![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumRecent reading (The Interrogators, by Chris Mackey... that will be a different post) had me pondering terror, as a tactic, and a question by antiquated_tory makes my thoughts on it more relevant.
What makes terrorism terrorism. This was addressed by some question and answer in my post about the mail with the device to make it ignite on opening (a whole new meaning to "flame wars").
And what of groups like the IRA?
Is there an acceptable use for terror?
Maybe.
When Michael Collins (to use the IRA as an example, because it's a subject near and dear to my Irish descended heart) was attacking the British he was using a form of terror. What the guerrillas in Spain did against the French when Napoleon invaded. It was more targeted than they were, but it was still aimed at those who were directly involved in the ruling of British Ireland.
As such, while unconventional, it was still war, and I could; had I been alive, have supported them with a clear conscience.
These days the Provos are in another kind of fight, one which is indiscriminate, and doesn't have such clear aims. They want the British out of N. Ireland, but they aren't trying to make a direct fight with the people running the show. In fact they don't always target those in N. Ireland (which isn't really required, they could make members of Parliament, who support the continuation of the status quo targets of assasination... I don't think I'd approve, but it would be a more legitimate fight... more akin to a war).
I'm a soldier, in the right context I am a legal target for some pretty indiscriminate lethal force (a 122mm rocket is not what anyone would call a precision weapon... neither is a hand grenade, it's just a matter of scale). If the Provos were attacking just soldiers, and administrators, and the government which supports and pays for it... it would be (in my mind) a form of legitimate struggle (none of this means I think such a thing is a good idea. The 80ish years since the founding of an independent south have changed the equation, as have the tactics of the Provos).
Which, I guess, defines what I mean by terrorism. I, as a soldier, have explicitly accepted that there are situations where killing people to gain my ends are acceptable. Some of those means are terrible, but those are the rules of the game.
Groups who try to sway an entire people without accepting a concomitant risk (and suicide as a tactic doesn't count... unless the target is of a military nature), people whose specific targets are the non-players (civilians in a war are different, one of the reasons I disagree with calling the struggle with bin Laden, et alia a war), that's terrorism.
And it's a thing to be eradicated, at its root if possible, but by its branches when they bear their bitter fruit.
antiquated_tory makes my thoughts on it more relevant.What makes terrorism terrorism. This was addressed by some question and answer in my post about the mail with the device to make it ignite on opening (a whole new meaning to "flame wars").
And what of groups like the IRA?
Is there an acceptable use for terror?
Maybe.
When Michael Collins (to use the IRA as an example, because it's a subject near and dear to my Irish descended heart) was attacking the British he was using a form of terror. What the guerrillas in Spain did against the French when Napoleon invaded. It was more targeted than they were, but it was still aimed at those who were directly involved in the ruling of British Ireland.
As such, while unconventional, it was still war, and I could; had I been alive, have supported them with a clear conscience.
These days the Provos are in another kind of fight, one which is indiscriminate, and doesn't have such clear aims. They want the British out of N. Ireland, but they aren't trying to make a direct fight with the people running the show. In fact they don't always target those in N. Ireland (which isn't really required, they could make members of Parliament, who support the continuation of the status quo targets of assasination... I don't think I'd approve, but it would be a more legitimate fight... more akin to a war).
I'm a soldier, in the right context I am a legal target for some pretty indiscriminate lethal force (a 122mm rocket is not what anyone would call a precision weapon... neither is a hand grenade, it's just a matter of scale). If the Provos were attacking just soldiers, and administrators, and the government which supports and pays for it... it would be (in my mind) a form of legitimate struggle (none of this means I think such a thing is a good idea. The 80ish years since the founding of an independent south have changed the equation, as have the tactics of the Provos).
Which, I guess, defines what I mean by terrorism. I, as a soldier, have explicitly accepted that there are situations where killing people to gain my ends are acceptable. Some of those means are terrible, but those are the rules of the game.
Groups who try to sway an entire people without accepting a concomitant risk (and suicide as a tactic doesn't count... unless the target is of a military nature), people whose specific targets are the non-players (civilians in a war are different, one of the reasons I disagree with calling the struggle with bin Laden, et alia a war), that's terrorism.
And it's a thing to be eradicated, at its root if possible, but by its branches when they bear their bitter fruit.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Ireland
Date: 2004-09-23 03:19 pm (UTC)...one wage wars against a nations. Against individiuals, and non-nation groups one engages in law-enforcement. The British still haven't really figured this out in N. Ireland...
But I thought the Brits had always insisted that they were engaged in law enforcement. A couple British friends of mine went through the roof over the War on Terror for exactly this reason--their government had been trying for years to deny any sort of military status to IRA fighters, insisting they were criminals pure and simple. Of course, using the army to suppress them does rather belie that...
More amusing to me are the Nationalist friends I have, who are also anglophiles
They'd be less confused over here. Or maybe more so. British and Irish expats naturally socialize. There are generally more British expats but more and better Irish pubs so the former gather in the latter, which usually have a mixed Irish, British and local staff. Since they drink the same beer, watch the same sports, grew up with the same TV programmes etc. it's not that surprising. Oh, not to mention most Irish I know have lived in Britain. I swear, during the World Cup I saw almost as many Irish flags as Union Jacks in London. Well, there were also the couple drunk lads at Earl's Court singing "We hate Roman Catholics" to celebrate the recent English victory...over Denmark(?!)...but being drunk, stupid and English, they were probably only looking for a fight.
I don't know if you're on IM but I have tons of rambling nonsense like this which is best transmitted through that medium so if you are REALLY BORED I'd be pleased to chat anytime, time zone differences permitting.
Re: Ireland
Date: 2004-09-23 05:09 pm (UTC)They'd be less confused over here. Or maybe more so. British and Irish expats naturally socialize.
These aren't expats, they are American citizens.
But I thought the Brits had always insisted that they were engaged in law enforcement. A couple British friends of mine went through the roof over the War on Terror for exactly this reason--their government had been trying for years to deny any sort of military status to IRA fighters, insisting they were criminals pure and simple. Of course, using the army to suppress them does rather belie that...
I have friends who've served in N. Ireland. The British made a point that it was "law enforcement" but then passed laws which were meant to get around the way they were using the Army, and waging a war. A low key sort of thing.
The way they are doing/did it was such that all of the not obviously loyal were suspect, and made to feel second class citizens. Miscarriages of justice did nothing to prevent the perception. If they'd been serious about it being a police matter, the army wouldn't have been there, and cops would have done the heavy lifting.
On the other hand, as you point out, we've made terrorists legitmate soldiers (and then tried to fix it by creating, out of whole cloth, a new term, "unlawful combatants" which Geneva doesn't have, and by which we try to say Geneva doesn't apply. Having our cake, and eating it) which is a poor precedent.
The result is a host of secondary places, where the islamic portions of society weren't radical, and are now becoming so.
TK