15PM|#
and continuing defiance of international law (resonoids are
all in favor of the rule of law, aren't they ?)
There is no such thing as international "law". There are only
treaties.
You might want to understand that distinction.
|2.15.08 @ 3:17PM|#
JS,
The last paragraph really rubbed me the wrong way. Although I agree
that the term terrorist indeed applies to Mugniyah, I think you
improperly conflated NYT's reportage in this case with their
overall policy on who gets labelled a terrorist.
Have you read the NYT style guide or attempted to contact the
editors for clarification?
What's their policy on groups like ETA and the Tamil Tigers?
|2.15.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Specifically, the tactics that most define terrorism is the
intentionally targeting of random members of civilian populations
for the primary purpose of undermining the group moral via media
propagation of the attack.
Doesn't Hiroshima qualify under this definition? How about "Shock
and Awe"?
Shannon Love|2.15.08 @ 3:25PM|#
The idea that allied strategic bombing in WWII was intended to
attack civilian moral and can thus be considered terrorism is a
complete and utter myth that originated from Soviet propaganda
targeted at the population of East Germany.
The idea that bombing could cripple civilian moral was popular in
Europe in the 1930's due to the advocacy of the tactic by the
Italian airpower theorist Douchet. The British fell under the sway
of the idea and designed the Lancaster bomber to carry out such
attacks. In America, the tactic was never even considered and the
B-17 was designed to carry out precision bombing only.
The British experience during the Blitz taught them conclusively
that bombing did not undermine civilian moral but instead enhanced
it. From that point on, no allied bombing campaign was designed
with the goal of influencing civilian moral. (The American force
especially suffered horrific casualties trying to carry out
precision daylight bombing.) All the area bombing in the war was
intended to materially disrupt the ability of the enemy to fight.
As such they cannot be considered terrorism without inflating the
concept of terrorism into meaninglessness.
I really wish this lie would die. The information to disprove it is
easily available. I think to many people find it to valuable as a
tool for creating an illusion of moral equivalence to let the lie
go.
|2.15.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Israel has killed far more Palestinean civilians than it has
lost by a ratio of about 10 to 1.
Your analysis of the on going conflict is insightful and
nuanced.
From hence forth in the event of a casualty of an Israely citizen,
the IDF shall randomly target a palestinian citizen and exectue
them. Furthermore if that causualty was male a male will be excuted
and a female will be executed for any female casualties.
Futhermore, the IDF will make sure that the proportional execution
must be carried only on targets that are within 5 years age
difference of the original casualty. In the event that Israely
citizen is not deceased, but only maimed, the IDF is to target
based on the criteria outline above, and proceed to maim in the
same manner, ie: an arm for an arm, a leg for a leg, and so
forth... WE MUST HAVE PROPORTIONALITY PEOPLE.
|2.15.08 @ 3:34PM|#
I think it also helps if he attacks Americans, as Mugniyah
repeatedly did.
Is Mugniyah blamed for targetting Americans other than the Marines
barracks in Lebanon and Khobar towers in Saudi (both clearly
military targets)?
|2.15.08 @ 3:35PM|#
"There is no such thing as international "law". There are only
treaties. You might want to understand that distinction."
Actually treaties and conventions do have the force of law. Check
the US Constitution and court rulings to that effect. The problem
is that the world's only superpower supports Israel and lets it get
away with these crimes as well as its own.
Shannon Love|2.15.08 @ 3:37PM|#
anon,
Doesn't Hiroshima qualify under this definition?
No, Hiroshima was a major port and the HQ of the Japanese defense
of Kinyushu. It was going to be destoryed one way or the other.
Ditto for Nagasaki. In any case, neither attack actually influenced
morale. They merely demonstrated that the US could stand off and
reduce Japan to rubble.
How about "Shock and Awe"?
The people to be shocked and awed where not the Iraqi civilians but
rather the command structure of the Iraqi military. It was intended
to overload their information management and bring bout decision
paralysis, which it did. Squaring the crap out of population living
under the heal of a despotic regime is rather pointless.
Again, had you bothered to actually read anything actually written
by the people who made these decisions, you could figure this out
for yourself.
|2.15.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Doesn't Hiroshima qualify under this definition? How about
"Shock and Awe"?
No, I think the second qualifier, when employed by covert,
unaccountable and self-appointed actors is important to
consider. Obviously, its not black and white, this is terrorism and
this is not. But actions carried out by uniformed armies, especialy
in the course of open ongoing armed conflict, can be called a alot
of other things if you want, war crimes and such, but Im not sure
terrorism would be the right term.
.|2.15.08 @ 3:43PM|#
Actually treaties and conventions do have the force of law.
Check the US Constitution and court rulings to that effect. The
problem is that the world's only superpower supports Israel and
lets it get away with these crimes as well as its own.
They don't have the force of law if they aren't enforced.
Tacos mmm...|2.15.08 @ 3:48PM|#
All the area bombing in the war was intended to materially disrupt the ability of the enemy to fight. As such they cannot be considered terrorism without inflating the concept of terrorism into meaninglessness
If you're arguing that the concept or terrorism is essentially
meaningless, I'd have to agree.
|2.15.08 @ 3:51PM|#
Shannon,
If the presence of a target of any military value within a civilian
population makes an attack on that target legitimate and not
terrorism (which is what I take away from your statement that
"Hiroshima was a major port"), then why doesn't the Israeli
practice of universal military service make attacks on Israelis
legitimate? "Hey, we got 22 military targets (Israeilis between the
ages of 18 and 40) and 9 civilians."
|2.15.08 @ 3:51PM|#
FWIW, this wikipedia article describes German morale and the use of bombing to decrease such.
|2.15.08 @ 3:51PM|#
"""The idea that allied strategic bombing in WWII was intended
to attack civilian moral and can thus be considered terrorism is a
complete and utter myth that originated from Soviet propaganda
targeted at the population of East Germany. """
I don't think that's the argument being made. The fact is we
attacked civilians, reasons aside. If the metric that determines a
terrorist act is attacking civilians. Then the example is valid.
I'm not sure if the metric is valid. Besides, it's the federal
government that determines if the attack is terrorism. Here is what
the FBI says about it.
"There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism.
Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "...the
unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any
segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
(28 C.F.R. Section 0.85) "
By the C.F.R.'s definiton, Gen George Washington et al were
terrorist. There is no doubt that what we did against the British
was unlawful with the purpose of furthering a political goal. Of
course, the government exempts its self. I think it's a interesting
definition in that it basically says freedom can not come from
within and MUST be delivered by a third party. Normally I would say
the C.F.R. only apply to us but our government seem sto claim that
the world is our jurisdiction when it comes to terrorism.
|2.15.08 @ 3:52PM|#
No, Hiroshima was a major port and the HQ of the Japanese
defense of Kinyushu.
In other words. Shannon's definition for terrorism is "if the US
does it, it is not terrorism. If it is someone Shannon considers an
enemy .. then it is terrorism" got it . thanks!
Fluffy|2.15.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Why can't we call Hamas a terrorist organization, defer that
the U.S. is not, by overall definition a terrorist organization,
but concede that some irresponsible actions by the U.S. may amount
to terrorist tactics?
Because this is far too easy to do when you're the world
hegemon.
Let's give Hamas a turn at being world hegemon for a century, and I
bet their apologists would then say, "Well sure, we committed some
terrorist acts, but look at all the schools we built!" Hell,
Hezbollah can say that NOW.
A terrorist is one who commits terrorism. There is no credit for
good deeds, no carbon offets for it, and no "consider three
centuries of my actions before you call me a terrorist because I
attacked a few civilian populations on purpose". You can't be a
little bit pregnant.
And Shannon Love, your argument is decisively undermined by the
fact that Churchill openly states in his memoirs not once, but
several times, that he hoped strategic bombing would break the
morale of the German people - and further, that he desperately
wanted bombing of German civilians as revenge for the Blitz and for
the V1 and V2 attacks.
When one of the two top guys giving the orders is willing to put
down in writing years later that he demanded a strategic bombing
campaign at least in part to terrorize civilians and at least in
part as a reprisal campaign against civilians, you don't get to
stomp around here calling it a myth.
|2.15.08 @ 3:54PM|#
I must note that in the C.F.R. it says to coerce "a" government. What government other than the US could the C.F.R. apply?
|2.15.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Shannon Love,
Specifically, the tactics that most define terrorism is the
intentionally targeting of random members of civilian populations
for the primary purpose of undermining the group moral via media
propagation of the attack.
It seems to me that terrorism also includes the intential targeting
of civilian, etc. leaders, celebrities, etc. of a population so as
to sow confusion, etc.
Episiarch|2.15.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Actually treaties and conventions do have the force of
law.
No. Under the US Constitution, treaties have the force of law. I do
not know if Israel treats treaties the same way, or if anyone else
does. Plus we can withdraw from treaties.
And to top it all, if somebody doesn't follow international "law",
who is going to stop them?
Paul|2.15.08 @ 3:56PM|#
I don't buy the "Oops" defense. If you try to thread the
needle with a bomb and miss, you know damn well there's a
significant chance you'll kill innocent civilians.
I'm not sure what your point is here, mo. And intentions do matter.
One simply cannot conduct a large scale military operation and not
kill civilians. This doesn't make one a terrorist. Especially when
great pains are taken to minimize or eliminate civilian deaths.
Yes, the dead are just as dead, but to call every errant bomb or
mistaken target a terrorist act is to be willfully ignorant of the
entire purpose of terrorism.
|2.15.08 @ 3:57PM|#
""In other words. Shannon's definition for terrorism is "if the
US does it, it is not terrorism. """
That seems to fit squarely with the C.F.R.'s definition.
|2.15.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Shannon, what do you make of the US bombing campaign against
Japan in WWII?
I don't think the failure of the London Blitz either proved that
attacking civilians was inherently doomed to failure, or that this
was the usual interpretation given to those events. More commonly,
people believed London didn't fall for a variety of reasons
particular to the situation: the unity and courage of the English
people; the success of its leaders in averting panic and minimizing
the loss of life and limb; Hitler's overconfidence and hence
inability to attack even more forcefully.
It sounds like you have a vested interest in preserving the
meaningfulness of the concept of terrorism. If it's a bad concept,
why not let it die?
As it happens, I think it's a good concept for reasons that have
nothing to do with the extent of the destruction. It's attacking a
third party materially for mostly psychological and propagandistic
reasons. The third party is supposed to pay attention to you,
preferably in ways that make them look weak and stupid, and your
supporters are supposed to think you're a viable force because
you're able to take their concerns to a higher level. Causing the
third party actually to join the war against you is a calculated
risk of terrorism, not its desired outcome.
No matter how terrifying or cruel, attacking civilians to affect
their support of a hostile government is not terrorism. It's just
warfare of a particularly distasteful variety.
Also, Jacob: that dead guy resembles Victor French from Little
House on the Prairie much more than he looks like you.
|2.15.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Jacob, a little context would be helpful. First, acknowledge that Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing with terrorist tactics thrown into the mix for good measure. It has elected a terrorist (Begin) and a war criminal (Sharon) as Prime Minister. In its suppression of Palestinian resistance and continuing defiance of international law (resonoids are all in favor of the rule of law, aren't they ?) Israel has killed far more Palestinean civilians than it has lost by a ratio of about 10 to 1.
Hezbollah openly professes that it wants to rid the world of all
non-muslims. Israel is entirely neutral toward non-Jews.
Regardless of any human rights abuses, I am naturally going to side
with the group that doesn't plan to exterminate me and my
family.
You can't declare your desire to exterminate me and my family, and
at the same time expect me to side with you against people who are
no threat to me and my family?
Understand? I don't give a shit about Israel's human rights abuses,
so long as Israel is friendly and Palestine is hostile.
I do think the U.S. should stop subsidizing Israel's military...
but for entirely other reasons than the Palestinian issue.
Les|2.15.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Shannon,
Whether or not demoralization was the intention of the U.S. forces,
the fact remains that the civilian populations of Dresden and Tokyo
(especially in March of '45) were devastated beyond any military
purpose. Even if mass murder wasn't the goal, the civilians were
treated as if the value of their lives was negligible.
Les|2.15.08 @ 4:06PM|#
And I should point out that the U.S. actively engaged in terrorism throughout the Cold War.
|2.15.08 @ 4:08PM|#
"""Even if mass murder wasn't the goal, the civilians were
treated as if the value of their lives was negligible."""
Some things don't change.
Fluffy|2.15.08 @ 4:09PM|#
I don't give a shit about Israel's human rights abuses, so
long as Israel is friendly
This is an entirely defensible way of looking at the situation in
practical terms.
It does, of course, mean that we don't really need to listen to any
moral arguments from you on this subject at all, though. You
realize that, right?
If you don't care about human rights abuses from a friendly power,
then you don't care about human rights abuses at all - you care
about international power politics and that's it.
So any indignation from you about terrorist acts or human rights
abuses by unfriendly powers or their pawns can be
dismissed as mere tactical posturing.
Paul|2.15.08 @ 4:10PM|#
then why doesn't the Israeli practice of universal military
service make attacks on Israelis legitimate?
Joe, are you being glib, here? Deliberately blowing up a
six-year-old is legitimate by virtue of the fact that said
six-year-old will one day be pressed into the IDF?
Tricky:
The fact is we attacked civilians, reasons aside. If the metric
that determines a terrorist act is attacking civilians.
The metric is not attacking civilians. Re-read Shannon's excellent
and very reasonable definition of Terrorism above. It's more
nuanced than that. And the word "distinction" must be
emphasized.
Let me requote your own quoted passage:
"There is no single, universally accepted definition of
terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal
Regulations as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against
persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the
civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of
political or social objectives."
What that means is the Code of Federal Regulations is, by its own
definition a non-universally accepted definition of
terrorism.
that he hoped strategic bombing would break the morale of the
German people - and further, that he desperately wanted bombing of
German civilians as revenge for the Blitz and for the V1 and V2
attacks.
Right, so Churchill thought that terrorism was a decent response to
Nazi terrorism. So where are we going with this?
Maybe Nazi Germany was lucky that the British were patently bad at
bombing, and instead relied on the Yanks for the real dangerous
daylight stuff.
|2.15.08 @ 4:11PM|#
the civilians were treated as if the value of their lives
was negligible.
Im often confused by statement like this. Im currious as to how you
see the protectorate relationship the US governemtn has with
you.
Do you not feel that because the governemnt derives its power,
legitimacy and finances directly from you that they would treat
your life as infinetely more valuable then the life of a citizen of
another government. And even more so a citizen of an enemy
governement? Do you not think that US command is fully and morraly
justified to consider 1 US life worth 10?, 100?, 1000? times a
japanese life? How about atleast twice as valuable?
|2.15.08 @ 4:13PM|#
So much is so wrong with this discussion.
For one thing, People, it's "morale" not "moral." Two different
words with vastly different meanings.
The term "terrorism" was traditionally applied only to the acts of
sub-national groups, so even if Hiroshima had not been a legitimate
military target in WW2, the term would not apply.
It's become fashionable during the past decade to speak of
"state-sponsored terrorism" which is an ingenious attempt to have
it both ways.
Agree that "international law" really doesn't exist per se.
Treaties do have the force of law, when the signatories choose to
abide by them, but there is no body of international laws which
bind all nations. Specifically, the Nuremberg tribunal used the
convenient fiction of "international law" to justify their actions.
Not that there was anything wrong with hanging some Nazis, of
course.
I think the bottom line is that Sullum is PO'd because the NYT
wouldn't call Mugniyah a terrorist.
Highly recommend the works of Martin van Creveld, particularly
The Transformation of War, to anyone interested in deeper
issues than quibbling with the NYT style guide.
|2.15.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Tonio,
As I have read the modern use of the term comes from the use
violence as perpetrated during the 'reign of terror' by the then
government of France.
|2.15.08 @ 4:28PM|#
"""What that means is the Code of Federal Regulations is, by its
own definition a non-universally accepted definition of
terrorism.""
Actually the sentence you highlighted was from the FBI, not from
the C.F.R. It is the FBI saying there is no universal defintion,
not the C.F.R. The overall quote is from the FBI website. Here's
the link.
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm
Here's how title 18 of the US code defines it.
" Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts
dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws
of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy
of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)]
International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to
human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if
committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any
state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a
civilian population; influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by
mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping and occur primarily
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or
transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they
are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or
coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek
asylum. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(1)]""
|2.15.08 @ 4:33PM|#
A terrorist is one who uses fear (terror) as a strategic tool
for a political motive. Anyone who uses the tactic is a terrorist
to whomever is made to be fearful, not the group that supports
them, and not really any bystanders or third parties who are not
meant to be fearful OR who are not fearful as a result of their
distance from the threat.
I would consider the Madrid train bombers terrorists, not because I
am the one made to be fearful or because I'm close to Madrid now,
but because I would like to be able to travel freely (and that
might be a stop on my itinerary some day). Anyone who has no plans
to ever go to Madrid, probably only calls them terrorists because
that's what our media or government calls them, not because they
are really afraid.
Of course, I'm not really afraid because I know how unlikely it is
I will be harmed, but because I desire to move freely, I am a
target for political reasons.
|2.15.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Hezbollah openly professes that it wants to rid the world of
all non-muslims.
I'm calling bullshit on this statement. Please provide a link.
Fluffy|2.15.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Right, so Churchill thought that terrorism was a decent
response to Nazi terrorism. So where are we going with
this?
Well, the first place we are going with it is a place where it's
demonstrated that Shannon has no idea what she's talking about with
regard to the history of WWII strategic bombing.
I also question why you would endorse Shannon's "definition" of
terrorism, since she starts out by saying that we should define it
as a tactic and not as a moral state, and takes to task those who
withhold the label "terrorism" when they support the moral goal of
the terrorist - but then she immediately turns around and starts
indignantly quibbling with those who point out clear instances of
terrorism conducted by the United States. If terrorism is a word
that merely describes a tactic and we should apply it even to those
whose causes we believe in, why are her panties in a bunch about
admitting that WWII strategic bombing was terroristic?
And as for the supposed "nuance" about the word terrorism only
being applicable to non-governmental or sub-national groups - fine.
But we have to pick one side of the nuance and stay on that side.
If that's the side we're picking, Fatah and Hamas are no longer
terrorist groups. If that's not the side we're picking, then the US
government is fair game for the label.
I don't necessarily think it's necessarily wise to exempt states
from the label, by the way. Doing so is potentially moral statism
of the worst sort.
|2.15.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Unofficial "Clarification of Definition" Posting:
A word ending in "ist" describes a person who uses, practices,
believes in, or operates within the boundaries commonly accepted as
the meaning of the noun pre-ceeding "ist".
Examples:
Capitalist - one who uses capital
Constitutionalist - in the US, one who believes in the
Constitution
Communist - one who believes in a socioeconomic structure that
promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based
on common ownership of the means of production
Violinist - one who acts upon a musical instrument called a violin
causing (hopefully) music to result.
Racist one who antagonizes and/or oppresses people of other (than
his/her own) races due to the believe that
Terrorist - one who acts in such a way as to cause people to be
terrified. (Therefore spiders, snakes, cockroaches, and cops can be
considered terrorists.)
Motorist - one who motors
Shootist - one who shoots
Sexist - one who sexes? (Chicken sex-ist, or chicken sex -er?
People are actually paid to determine the sex of chicks in
eggs.)
(*note: suffix "er" in some words produces the same effect as the
suffix "ist" - i.e. "shooter" rather than "shootist" - but not in
the example "racer" for "racist".)
Les|2.15.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Do you not feel that because the governemnt derives its
power, legitimacy and finances directly from you that they would
treat your life as infinetely more valuable then the life of a
citizen of another government.
Absolutely not.
Why would my life (or the life of my son, even) be "worth" more
(whatever that means), than the life of an Iranian child or Iraqi
mother? (Honestly, the very notion is repugnant to me.) Should we
judge the "worth" of a human life based whether or not it pays
taxes to a particular government? The "value" of each life would
then vary, not based on what kind of a life an individual has led,
but by it's loyalty to any particular government.
By this reasoning, your life is inherently worth less than a
millionaire's (I'm assuming you're not rich), since you contribute
less to the government than a millionaire does.
This philosophy is the basis of most every government-sponsored
atrocity you can name.
So, again, absolutely not.
Brian E|2.15.08 @ 5:37PM|#
I can't believe there's a huge discussion about the use of
civilian targets in WWII and the words "total war" never came up
once.
There are people who have tried to study and classify the different
kinds of war. They're called military historians, and it'd behoove
most of you to read a little about the subject before commenting
about definitions.
|2.15.08 @ 5:39PM|#
You can be both a militant and a terrorist. As a matter of
fact, I'd say that being a militant is a precondition for being a
terrorist.
Can you be a militant and not a terrorist?
|2.15.08 @ 5:53PM|#
If Osama bin Laden had crashed a plane into a building in
Tel Aviv instead of New York City, would he be merely a
militant?
I think the NYT is trying to tie any military action with being an
act of evil.
What you see as demons trying to make pejorative terrorists into
heroic militants the NYT sees as Angels exposing all military force
as acts of horrific terror.
|2.15.08 @ 7:18PM|#
Can you be a militant and not a terrorist?
militant
1 : engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative *
Yes. By either definition.
*Merriam-Webster OnLine
|2.15.08 @ 7:26PM|#
Les, why dont you get off your soap box. The US government conscripted GIs in WW2. Then they put them in harms way in Japan, so yes, Iraqi and whatever mothers not withstanding, the army's first and foremost resposnibility was to the GIs not Japanese mothers. Furthermore, really, Les, your son's life is not worth more to you then some Iraqi mother's life? That some BS if I have ever seen any. To me personally thousands of your's/your son's/Iraqi mother's lives are not worth nearly as much as the single life of my wife/father/mother etc... So I exepect my government which ideally acts to protect my life to value it far far higher then the life of an Iraqi mother or Iranian child. OK back to your soapbox.
|2.15.08 @ 7:29PM|#
Actually, to all the commentators above, there IS such a thing as "International Law". It's been around for, well, in different permutations about 2000 years in Western legal traditions, but the present version really got kicked into gear with Grotius.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.15.08 @ 7:30PM|#
Just in case nobody said this;
Sullum is on the No-Fly list.
Les|2.15.08 @ 7:49PM|#
val,
Is anyone stating an opinion you don't agree with "on a soapbox?"
Anyway, I didn't say my son's life wasn't worth more "to me" than
an Iraqi's mother's life. I simply said her life wasn't worth less.
Period. Obviously, I want my son to live a long, happy life, but
that doesn't mean I approve of our government killing strangers
claiming it's necessary to protect me. I'm not that trusting of the
government. Why should I be?
And since the government forced its people into harm's way
in WW2, it makes sense to you that they should be able to kill
women and children so they don't get hurt. Fantastic. There's
really not much more to say, is there?
|2.15.08 @ 7:51PM|#
militant
1 : engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative *
Yes. By either definition.
*Merriam-Webster OnLine
Ya i know...just thinking that perhaps the NYT uses its own
dictionary for this one.
Joe might also have his own stashed somewhere.
|2.15.08 @ 7:56PM|#
Is anyone stating an opinion you don't agree with "on a
soapbox?" Anyway, I didn't say my son's life wasn't worth more "to
me" than an Iraqi's mother's life. I simply said her life wasn't
worth less. Period. Obviously, I want my son to live a long, happy
life, but that doesn't mean I approve of our government killing
strangers claiming it's necessary to protect me. I'm not that
trusting of the government. Why should I be?
Umm I don't have a child but I am pretty sure I would kill just
about any one in just about any circumstance if it prevented the
death of my child...I thought this was why we had government....you
know to stop me from doing just that.
If it could not stop me or kill me....then it really wouldn't be
fulfilling its purpose
Paul|2.15.08 @ 8:04PM|#
If terrorism is a word that merely describes a tactic and we
should apply it even to those whose causes we believe in, why are
her panties in a bunch about admitting that WWII strategic bombing
was terroristic?
I take exception to this. Some WWII strategic bombing was
terroristic, much was not. And I don't personally have any issue
with what Shannon reports on WWII strategic bombing. I happen to
know a little something about strategic bombing. My father was a
member of the infamousely "marked" Bloody 100th, was shot down on
his fourth mission over Munster and spent two years in German
prison camp until the war's end. His mission: Bombing ball bearing
factories.
Most of the U.S. strategic bombing was carried out against just
such targets. Its effectiveness has been argued, but to call that
"terroristic" is bogus. The British did believe that saturation
bombing of German cities was the most effective solution-
especially considering the beating they were taking by the
Luftwaffe doing same.
Britain's Bomber Command, headed by Arthur "Bomber" Harris, believed a saturation bombing of major German cities was the best way to cripple the Reich. American planners, including Generals Ira Eaker and Carl "Tooey" Spaatz, countered that precision attacks against selected industrial targets like oil production facilities, aircraft and ball bearing plants were the best use of bomber strength. "It is better to cause a high degree of destruction in a few essential industries ... than to cause a small degree in many," the USAAF Committee of Operations Analysts agreed in March 1943. Harris, however, expressed contempt for this concentration on a limited number of targets, calling them "panacea targets."
One might view certain tactics as terroristic in the sense that the
targets (as proposed by the British, not as proposed by the U.S.)
were indiscriminate. But again, these were regular uniformed armies
with central command structures. Countering them, and targeting
them for retaliation was logistically straightforward: Shoot back
at the guys with this insignia on their planes.
What Shannon attempted to define (and did an exemplary job of it)
was attempt to codify the situation when the people shooting at you
indiscriminately cannot be distinguished from the civilian
population from whence they came.
I don't necessarily think it's necessarily wise to exempt
states from the label, by the way. Doing so is potentially moral
statism of the worst sort.
I never have once exempted the U.S. from any possible lable of
acting in a "terroristic" way, and I don't read anything in
Shannon's posts which suggest same. In fact, by my interpretation,
Shannon was doing the exact opposite. She was warning that one
should be careful how you label someone or something based upon
your affinity with their cause.
Shannon's observation (and one I lean towards agreeing with) is
that it seems that this happens often, where if your tactics are
abhorrent, but your cause just, you're a "militant" or "freedom
fighter".
I don't excuse the actions of the U.S. merely because our cause is
just. Ask me how I feel about our actions when our cause isn't
just?
Paul|2.15.08 @ 8:07PM|#
I can't believe there's a huge discussion about the use of
civilian targets in WWII and the words "total war" never came up
once.
Brian E. Already thought of. But given the direction this
discussion has already taken, to simply throw out "total war" (even
though that IS the point I'm moving towards) would simply raise
more ire than it would probably solve. The obvious response would
be: The I.R.A. felt that it was at "total war" with the British
government structure. Same with Hamas...etc.
Les|2.15.08 @ 8:09PM|#
Umm I don't have a child but I am pretty sure I would kill
just about any one in just about any circumstance if it prevented
the death of my child...
Well, that sets up an almost pointless philosophical fantasy.
Either you kill an innocent person, another child, maybe, or your
child dies. I can honestly say I don't know what I'd do.
I don't expect the government to protect my child (or, at any rate,
do anything but an incompetent job of it), so my wife and I do the
best we can. And I certainly don't trust the government when it
says, "We had to kill these children so your child could be safe,"
which is essentially what governments usually say when they go to
war.
Paul|2.15.08 @ 8:09PM|#
Even if mass murder wasn't the goal, the civilians were
treated as if the value of their lives was negligible.
Les, see Brian's "total war" comment above.
Paul|2.15.08 @ 8:14PM|#
What the?!! Miller Time(tm). Laterz. Time for everyone to forget
their differences and...
*DRINK!*
Les|2.15.08 @ 8:14PM|#
I should add that if someone ever threatened my child directly, I would kill them on the spot. I'm like a mama bear like that. Thank goodness that's not likely to happen.
Les|2.15.08 @ 8:20PM|#
Paul, I did and it's very interesting and enlightening. It's easy, I think, to get caught up in the swamp of semantics. But I think most of us agree that even in the case of a necessary war, civilian casualties should be avoided when possible. And I do believe our military has come a long way since WW2 in minimizing civilian casualties. All we have to do now is learn which wars are worth fighting. But that's not up to the military, I know.
Geotpf|2.15.08 @ 9:00PM|#
One can make a fair argument that the Palestinian cause is a good cause; it's just that their tactics (killing civilians) that suck. A Palestinian can't vote for the Israeli parliment, yet Israel maintains a high level of control over both West Bank and Gaza (just because they have no troops on the ground in Gaza doesn't mean Gaza is an independent nation, free to what it wants-Israel controls the airspace and the borders and a number of other things). Until that happens, or until Israel gives up all claims to the territorties of Gaza and the West Bank, the Palestinains have a legitimate beef with the government of Israel.
Mike Laursen|2.15.08 @ 9:15PM|#
I gather this picture was taken before the plastic surgery
he supposedly had.
Jacob, ever considered the possibility he saw your picture and had
plastic surgery to look more like you.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 10:21PM|#
Yet I was still surprised to see the Times unambiguously
call Mugniyah, who headed Hezbollah's Islamic Jihad Organization, a
terrorist.
WTF?
This sounds like something from Hannity's America...but Sullum
doesn't look like Hannity at all.
|2.15.08 @ 11:03PM|#
Les, I suggested you were on a soap box not because of what you
said, but how you said it. You got into quite a bit of rhetoric
there, bringing in mothers and children, and how repugnant this
was...
But hey atleast its good to see that your son's life is 'worth'
more to you then some stranger. In just a matter of a few posts you
figured out what I meant by a life's worth, and your son is not
even a millionaire. So do you feel that the US government should
value your son's life more than, lets say a Japanese factory worker
(see they dont have to be mothers or children)?
Should they risk your son's life (lets he was a GI in the Pacific
around 1945) and be sure to save that factory worker's life? Or
should they assume that in all likelyhoold that Japanese worker
will die, but more than likely risking your son's life will not be
necessary? What if 100 factory workers have to die to not have to
risk your son's life? 1000?
Les|2.16.08 @ 3:09AM|#
Val, I don't understand how stating that the life of a child in
another country is equal to the life of a child in this country is
"rhetoric." Nor do I understand how stating my opinion that such a
belief is repugnant to me qualifies as "rhetoric." I suppose it
depends on the definition you're thinking of.
So do you feel that the US government should value your son's
life more than, lets say a Japanese factory worker (see they dont
have to be mothers or children)?
Well, you didn't specify in your original question, now, did you?
(And YES, if you're going to honestly philosophize about civilian
casualties, they DO have to be mothers and children.) You
asked,
"Do you not feel that because the governemnt derives its power,
legitimacy and finances directly from you that they would treat
your life as infinetely more valuable then the life of a citizen of
another government."
The answer is still, "Absolutely not." You imply that paying taxes
makes a life more valuable, "infinitely" more valuable, even. This
is, I think, morally untenable and, again, a philosophy that's been
used time and again to defend needless violence against innocent
parties.
Should they risk your son's life (lets he was a GI in the
Pacific around 1945) and be sure to save that factory worker's
life? Or should they assume that in all likelyhoold that Japanese
worker will die, but more than likely risking your son's life will
not be necessary? What if 100 factory workers have to die to not
have to risk your son's life? 1000?
This is a clumsy and unrealistic hypothetical. If my son was ever
conscripted (and I would encourage him to resist that conscription
as I believe involuntary servitude is slavery), I wouldn't give a
good goddamn who the government thought needed killing. Your
scenario requires that I trust the wisdom of the government (and
what objective reason is there ever to do that?) to know who needs
to die and who doesn't and, strangely, it requires that we imagine
ourselves in the last justifiable war the U.S. was involved in,
over 60 years ago.
The bottom line is, you asserted that since I pay taxes, my life
should be worth more to my government than the life of some
civilian in another country. While I sadly agree that this is the
accepted philosophy of the government (and perhaps most people
around the world), I also think it's destructive nonsense that's
only fueled the ease with which Americans embrace war as a means to
an end.
I don't know if all that's "rhetoric," but it's what I sincerely
feel. I'm stepping off the soapbox, now.
|2.16.08 @ 4:43PM|#
If Osama bin Laden had crashed a plane into a building in
Tel Aviv instead of New York City, would he be merely a
militant?
It's not the nation that determines the difference between
terrorist and militant, it's the method of warfare.
Suicide bomber: terrorist.
Sniper: hero.
Suicide plane crash: terrorist.
Pilot flying at 20,000 feet using 'smart bombs': hero.
Little kid throwing rocks: terrorist.
Soldier with automatic rifle: hero.
|2.18.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Your scenario requires that I trust the wisdom of the
government (and what objective reason is there ever to do that?) to
know who needs to die and who doesn't and, strangely, it requires
that we imagine ourselves in the last justifiable war the U.S. was
involved in, over 60 years ago.
Les, I was responding specificaly to your statement about that last
justifiable war.
Remeber what you said about WWII?
Whether or not demoralization was the intention of the U.S. forces,
the fact remains that the civilian populations of Dresden and Tokyo
(especially in March of '45) were devastated beyond any military
purpose. Even if mass murder wasn't the goal, the civilians were
treated as if the value of their lives was
negligible.
And that exactly what I was getting at, the civilian's lives were
treated as negligible compared to the GI (American citizens/allies)
it saved, as they well damn should have been. I repeat the
government derives its legitimacy and power, not just finances,
from its citizens, and in my opinion, is unequivocaly required to
judge its citizens' lives as more valuable then the the lives of
citizens of another country (especialy an enemy country).
The government (in this case army), ideally, acts as extension of
you, as your agent. Now I know thats and ideal situation, and that
almost never happens as can be seen from the amount of posts on
this site. But in case of a war, justified or not, where the
government has put 'your' son or 'my son' in harms way, I expect
them to do everything necessary to make sure he comes back.
You are trying to muddy the point by talking about the unjustified
Iraq war (atleast that what Im assuming you are getting at). First,
I wasnt talking about the reasons of why a war is started, nor
wether one should be involved in a war or not. I was talking about
specific tactical decissions, like Hiroshima/Nagasaki or Dresden or
whatever... If army command feels that by nuking/bombing an area
and saving a number of soldiers' lives be it their own or allied,
but wiping out a score of 'innocent' civilians, then I feel they
are morraly and fully justifed to do so. And the ratio of saved to
killed does not have to be 1:1...
Anyway back to the definiton of terrorism.
Muslims Against Sharia|2.18.08 @ 9:35PM|#
Muslims Against Sharia congratulate the organization responsible
for elimination of terrorist Imad Mugniyeh on a job well
done!
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/02/targeted-killing-of-imad-mugniyeh.html
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245