Question for Cain

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cain

The definition of "terrorism" has steadily changed over the years. You're correct to say that war has rules, and those rules were blatantly violated by the Founding Fathers in our American Revolution. Remember how the colonists resorted to "cowardly" guerrilla tactics against the British. We learn about that in fifth grade, and the situation does not go without comment from som especially patriotic young man, "Damn, those Brits are as dumb as they look."

-Cain, tired of using this tired example on this tired topic.

If you feel like you've had enough rest from this tired example on this tired subject to discuss it a bit more, I'd like to explore this idea a bit.

Is it your position that the use of terror, suicide bombings, etc. is just a natural evolution of war and as such have the same legitimacy (or lack of) as any operation by a trained and organized military?

[Dancing David]

Wjile waiting for Cain,

there has been a general use of terror in war, going back to when the painful thing began. I believe that the phrase decimation has something to do with killing prisoners or blinfing them.

In modern warfare it has become less acceptable to just destroy stuff because there is a war going on. I would say that in fact terrorism as part of war is in decline.(At least as practised by one or two nations)

[Cain]

I'll quote Christopher Hitchens because he had a few interesting comments on the definition of terrorism in an old _Slate_ column:

It's glib and evasive to say that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," because the "freedom fighters" are usually quite willing to kill their "own" civilians as well. But then, so are states. In an excellent recent essay in Newsweek, the conservative Fareed Zakaria points out that as between Russia and Chechnya, there is simply no comparison in the scope and scale and intensity of civilian-casualty infliction. Yeltsin and Putin win the filthy prize every time. I hate and despise Hezbollah and Palestinian suicide-murderers, as they ought to be called, but they'd have to work day and night for years to equal the total of civilians killed in Lebanon alone, or by Sharon alone. Lebanese and Palestinian irregulars are, by the way, entitled by international law to resist foreign occupation that has been internationally condemned. Fact. So when Sharon says—as he did on his visit to Ground Zero—that "there is no good terrorism and bad terrorism," he suggests a tautology that operates at his own expense. All parties to all wars will at some time employ terrorizing methods. But then everybody except a pacifist would be a potential supporter of terrorism. And if everything is terror, then nothing is—which would mean we had lost an important word of condemnation.

Is it your position that the use of terror, suicide bombings, etc. is just a natural evolution of war and as such have the same legitimacy (or lack of) as any operation by a trained and organized military?

Hitler's V2 rocket attacks against England were considered acts of terrorism. Truman dropped two atom bombs on Japan killing hundreds of thousands of people, but few people today call it terrorism. The purpose of the comment in the previous thread was that definitions of terrorism change over time if it's effective. I fail to see how state violence is legitimizing factor.

Another person in that thread, I believe, said terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians. If you're dropping bombs and acknowledging that X number of civilians will probably die, then those deaths are by no means an "accident" or "unintentional." You knew the likely outcome in advance.

I would say that in fact terrorism as part of war is in decline.(At least as practised by one or two nations)

I recall commentators a few years ago saying Yugoslavians will be less inclined to support Milosevic while bombs were falling on their heads.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Wjile waiting for Cain,

there has been a general use of terror in war, going back to when the painful thing began. I believe that the phrase decimation has something to do with killing prisoners or blinfing them.

In modern warfare it has become less acceptable to just destroy stuff because there is a war going on. I would say that in fact terrorism as part of war is in decline.(At least as practised by one or two nations)

Decimation was the Roman practise of punishing a body or troops who were believed to have not fought well in battle, or some other crime.

The troops would all line up, and one in ten of them was selected at random and executed. Hence, decimation, one in ten. Over time, the meaning of the word has changed to mean the routing of an army in battle.

But you are correct, terror has been with us as long as warfare.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
there has been a general use of terror in war, going back to when the painful thing began. I believe that the phrase decimation has something to do with killing prisoners or blinfing them.

Actually, it was killing one out of every ten.

There have indeed been travesties throughout the history of warfare: the poisoning of wells, the murdering of babies, etc. Just because something's gone on for a long time doesn't make it right.

This is the point I made here (and was jumped on for by pretty much everybody even though they could never give me a good answer for it) before the war when I pointed out that innocent civilians would be killed as a result. The excuse was that that's an unavoidable part of war; my point is that's exactly why it should only be used as a last resort.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cain
Hitler's V2 rocket attacks against England were considered acts of terrorism. Truman dropped two atom bombs on Japan killing hundreds of thousands of people, but few people today call it terrorism. The purpose of the comment in the previous thread was that definitions of terrorism change over time if it's effective. I fail to see how state violence is legitimizing factor. [/B]

So it’s not so much your opinion that terrorist acts are a natural evolution of war with the same legitimacy of other military actions, as it is to say that if these acts are successful, if the Palestinian-Arabs are able to use these attacks to pressure Israel into withdrawing and granting them sovereignty, that retroactively these actions will be defined as something other than terrorist and gain legitimacy that way?

Is that a fair summary of your opinion?

Originally posted by Cain
I fail to see how state violence is legitimizing factor. [/B]

Do you think state violence is ever legitimate? If so, when?

This is a separate issue, but I’m curious on this as well. I tried to get into it with AUP, but he wouldn’t answer.

[Cain]

So it’s not so much your opinion that terrorist acts are a natural evolution of war with the same legitimacy of other military actions, as it is to say that if these acts are successful, if the Palestinian-Arabs are able to use these attacks to pressure Israel into withdrawing and granting them sovereignty, that retroactively these actions will be defined as something other than terrorist and gain legitimacy that way?

If this is a normative question, then the answer is no. The original post you quoted offered only a descriptive explanation.

Do you think state violence is ever legitimate? If so, when?

I'm generally suspcious of whether or not governemtn as an institution is even legitimate. State violence and authority *can* be legitimate, I think, but it's not *self-legitimizing*. These distinctions are not entirely clear, but they make some sense. A person or institution that seeks to interfere in the lives of moral agents (or moral patients-e.g. an infant) in an authoritarian manner needs a justification. Power is not, as stated in similar terms a moment ago, self-justifying. So, yeah, I'm inclined to agree that it's okay for the government to forcibly restrain person X in his attempt to murder person Y (all things being equal).

[Mycroft]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cain

If this is a normative question, then the answer is no. The original post you quoted offered only a descriptive explanation. /QUOTE]

Could you elaborate?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cain
I'm generally suspcious of whether or not governemtn as an institution is even legitimate. State violence and authority *can* be legitimate, I think, but it's not *self-legitimizing*. These distinctions are not entirely clear, but they make some sense. A person or institution that seeks to interfere in the lives of moral agents (or moral patients-e.g. an infant) in an authoritarian manner needs a justification. Power is not, as stated in similar terms a moment ago, self-justifying. So, yeah, I'm inclined to agree that it's okay for the government to forcibly restrain person X in his attempt to murder person Y (all things being equal). /QUOTE]

Fair enough, I think we can all think of examples of illegitimate government actions.

[Mycroft]

Cain?

[Dancing David]

ShaneK:
You and I are in perfect agreement, killing non-combatants is wrong. Always has been, always will be. The decision of the High Command to bomb the shot out of the german and japanese civilians was a strategic one. Still a really bad choice.

It has been often justified as a way of shortening the war. Got to wonder....

[American]

Is it your position that the use of terror, suicide bombings, etc. is just a natural evolution of war and as such have the same legitimacy (or lack of) as any operation by a trained and organized military?


I understand why you are asking. I think you need to understand that it doesn't matter; those tactics WILL be used. Whether or not they SHOULD be means absolutely nothing. To debate the issue is the same as burying your head in the sand.

The sooner we accept the reality that terrorists will never "fight fair", the sooner we ourselves shall untie our hands and use any unconventional means to stop and kill the enemy before they kill us.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by American
I understand why you are asking. I think you need to understand that it doesn't matter; those tactics WILL be used. Whether or not they SHOULD be means absolutely nothing. To debate the issue is the same as burying your head in the sand.

The sooner we accept the reality that terrorists will never "fight fair", the sooner we ourselves shall untie our hands and use any unconventional means to stop and kill the enemy before they kill us.

I agree. I'm trying to discover the logical basis behind moral equivalency. Cain seems to represent that point of view as well as anyone, so I’m asking him.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
ShaneK:
You and I are in perfect agreement, killing non-combatants is wrong. Always has been, always will be. The decision of the High Command to bomb the shot out of the german and japanese civilians was a strategic one. Still a really bad choice.

It has been often justified as a way of shortening the war. Got to wonder....
All people under the enemy government are either directly combatants or indirectly combatants. A person under the enemy government might not be firing at your troops, but he is paying taxes to the government which is supplying the guys who are firing at your troops.

The main problem with killing civilians is there's often too many of them for one to inflict enough casualties among them to get the enemy government to surrender.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by American

The sooner we accept the reality that terrorists will never "fight fair", the sooner we ourselves shall untie our hands and use any unconventional means to stop and kill the enemy before they kill us.

I disagree. We need to be willing to kill to fight terrorists, but there are certain things we should never do. We should never torture suspected sympathisers, for example. Certain methods have blowback that we need to avoid. And that blowback comes from more than just ill-will from others. When troops or police learn to use methods like torture, it damages them. They end up not being able to function without using such methods, and run too high a risk of misusing it. We cripple ourselves if we stoop too low. So for our own sake, we cannot use "any unconventional means" in this war.

[shanek]

Originally posted by JAR
All people under the enemy government are either directly combatants or indirectly combatants. A person under the enemy government might not be firing at your troops, but he is paying taxes to the government which is supplying the guys who are firing at your troops.

At gunpoint. If someone robs me, and uses the money to buy a gun to kill you with, am I "indirectly" your murderer?

[Cain]

Originally posted by Cain:

If this is a normative question, then the answer is no. The original post you quoted offered only a descriptive explanation.

Originally posted by Mycroft

Could you elaborate?

The original posting only attempts to describe how past victors have legitimized what was once condemned as terrorism. This is not to suggest that these acts, now accepted by the state, are morally acceptable. An is-ought distinction.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cain
Originally posted by Cain:
The original posting only attempts to describe how past victors have legitimized what was once condemned as terrorism. This is not to suggest that these acts, now accepted by the state, are morally acceptable. An is-ought distinction.

So your intent was to refute Rikzilla’s ”War has rules…” argument by pointing out that rules of war have been violated before only to have retroactive legitimacy bestowed by the victors, which was in your opinion illegitimate?

Am I getting closer?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870108423&highlight=Revolution#post1870108423

Link to previous thread posted just for future reference.

[JAR]

Originally posted by shanek


At gunpoint. If someone robs me, and uses the money to buy a gun to kill you with, am I "indirectly" your murderer?
Well, soldiers often are just following orders when they fire at their enemy, in fact they might get in trouble if they don't do it, just as people might get in trouble if they don't pay taxes, but a robber generally chooses to rob people so it's not the same. I don't think robbers are comparable to soldiers.

The robber would be more comparable to the leader of the enemy country who pulls the strings of his puppet-like subjects and among those puppet-subjects are the soldiers and taxpayers who have their free will robbed by the robber-like head of government. We could insist on not killing his subjects because they don't choose to aid him in killing our troops, but then we wouldn't stand a chance at getting at him.

[shanek]

Originally posted by JAR
I don't think robbers are comparable to soldiers.

No, but they are comparable to tax collectors, which is what I was referring to. You said the citizens were responsible because their tax money was used. But that money was stolen from them, just as with the robber.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mycroft


So your intent was to refute Rikzilla’s ”War has rules…” argument by pointing out that rules of war have been violated before only to have retroactive legitimacy bestowed by the victors, which was in your opinion illegitimate?

Am I getting closer?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870108423&highlight=Revolution#post1870108423

Link to previous thread posted just for future reference.

Cain?

[Cain]

Mycroft- I'm not sure what you find so fascinating about this subject. Or maybe it's just me: the original post closes by noting that I'm tired of that tired topic.

So your intent was to refute Rikzilla’s ”War has rules…” argument by pointing out that rules of war have been violated before only to have retroactive legitimacy bestowed by the victors, which was in your opinion illegitimate?

In the link posted I began by agreeing that war has rules, but those rules constantly change and evolve. Acts of terrorism become co-opted, incorporated and legitimized (in the legal rather than moral sense of the term).

None of this is to suggest that the rules of war evolve in linear fashion. Long ago the victors killed all the men and enslaved and impregnated the women. I believe in Medieval times enemy soldiers were ransomed rather than murdered (owing more to economic rather than moral factors). I definitely prefer the second situation to the first. In other ways, say dropping bombs from 30,000 feet on civilian populations, the rules of war probably changed for the worse (technological factors).

Moral positions are open to debate (Hiroshima, Dresden, etc) but those concerns (i.e. ethically just and unjust forms of violence) are secondary to the political reality.