Terrorism in the Ancient World

[Gaius Octavius]

I really don't see why my prior post obviates prosecuting a war.

 

It certainly obviates the possibility of ending a war because it makes it impossible to target command-and-control, dual use infrastructure, and armament manufacture, all of which must be destroyed to reduce the capacity of the enemy to wage war. (As in the case of London, Berlin and Tokyo.) Moreover, if one army uses civilians as human shields, your definition implies that the opposing army is the terrorist, (No it doesn't. Sorry to have written in American.) whereas the reverse is in fact true. You seem to imply that opposing armies are to choose their seconds, don white gloves, and draw pistols by mutual consent. (This implication is between your ears.) These quaint ideas may have some place in children's books, but they have nothing whatever to do with real warfare. (The present success endorses this point.)

 

[ Here, I speak ex cathedra - do I have it right now? ]

 

Well, at least your Latin is correct. (A minimal plaudit from my nemesis! I am honored!)

Edited March 21, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

When two recognizable armies meet in the field or a city is besieged, and the victor then proceeds to commit mayhem on the surrendered vanquished, that is terrorism

 

Some notorious examples in history of that would be, what the Crusaders did to the population of Jerusalem after the fall of Jerusalem during the First Crusade, oliver cromwell's horrid actions against the Irish poplulation in Ireland, and the equal crimes of both the Germans and Soviets on the Eastern Front against the civilian populations of both countries.

[caldrail]

The whole terrorism issue in the world today is utter BS. How is suicide bombing any worse morally than aerial bombardment? One bomber mission in WWII could kill more people than all the suicide bombings in Iraq in the past three years. Terror tactics are just one more interesting way for people to murder one another.

 

On topic: since there is a disconnect between our everyday lives and the atrocities commited in the ancient world we are more able to dismiss them as just tactics. In a few centuries, today's terrorism will be the tactics of the past..

 

First of all, lets realise violence is endemic to human beings and always will be. We are basically social animals and therefore ritualised violence is part of normal herd behaviour. Its not unusual. However, nature hasn't given humans much in the way of weaponry, so being clever little buggers, we invented blades and clubs to give us artificial famgs, claws, and powerful limbs that we lack in real life. Modern technology of course goes a whole lot further, hence the aerial bombing you mention. But consider this.... Wars are not won by being nice. If you lose, your nation could be enslaved or dismatled. Therefore, howver cruel, callous, or even despicable it seems, you must defeat your enemy by whatever means seem the most expedient. During WWII, aerial bombing was seen as an essential way of reducing enemy production and morale. Because the bombing was inaccurate the only way to ensure victory was drop bombs indiscriminately. A terrible thing to be sure, I cannot disagree. But these were raids mounted on a large scale involving hundreds of aircraft over enemy territory. It isn't possible to compare that with the actions of a handful of conspirators although one must bear in mind such actions as the destruction of the US embassy in Beirut or 9/11. In these cases, the individuals are acting on their own cognizance. They do not represent the nations they claim to fight for. The purpose of their actions is to make a token strike against an enemy they see as invincible, to ensure their cause is seen as having credibility, and to frighten governments and populations into giving in to their demands over the prospect of further action. The article in question brings up the point that human behaviour is actually no different then as it is now, a point I've made very often. Sure we live in different times and our world and cultures have changed, but underlying this are the same situations, emotions, and responses that we have now. Terrorism is a word that now has a vague definition. Some people use the phrase whenever violence is used. As for terrorism being the tactics of the past, doesn't that depend on whether you were on the winning side?

 

I sympathise with your viewpoint but really you need to step back and see why people behave like this in the first place. The moral issue is a relative one. Sad thing is we won't change nor renounce violence no matter how many of us sneer at it. I really do think you need to be more realistic about the world about you, because its the same world we read about in history books.

[Ursus]

Was this thread about something relevant to Ancient Rome?

 

Too late now, I suppose. Arena bound.

[Julius Ratus]

Thanks Ursus, now I don't feel as guilty for arguing a modern issue. Sorry to the origiator of this thread.

 

Since this is now a terrorism-as-a-concept thread, here I go. What is a "proper war", stand two armies against each other, in colourful uniforms, with precussion lock rifle-muskets, and let the soldiers go at it. There are still tactical considerations, bloodthirsty leaders still get to kill people, no civillians die. Everyone's happy. Or, as G.O. said, the North African campaign in WWII is a good example of a "proper war". Hell, British POW's in German captivity in Africa were given a larger water ration than German soldiers were.

 

The Russian Front was a rather rotten fight. There were ununiformed partisan bands bushwacking German uniformed troops. Bridges were blown up by civillians. The Germans, on the other hand, would often kill ten random civillians in retaliation for these attacks. Uniformed groups of SS and Einsatzgruppe would kill millions (no exaggeration). Bands of thugs, like SS-Dirlewanger and the Army of National Liberation commited unspeakable atrocities. These last several are obviously commiting "terrorist action" but what about the conventional acts of rottenness, such as the German shelling of Sevastopol or the Soviets at Berlin?

 

So, who was more justified? The Soviet partisan-terrorists who fit the definition of terrorist to the letter? Today these Soviet partisans are considered heroes who defended their country, even though many who they killed were the common German soldiers. If the Germans had won the partisans would have been declared terrorists to the fullest extent possible. The SS, on the other hand, would have been called patriots who fought against evil Bolshevists.

 

Likewise, in a few decades when the "terror war" is over we will be told who were the terrorists. If the U.S. still stands, than we will have been in the right. If the Neo-Caliphate dominates the world...

 

edit: I don't consider either the Nazis or the Soviets to have been fully justified in their actions, both were rather rotten, though at least the Soviets were defending themselves. I'm just making a point that is relevant to the modern world.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Julius Ratus

[M. Porcius Cato]

The lack of a uniform isn't what defines a terrorist: targeting civilians to spread terror does. The partisans who attacked Nazi troops were heroes, whether they wore a uniform at the time or not. Had the partisans gone to Berlin to suicide bomb beer halls, I'd be fine with calling them terrorists. But they didn't do that, and it shows what an enormous difference there is between the partisans and al-Qaeda.

[Gaius Octavius]

The lack of a uniform isn't what defines a terrorist: targeting civilians to spread terror does. The partisans who attacked Nazi troops were heroes, whether they wore a uniform at the time or not. Had the partisans gone to Berlin to suicide bomb beer halls, I'd be fine with calling them terrorists. But they didn't do that, and it shows what an enormous difference there is between the partisans and al-Qaeda.

 

I want to agree with the above, but as much as my heart does, my mind won't. Insofar as the partisans were 'our' heroes, they were terrorists to the Axis powers. They were not, and are not protected by the Geneva Accords. They are/were subject, legally, to summary execution. That goes for from John Brown through to Osama. A child of five, made to attack a guard post, is a terrorist.

[Julius Ratus]

The lack of a uniform isn't what defines a terrorist: targeting civilians to spread terror does. The partisans who attacked Nazi troops were heroes, whether they wore a uniform at the time or not. Had the partisans gone to Berlin to suicide bomb beer halls, I'd be fine with calling them terrorists. But they didn't do that, and it shows what an enormous difference there is between the partisans and al-Qaeda.

 

Since the uniform is not the issue, and the targeting of civillians is, does the fire bombing of Tokyo count as terrorism? What about Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Hanoi? When governments knowingly kill civilians is it suddenly acceptable?

[Gaius Octavius]

Since the uniform is not the issue, and the targeting of civillians is, does the fire bombing of Tokyo count as terrorism? What about Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Hanoi? When governments knowingly kill civilians is it suddenly acceptable?

 

Of course it is terrorism and not acceptable by any moral standard. (See my earlier posts.) So was London, Rotterdam, Warsaw and Coventry.

[The Augusta]

The lack of a uniform isn't what defines a terrorist: targeting civilians to spread terror does. The partisans who attacked Nazi troops were heroes, whether they wore a uniform at the time or not. Had the partisans gone to Berlin to suicide bomb beer halls, I'd be fine with calling them terrorists. But they didn't do that, and it shows what an enormous difference there is between the partisans and al-Qaeda.

 

If I might inject a touch of parochialism here. As someone who has lived for decades (thankfully no more) with the IRA on our doorstep, we Brits on the mainland have suffered quite a bit from these crazy idealists and their cowardly methods. While the political question of Sinn Fein is not the issue here, but the Provos are, I am reminded of the words of wisdom of my own mother, who knew nothing of politics but had lived through World War 2. She was incensed to hear the IRA in their black balaclavas and masks issuing statements that they were at war. (Jihad anybody?) 'If they're at war,' she said, 'why don't they take off those bloody masks and let themselves be seen like a proper army, instead of blowing up women and children.'

 

To me her words made perfect sense. Terrorism, as I define it, is 1) carried out from some ideological basis, and 2) done in a secret, underhand and cowardly way whereby the victims of it have no knowledge of an attack. In a declared war everybody knows a state of hostility exists, therefore I cannot agree with those who have said that armies carry out terrorism. We might not agree with war personally, but that isn't the question here. I might not agree with the war in Iraq, but once it was declared, the Iraqi government knew what to expect.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Since the uniform is not the issue, and the targeting of civillians is, does the fire bombing of Tokyo count as terrorism? What about Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Hanoi? When governments knowingly kill civilians is it suddenly acceptable?

 

If attacks on a location were *aimed at* civilians (as opposed to aimed at industrial capacity, command-and-control, or military targets that were embedded in civilian locations) *in order to terrorize* (as opposed to destroy the capacity for waging war), then it was a terrorist attack.

 

Also, knowingly killing civilians is not the issue--targeting civilians is. Consider two hypothetical situations. Situation A: a cop must kill a would-be suicide bomber to remove the threat, but the only shot with a 90% chance of hitting the bomber also carries a 40% chance of killing a hostage; the cop takes the shot and kills the hostage. Situation B: a cop must kill a would-be suicide bomber to remove the threat, but he takes the shot only when he has at least a 90% chance of killing the hostage. Situation B involves targeting civilians; Situation A does not. The question in war is whether one attempts to maximize damage to military targets (which is legitimate) or whether one attempts to maximize damage to civilians (which is not).

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

As someone who has lived for decades (thankfully no more) with the IRA on our doorstep, we Brits on the mainland have suffered quite a bit from these crazy idealists and their cowardly methods

 

Augusta i am going to have to strongly disagree with you. Cowardly is members of the British Parachute Regiment firing into a crowd of unarmed and peaceful protesters and murdering 14 of them, including people who were shot in the back trying to run away. Cowardly is the british army putting nail bombs into the pockets of a dead boy to try to prove that a crowd seeking civil rights was armed. Cowardly is the british government who whitewashed and exonerated the actions of their army during the protest. But after all its only the Irish who were murdered, why blame the british army for actions that they have been doing for centuries in Ireland!!!

[The Augusta]

As someone who has lived for decades (thankfully no more) with the IRA on our doorstep, we Brits on the mainland have suffered quite a bit from these crazy idealists and their cowardly methods

 

Augusta i am going to have to strongly disagree with you. Cowardly is members of the British Parachute Regiment firing into a crowd of unarmed and peaceful protesters and murdering 14 of them, including people who were shot in the back trying to run away. Cowardly is the british army putting nail bombs into the pockets of a dead boy to try to prove that a crowd seeking civil rights was armed. Cowardly is the british government who whitewashed and exonerated the actions of their army during the protest. But after all its only the Irish who were murdered, why blame the british army for actions that they have been doing for centuries in Ireland!!!

 

 

Septimus - I do not need to be lectured on the troubles in Northern Ireland, and I have deliberately not stated my own feelings on who has the better cause. You might have noticed that I deliberately separated the Provos from Sinn Fein - but we are not here to discuss Irish politics - we were discussing terrorism, of which the Provisional IRA is undoubtedly guilty. I am of Irish descent myself, so I do not see the murder of the Irish as a thing of no consequence! And for what its worth, the actions of the army in Northern Ireland was deplorable, but - I repeat - the argument was about terrorism. Are you trying to say that the bombs in Manchester, Warrington, Guildford, etc. were not? It's the sad old maxim: two wrongs do not make a right - and going all the way back to Oliver Cromwell still does not justify either the IRA's actions nor the actions of the British army in protecting the minority. But please, let us not get into this. My post was to help illustrate the case MPC made about armies versus civilian covert action. You have only quoted two lines of it. And the cowardly action of the British Parachute Regiment, in no way makes the actions of the IRA terrorists brave.

 

Pax now - or we'll be sent to Tartarus.

Edited March 24, 2007 by The Augusta

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

Augusta a point was made on this thread that conventional armies that purposefully attack civilian populations are as much terrorists as those that trap bombs to their chests and blow up resorts. Now just just looking at history, the british army has done this numerous times throughout the occupation of Ireland. But you are right we don't need to get into a huge dispute over this, so this will be my last post on the subject.

 

PAX

[Andrew Dalby]

Augusta a point was made on this thread that conventional armies that purposefully attack civilian populations are as much terrorists as those that trap bombs to their chests and blow up resorts. Now just just looking at history, the british army has done this numerous times throughout the occupation of Ireland. But you are right we don't need to get into a huge dispute over this, so this will be my last post on the subject.

 

PAX

 

Last night I was reading Samuel Johnson's Rasselas in bed. (Maybe I should cross-post this information to "what do you guys do for fun"!)

 

In this novel, published 1759, there is an Arab kidnapper; he is also a philosopher (this is a philosophical novel after all). He has a conversation with his temporary guest or victim about the foreign invaders of his country

 

from whom we are compelled to take by the sword what is denied to justice. The violence of war admits no distinction; the lance that is lifted at guilt and power will sometimes fall on innocence and gentleness.

 

It struck me Johnson's reflections are not totally irrelevant to what's being discussed in this thread.