Terrorism: Some Definitions
One of the casualties of a bruising political campaign is language and no word has been more invoked and less defined than terrorism. We have suffered this condition for some time. Since the end of the Cold War, terrorism has taken the place of communism as the bogeyman in US culture. After the horrendous attacks of 9/11, Bush declared that we were going to have a "war on terrorism." How to conduct a war against a tactic is hard to fathom but one thing was clear, it would have no borders and it would have no end.
And, of course, the t-word was at the core of the McCain-Palin campaign. The first charge was that my brother Bill Ayers, Chicago education professor, was a terrorist. Later, it morphed into a "swift-boated" belief that Barack Obama would be an unreliable leader in the fight against terrorism because of his friendship with Bill Ayers.
With the election over, I wonder if we can draw down the rhetoric a bit. Let's begin with a definition of terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic of attacking civilians with the purpose of spreading fear and terror in the population. The 9/11 attacks were clearly terrorism. Bombing civilian targets in Vietnam has also been understood, not only by the International War Crimes Tribunal but also by some American military analysts, as terrorism. Terrorism is a despicable act -- one with no defense.
The term terrorist is an easy grouping term, aligning militant resistance with the most despicable acts. When Palestinians attack Israeli soldiers, that is declared an act of war. When a Palestinian blows himself or herself up on a bus in Jerusalem, that is called terrorism. For many in the dominant culture, anyone who commits acts of violence without the blessing of government or the cover of uniform is a terrorist. So a Palestinian guerrilla carrying out an operation is a terrorist; an Israeli helicopter which hovers outside an apartment and fires a rocket inside, killing families, is simply soldiers doing their job.
Sometimes history looks at even cases we would call terrorism in a more nuanced way. For example, when Native Americans massacred settlements of whites who were encroaching on their lands, including lands agreed upon by treaty, this was decried as terrorism. And it was an awful thing to do. Ironically, however, history has looked on the actions of the Native Americans as ones in which they were, by and large, in the right.
But the burgeoning right wing bullies and super patriots, the talk show screamers and hate mongers, have decided to apply terrorist to any extra-legal acts committed by the resistance. Anti-war activists who attacked napalm producers -- terrorists. Black Panthers who resisted illegal police raids -- terrorists. Militant Earth First members fighting to save old growth redwoods -- eco-terrorists. Note too that the South African government, and media, routinely talked about the number of "terrorists" arrested or killed when discussing the African National Congress -- both their armed wing and unarmed activists.
Our home-grown authoritarians are not really talking about terrorism. They are, in fact, trying to brand anyone who does not worship the authority, and the unquestioned power, of the US state as evil.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Great article.
It's been impossible to have an intelligent discussion about terrorism since 9/11 - maybe we can start now.
Michale32086, I'm curious how you define terrorism, whether you agree that aerial bombardment of civilian populations is terrorism, and whether you think terrorism is ever justified as a tactic.
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
I don't agree that it's impossible to have an INTELLIGENT discussion about terrorism. I would concede, however, that it's nearly impossible to have an OBJECTIVE discussion about terrorism. But I do try..
This is my definition of terrorism..
Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda.
}}}}}
whether you agree that aerial bombardment of civilian populations is terrorism
{{{{{
As I mentioned before.. While targeting is the bulk of what would or would not constitute terrorism, the reasons are also part and parcel..
Civilian infrastructure that supports a military is considered a legitimate military target and therefore is not terrorism.. Bombing civilians in order to force leaders to capitulate could, under most circumstances, be considered terrorism.. It's trickier to define when the act is in the context of a declared war..
For example, some consider the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire bombings of Dresden to be terrorism. Ignoring for the moment it was a different time and place, there are military justifications for that type of sustained attack.
}}}}}
and whether you think terrorism is ever justified as a tactic.
{{{{{
Terrorism, as defined, is NEVER justifiable... To respond to terrorism with terrorism negates ANY moral or ethical high ground...
Michale.....
Michaele,
Objective is definitely a better term.
I have a few questions about your definition. Not to be combative, just interested in getting a very clear definition that can be applied objectively to a wide variety of actual and hypothetical situations, such as:
Bombing of marine barracks in Lebanon by Hezbollah
IED attacks on military personnel in Iraq
Holocaust era German Jews bombing a) Gestapo headquarters b) trains c) markets/cafes
Bombing of Pentagon/Military Headquarters
Bombing of disco where most attendees are enemy soldiers
1. Why do you use the phrase "ongoing and systematic"? Can't an individual attack be considered terrorism?
2. Why the term "innocent civilians" rather than "civilians"? Is there such a thing as "guilty civilians" (who are acceptable to attack), or is this a rhetorical device to make allegations of terrorism more odious?
3. Why limit the definition to political, economical, or ideological purposes? (e.g. the Holocaust example doesn't really fall into one of these categories)
Jeff
@joesnuffy
}}}
I voted for Obama and don't think his "association" with Bill Ayers means anything. The fact that this stuff is being bantered around as it relates to the Presidential election is silly to me.
}}}
In the election, there were two camps of argument with regards to Bill Ayers and Obama..
One argument was the Ayers wasn't really a terrorist so any association is no big deal. This has been shown to be false. Bill Ayers IS a terrorist..
The other argument is that the associations between Obama and Bill Ayers were tenuous enough to be no big deal.
This argument is also easy to prove false.
Change "Bill Ayers" to "Osama Bin Laden" or "Charles Manson" or "Jeffery Dahlmer" or "Timothy McVeigh".. Once you do that, you come to realize that the connections are, indeed, relevant and not so "tenuous" anymore.
Regardless of that, I still voted for Obama and am glad he won the election. But that does remain a sore point with me that PE Obama never addressed the issue as forcefully and passionately as he did the Rev Wright issue..
Michale.....
@LeBeau59741
}}}}
Three Weathermen did die when a bomb they were building exploded (stupid accident), but Ayers targeted *property*, he never killed anyone.
{{{{
The only reason he never killed anyone was due to incompetence and not some moral compass. This is a fact.
}}}
While it is true that Mr. Ayers has never repudiated his past, he has repeatedly expressed sincere regret that violence seemed a neccessity in a desperate struggle to protest what he believed (and still believes) was an unconcionable situation. (The Vietnam war).
He's found some wonderfully productive outlets for both his fervor and his regrets- can you say the same?
{{{
Hamas builds schools and runs hospitals. That doesn't make them "nice" terrorists or "not really" terrorists.
A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist..
I am also constrained to point out that Bill Ayers dedicated a book to the brutal killer of Robert Kennedy.. How you can reconcile that fact with anything good and decent is beyond me..
Michale.....
@Danigirl65
}}}}
Where do you get that Bill Ayers was intent on murdering anybody?? The only recorded dead were three people from the Weathermen (including Ayers' girlfriend) SO you obviously have selective hearing/vision which has been evidenced by many of your posts on HuffPo.
}}}}
Ayers fellow terrorists were killed constructing a nail bomb. As a person somewhat well versed in the field, I can assure you with complete and utter certainty that a nail bomb has but one use and one use only. That is to kill and maim as many people as possible in the most vile and inhumane way possible..
}}}
I think we can cut this guy some slack.
{{{
Cut the guy some slack??
Are you kidding??
Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda.
No matter how you slice it, Bill Ayers is a terrorist.
}}}}
As far as your reference to Bin Laden, he orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people - I think there is a bit of a difference here.
{{{{
The ONLY difference is one of numbers. Beyond that, there is absolutely NO difference between Bin Laden and Bill Ayers. Both have radical views and both feel it is their god given right to impose those views on others with violence.
Michale.....
When the question of Bill Ayers came up in the campaign, I had to look your brother up on Google to see what the fuss was about and what he had done. Good intentions, daft method, really.
Then I saw some of the hate mail on his blog and was horrified at the twisted, violent hatred. Those are the people who should be locked away for the safety of the country.
Best wishes to your family. May they all stay safe.
I have served in two branches of the US Armed Forces.. USAF and US Army. I have served as an MI EllTee during Desert Storm and had served as an LEO and FSO for nearly a quarter century. I have been a military and intelligence liaison to a half dozen different countries.
And, in ALL my years of experience and training, this is the FIRST time, the VERY FIRST time that I have heard terrorism described as a "daft" method.
Bill Ayers is a terrorist. His intent was to brutally murder... butcher innocent people who's ONLY "crime" was existing...
The fact that he is put on a pedestal like this is simply sickening...
What's next?? Ya'all going to make Bin Laden an honorary American Citizen??
Simply pathetic..
Michale.....
Where do you get that Bill Ayers was intent on murdering anybody?? The only recorded dead were three people from the Weathermen (including Ayers' girlfriend) SO you obviously have selective hearing/vision which has been evidenced by many of your posts on HuffPo.
Nobody has put Bill Ayers on a pedestal - unless you mean the people of Chicago who have benefitted greatly from his knowledge since he resurfaced. He has achieved much more good than he ever did bad - after 37 years, I think we can cut this guy some slack.
As far as your reference to Bin Laden, he orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people - I think there is a bit of a difference here.
So people who intentionally murdered or attempted to murder innocent Americans should be free and the people who disagree with this murder should go to prison because of this disagreement? This doesn't seem backwards to you?
Ayer's and his wife Dohrn have been directly tied to the murder of San Fransico police officer McDonnell. Dorhn placed firebombs at a judges' home in the attempt to murder the judge and his family.
Then there was the armored truck robbery of 1981 in which a guard was murdered on the outset of the robbery then two police officers were murdered with one being executed.
I'll save my compassion and sympathy for the people that were harmed by this terrorist group.
The two turned themselves in in 1980, BEFORE the deadly robbery of a Brinks truck was carried out by other former members of the Weather Underground... Ayers and his wife had NO ROLE in that shameful act. (Though they did raise the child of those convicted- sparing that child from being trapped in the foster system.)
I would like to thank you and your brother for you courage. Any fool can wave a flag and say "my country, right or wrong" but it takes a special kind of patriot to put their physical and financial well being on the line and stand up for what is right, no matter how unpopular or unpatriotic they try to paint you as.
The man blew up buildings. He intended to KILL innocent people.
I honestly can't believe you are cheering this guy on..
Michale.....
Everyone who is so ready to lynch the man really needs to brush up on the FACTS, then form an opinion.
Here's the short version-Bill Ayers was, long ago, an unashamed member of a radical political organization.
Yes, he participated in bombings-
Yes, he was a fugitive for many, many years, together with his wife, Bernardine, a fellow member of the Weather Underground.
The two turned themselves in in 1980, BEFORE the deadly robbery of a Brinks truck was carried out by other former members of the Weather Underground... Ayers and his wife had NO ROLE in that shameful act. (Though they did raise the child of those convicted- sparing that child from being trapped in the foster system.)
Three Weathermen did die when a bomb they were building exploded (stupid accident), but Ayers targeted *property*, he never killed anyone.
Due to misconduct on the part of the FBI,all criminal charges were dismissed, and his life since that time has been productive, useful and community-centered.
While it is true that Mr. Ayers has never repudiated his past, he has repeatedly expressed sincere regret that violence seemed a neccessity in a desperate struggle to protest what he believed (and still believes) was an unconcionable situation. (The Vietnam war).
He's found some wonderfully productive outlets for both his fervor and his regrets- can you say the same?
So, I see that passion, eloquence, intelligence and a certain contempt for unthinking obedience are traits that run in the family- Nice to meet you, Rick.
You might be amused to learn that all the noise during the campaigning has resulted in a surge in sales of Prof. Ayers books on education- when I placed an order at my local Borders for "To Teach", the clerk advised me that I was the 4th person that morning to order one or another of his books... and this is in Montana, I can only imagine that Bozeman is not the only place where this is happening.
Cheers.
CONT
I don't mean any disrespect to you, sir. The actions of your sibling do not taint you in any way shape or form, in my opinion. But, I simply must correct the record and state the reality, as I have seen it, lived it and trained for it.
Michale.......
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
