Home - Politics - The World - Terrorism

Terrorism / Internal conflicts

1. Are they an officially recognised country?

2. Have they a just (or at least partly just) cause? This doesn't mean the cause justifies war. Only that it is a cause worth at least addressing. e.g. Wanting to convert everyone to one religion is not even worth addressing.
   • Al-Qa'ida - NO
   • Aum Shinrikyo - NO
   • Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - NO
   • Baader-Meinhof - NO
   • The Palestinians - YES
   • Israel - YES
   • The Chechens - YES
   • The Ulster loyalists - YES
   • The IRA - YES
   • The Allies in WW2 - YES
   • The French Resistance - YES
   • The American bombing of the Taliban - YES
   • The American liberation of Iraq - YES

3. Do they deliberately target innocent civilians?
   • Al-Qa'ida - YES
   • Aum Shinrikyo - YES
   • Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - YES
   • The Palestinians - YES
   • Israel - NO
   • The Chechens - YES
   • The Ulster loyalists - YES
   • The IRA - NO
   • The Allies in WW2 - YES
   • The American bombing of the Taliban - NO
   • The American liberation of Iraq - NO

Then we can consider the following categories:

[*]-NO-[*]   (No just cause)

• [*]-NO-YES
  • The word "terrorism" is generally meant to imply:
    •   NO-NO-YES   (e.g. Al-Qa'ida, or Aum Shinrikyo).
    Obviously, any such people should be ruthlessly opposed, as should:
    •   YES-NO-YES   (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, in fact most killing through history).
    These two are by far the easiest situations to think about. You simply respond with total war.

• [*]-NO-NO
  • In fact, one could be equally unimpressed with:
    •   NO-NO-NO   (e.g. perhaps some left-wing terrorists in the West?)
    •   YES-NO-NO   (examples?)
    If they don't have a just cause, then even if they fight a "clean" war they must be ruthlessly opposed. These latter two rarely happen, since most groups without a just cause tend to naturally target civilians.

[*]-YES-YES   (Just cause, but target civilians)

• But how about war crimes in a just (or partly just) cause:
  •   NO-YES-YES   (e.g. the Palestinians, the Chechens, or the Ulster loyalists).
  Here, one might argue that ruthless opposition to the war crimes has to be combined with a political settlement. One can assassinate, and make peace.

• Similarly problematic is:
  •   YES-YES-YES   (e.g. the Allies in WW2).
  Do the Allied bombing crimes in WW2 cause one to oppose the Allied cause?

[*]-YES-NO   (Just cause, don't target civilians)

• NO-YES-NO
  • Even more complex for the definition of "terrorism" is the possibility of   NO-YES-NO   where the armed group has a just (or partly just) cause, and tries to fight a war against military targets. We can't dismiss it on   [*]-NO-[*]   grounds. We can't dismiss it on   [*]-[*]-YES   grounds. So we need a further question: In cases where it is a just cause, does the cause actually justify going to war (a "clean" war, against military targets)? So we consider:
    •   NO-YES(YES)-NO   (e.g. the French Resistance).
    •   NO-YES(NO)-NO   (e.g. the IRA). One could debate whether the 18th century American rebels or the early 20th century Irish rebels go here or in the previous category. There was a just cause, sure, but was the war worth it? Was it worth all that suffering and destruction?

• YES-YES-NO
  • Finally there is   YES-YES-NO,   which we sub-divide into:
    •   YES-YES(NO)-NO   (examples?)
    •   YES-YES(YES)-NO   (e.g. Israel, or the American war on Afghanistan or Iraq).

Discussion

So if the word "terrorism" is used for all conflicts of the form:   NO-[*]-[*]   then it is not a very useful word, since it just condemns all internal rebellions against the state, no matter what the state is like or no matter what the rebellion is like.

• Treating countries as sacred is a diplomat's approach, where stability is all that matters. It is a very simplistic approach, ignoring where "countries" come from in the first place. Many, probably most, of the world's internal conflicts are to do with the definition of the "country" in the first place. People keep trying to set up an Islamic state, or a Serb state, or an Ulster-British state, and naturally this leads to conflict with people trapped inside their borders. Even if you manage to redraw the borders and ethnically cleanse the non-believers, new diversity may arise within your children or grandchildren's generation, and the conflict will begin all over again.
• There is no future for nation states other than ultra-neutral, secular, ultra-liberal democracies. A nation should not stand for a common heritage or beliefs. This is an evil idea that has caused unending misery through history.

The War on "Terrorism"

This is not a War on "Terrorism".

It is a War on Islamism.

Internal conflicts

• terrorism (also here)
  • terrorists

  
  

• The Albanians in Kosovo, Serbia

• The Palestinians in Israel

• The Catholics in Northern Ireland

• The Chechens (also here) in Russia

• The Kurds in Turkey and Iraq