The morality of terrorism.

[andyandy]

The religion and philosophy section seems somewhat bogged down with God talk, so how about a nonreligious centred discussion on socially accepted divisions of morality?

As a start point, most people in (say) Britain would find it morally acceptable to engage in war under certain circumstances for a cause which was considered just. And a consequence of that support would include the recognition that "collateral damage" (or the inadvertent killing of innocent civilians to be less emotionally cool) would occur, however unfortunately.

And by a similar large majority most people in Britain would find it morally unacceptable for someone to engage in suicide (or non-suicide) bombing in which innocent civilians were explicitly targeted and killed.

The question is how morally distinct are the two actions?
Both are actions which are undertaken for (what is believed to be) the greater good. A cause which is sufficiently important that the death of innocent civilians can be justified. If we simply restrict ourselves to examining the cause itself, we have to ask ourselves whether any cause could be sufficiently just to justify explicitly targeting innocent civilians to bring about its success? Perhaps the gut reaction is no, but we have a long (if contentious) history of wars in which bombing raids were conducted against civilian populations (most famously in World War II). Such actions were justified because the line between "innocent civilian" and "enemy national" no longer really existed in the minds of the perpetrators. But if the definition of "innocent civilian" is a fluid one, able to be co-opted by the perpetrators in consideration of their greater cause, then someone who stands in the way of that greater cause, or actively opposes it can be redefined as one of the "enemy" and therefore a morally justifiable target.

We could instead restrict ourselves to considerations of the distinction between explicitly targeting civilians and accepting the necessary if unfortunate consequence of their deaths. But a rewording of the actual situations blurs the distinction somewhat:

Both actions are undertaken for the (perceived) greater good. Both actions are undertaken in the explicit knowledge that innocent civilians will die. Both actions do not see the deaths of civilians as an end to themselves but as a necessary consequence in trying to achieve that greater good.

So is the only distinction left the state of mind following the action? If one celebrates, the action is morally unacceptable, but if one mourns then it is morally acceptable? But how can the morality of an action be judged by a personal emotional response? The action should be able to be judged independently of subjective joy or sadness.

To maybe finish with a thought experiment:

I am an anti-globalisation protester. My cause I believe in absolutely, it is causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths (in my opinion) and as such it is a greater good which the deaths of innocent civilians can be justified, even though I find this unfortunate. I walk into my local branch of McDonald's with a loaded machine gun and start shooting. I accept that some innocent diners may be hit or even killed, but this is not my actual target. I want to destroy the businesses itself by targeting the people who work behind the counter (I don't consider them innocent civilians because they work for the evil Empire).

I think most people would hold me entirely culpable for the deaths of any innocent civilians who died as a result of my actions. Leaving the just cause to one side (for a just cause can always be found) is my responsibility simply governed by how hard I try to avoid civilian deaths? In any war there is always more that could have been done to try and avoid civilian deaths, but often such actions would lessen strategic impact (such as advanced warning). Where therefore should the division of morality lie?

(And as a pre-emptive strike, this is the philosophy section and not the politics section, please could political discussion be left at the door. :) and no, I don't think that suicide bombings of innocent civilians are acceptable in a civilised society, but I want to examine the philosophical justification for this belief when I do find just wars unacceptable).

It might even be useful in provoking greater understanding of the radicalisation process and how (in many cases) intelligent and seemingly rational people can justify suicide bombings which target civilians. Where should we draw the distinction, and how can we do so within a morally consistent framework?

[AgeGap]

Intent? Mens rea? What about how the events have spin applied to them?

[Kopji]

I don't think that terrorism can be understood from a moral or philosophical perspective. Terrorism is a made-up word that describes a social-political activity that evolves over time and is always there. A terrorist is someone who exists at the fringe of a political activity spectrum. That they exist is not anyone's fault: a terrorist is part of the political landscape just as protesters, candidates, or voters are.

I have no doubt that given the right circumstances any of us has the potential to exist on the fringe as a 'terrorist': If your armies marched through to my streets or home, accidentally kill my family or neighbors. They are accepted as collateral damage to your cause. Am I a patriot or a terrorist for opposing your version of the greater good?

But I am not a terrorist sympathizer. Terrorism is a chaotic act more like dropping nuclear bombs on cities. We will not know what direction the future will take until the bomb drops and we see the effects with all the power of today's nearly instant communications. Likewise, terrorism is an activity that does not achieve expected or predictable results. It is beyond the reach of philosophy or morality, and exists as a kind of irrationality.

If terrorism is part of the political landscape, is a chaotic and irrational part.

It is what we do that matters, taking responsibility for our actions. It is impossible for a terrorist to take responsibility for their actions.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's terrorism if it fulfills two conditions: It must be violence directed at civilians for political ends, and it must be someone else doing it. If we do/did it, it's isn't/wasn't terrorism.

[rocketdodger]

It's terrorism if it fulfills two conditions: It must be violence directed at civilians for political ends, and it must be someone else doing it. If we do/did it, it's isn't/wasn't terrorism.

That is sort of a redundant statement, isn't it?

I don't buy that any western secular country directs violence at civilians for political ends. Thus, it must be someone else doing it.

[rocketdodger]

The question is how morally distinct are the two actions?


In scenario 1, the civilians are not the enemy. We, in western secular countries, do not consider average humans trying to make a living and raise a family to be a particularly nasty threat.

In scenario 2, they are. Fundamentalists (regardless of who they are) do consider average humans trying to make a living and raise a family to be a particularly nasty threat. In fact, they consider them to be the primary threat.

Even if terrorists had the option to attack military targets, they wouldn't. Why? Because they don't have a problem with the military -- they have already demonstrated that they don't give a squat about dying -- they have a problem with people.

[autumn1971]

That is sort of a redundant statement, isn't it?

I don't buy that any western secular country directs violence at civilians for political ends. Thus, it must be someone else doing it.
Without venturing into the political, first-world countries generally don't direct violence at their own citizens for political ends.
This is an improvement, but not perfection.

The discussion of the justifiability of "terrorism" is influenced by the specific degree to which one believes that a cause is so good that an evil or two may be overlooked. Rarely, in cases where emotional involvement has gotten to the point of accepting violence, is a detailed accounting of good v. bad going to be undertaken.

[Kevin_Lowe]

That is sort of a redundant statement, isn't it?

I don't buy that any western secular country directs violence at civilians for political ends. Thus, it must be someone else doing it.

When Al Qaeda blow up Spanish civilians to get the the Spanish government to do what Al Qaeda wants, it's terrorism and it's not the Spanish government's fault that civilians die.

When the USA destroys Iraq's water purification plants in violation of the Geneva conventions, and then enforces an embargo on the basic medical necessities required to treat water-borne diseases until the Iraqi government does what the USA wants, it's not terrorism and it's the Iraqi government's fault that civilians die.

According to mainstream political discourse, anyway.

Either way, someone decides that civilians are going to die so that their political vision can come closer to fulfillment. Possibly because they see no other way of getting what they want, possibly because the way they choose suits them best.

As a quick check against hypocrisy, before you present some defence of terrorism by the powerful, ask yourself if you would buy the same excuse from Al Qaeda. Excuses like "but we couldn't see anyway of getting what we wanted except killing lots of innocent civilians!" or "we're bringing about a better world for everybody, so we get to kill civilians if we want to!' don't sound convincing if we put them in Al Qaeda's mouth, so it's pure special pleading to accept them as defences of anyody else.

[FireGarden]

In scenario 1, the civilians are not the enemy. We, in western secular countries, do not consider average humans trying to make a living and raise a family to be a particularly nasty threat.

In scenario 2, they are. Fundamentalists (regardless of who they are) do consider average humans trying to make a living and raise a family to be a particularly nasty threat. In fact, they consider them to be the primary threat.

Could you give a quote to support your claim?
Bin Laden targets civilians because he says they are responsible for the actions of their governments:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3483

On February 12, the statements of Osama bin Laden were reviewed in the New York Times by NYU law professor Noah Feldman. He described bin Laden's descent into utter barbarism, reaching the depths when he advanced "the perverse claim that since the United States is a democracy, all citizens bear responsibility for its government's actions, and civilians are therefore fair targets." Utter depravity, no doubt.

Two days later, the lead story in the Times casually reported that the United States and Israel are joining bin Laden in the lower depths of depravity. Palestinians offended the masters by voting the wrong way in a free election. The population must therefore be punished for this crime.

Bin Laden in his own words:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

In today's wars, there are no morals. We believe the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets.

Even if terrorists had the option to attack military targets, they wouldn't.

They do attack military targets. (In addition to non-military targets). Was the marine barracks attack in Lebanon a terrorist attack? U.S. Vice President George H. W. Bush toured the Marine bombing site on October 26 and said the U.S. "would not be cowed by terrorists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

Count up the civilian casualties in that attack and compare them to the number of dead soldiers. It is still called terrorism.

The bombing was categorised by the United States as an act of terrorism.[24]:191 Under international law, peacekeepers are regarded as non-combatants due to their peacekeeping role, but in Lebanon the U.S. Marines had become allied with the Maronite Christians and were actively engaging in battles, thus waiving their non-combatant status.[24]:191 The U.S. still categorised this attack as an act of terror as it was directed against off-duty servicemen, which the U.S. defines as non-combatants. However, no international law defines sleeping or off-duty servicemen as non-combatants.

[FireGarden]

To maybe finish with a thought experiment:

I am an anti-globalisation protester. My cause I believe in absolutely, it is causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths (in my opinion) and as such it is a greater good which the deaths of innocent civilians can be justified, even though I find this unfortunate. I walk into my local branch of McDonald's with a loaded machine gun and start shooting. I accept that some innocent diners may be hit or even killed, but this is not my actual target. I want to destroy the businesses itself by targeting the people who work behind the counter (I don't consider them innocent civilians because they work for the evil Empire).

What if we were to modify this a little. Let's suppose your problem is with a government and that you do consider the employees behind the counter to be innocent. And the customers, too.

So, instead of opening fire, you make a demand. You say "Take me to an army barracks and surround me with soldiers who are as easy to kill as these people before me."

The civilians before you, of course, are still terrified. So it doesn't solve that problem. No military action can. I'm sure that "shock and awe" scared plenty of civilians.

But, if the government agrees, then other terrorists might adopt the same strategy and civilians would no longer die in such attacks. Of course, it is impossible that the government would agree.

So, let's say the government disagrees. The terrorists that follow don't make the offer. But they can now pretend that the deaths of civilians is not their fault -- they've offered their enemy an alternative where only soldiers die.

Does that argument sound like anything other than horse-radishes?

Bin Laden admits he targets civilians and finds excuses for that. More horse-radishes.

Kissinger (king of horse-radishes): "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

But that's kind of the opposite of terrorism: attacking a government to change the minds of the citizens.

So is the only distinction left the state of mind following the action? If one celebrates, the action is morally unacceptable, but if one mourns then it is morally acceptable?

This certainly seems to be a factor.
When Israel dropped a bomb on a building, killing 15 people including 9 children, they said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2148548.stm

Those who decided to go ahead with the operation were "apparently not aware" that they were releasing a bomb onto a densely-populated area, otherwise they would not have done it, he [Peres] said.

[...] Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was quoted by the Israeli press as saying that if Israel had known there were so many civilians in the building, another way would have been found to kill the man who headed their country's wanted list.

Horse radishes, as far as I'm concerned. They didn't know Gaza was densely populated?

It might even be useful in provoking greater understanding of the radicalisation process and how (in many cases) intelligent and seemingly rational people can justify suicide bombings which target civilians.

They keep telling us why they do it. Studies have been conducted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terro rism

The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.

[Pardalis]

Maybe the martyrdom aspect of suicide attacks greatly appealed to Islamists, but weren't suicide attacks originally brought to the Middle East by the Japanese Red Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Red_Army), and then the Palestinians adopted it?

[gumboot]

The question "how morally distinct are the two?" seems odd.

How morally distinct is manslaughter and murder?

Enormously.

Intent is everything.

[FireGarden]

I'm not saying that the following stories are true. But they might illustrate the point better than the above hypotheticals.

Regarding the bombing in Pakistan, yesterday.

CIA officers may have been the target:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/senior-cia-officers-were-target-of-islamabad-blast_10097943.html

Several senior officers of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who are reported to be currently visiting Islamabad were the target of the blast at the Marriott Hotel which took place here tonight.

People outside the hotel warned to run for their lives:
http://geo.tv/9-20-2008/25303.htm

Witnesses said before the suicide blast, a small vehicle hit the security barrier outside the hotel, a man emerged from it and warned the people present there that they had only three minutes time to run away and save their lives.

If true, would it make the civilian losses more acceptable to anyone?

(Both stories via the anti-war website, which I know some don't like. But it was where I found the stories.
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/09/20/at-least-60-killed-257-injured-in-pakistans-911/

You'll also find a claim that 30 US marines were in the hotel at the time. Like I said, I'm using it for the sake of debate rather than saying it's true.)

[rocketdodger]

Without venturing into the political, first-world countries generally don't direct violence at their own citizens for political ends.
This is an improvement, but not perfection.

First, if you can give examples of a first-world military explicitly targeting civilians, I would appreciate it, because I can't think of any.

Second, if you do find such examples, I would condemn them as terrorism.

[bokonon]

First, if you can give examples of a first-world military explicitly targeting civilians, I would appreciate it, because I can't think of any.

Second, if you do find such examples, I would condone them as terrorism.
I'd say the firebombing of Tokyo, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would probably qualify. And I assume you mean "condemn".

[rocketdodger]

When Al Qaeda blow up Spanish civilians to get the the Spanish government to do what Al Qaeda wants, it's terrorism and it's not the Spanish government's fault that civilians die.

Perhaps I am just a biased westerner, but I do not believe Al Qaeda's only beef is with western governments. Their beef is with the west. See the difference?

When the USA destroys Iraq's water purification plants in violation of the Geneva conventions, and then enforces an embargo on the basic medical necessities required to treat water-borne diseases until the Iraqi government does what the USA wants, it's not terrorism and it's the Iraqi government's fault that civilians die.

First, I don't know enough about those events to make any sort of a decision, but I would guess that there was some kind of military value to these operations.

Second, if you are right, and they did it purely to extort the Iraqi government with civilians, then it is clearly terrorism, and anyone who thinks otherwise has their head up their ***.

Either way, someone decides that civilians are going to die so that their political vision can come closer to fulfillment. Possibly because they see no other way of getting what they want, possibly because the way they choose suits them best.

Alright, I was going to respond, but in doing so I think I understand what you guys are saying, and I agree somewhat.

So you are saying that although terrorists target civilians, they might still view those civilian deaths as "unfortunate" and possibly would rather have their goals met with less bloodshed, but they just don't see any other way?

That seems logical, but you are assuming that terrorists goals are strictly political. And it is that assumption that I take issue with. For starters, people typically don't blow themselves up to meet "political" goals.

As a quick check against hypocrisy, before you present some defence of terrorism by the powerful, ask yourself if you would buy the same excuse from Al Qaeda. Excuses like "but we couldn't see anyway of getting what we wanted except killing lots of innocent civilians!" or "we're bringing about a better world for everybody, so we get to kill civilians if we want to!' don't sound convincing if we put them in Al Qaeda's mouth, so it's pure special pleading to accept them as defences of anyody else.

As a quick check, ask yourself if you would, for the sake of argument, agree to western militaries swapping resources with Al Qaeda.

[rocketdodger]

I'd say the firebombing of Tokyo, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would probably qualify. And I assume you mean "condemn".

Ouch. See I completely forgot about pre-1990 history. Well... I'll just shut up now..

Yeah I meant condemn, sorry ... the better I get at programming the worse I become at speaking...

For what it is worth, I condemn those operations as terrorism.

The question is, do you think we would do the same thing again? I like to think the answer is "no," but I am not sure. What do you think?

[bokonon]

I'm not sure either. I think we're still capable of pure barbarism, and whether we ever do such things again will depend on circumstances which are impossible to predict in advance. Immediately after 9/11, there was talk from many about turning the middle east into a glassy parking lot. Today, we have largely suspended habeas corpus for those who we label "unlawful enemy combatants," though the courts may eventually do the right thing there.

I think our ideals are largely the correct ones, but are too often sacrificed on the altar of expediency.

[rocketdodger]

Could you give a quote to support your claim?

The only evidence of that claim is human nature. You can make what you will of that.

History has shown us that fundamentalists don't play nice with others. It is that simple. Either their way or the high-way. And by high-way I mean painful death.

So if Al Qaeda (or Fred Phelps, whoever) could magically remove all military opposition to their cause, what do you think would happen? Do you think they would sit back and say "ok, our homeland is clear of infidels, let us live in peace?"

I don't think so. I think they would then complain about the "moral corruption" bleeding into their "homeland" from the west. And if they found a way to stop that, they would complain about how their "homeland" isn't as big as it should be, because, after all, they are right and we are wrong.

I mean, I could just be a scared westerner conditioned by our media to fear darker skin. Except that we have our own fundamentalists, and we know exactly what would happen if we let them get what they want. And we have history books, so we know what has happened when previous fundamentalists got what they wanted. So although I of course allow that I may be wrong here, I seriously doubt it.


They do attack military targets. (In addition to non-military targets). Was the marine barracks attack in Lebanon a terrorist attack?

No, it was not. At least, not in my opinion. I have no problem with "insurgents" using whatever means possible to fight an occupying force (or any force, for that matter).

But these types of attacks are rare. And that is why the islamic fundamentalists trying to expel occupying forces from their homeland are not partisans, they are terrorists. You don't blow up your own people in order to stop an occupying force of foreigners. You blow up your own people because your world is imploding around you and you would rather die to spend eternity with 72 virgins than live to see earthly women have more rights. It is just that simple.

[Soapy Sam]

When you kill people in order to make them, or someone else, do what you want, you are doing something immoral, in my book.
Whether you do it with a cruise missile or a fertiliser bomb is beside the point.

But what if you kill people through inaction - for example by failing to feed them when you have food and they are starving? Would this be worse if you let them starve because you need their land, or because you just don't care?

Terrorists care.

So caring isn't always good, either.

I don't know. I think I'll go and talk to my neighbour's dog. He asks easier questions- like " Gonna throw the stick?"

[kerikiwi]

When you kill people in order to make them, or someone else, do what you want, you are doing something immoral, in my book.


So it was immoral to fight against Nazi Germany? A lot of people wanted to make Hitler and company stop what they were doing.

[andyandy]

The question "how morally distinct are the two?" seems odd.

How morally distinct is manslaughter and murder?

Enormously.

Intent is everything.

I agree that this is where the distinction seems most obvious. But would we still regard an action as manslaughter if a person indulging in that action knew that deaths would result as a consequence? I don't think we would.

Say for example I live next door to a 24-hour music practice studio which makes my life a living hell through the constant noise. I can't sell my house due to significant negative equity. I've tried everything in my power to make them stop but I have failed. This cause is therefore hugely important to me, so important that I'm willing to accept the deaths of innocent people to realise my goal. I set fire to the building, knowing full well that people may be inside and that my actions might result in their deaths. If I was caught, and if someone was burned to death, would I be tried for manslaughter or murder? My primary intent was not to kill people, but to make my life bearable again. I simply accepted that people might die as a result of my actions and carried them out anyway. I would suggest that most criminal courts in most countries would regard me as a murderer and try me as such.

Perhaps the terrorist would celebrate the death of innocent civilians in the pursuit of their cause, and the "good guys" would mourn the death of innocent civilians in the pursuit of their cause, but they both would have carried out their actions in the full knowledge of the consequences. How about if the terrorists regarded the deaths of civilians as "collateral damage" for the greater cause? Because their primary intent was not to kill civilians but to use the terrorist attack to further their cause (whatever that might be).

[Kevin_Lowe]

The question "how morally distinct are the two?" seems odd.

How morally distinct is manslaughter and murder?

Enormously.

Intent is everything.

Not quite that distinct.

I'd say it's more like the difference between premeditated murder for the fun of it, and premeditated murder in order to get something you want.

[rocketdodger]

How about if the terrorists regarded the deaths of civilians as "collateral damage" for the greater cause? Because their primary intent was not to kill civilians but to use the terrorist attack to further their cause (whatever that might be).

In that case, we can ask "is their cause righteous?"

[andyandy]

In that case, we can ask "is their cause righteous?"

We can, but as soon as we judge the morality of the action based on the underlying cause then we implicitly accept that suicide bombing against innocent civilians may be morally justified as long as the cause itself is suitably important. Having arrived at this position we can no longer claim to not understand how people can commit such acts. If one believes that one's cause is suitably important (as many terrorists obviously do) then the action remains on the table as a legitimate option.

[kerikiwi]

Having arrived at this position we can no longer claim to not understand how people can commit such acts.

I am not sure that is the basis for finding such acts evil. I can easily understand how people can commit such acts but not in any way condone them.

[rocketdodger]

We can, but as soon as we judge the morality of the action based on the underlying cause then we implicitly accept that suicide bombing against innocent civilians may be morally justified as long as the cause itself is suitably important. Having arrived at this position we can no longer claim to not understand how people can commit such acts. If one believes that one's cause is suitably important (as many terrorists obviously do) then the action remains on the table as a legitimate option.

Well, according to the criteria in the OP, yes.

Except, a great deal of people in western countries do not accept collateral damage. Perhaps that is unrealistic of them, perhaps it isn't. I happen to be one of those people. So you should be more specific when you say "we."

Furthermore, many people (again, like myself) would not find justification for suicide bombing in any case because of the inherent stupidity in the act. If you want to kill civilians, fine -- that is pretty low, but I guess they gotta do what they gotta do. But why take their own life in the process? That is just stupid.

In fact, I find it to be more distasteful than the killing of innocent civilians.

[Soapy Sam]

So it was immoral to fight against Nazi Germany? A lot of people wanted to make Hitler and company stop what they were doing.

Was it immoral? I don't know. It was necessary. That doesn't make it moral. Historical perspective makes it appear moral- but how moral was the firebombing of Dresden?
Is it the action which is immoral, or the person pursuing the action?

For many people, it was fight or die- . For others, it was fight, or let your political / economic / cultural system be taken over by Nazi Germany.
For some it was a less personally urgent decision. There were American pilots fighting in the Battle of Britain- their country was not threatened, they might have been safely at home. Were their actions on a moral par with those of the Polish pilots whose land had already been overrun? Even the few who were primarily there for the excitement and the glamour?

The Poles, Americans and British pilots were fighting the same enemy, but each had got there via a series of very different decisions.
Can we assign each a different moral value?
If so, can we accept that people on the other side may have had a similar spectrum of morality? Was it less morally reprehensible to shoot a Russian if you were in the Wehrmacht than if you were in the Waffen SS?

If moral behaviour is defined by society, then the conscientious objector is immoral and the deserter in the face of the enemy deserves to die, irrespective of which side he is on. But surely- surely that's ants, not humans.

Moral absolutes disturb me as much as moral relativism.
At the end of the day , perhaps morality is not a property of behaviour, but of people.

[Kevin_Lowe]

In that case, we can ask "is their cause righteous?"

So is the conclusion going to be that it's not terrorism to kill civilians in a righteous cause?

That would be hugely convenient. Now all you have to do is define righteous.

[Skeptical Greg]

Forgive me if this was mentioned , and I overlooked it .. But ...

I believe there is some truth to the saying ' that the only difference between terrorists and legitimate governments, is that the terrorists can't afford airplanes to deliver their bombs '...

[I Ratant]

"the end justifies the means"...
http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/machiavell_bfa.html
.
Cf. [Ovid Heroides ii. 85] exitus acta probat, the outcome justifies the deeds. The negative of this is also often asserted.

The ende good, doeth not by and by make the meanes good.
[1583 G. Babington Exposition of Commandments 260]

The End must justify the Means: He only Sins who Ill intends.
[1718 M. Prior Literary Works (1971) I. 186]

‘The police don't like to have their bodies moved.’‥‘In this case the end justifies the means.’
[1941 ‘H. Bailey’ Smiling Corpse 238]

The conservatives' war on drugs is an example of good intentions that have had unfortunate consequences. As often happens with noble causes, the end justifies the means, and the means of the drug war are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and our civil liberties.
[2001 Washington Times 2 Aug. A16]
.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/27713

[rocketdodger]

So is the conclusion going to be that it's not terrorism to kill civilians in a righteous cause?

That would be hugely convenient. Now all you have to do is define righteous.

Not really, since I made it clear in another post that I don't condone the killing of civilians in any case.

It is those that do who must define righteous -- and they do, all the time.

[geni]

Forgive me if this was mentioned , and I overlooked it .. But ...

I believe there is some truth to the saying ' that the only difference between terrorists and legitimate governments, is that the terrorists can't afford airplanes to deliver their bombs '...

They probably can. Light aircraft are fairly cheap these days. Carl Gustaf von Rosen managed during the Biafran War. Although his targets tended to be millitry.

The tamil tigers have carried out a few air attacks

[geni]

Not really, since I made it clear in another post that I don't condone the killing of civilians in any case.

Easy to do if civilians stayed completely univolved. They tend not to. Even if they don't pick up weapons they provide the support network for fighters and often the intelligence as well. Few gerillia groups can continue to operate once the civilian population has been effectively neutralised.

[rocketdodger]

Easy to do if civilians stayed completely univolved. They tend not to. Even if they don't pick up weapons they provide the support network for fighters and often the intelligence as well. Few gerillia groups can continue to operate once the civilian population has been effectively neutralised.

Yes but I don't think that is what we are talking about here.

I think we are talking about things like deciding to bomb a military factory in the middle of a slum, accepting that a few civilians in the surrounding buildings will get wasted as well.

As a civilian myself, sitting on my computer in my kushy life, I don't condone that. If I was a soldier, and had to face the products of that factory on the battlefield, I might think differently. But that is why civilians, in their kushy lives, make policy rather than soldiers.

And for the record I don't condone sending soldiers to die either. There are technological answers for every problem.

[geni]

Yes but I don't think that is what we are talking about here.

I think we are talking about things like deciding to bomb a military factory in the middle of a slum, accepting that a few civilians in the surrounding buildings will get wasted as well.

Why? Where do you think the people in the slum work? Odds are that burning the slum would cause a fair bit of damage to the enermies ability to fight the war.


And for the record I don't condone sending soldiers to die either. There are technological answers for every problem.

People tend to feel that ICBMs lack finess. There are also times when it is useful to have infrastructure left intact.

[drkitten]

I believe there is some truth to the saying ' that the only difference between terrorists and legitimate governments, is that the terrorists can't afford airplanes to deliver their bombs '...

I disagree, and the examples of "western-sponsored terrorism" that have been given seem to confirm me in my disagreement.

There's a key difference that the OP mentions that seems to have been to some extent overlooked, which is the targeting of civilians instead of something else, like infrastructure.

The Dresden firebombing, for example, was an attack, admittedly with unconventional weapons, against a major rail nexus. The Nagasaki atomic bombing was an attack against the Mitsubishi shipyards -- again, admittedly with unconventional weapons.

I propose the following thought-experiment. Imagine that the attacker had the option of clearing all people (or at least, all civilian people) out of harm's way before the attack happened. Somehow, we managed to get every civilian at least twenty-five miles away from Nagasaki an hour before dropping the bomb. Would it still have been worth the effort to drop the bomb? Would there still have been a useful purpose to be served?

I submit that, yes, there was. The Mitsubishi shipyard would have been wrecked, probably beyond repair. Destroying the railyards at Dresden would have (did) seriously hamper the ability of Germany to move their troops around.

I can't see much purpose to blowing up a deserted McDonalds or an empty department store. It's a pointless gesture of destruction, but doesn't actually do anything useful.

[rocketdodger]

Why? Where do you think the people in the slum work? Odds are that burning the slum would cause a fair bit of damage to the enermies ability to fight the war.

Because, as Tidus said, I would rather live with people than kill them -- all else being equal.

People tend to feel that ICBMs lack finess. There are also times when it is useful to have infrastructure left intact.

Orbital lasers. Gundam suits. Robot ninja assassins. I never said ICBMs lol.

[bokonon]

I disagree, and the examples of "western-sponsored terrorism" that have been given seem to confirm me in my disagreement.

There's a key difference that the OP mentions that seems to have been to some extent overlooked, which is the targeting of civilians instead of something else, like infrastructure.

The Dresden firebombing, for example, was an attack, admittedly with unconventional weapons, against a major rail nexus. The Nagasaki atomic bombing was an attack against the Mitsubishi shipyards -- again, admittedly with unconventional weapons.
And the 9/11 attacks were against the World Trade Center (a nexus of commerce) and the Pentagon (the hub of military planning).

Part of the reason Hiroshima was chosen for the first atomic bomb is precisely because its lack of military importance had left it largely untouched by the war up to that point.

Firebombing, whether of Dresden or Tokyo, primarily destroys civilian residences. Dropping lit cinders on railroads doesn't really affect their ability to carry rail traffic.

The United States seems to have become more cognizant of "collateral damage" and somewhat more concerned with winning hearts and minds instead of merely winning military victories, so it might be argued that the "terrorism" component in the wars we wage now is less than it was when we "had to destroy this village in order to save it." I still don't think the distinction you're attempting to draw reflects much more than chauvinism on your part.

[geni]

Because, as Tidus said, I would rather live with people than kill them -- all else being equal.

In war all else is never equal.



Orbital lasers. Gundam suits. Robot ninja assassins. I never said ICBMs lol.

We don't have the technological capacity for those things. At the present time ICBMs are our only option for winning a war of any significance remotely.

[geni]

I disagree, and the examples of "western-sponsored terrorism" that have been given seem to confirm me in my disagreement.

There's a key difference that the OP mentions that seems to have been to some extent overlooked, which is the targeting of civilians instead of something else, like infrastructure.

Civilians are infrastructure. As the british demonstrated rather dirrectly during the second boer war.

[drkitten]

Civilians are infrastructure. As the british demonstrated rather dirrectly during the second boer war.

By a rather broad definition of "infrastructure," I suppose --- although most people would find that terminology offensively dehumanizing.

But they're also a form of infrastructure that is specifically granted a certain degree of protection under the various rules of war (and the conventions formalizing them) that most equipment and structures are not. Even there, there are types of equipment and structures that are granted special protection, such as hospitals, ambulances, embassies (esp. of neutral powers), and so forth.

Bokonon is right that Hiroshima wasn't a very important military target (which is why it had been left to the end), but it was picked partly for that very reason -- because there was little left of military importance to bomb. Hiroshima was at best a B-list target, but the A-list had already been pummelled largely into wreckage.

I have no problem considering bombing the Pentagon to be a legitimate use of military force under the right circumstances. I would even be willing to stretch a point to consider the WTC to be a legitimate use of military force. What makes the 9/11 attacks terrorism instead of legitimate collateral damage in time of war is, among other things, the complete absence of "time of war."

And so I completely reject bokonon's argument that there's no difference between the 9/11 bombings and Hiroshima.

[andyandy]

I have no problem considering bombing the Pentagon to be a legitimate use of military force under the right circumstances. I would even be willing to stretch a point to consider the WTC to be a legitimate use of military force. What makes the 9/11 attacks terrorism instead of legitimate collateral damage in time of war is, among other things, the complete absence of "time of war."

.


How should we judge " time of war"? What about if one side declares war on the other side? Al Qaeda's jihad against the west was started before 9/11. And now the West in general perpetuates an open-ended and ongoing time of war against terrorism, could any further terrorist attacks legitimately claim collateral damage?

[geni]

By a rather broad definition of "infrastructure," I suppose --- although most people would find that terminology offensively dehumanizing.

Avoid terminology that people find offensively dehumanizing would not be a common objective in war.



But they're also a form of infrastructure that is specifically granted a certain degree of protection under the various rules of war (and the conventions formalizing them) that most equipment and structures are not.

Only in certian types of war


What makes the 9/11 attacks terrorism instead of legitimate collateral damage in time of war is, among other things, the complete absence of "time of war."


Problem with that is that declarations of war have kinda fallen out of fashion.

[I Ratant]

Regarding civilian casualties, I recall reading that Tamerlane so obliterated a city and its inhabitants, the name of the city has been lost.
But has anyone seen any Amelehkites recently?
Or their livestock?

[drkitten]

How should we judge " time of war"?

There are well-established rules about that.

What about if one side declares war on the other side? Al Qaeda's jihad against the west was started before 9/11.

Al-Qaeda is neither a nation-state nor a group established spontaneously to repel invasion.

Therefore, they cannot declare war, any more than my cat can.


And now the West in general perpetuates an open-ended and ongoing time of war against terrorism, could any further terrorist attacks legitimately claim collateral damage?

No. But by the same token, the "time of war against terrorism" is also illegitimate, and anyone who participates in it is liable under international law for execution as a terrorist.

And, frankly, I hope that happens. I would love to see Interpol pick up Dick Cheney on a war crimes warrant and hustle him off to the Hague.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I disagree, and the examples of "western-sponsored terrorism" that have been given seem to confirm me in my disagreement.

There's a key difference that the OP mentions that seems to have been to some extent overlooked, which is the targeting of civilians instead of something else, like infrastructure.

The Dresden firebombing, for example, was an attack, admittedly with unconventional weapons, against a major rail nexus. The Nagasaki atomic bombing was an attack against the Mitsubishi shipyards -- again, admittedly with unconventional weapons.

I propose the following thought-experiment. Imagine that the attacker had the option of clearing all people (or at least, all civilian people) out of harm's way before the attack happened. Somehow, we managed to get every civilian at least twenty-five miles away from Nagasaki an hour before dropping the bomb. Would it still have been worth the effort to drop the bomb? Would there still have been a useful purpose to be served?

I submit that, yes, there was. The Mitsubishi shipyard would have been wrecked, probably beyond repair. Destroying the railyards at Dresden would have (did) seriously hamper the ability of Germany to move their troops around.

I can't see much purpose to blowing up a deserted McDonalds or an empty department store. It's a pointless gesture of destruction, but doesn't actually do anything useful.

This strikes me as uncomfortably close to the Catholic sophistry of the Doctrine of Double Effect.

In criminal cases this kind of logic would have no traction. "I didn't want to kill her, I just wanted the money she owed me. Thus I am absolved, for if I had been able to get her money without killing her I would have taken that option instead. How can I be blamed just because it was impossible to get her money without killing her?".

Perhaps terrorism was necessary to win WW2, I can't say. If it was in fact necessary then, terrible as it is, I would have to support it albeit with regret. If it was avoidable then it was no better than any other instance of terrorism.

[drkitten]

This strikes me as uncomfortably close to the Catholic sophistry of the Doctrine of Double Effect.

Well, a lot of the "rules" on warfare were formalized by theologically trained Catholics. But that doesn't make them wrong. St. Augustine, I believe, is the one most often credited with formalizing what does and doesn't count as a "just war" which became the basis for the various rules of war and formalizing conventions.


In criminal cases this kind of logic would have no traction. "I didn't want to kill her, I just wanted the money she owed me. Thus I am absolved, for if I had been able to get her money without killing her I would have taken that option instead. How can I be blamed just because it was impossible to get her money without killing her?".

Actually, it would. If it was necessary for you to get the money for whatever reason, and you took reasonable precautions to minimize killing, then you have the "defense of necessity" to any criminal prosectution. The reason this doesn't come up in practice is because I can't imagine any circumstances in which it would be "necessary" for you to get the money; but if you were legitimately acting in self-defense to prevent a greater harm, (i.e. you shot the terrorist and his hostage) or if the death could not have been predicted (you shot the terrorist and he fell from a building and landed on someone), you're in the clear.


Perhaps terrorism was necessary to win WW2, I can't say.

No, it wasn't. Because nothing the allies did was "terrorism."

The fact that you don't like an action doesn't make it "terrorism," nor does the fact that civilians become casualties.

In the context of a declared war (that's one of the pillars of the "just war" theory), infrastructure is generally a legitimate target (unless it's one of the named exceptions such as hospitals or civilians). Similarly, the attacker must take precautions to avoid killing civilians -- but by the same set of rules, civilian casualties that are unavoidable victims of an attack on a target are acceptable.

Had Afghanistan declared war on the USA and driven a plane into the Pentagon, it wouldn't have been "terrorism"; one nation-state declared war on another and attacked a military target. The fact that Al Qaeda wasn't a nation state and so wasn't in a position to declare war renders them terrorists -- there is no way to resolve their grievances via diplomatic channels if they don't have diplomats.

[I Ratant]

"St. Augustine, I believe, is the one most often credited with formalizing what does and doesn't count..."
.
Augie was just another high-placed nut-job..

[drkitten]

Augie was just another high-placed nut-job..

Well, naturally I will give your writings all the credibility they merit as well.

[I Ratant]

Well, naturally I will give your writings all the credibility they merit as well.
.
I'd apologize for having a personal opinion that doesn't refer to some exalted old-timey windbag for validity, but if I weren't me.