Schneier on suicide bombing

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/thinking_about.html


emember the 1996 movie Independence Day? One of the characters was a grizzled old fighter pilot who had been kidnapped and degraded by the alien invaders years before. He flew his plane into the alien spaceship when his air-to-air missile jammed, causing the spaceship to explode. Everybody in the movie, as well as the audience, considered this suicide bomber a hero.

What's the difference?

Partly it's which side you're rooting for, but mostly it's that the pilot defended his planet by attacking the invaders. Terrorism targets innocents, and no one is a hero for killing innocents. Killing people who are invading and occupying your planet -- or country -- can be heroic, as can sacrificing yourself in the process.

This is an interesting observation in light of the previous post, where a professor makes the observation that the motivation of suicide terrorism is to repel what is perceived to be an occupation force.

Ok, hadn't thought of the ID angle before. Hrm.

[forgeforsaken]

This has actually long been a pet peeve of mine. The media at some point decided all suicide bombers were terrorists, which simply isn't true. You need to take into account circumstance and targets. A suicide bomber who attacks a military convoy in his country is not a terrorist. Now someone who attacks a civilian bus, that is a terrorist.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, the guy in independence day blew up a dual-use military/civilian alien ship. Dunno.

[Case]

Well, the guy in independence day blew up a dual-use military/civilian alien ship. Dunno.

Please tell me you're joking.

[russellmz00]

Well, the guy in independence day blew up a dual-use military/civilian alien ship. Dunno.

there is no evidence the alien ship had civilian entities. even if it did, the aliens are at fault for exposing their non-military personnel to the dangers of riding a civilian city killer. we don't put harpoon launchers on medical ships for a reason. also,

the civilians would most likely be accountants, scientists, and etc who would recommend policies on more efficient city killing.

[invitroman]

Well, the guy in independence day blew up a dual-use military/civilian alien ship. Dunno.

WHich guy? Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, or Randy Quaid?

[Duality]

This discussion doesn't have nearly the same fuel as the Empire discussion.

[Ben]

People don't call kamikaze pilots suicide bombers. Why do to you think that is Jason?

[Jason McCullough]

Quaid.


There is no evidence the alien ship had civilian entities.

Good point, didn't they have the civilians up in the mothership?

Anyway, the point here is a) suicide attacker b) people cheered. And I'm pretty sure the US didn't consider kamikaze pilots respectable warriors during WW2.

[Bren]

This reminds me somewhat of the point that got Bill Maher in so much trouble: That calling the 9/11 suicide pilots "cowards" and calling American Air Force pilots "heros" was unfair, because it takes a lot more courage to drive a plane into a building than to drop a bomb from 30,000 feet.

People saw Quaid's character's action in ID4 as heroic. Had an alien pilot kamikaze'ed into the WH to destroy it, they probably would have viewed that as merely fanatical, not heroic. Arguably, the attacker/defender role might inform the view.

[russellmz00]

Quaid.


There is no evidence the alien ship had civilian entities.

Good point, didn't they have the civilians up in the mothership?

Anyway, the point here is a) suicide attacker b) people cheered. And I'm pretty sure the US didn't consider kamikaze pilots respectable warriors during WW2.

zero evidence of civies on any of the alien ships, moon-, city-, or fighter-sized. the uber-mothership had an army forming up for the land invasion of earth. even if there were civies somewhere, putting civilians on board city destroyer launchers/carriers or the city destroyers themselves puts the onus on them, since those are obviously going to be our main target.

[Uncle Larry]

This reminds me somewhat of the point that got Bill Maher in so much trouble: That calling the 9/11 suicide pilots "cowards" and calling American Air Force pilots "heros" was unfair, because it takes a lot more courage to drive a plane into a building than to drop a bomb from 30,000 feet.

I don't think he was trying to make a serious point so much as he was trying to do his job and be "edgy." And he actually referenced "lobbing cruise missiles", so technically his dig was at the Navy. 8)

And Jason, it'd probably be less heroic if Randy Quaid's character had just plowed that F-18 into a crowded shopping center, don't you think?

[Ben]

Jason- Have you gone insane? There's no evidence whatsoever of civilian presence from the aliens. They don't get a lot of development time in the movie, we aren't even sure there are alien civilians.
And "pretty sure the US didn't consider kamikaze pilots respectable warriors"? That's not remotely good enough. I'm pretty sure they did. Actually, I have no idea how much respect they commanded, but I do know that nobody considers them suicide bombers as the term is currently used. Randy Quaid was not pretending to be a civilian aircraft who happened to stumble upon some aliens. It's an exceptionally poor comparison even for some idiot on the internet.

As for the attacker/defender paradigm, nobody thinks they are the bad guys. Everyone views themselves as defending their interests even when they are blowing up civilians in a foriegn country or invading a rogue nation. So what's the insight here? That people don't like aliens who kill millions of people? No shit.

When did suicide terrorism become unique from terrorism? Is gun terrorism unique from bomb terrorism?

[Bren]

I don't think he was trying to make a serious point so much as he was trying to do his job and be "edgy."

I disagree, and think he made an excellent point.


And he actually referenced "lobbing cruise missiles", so technically his dig was at the Navy. 8)

That's true, and to be absolutely accurate, his dig was directed towards leaders, not soldiers/pilots/sailors themselves.

[Bren]

Arguably, the attacker/defender role might inform the view.


As for the attacker/defender paradigm, nobody thinks they are the bad guys. Everyone views themselves as defending their interests even when they are blowing up civilians in a foriegn country or invading a rogue nation. So what's the insight here?

Um, that's why I said arguably, and you nicely demonstrated the arguability of the point. Subjective perspective is the insight.

[Rimbo]

This is an interesting observation in light of the previous post, where a professor makes the observation that the motivation of suicide terrorism is to repel what is perceived to be an occupation force.

Except that:

1) In the case of Iraq, most of the suicide bombers are foreigners, not Iraqis.
2) In the case of England and elsewhere, the suicide bombers are also foreign invaders.
3) The motivation of al-Qaeda, in their own words, is Death to America and Death to Israel. Not repelling the occupying force, but killing the infidels.

I don't consider people who blow up civilians terrorists. I call them psychopaths. The Quaid character wasn't exactly what I'd call sane, either.

[BrewersDroop]

Except that:

1) In the case of Iraq, most of the suicide bombers are foreigners, not Iraqis.

True, but many Muslims consider their religious identity to be far more defining than their national identity. They therefore tend to see the war in Iraq not in terms of a US-led invasion of Iraq but instead as a western invasion of Muslim lands. Recognizing this fundamental difference in world views is, I think, the key to understanding the problems in the Middle East and the Gulf region.

[Mister Widget]

I don't think the issue is whether you target civilians or not; I think it's whether you openly identify yourself prior to your attack. The open identification can be a uniform or markings on your vehicle; what matters is that you aren't using the civilians around you as human shields up until the moment you attack.

The crazy guy in "Independance Day" was flying a U.S. fighter jet: not a terrorist. Kamikaze pilots were in Japanese warplanes that were clearly labelled as such: not terrorists. U.S. bomber crews bombing civilians in Germany in WWII were also clearly labelled as members of the US military: not terrorists. They all might be good examples of how war is hell, sure... but none of them were terrorists.

In contrast anyone who is not in uniform is effectively hiding behind the civilians around him. Such a person is a terrorist whether they attack a military target or a civilian one. Thus, all of the bombers in Iraq are terrorists, even if they attack a military target. Same with every member of the IRA, or the PLO. Defending your homeland doesn't give you a free pass to avoid the terrorist label. If you don't want to be called a terrorist, you don't put the civilians around you at risk by pretending to be one of them.

[Jasper Phillips]

Great, so guerilla fighters are by definition evil terrorists, and nationalist soldiers are by definition ok -- it doesn't actually matter what they are doing, to whom, or why?

[Ben]

Bren-
1. Huh? If you say something is arguable that is supposed to end all discussion of that point? I must have missed that memo.
2. The cowardice of the 9/11 bombers is that they attacked civilians. Maher only made an excellent point if you confuse "controversial" with "insightful".

[Ben]

Jasper- Who do you think you are replying to?

[Rimbo]

Jasper- Who do you think you are replying to?

He was replying to Master Widget, specifically the bit where Master Widget says that the difference is in "openly identifying yourself," because a gorilla doesn't openly identify his nationality before he pounds your skull into the ground. That's why we keep gorillas in zoos, so that we know where they are, because if they were out in the wild we wouldn't know whose side they're on; in a zoo, they have their side of the fence and we have ours. But I'd rather see polar bears when I go to the zoo; they're funny.

[Mister Widget]

I think he's replying to my post.

If you're a "guerilla fighter" who has no uniform and hides out amidst villagers until you can slip a bomb somewhere when no one is looking, then yeah, you're a terrorist.

On the other hand, if the guerilla fighters are wearing uniforms and carry some kind of flag with them, they're not terrorists. I remember seeing quite a few pictures of Viet Cong in uniforms... that would mean they weren't terrorists.

So by the definition I'm using, you can hang out in the wilderness and fight a guerilla war just fine without being a terrorist. And those nationalist troops? It's entirely possible they might be war criminals, but no, not terrorists.

[BrewersDroop]

In contrast anyone who is not in uniform is effectively hiding behind the civilians around him. Such a person is a terrorist whether they attack a military target or a civilian one. Thus, all of the bombers in Iraq are terrorists, even if they attack a military target. Same with every member of the IRA, or the PLO. Defending your homeland doesn't give you a free pass to avoid the terrorist label. If you don't want to be called a terrorist, you don't put the civilians around you at risk by pretending to be one of them.

Using this definition, all of the partisan groups fighting against the Germans in occupied territories during WWII were terrorists, including the best known example, the French resistance. The definition is also so broad that it encompasses such groups as the militia and irregular troops of the American Revolutionary War. I suspect you will have a hard time convincing most people that any of these groups were terrorists.

The thing about terrorism is that we all know it when we see it but it's difficult to define. I believe an act of terrorism has to meet at least the following criteria:
1. use of violence against civilians, non-combatants or property
2. perpetrated without government authority
3. with the intention of shocking, intimidating and swaying public opinion

[Jason McCullough]

Boy, I didn't think it was this hard. The point is "wow, that guy flying his nuke plane into the alien ship to kill himself and them sure meets a lot of suicide bomber/terrorist bullet points, but people thought he was great." Wasn't expecting to get into alien civilian epistomology. I guess they could be a species composed entirely of military troops.....


The crazy guy in "Independance Day" was flying a U.S. fighter jet: not a terrorist. Kamikaze pilots were in Japanese warplanes that were clearly labelled as such: not terrorists. U.S. bomber crews bombing civilians in Germany in WWII were also clearly labelled as members of the US military: not terrorists. They all might be good examples of how war is hell, sure... but none of them were terrorists.

Japanese soldiers in clearly labeled warplanes or not, the discussion at the time basically considered them unlawful warriors, no? I'd think this was a better explanation if the US portrayal of them wasn't so venomous/calling them cowards, both then and now.

[Mister Widget]

Using this definition, all of the partisan groups fighting against the Germans in occupied territories during WWII were terrorists, including the best known example, the French resistance.

I figured someone would bring that up. It's true, my definition would include the French resistance as terrorists. I think I can live with that, without feeling like I'm disrespecting the French Resistance. Hitler and the Nazis were a special case, and resisting them by any means necessary seems acceptable to me. Oops, did I just trigger Godwin's Law?

In any case, I'm not going to try to twist a definition to make sure that all the good guys escape the terrorist label and all the bad guys get tagged with it.


The definition is also so broad that it encompasses such groups as the militia and irregular troops of the American Revolutionary War. I suspect you will have a hard time convincing most people that any of these groups were terrorists.

My impression is that the Continental Army had uniforms and marched with a flag under a corps of officers. Thus, not terrorists. There were also irregular units that moved in a group and carried flags; I'd definitely say they were not terrorists, even if they had no uniforms. Finally, there were some irregular troops without uniforms or flags. If they really just spent their days as farmers and then emerged at night to take potshots at British encampments, then yep, I'd call them terrorists. Oh no, I called some fraction of the Founding Fathers terrorists!



The thing about terrorism is that we all know it when we see it but it's difficult to define. I believe an act of terrorism has to meet at least the following criteria:
1. use of violence against civilians, non-combatants or property
2. perpetrated without government authority
3. with the intention of shocking, intimidating and swaying public opinion
That's a pretty good definition, but it doesn't include the current Iraqi bombers as terrorists, and it wouldn't include those who bombed the sleeping Marines in Lebanon either. Change it to include "against military targets", and add in that they're not in uniform, and I'd agree with it wholeheartedly :)

[Mister Widget]

Japanese soldiers in clearly labeled warplanes or not, the discussion at the time basically considered them unlawful warriors, no? I'd think this was a better explanation if the US portrayal of them wasn't so venomous/calling them cowards, both then and now.

I think in general, the U.S. portrayal of the Japanese was venomous and embarassing by modern standards. I don't know if the Kamikaze pilots received more racist venom in the press than other Japanese troops did... the bar is pretty high there to begin with. But maybe they did; I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject.

[Uncle Larry]

Independence Day, in addition to being a shitty movie, was just a movie.

Trying to use it as a GOTCHA! for people with a different definition of terrorism than you is silly for several reasons, the most damning being: The aliens in ID4 weren't written as anything other than absolute villians. In fact, in the one scene where their "motivations" are explained, the captive alien answers the president's question of "what do you want from us?" by simply saying "die." BUT THEN AGAIN THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A DAY CARE IN THE MOTHERSHIP, I DUNNO -_-

It is interresting, though, that after RQ jihads the saucer(the "mothership" would be the big mama in orbit, right?) the president gets on the radio and says something along the lines of "get the word out, now we know how to take 'em down" and the very next scene shows a saucer in ruins with a middle-eastern backdrop. NATURALLY.

[forgeforsaken]

Boston Tea Party....

[Uncle Larry]

Boston Tea Party....

..would have been an infinitely better basis for an argument.

[antlers]

Was Rowdy Roddy Piper in They Live a terrorist?

Much better analogy with the situation in the Middle East, and it was even designed to be one.

[Bren]

Fuck Star Wars.

[shift6]

Quaid didn't have a nuke, anyways. He simply suicided the primary weapon of a military ship.

Actually, let me rephrase that: in a largely effects-driven movie the drunken ex-abductee trailer park failure with the heart of gold and the grungy but charming kids helped to defeat the invading aliens by ramming their super-ship's mega-gun with the very last air-to-air missile that the entire American Air Force (composed mostly of whomever the president could whip into a patriotic frenzy at Area 51) had available, after the alien super-ship's shields had been disabled by a two-man team made up of the wacky but unstoppable jet pilot and the mega-genius eco-activist had flown a nuclear bomb into the alien mothership using the now-restored UFO which had crashed at Roswell 50 years ago and uploading a computar virus over a wireless serial connection from his Macintosh laptop.

This is almost exactly analogous to Japanese Kamikazi in WW2. Clearly, the terrorists have won.

[Ben]

Jason- And that point is both factually wrong and stupid.

Again, is there insight somewhere? Does this guy Schneier get astounded when people cheer when their favorite baseball player hits a homerun yet get outraged when some drunk hillbilly beats a gay guy to death with a bat? "Why, it's a big guy hitting something with the same object! I've clearly made a breakthrough of blog-worthy significance. To my Powerbook!"


Oh, and I'm thinking the burden is on you showing that we singled out kamikaze pilots for special venom or that they were unlawful warriors.

I don't think "cowardly" was one of our common slurs against the Japanese, though. I thought we favored the savage/crazy vibe.

[Jason McCullough]

Just so I have this straight, you think there's no relevance to anything that people cheered a movie where a guy engages in a suicide attack?

[Ben]

Relevance to what?

[Jason McCullough]

To the way people go on about how the 9/11 hijackers were cowards? The way people talk about Iraqi and Palestinian suicide bombers?

[Alan Dunkin]

You're drawing a relation to a drunken pathetic movie character who sacrifices his useless deadbeat father life to basically save the vestiges of the human race from an alien invasion (by destroying the city-destroyer weapon in a big UFO by going straight up it with his biplane or F18, depending on which version you watch) and some religiously fucked up terrorist who hijacks an airplane with a boxcutter and slams it into a building, ultimately killing thousands of people who had nothing to do with anything?

--- Alan

[Ben]

Explain how. Not just because both included "explosions" and "pants," what's the actual train of thought?

Please tell me it's not:
1. Quaid died while acheiving his goals yet is cheered
2. Atta died while acheiving his goals yet is reviled
3. Ah ha, I've discovered some sort of inconsistency.
4. We should not say mean things about Iraqi and Palestinian terrorists.

I'm pretty sure it is, and that's just sad.

The civilian/military nature of targets is a huge freaking difference. It's not the only one, but it's enough of one to make any attempt to draw conclusions from differing responses ridiculous.

[John Reynolds]

You're drawing a relation to a drunken pathetic movie character who sacrifices his useless deadbeat father life to basically save the vestiges of the human race from an alien invasion (by destroying the city-destroyer weapon in a big UFO by going straight up it with his biplane or F18, depending on which version you watch) and some religiously fucked up terrorist who hijacks an airplane with a boxcutter and slams it into a building, ultimately killing thousands of people who had nothing to do with anything?

--- Alan

There is a corrolation, though a fairly tenuous one. The suicide bombers on 9/11 might've believed they were striking back in one of the few ways possible since the area from which they hail cannot compete militarily against an imperialistic enemy that continually interferes in their region of the world. You're saying the the aliens in ID were clearly aggressive and on an obvious mission of conquest. . .who's to say radicalized Islamics don't view us in a similar way, particularly post-Iraq invasion?

That said, it's a silly analogy.

[Justin Fletcher]

The civilian/military nature of targets is a huge freaking difference. It's not the only one, but it's enough of one to make any attempt to draw conclusions from differing responses ridiculous.
Agreed.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm) n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
- American Heritage


Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
- Merriam Webster


terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
- WordNet, Princeton University


Words and phrases that rhyme with terrorism: (0 results)
Sorry, no perfect rhymes were found.
- Rhyming Dictionary

[Justin Fletcher]

The suicide bombers on 9/11 might've believed they were striking back in one of the few ways possible since the area from which they hail cannot compete militarily against an imperialistic enemy that continually interferes in their region of the world.
The main difference is that there was no tactical advantage in destroying the Twin Towers. I would be less inclined to call the attack on the Pentagon terrorism because it was certain to cause chaos in the American chain of command, causing a ripple effect on our operations in the Middle East. The WTC attacks, on the other hand, were acts of protest and intimidation, more in line with Buddhist immolation than military action. Of course, the Buddhists didn't kill thousands of civilians with their acts of defiance.

There are two kinds of bravery: bravery to do something that will cause you personal sacrifice and bravery to do what you think is right. Usually, the two go hand in hand. The hijackers had the first kind of bravery in spades, but I think most would agree that destroying innocent lives is never "right."

[Jack Black]

Anyone see the Daily Show with Fareed Zakaria when he talks about the London bombings and it's effect on the Islamic world moderates, integration into society in both Europe and the States and "knapsack bombers"?

I think this has more to do with the sucide bombers than the ludicrous kamakazi = suicide bomber tie in that Jason seems to be grasping at.

[Justin Fletcher]

Rucksacks are the new black trenchcoats.

[John Reynolds]

There are two kinds of bravery: bravery to do something that will cause you personal sacrifice and bravery to do what you think is right. Usually, the two go hand in hand. The hijackers had the first kind of bravery in spades, but I think most would agree that destroying innocent lives is never "right."

Completely agree.

[Tim Partlett]

If killing civilians equates to terrorism, then the British and Americans were acting as terrorists in World War Two. If not wearing a uniform when carrying out operations makes you a terrorist, then the SAS, Navy SEALS, and every other SpecOp organisation in the world are terrorists. The definition of terrorist is vague, and usually comes down to partizanship. If he's on your side, he's a freedom fighter. If he's on the other side, he's a terrorist.

[shift6]

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/thinking_about.html
Schneier's an idiot.

[Jason McCullough]

Ok, got off track. Going back to the quote:


Partly it's which side you're rooting for, but mostly it's that the pilot defended his planet by attacking the invaders. Terrorism targets innocents, and no one is a hero for killing innocents. Killing people who are invading and occupying your planet -- or country -- can be heroic, as can sacrificing yourself in the process.

The suicide bombers in Iraq aren't motivated by pure evil - they're pissed off that someone is attacking and occupying their country. As an analogy, they guy in Independence Day is doing the same, except against a military target. Which doesn't stop the analogy much; people are howling about the pure evil of the insurgents just as much when they attack military targets as civilians.

So I'm not seeing a dividing line that makes any sense.

Pulling up the rest of it:


What are the lessons here for Iraq? I think there are three. One, the insurgents (or whatever we're calling them these days) would do best by attacking military targets and not civilian ones. Two, the coalition forces (or whatever we're calling them these days) need to do everything they can not to be perceived as invaders or occupiers. And three, the terrorists should try to advance a worldview where there are no innocents, only invaders and occupiers. To the extent that the bombing victims are perceived to be invaders and occupiers, those who kill them defending their country will be viewed as heroic by the people.

In other words, analysis of the opponent's motivations and the best tactics to win. Clearly he's an idiot; the best solution is to pretend we're fighting aliens.

[Uncle Larry]

In other words, analysis of the opponent's motivations and the best tactics to win. Clearly he's an idiot; the best solution is to pretend we're fighting aliens.

I think since the two of you are the only people who see any legitimate parallels between ID4 and Iraq, then that's really on you.

You know, maybe if ID4 was a more complex movie with more blurred lines between hero and villian we'd have a scene where Quaid rams his plane into a martian version of Starbucks during peak hours or something to work on their morale, and you and this guy wouldn't be grasping at straws.


If killing civilians equates to terrorism, then the British and Americans were acting as terrorists in World War Two. If not wearing a uniform when carrying out operations makes you a terrorist, then the SAS, Navy SEALS, and every other SpecOp organisation in the world are terrorists. The definition of terrorist is vague, and usually comes down to partizanship. If he's on your side, he's a freedom fighter. If he's on the other side, he's a terrorist.

See? HERE is an example of such a moral grey area.

[Ben]

Jason, man, I can stop at Walmart and buy like 1000 drinking straws for $5. You're going to strain yourself grasping like that.

Again, fiction all over the place. Who is howling about the pure evil of the insurgents when they attack military targets?

You're setting up a nasty false dichotomy in your last line.

[Jason McCullough]

Are you watching the news or reading the paper? The line on the Iraqi insurgents is pretty much evil/hate freedom.

[Uncle Larry]

Are you watching the news or reading the paper? The line on the Iraqi insurgents is pretty much evil/hate freedom.

Yes! It seems like virtually every day they are bombing civilian targets. Dirt's way on top of this, check his threads once in a while.

Now, unless you're going to produce a Director's Cut of ID4 that portrays anything other than a absolute good vs evil scenario, then just let it go dude.

[Alan Dunkin]

Except that a lot of insurgents aren't even Iraqi, they're Syrian, Saudi, Iranian, etc. So they're killing a lot of Iraqis for the sheer point of disturbing a bunch of Americans. Yah that's a real hero.

--- Alan

[Ben]

I am watching the news right now. Nothing about cowardice. Which, if you remember, was the original argument before you switched to "evil," which is also wrong(in the context of military targets). I imagine you're now switching to "hate freedom" because that can actually be supported.

So I guess that means Randy Quaid hates terraforming.

[shift6]

If Quaid wasn't a human or ID4 alien, but maybe like a Vulcan or something, then there'd be some similarities. :wink:

[Bren]

Let's elevate the debate by bringing up the F-16 flying cavemen in Battlefield Earth.

[Christien Murawski]

There are two kinds of bravery: bravery to do something that will cause you personal sacrifice and bravery to do what you think is right. Usually, the two go hand in hand. The hijackers had the first kind of bravery in spades, but I think most would agree that destroying innocent lives is never "right."

[Emphasis mine]

Except for the fact that their "personal sacrifice" was tempered by the belief that they were about to be rewarded for all eternity in paradise. A suicide bomber is indoctrinated to believe that they are about to be rewarded in the most extreme ways imaginable for their "sacrifice"...which, for me, nullifies the word sacrifice. (Discussion for another time...I have a similar problem with Jesus.)

Courage has to carry with it the implication of an understanding of consequences. A courageous man understands that there will be consequences for his actions, and he will have to pay them. A person who acts knowing his life will be forfeit, when that life itself is precious to him, is a hero. An act that by its very definition removes the doer from all consequences cannot be heroic. The hijakers did such an act. Therefore, courage is not their lot. Nerve? Fine, they had a lot of nerve. Balls? Okay, that too. But courage? Slitting a flight attendant's throat in the service of getting yourself laid for all eternity is not courage. It is perversity.

"Besides, attacking that battle station ain't my idea of courage. It's more like...suicide."

-Amanpour

[Tim Partlett]

The myth that suicide bombers kill themselves in order to receive a reward of virginal sex is the same as the myth that Islamicists bomb us because they are "jealous of our prosperity" or because they "hate freedom". It allows people to view all Islamicists as a mindless, selfish and evil enemy, and all of our own actions as being perfect and without need of review. This leads to the conclusion that the solution to Islamic terrorism is simply to crush all Islamicists, and never to reconsider any of our own actions, as doing so would make no difference. After all, they want to destroy our freedom and get screwed by virgins in paradise, so how will reviewing our foreign policy help?

Just because many suicide bombers believe they will be rewarded in heaven doesn't mean that they are blowing themselves up in order to receive those virgins. If this were true, then what are women suicide bombers, like the Chechens in the Moscow theater, killing themselves for?

[Mike O'Malley]

So you disapprove of alternative lifestyles, Tim?

[Ben]

Tim- You're using "myth" in a grossly non-standard way. I, at least, have never heard it used as "thing that is true but should not divert attention from American foriegn policy."

[Tim Partlett]

It's not true, Ben, that's the point of a myth. There's a difference between killing yourself for a cause (and believing you will be rewarded for this in the afterlife), and killing yourself in order to be rewarded in the afterlife. The belief that all suicide bombers kill themselves due to the latter is the myth that is propagated by those who do not want to have their actions questioned, and instead lay the blame soley at the feet of others.

These kinds of myths are great if you can get enough people to buy into it, because then, as a government, you never have to worry about doing anything wrong - it's always the fault of the crazies on the other side. The Israelis did a great job with the "Palestinians want to drive the Jews into the sea" myth. Some Palestinians do want to see Israel destroyed, but that is not the reason they are blowing themselves up in Tel Aviv.

Getting people to believe the myth, while failing to understand the reality, allows those in control to divert people's attention from the real problems (e.g. the occupation of Palestinian land) and thus never have to solve that issue.

[Christien Murawski]

The myth that suicide bombers kill themselves in order to receive a reward of virginal sex is the same as the myth that Islamicists bomb us because they are "jealous of our prosperity" or because they "hate freedom". It allows people to view all Islamicists as a mindless, selfish and evil enemy, and all of our own actions as being perfect and without need of review. This leads to the conclusion that the solution to Islamic terrorism is simply to crush all Islamicists, and never to reconsider any of our own actions, as doing so would make no difference. After all, they want to destroy our freedom and get screwed by virgins in paradise, so how will reviewing our foreign policy help?

Just because many suicide bombers believe they will be rewarded in heaven doesn't mean that they are blowing themselves up in order to receive those virgins. If this were true, then what are women suicide bombers, like the Chechens in the Moscow theater, killing themselves for?

Okay, drop the sexual angle and my point about paradise still stands.

-Amanpour

[Justin Fletcher]

Except for the fact that their "personal sacrifice" was tempered by the belief that they were about to be rewarded for all eternity in paradise. A suicide bomber is indoctrinated to believe that they are about to be rewarded in the most extreme ways imaginable for their "sacrifice"...which, for me, nullifies the word sacrifice.
You've got a point, but I'd argue that even if these guys were convinced that the Afterlove was awaiting them, doing something you know will result in your death, going against every self-preservation instinct hardwired into your brain, requires bravery.

None of which changes the fact that they used their bravery to commit a mindboggling atrocity.

[Tim Partlett]

Okay, drop the sexual angle and my point about paradise still stands.

Maybe, but then you could use the same argument about heroes in battle. Do men carry out acts of bravery because they know they will be rewarded with honours, promotions and the respect of their fellow soldiers, friends, family and countrymen? Or do they carry out the acts because they feel it is their duty, and the understanding of the reward is immaterial. I guess it would depend on the person. Some do it because they believe it is their duty and some for the rewards - most likely it is a mix of the two.

[Alan Dunkin]

All this talk is making me want to see ID4 again. Please stop.

--- Alan

[Jason McCullough]

Are you watching the news or reading the paper? The line on the Iraqi insurgents is pretty much evil/hate freedom.

Yes! It seems like virtually every day they are bombing civilian targets. Dirt's way on top of this, check his threads once in a while.

Now, unless you're going to produce a Director's Cut of ID4 that portrays anything other than a absolute good vs evil scenario, then just let it go dude.

Back when they were only attacking military targets, was their any difference in the rhetoric against them? Nope.

[quatoria]

All this talk is making me want to see ID4 again. Please stop.

--- Alan

THAT would be the true mindboggling atrocity.

[Uncle Larry]

Are you watching the news or reading the paper? The line on the Iraqi insurgents is pretty much evil/hate freedom.

Yes! It seems like virtually every day they are bombing civilian targets. Dirt's way on top of this, check his threads once in a while.

Now, unless you're going to produce a Director's Cut of ID4 that portrays anything other than a absolute good vs evil scenario, then just let it go dude.

Back when they were only attacking military targets, was their any difference in the rhetoric against them? Nope.

When were "they" only attacking military targets? Was that the same "them", even? Seems like there'd been bombs going off in Baghdad since right after the statue fell. And is it the rhetoric that's really eating you? Identifying someone who suicide bombs civilians as a terrorist offends my sensibilities by a factor of zero, so you'll probably need to explain that one to me. I don't buy that everyone is just an insurgent, some of them are legitimately bad people. Like the ones who bomb civilians.

And just drop the ID4 parallel because that dog just doesn't hunt.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, I give up.

[MikeSofaer]

If not wearing a uniform when carrying out operations makes you a terrorist, then the SAS, Navy SEALS, and every other SpecOp organisation in the world are terrorists.
Umm. These guys usually wear uniforms. When they don't they are illegal combatants and can be shot for it.

Besides, you have to be both attacking civilian targets and looking like a civilian to be a terrorist.

Jason, I have never called anyone attacking a military target an act of terrorism, so it's not everyone's rhetoric, just our head knuclehead, basically.

[Tim Partlett]

It has nothing to do with attacking civilians or dressing up in plain clothes.

ter·ror·ism (tĕr'ə-rĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Since 9/11 this has been one of the most misapplied words in existence.

When ETA or the IRA set off a bomb but give a warning in advance so nobody gets hurt, but millions of dollars worth of damage is caused, is that not an act of terrorism?

[MikeSofaer]

Tim, a civilian building is a non-military target, even if there aren't any people in it at the time. And the IRA didn't wear uniforms while planting bombs, so yes, that qualifies as an act of terrorism.

It's true that your definition doesn't explicitly mention uniforms, but it does use the word "unlawful" and the wearing of uniforms is a major component to making use of force lawful.

[Tim Partlett]

Ah... so you meant civilian buildings as well as civilians by "civilian targets". Fair enough. It is still a bit of a vague definition, as it would also include French resistence fighters blowing up civilian railroads in World War 2. I guess to the Nazis they were terrorists - hence I said the difference was largely in what side of the fence you stand on.

[Justin Fletcher]

It has nothing to do with attacking civilians or dressing up in plain clothes.

ter·ror·ism (tĕr'ə-rĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Since 9/11 this has been one of the most misapplied words in existence.
Depends on your definition (www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20353&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40).

[MikeSofaer]

Ah... so you meant civilian buildings as well as civilians by "civilian targets". Fair enough. It is still a bit of a vague definition, as it would also include French resistence fighters blowing up civilian railroads in World War 2. I guess to the Nazis they were terrorists - hence I said the difference was largely in what side of the fence you stand on.
I'm not familiar with the details on Resistance targets, but railroads are often considered legitimate targets. If they really were civilian-only railroads then yes, I would consider that an act of terrorism. I'm not trying to build a definition of terrorism that puts people on my side always in the right. If La Resistance did blow up civilian-only railroads that would be pretty despicable, causing no problems for the Germans other than image problems while harming the lives of the people they were supposed to be fighting for.

To drop into the battle for hearts and minds a bit, I want to keep the word "terrorism" reasonably tightly defined. If you start letting it be used for actions against troops then you start having people who support the actions against troops "supporting terrorism". If you keep it restricted to civilian targets then you have a word (and related group of people) that almost everyone will speak out against, whether (in the Iraq case) they like the US troop presence or not.

Maybe. Or maybe it's because I think like a math person and I like my neat little boxes.

[Tim Partlett]

Yes railroads often are considered reasonable military targets, but we all know that if the IRA planted bombs on a railroad, no matter if it was also used to supply military bases, it would be considered terrorism. Personally I'm quite happy to accept the definition of terrorism as being targetting civilians, but that opens up a whole bag of worms regarding whether the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima was terrorism.

[MikeSofaer]

Yes railroads often are considered reasonable military targets, but we all know that if the IRA planted bombs on a railroad, no matter if it was also used to supply military bases, it would be considered terrorism. Personally I'm quite happy to accept the definition of terrorism as being targetting civilians, but that opens up a whole bag of worms regarding whether the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima was terrorism.
I don't think it does, since both Dresden and Hiroshima were done by uniformed military personel. That doesn't make them good things, just not terrorism, being horrendous and murderous on a large scale isn't enough. The Nazi reprisals against villages during the Resistance weren't terrorism, they were war crimes.

[Jason McCullough]

That raises the question of "what's so uniquely bad about terrorism," then. I doubt everyone's getting all pissed at them because they're not wearing a uniform; it really does seem to be freedom fighter or terrorist.

[Tim Partlett]

Exactly, because dropping bombs on Dresden and Hiroshima was, in effect, terrorism, even if you believe it was justified. The British even called it "terror bombing" because the effect was to terrorise the German population into giving up the war.

[MikeSofaer]

That raises the question of "what's so uniquely bad about terrorism," then. I doubt everyone's getting all pissed at them because they're not wearing a uniform; it really does seem to be freedom fighter or terrorist.
Terrorism isn't uniquely bad. There are worse things that civilians can do to other civilians, things like genocide. People are all up in arms about it because it's what they are doing to us. I don't think Dresden was terrorism, it was an atrocity commited by a military during a war. I might be willing to argue the position that it was more atrocious than Hijack Day, so I don't think that "terrorism" is a label that needs to be attached to an atrocious act against civilians in order to condemn it heavily. We have terms for things like Dresden. "War crime" and "atrocity" are good ones. Terrorism is a term for people who pretend to be civilians in order to more effectively attack civilian targets.

But like I said earlier, I just like having neat little boxes.

[Justin Fletcher]

Exactly, because dropping bombs on Dresden and Hiroshima was, in effect, terrorism, even if you believe it was justified. The British even called it "terror bombing" because the effect was to terrorise the German population into giving up the war.
Yeah, but they were part of an officially declared war between nations. Terrorism generally connotes hostilities from a fringe group or faction with no recognized sovereignty.

[MikeJ]

That raises the question of "what's so uniquely bad about terrorism," then. I doubt everyone's getting all pissed at them because they're not wearing a uniform; it really does seem to be freedom fighter or terrorist.

What's wrong with the two part definition? Engaging in a war while hiding among the civilian population is bad (but probably still considered a freedom fighter on the 'home team'. Attacks where the main intent is to kill or inflict suffering on the civilian population is bad (war crimes if a state actor). Terrorism is the intersection of the two.

Now maybe that's not the most natural definition of terrorism, but it seems to fit my mental concept of the line pretty well. Terrorism needn't cover all evil acts.

Also, many of the attacks carried out in Iraq should really be called terrorism no matter your perspective. Sure the administration considers every attack on US interests terrorism but that doesn't mean that there are no clear cases.

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe it's just a question of scale. To listen to the discussion of it all in the United States, you'd think this was the worst thing to happen in the history of the universe or something..