What constitutes as "war?" What constitutes as "organized terrorism?"?

“Terrorism” is what they call it when you have a bomb but not a plane to drop it from.

@SmashTheState: you do realize this is in the “general” section and not the “social,” don’t you?

@Introverted_Leo That you don’t like my answer doesn’t make it inaccurate.

we are at war with an idea to keep it simple. I think its safe to say there aren’t many supporters of radicalized Muslim beliefs.

War is mostly utilised these days to:

a) punish terrorists and impress upon the world, the folly of even thinking terrorist thoughts, holding a sympathetic stance or even in some cases for not actively preventing it’s very possibility.

and

b) to enforce yet further and extend the very exploitative tendencies that incited terrorist activities in the first place.

Wars are no longer fought between nations with comparable weaponry. War is waged upon the weakly and terrorism generally waged against the powerful. Both sides, see both sides differing tactics as infuriating, but of course the asymmetry of the situation demands a strategy that is hardly honourable or gentlemanly, Queensbury rules don’t apply to a situation where a lightweight is pitched against Heavyweight.

Of course the application of terms such as terrorism is applied very selectively and always with eye on the propaganda.

Wars are things that happen between countries, implying things like legislation and sovereignty, recognition by foreign powers, a more-or-less stable economic base, citizens to look after, and some kind of organized society. Terrorism, on the other hand, is functionally more like coercion – i.e., “I’ll blow up your X if you don’t do Y.”
Beyond that, countries do not exist solely for war, whereas organized terrorist groups have no other purpose than to incite unrest.

As far as the United States goes, we can’t be “at war” unless Congress says so. This doesn’t stop the United States from having wars, as some people may notice. They’re just not official (and probably shouldn’t be marketed as such).

If you were in a perfect world, war would be more centered against military targets while terrorism would be less focused on military and more on targets of opportunity, such as people and buildings that aren’t, or cannot be, defended.

The “War on Terror” is similar to the “War on Drugs” in that it’s a catchy name that people can get behind (marketing).

“War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means.” This sounds trite, but is very illustrative of what we mean by “war.” Concisely, war is an active state of combat involving two or more “states” or “nations” recognized as such by the United Nations.

“Organized Terrorism,” may or may not involve one or more nations as listed above. It may or may not be sanctioned by one or more of the involved nations. As oppopsed to “war,” it is most often directed against civilian populations of the state or states opposed by those who direct or participate in terrorism, and is designed to sap the will of those who resist the agenda of the terrorists and those who support them.

@Introverted_Leo – First off, how awesome to see you here again!

I feel that war is two nations squaring off, with the exception of civil wars. And in those, one large portion of a state wishes to separate from the rest or the breakaway faction wants to overthrow the “legitimate” government. The English Civil War and the US Civil War are examples.

Organised terrorists can, but don’t have to, have the authority of any state to do what they do. Al-Qaeda is independent, though backed with some Saudi protection money, i.e., the Saudis will pay so that Al-Qaeda won’t conduct any terrorist operations there. The IRA was totally independent, and against the UK government that runs Northern Ireland. On the other hand, the Tonton Macoute was a Haitian terrorist organisation headed by Papa Doc Duvalier himself in order to maintain his power.

Since World War 11 it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between war and terrorism. With both civilians are in the front line. In the good old days soldiers fought face to face with soldiers now we all drop bombs upon the innocent. How can this ever be justified?

@SmashTheState: just so you know, my question was regarding organized terrorism, not terrorism, and I’m not disputing your definition of the latter. I would apprectiate it, though, if you’d read my question more fully before answering so I know you’re not posting just to be cute.

@Nullo: I find it interesting that you depict terrorism as a conditional element: “If you don’t do this, then we’re going to do that.” What scares me are the people and groups who use terror as a means to an end and don’t make any demands or name any conditions for their targets to meet.

For example, there’s this movie that came out (and I forget the name; maybe someone else knows) where a man makes several bomb threats against Americans and follows through with the first. The Americans are forced to bring him in for questioning. One woman is particularly adamant about preserving the man’s basic human rights, stipulated under the Geneva Convention. However, when the terrorist refuses to reveal the locations of the next bombings the Americans eventually give in to much rougher forms of interrogation; they go so far as to bring in the man’s wife and children and kill them before his own eyes.

In staying on topic, this guy was kind of a one-man-army, yet he caused so much unrest among the Americans and even pointed out the irony in their mission to fight terror: In doing so, they resigned to methods which many Americans would consider heinous and more fitting of a terrorist than a “freedom fighter.”

What he did was calculated. There was strong intent behind what he was doing. Would his deeds, then, be considered organized terrorism?

@mrentropy: I think there’s a psychological aspect behind it, as well. I found it interesting (amusing, even) when, after Obama was elected into office, Hillary Clinton announced that the administration would no longer be using the term “War on Terror.” But what has this decision really changed? The American perception of our involvement in the Middle East? The nature of the “unofficial” war itself?

Another thing: this War on Terror has been broadened war beyond the traditional front, involving more and more civilians. It’s a really scary thing. I know here in the states we’d like to go about our lives not letting the September 11 attack get the best of us, and declaring war on terrorism is perhaps meant to assuage our fears and reassure ourselves that hey, we don’t like getting screwed and we won’t put up with your ****. However, I’m not sure I’m convinced we’re any safer than we were before the attacks. Sure, we have evolved and adapted our ways, particularly when it comes to airport and flight safety, but it would be unrealistic not to expect our enemies to do the same—evolve, adapt.

One thing’s for sure: the attack on September 11 was highly organized, and it didn’t take an army to implement it.

@CaptainHarley: interesting quote, and I don’t find it at all trite. In fact, I think it begs another interesting question: What constitutes as diplomacy? Though, I digress. The relationship between diplomacy and war is too fascinating to fit into the scope of this discussion.

Again, you bring up the role civilians play in the schemes of organized terrorist groups. This, for me, is the scariest aspect of what they do and the reasons they do it. It doesn’t matter if you’ve never seen a terrorist in your life and aren’t a soldier; the fact that there are people out there who want to kill you because you don’t observe in or share their beliefs or ideals is, frankly, stark mad.

We are lucky we aren’t in the middle of the war zone like some of the countries in the middle east. I have to wonder, though: How long will this war last, and is it likely to encroach upon our doorstep a second time? How would we react if it did?

The side that includes Baptists and Mormons are the Organized Terrorists™. It’s highly significant.

@aprilsimnel: thanks! I did kinda drop off the face of the planet for a while, lol.

I find the more independent organizations…unsettling. I mentioned earlier my fascination of all this in the fictional area. There, they make for the kind of villains you love to hate; in real life, they’re just downright scary.

@flutherother: I know, right? I mean, for now I guess I feel relatively “safe,” but I’m kinda expecting things to get worse before they get better. The present feels like the calm before the storm…like the September 11 attack was just a preamble, a testing of our waters, and America hasn’t yet really seen the uglier side of it.

But maybe I’m just being fatalistic?

* * *

Just the other day I was listening to the radio. I had it on KFYI; Sean Hannity was on.

Now, normally I don’t listen to the guy because, as one of my dad’s friends put it, the man’s like a pit bull. He kinda rips opposing guests that he invites onto his show a new one, if you know what I mean. I don’t exactly admire his tactics.

However, he said something that kinda shocked me. That day he deliberately stated that we were losing the War on Terror. (It’s quite possible he was quoting Newt Gingrich, though. Guess I wasn’t listening too closely, lol.)

In any case, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say this before. I’m not sure if he was just talking out the side of his neck or what, but honestly, being in my safe corner of the world, I haven’t the slightest inkling of what’s really going down in the middle east, no idea as to our progress or lack thereof.

Maybe that just has to do with the fact that I’ve mostly stopped watching and listening to the news, idk. But I do feel quite disconnected to what’s going on over there. I have one family member who’s in the armed forces, and our relationship is estranged. The whole situation is rather alien to me, to be honest.

Still, I feel this is one of those defining issued for my generation, so it’s hard not to have an interest in it.

@Introverted_Leo

Nice to meet you. : ))

Yes, this sort of “asymmetric warfare” will intrude upon our lives again, and more likely sooner than later. As a matter of fact, I’ve very surprised that it hasn’t already done so. We will react in the same way we have always reacted, first with fright, then with resolve, and then with a drawing together that makes us stronger.

I and most other military veterans, don’t seem to react in quite the same way as many civilians who’ve never been in the military. On 9/11, my first response was rage, closely followed by finding the nearest US Army Recruiting Center and insisting on being allowed to re-enlist! LOL! They were very kind, but still told me I was too old and too disabled, and to go home and watch the war on CNN. SIGH!

Warfare in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have gone through many changes. I like the explanations Subcommandante Marcos of the EZLN has given regarding warfare after WWII, namely that the “Third World War” (the Cold War) was one of proxy battles mostly, and that the ”Fourth World War” is one being fought today in and even more abstracted way, namely through multinational corporations with the support of nation states stealing resources from local, mostly indigenous inhabitants as a way to further trade.

@Introverted_Leo

BTW… the obverse is true: diplomacy is war by other means. : )

If a nation can achieve its ends in the international arena via diplomacy, so much the better. They can avoid the horrible costs associated with war, and don’t risk losing as much. But it takes a well-coordinated effort to engage in successful dimplomacy, something democracies such as ours are not noted for, except in wartime!

Diplomacy is also a very delicate blancing act which can be disturbed by the slightest tremor. Look at the stir generated by Wikileaks, and we aren’t even trying to achieve major goals by diplomacy just now! Can you imagine what would happen if we were??

For those at the top in a country which has an effective military, it’s almost easier to go to war than to diplomacy!

Perhaps the above can help explain why so many of the “leaders” in the US since Woodrow WIlson have resorted to war so readily?

@Introverted_Leo There are many kinds of terrorist. You failed to properly specify which one you wanted, and so I used the extortionist kind that came to mind in the wee hours of the morning. As luck would have it, my brain answered a query for “terrorist” with this – itself referencing the sort of thing that you’d expect from the ELF.

@CaptainHarley: aw! Well, that’s interesting. I would never think to run towards the conflict. I guess that’s why I’m a civilian! Though, diplomacy, too, seems it takes some chops to be successful at. You’d have to be just as determined, if not more, than the person(s) sitting on the other side of the table. I’m not sure I’d be willing to try diplomacy on terrorists, though, heh. Or that it would even work.

About those presidents, perhaps that’s true. Sometimes I hear people say stuff like, “We should just nuke them.”

Yeah, right.

In the end, it’s just a big sticky, ugly situation.

@Nullo: I didn’t “want” any one type of terrorist; my question clearly was a broad query into organized terrorism and war. In any case, I had no problem with your original answer; I was merely pointing out an example of a case of terrorism where no demands were made and how I felt about that.

I think maybe it would be a little easier if our enemies made more demands of us, though, and made fewer things go boom. At least then there’d be an option for negotiations. There’s just not much room for chit-chat when suicide bombers and hijacked planes come flying outta nowhere. Plus, we’re still looking for the heads of some of these guys—hint-hint, bin Laden.

Of course, I’m sure anti-American terrorists are generally not interested in making life any easier for us to begin with, so that’s just wishful thinking.

@Introverted_Leo

I agree with your assessments of diplomacy and the practice thereof. : )

“I’m not sure I’d be willing to try diplomacy on terrorists, though, heh. Or that it would even work”

Diplomacy is only way to bring a permanent end to conflict. I can only think of Sri Lanka’s fight against the Tamil Tigers where terrorism has been defeated militarily, and it’s probably a little too soon to declare that conflict permanently over. The diplomacy doesn’t have to be with the terrorists directly however – remove their base support and their relevance quickly withers and influence dies. Of course force can alter the facts on the ground in a way that shapes the diplomacy, but force is unlikely to be enough in isolation. As the old saying goes, speak softly and carry a big stick.

@meiosis: that’s an interesting thought. I wonder what the base support of many terrorists groups would be, though. How do they get the funds and supplies to launch organized attacks in the first place?

@Introverted_Leo Legitimate resistance groups often have a wide base of support within the populace. The IRA was mostly made up of support networks, and only 2% ever picked up arms agains the British. Terrorist organizations tend to get support from organized crime, gun running, theft, etc. Not that these two groups are mutually exclusive, mind you, but I feel these are big signs in determining the validity of a resistance movement.

@meiosis In @incendiary_dan‘s second case, we come back to the ‘crazy demands’ type of terrorist, albeit by proxy – a group sponsored by, say, al-Qaeda, cannot be affected by diplomacy, if they are committed to their cause, and you can’t really afford to appease the backers.

@Introverted_Leo @Nullo Terrorist groups don’t operate in a vacuum and rely to some degree on tacit support from the public, such as not reporting suspicions, turning a blind-eye etc., all of which are easier to do if the public at large thinks that the terrorists have to some extent legitimate grievances. Think what you like of Al-Qaida etc., but they’ve tapped a genuine vein of grievance against the west in some parts of muslim public opinion (now you or I might not think the grievances are justified, but they definitely exist). It’s addressing these perceptions that is the task of diplomacy, not appeasing the criminals who run and fund these groups. If the USA had intelligently harnessed the massive worldwide expression of sympathy and goodwill it had in the immediate post 11th September aftermath (even Iran issued statements of revulsion at those crimes), instead of going in all guns blazing against ill defined and unknown enemies, maybe the world would be a safer place today.

I think that part of the confusion is that terrorism is a crime – it’s an umbrella term covering various violent acts intended to motivate change through fear.

All terrorism is, in essence, organized. I fear often when we call an organization “terrorist” it is more political than accurate, considering that there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism.

Crap—I just lost my gigantic post! GRRR…. * rewrites *

@meiosis: you bring up some good points. I guess, oddly, I’d never conciously recognized their ideology and beliefs as weapons before, but that makes sense. That is the perfect place for diplomats to do their work without “going all in guns blazing,” as you say.

I’m working on a fantasy novel right now with a fictional terrorist group, and one of my characters is a diplomat. However, she’s also a very capable woman who has a refined militant side to her that rears its ruthless head when diplomacy goes wrong and she decides to use her abilities to manipulate the element of metal to solve her problems, though she’s particularly discreet in the way she does this, as she’s been trained to do. She’s torn between her mission as a diplomat in a foreign country, trying to change people’s minds about the international organization (and her unique class of individuals with elemental abilities) that she represents and her frustration when violence looks to be the best option for dealing with a problem.

I guess this is where my questions originate from. I’m trying to explore both sides of using diplomacy versus violence and vice versa.

@iamthemob: (where’d you get that screen name from?! lol)

You bring up another good point. Realistically, criminals can inflict terror, and terrorists can commit crimes, which blurs things a bit. Perhaps the biggest difference between the two lies in their tactics and end goals.

It’s interesting how a carefully chosen label colors our view of our enemies. After September 11, I think the term “terrorist” has risen in scare factor above the term “criminal.” It’s like, “We’re not just fighting criminals; we are fighting terrorists! Get ‘em!!!” Psychologically, I think the term insinuates a stronger desire to go to war and use violence rather than diplomacy.

* * *

Last night on the web I found this recent article discussing the strategies of Al Qaeda, for example. Really interesting; I learned a few things. Also, I had no idea that charities played such a big role in funding terrorists! Donations from supporters make a lot of sense—for terrorists, anyway. As do front companies.

Anyhow, I’m glad to be reading all of your answers. It’s got me making new mental connections between things I hadn’t necessarily realized were all related before.

@meiosis I wouldn’t call it a legitimate grievance; a lot of those Muslims who hate us hate us because their imams tell them to.

@Nullo – The fact that there are irrational or illegitimate reasons for hatred towards the U.S./West doesn’t negate the fact that there are parallel legitimate grievances related to sovereignty, self-governance, foreign economic and environmental policies, etc.

@Introverted_Leo Sympathy lurve for you (I hate it when I lose my gigantic posts to web browsers – have to remember to use a text editor to help avoid that). Also, interesting articles.

@iamthemob And yet, that is almost entirely beside the point.

@Nullo – It’s essential to the point. Attributing the illegitimate grievances to all Muslims allows us to ignore any of our culpability (potential or actual) in whatever actions or situations are the result of those grievances.

Labeling something as “terrorist” becomes easier when we broadly claim that there are no legitimate claims underlying protest. When we emphasize the fact that many who do protest are influenced by illegitimate claims we push aside that possibility of legitimacy. So ideologically and thereafter almost idiomatically, we end up meaning “Muslim” when we say “Terrorist.”

When we don’t address legitimacy, terrorism becomes a buzzword empty of meaning – a political weapon.

@Nullo I specifically said it doesn’t matter whether or not we feel the grievances are justified, what matters is that terrorist groups gain strength from a groundswell of opinion that they have some degree of a case, even if that case is based on imagined grievances of a vague, nebulous idea that the west is attacking Islam. It’s possible to tackle grievances without accepting that the grievance is justified. What is essential, however, is to recognise that it exists.

And yes, many people are told to hate the west by fundamentalist imams, in pretty much the same way that some western media whip up blanket hostility to Islam. It’s all regrettable.