Okay, everybody, join hands in a circle. Let's sing "All we are saying, is stop giving terror a chance..."

Israel? Israel?

What's happening in Israel is not a "conflict." Rather, Israel is on the front lines of the war on terror. And that war has not abated since 9/11.

What's with that crack that the American Revolution used terror? My knowledge of history may not be the greatest, but I didn't think George Washington was telling troops to attack civilians; all of his targets were troops and supplies for the British.

Brian, yeah there are those who think the little incident with tea was "terrorism". The myth that the Colonists used terrorist tactics is one that has been spread by Irish-Americans to justify their support for the IRA and their ilk. It would be justified to say that the Colonists used "guerilla" or "irregular" (ie ambushes, faints etc) tactics in the war but certainly not terrorist tactics.

Israel is at war and has been for some time.

Actually, terror was used as a tactic in the Southern campaign during the American Revolution, but was not officially supported by the Continental Army nor Congress. (Indeed, Gen Nathaniel Greene's dispatches to Congress bemoaned the savagery of the terror inflicted among the population, and he actively tried to suppress it as much as possible, given the tiny forces at his command.) Much of this was local feuds writ large. Part of the rationale for the British posting forces to the South was to protect Loyalists and Tories from Southern mobs.

Brian and Andrew,

You are making a common misconception about the definition of terrorism. Terrorism by definition is not about attacking civilian targets, rather it is about using intimidation to coerce a government or a society.

Violence against civilians is one method often used by terrorists, as it allows terrorists who believe the civilans are sufficiently vulnerable to their attacks to hold such a population as a semi-hostage to force government action. It is, however, perfectly possible to use terrorist tactics without involving civilians.

The tactics used in the American Revolution were to make it too difficult and or costly for the British to attempt to retain rule. The major tactic used that could be considered terrorism was the use of privateers. Privateer's were essentially government supported pirates. The Americans used them in the revolutionary war to disrupt British shipping. In this case the primary targets were civilian as privateers were encouraged to attack lightly armed or unarmed merchant vessels(The American navy was in no way a match for the British navy of the time). The privateers were something of a terrorist tactic in an attempt to hamper the lucrative British shipping to help coerce the British to grant the American colonies their independance.

I'd argue that the Sons of Liberty were a terrorist group, too. Not just stealing tea and dumping it in the harbor but tarring and feathering, lynching, and the like. Clearly, though, SOL weren't exactly on par with al Qaeda in scale or scope.

While literally it makes sense to define terror as any tactic of intimidation (including legitimate ones), today it is normally only used to refer to illegitimate methods.
It can be difficult to agree what is legitimate, especially when talking about events that occurred 200 years ago, when the rules of war were different.

In the American Revolution, those happy with the status quo were labelled 'Tories', and many of them suffered serious property damage if not worse at the hands of the rebels. So much so that there was a significant exodus of Tories from the Colonies into Canada to escape the mayhem.

Maybe some hair-splitters don't think being looted and burned out of house and home should be labelled 'terrorized', but then they probably don't think saying 'Merry Christmas' is a civil greeting, either.

Still, terrorism implies targeting and attacking civilians. The Attack on the King David Hotel, made famous in the movie Exodus, was an attack on the billet and headquarters of the English Army of occupation in Palestine. There are those who thus accuse the Jews of using terrorism in 1948, but the accusation is false. Targeting wedding receptions and school buses is terrorism, and cowardly at that, but then any attack with an element of suicide in it is cowardly, as well as defeatist. Courage is risking your life when you hope to survive. "Suicide bombers" who crave death have no courage, they are taking the easy way out. As they take the lives of innocents, they die instead of taking the responsibility for their actions and facing the music. They hope to be conveyed to their whore house heaven, but sane people know that the spiritual realm does not offer the pleasures of the flesh.

Michael, I am in total agreement with your beautifully expressed condemnation of both terrorism and suicide bombers, and the disctinction between those abominations and the Israelli guerilla tactic against the Brits in 1948.

The American Revolution was a Revolution, by definition an overthrow of the status quo. Supporters of the status quo were not neutrals, and suffered abuse. However, the attacks on Tory's were not made to directly influence British policy due to fear, but instead to deprive the British of food, shelter and support: immediate and tangible military objectives. There were abuses, war crimes, on both sides, but the Founding Fathers were not terrorists.

Aaron, "intimidation to influence policy" defines all war, so your defintion of terrorism is too broad to be of any use.

Just war theory, which is given at least lip service in the west for the past 400 years or so, requires protection of innocents during conflicts, to the extent possible. Terrorism requires the opposite: purposefull intimidation of the populace unrelated to military purpose. In the context of the history of the US, there may be crimes to decry (such as many indian massacres), but terrorism is not one of them.

Also, your analysis of privateering is contrary to history. In the era of sail, privateering was well within the bounds of the law of war, and not terrorism: it was then recognized as a means of economic warfare, and the crews of the prizes were to be treated humanely (well, as humanely as prisoners of war were treated in the past). Indeed, at that time most commerce over the seas was government controlled or conducted (free-market capitalism was barely out of infancy in the British sphere, and mercantilism still the rule in most of the world).

This was a very nice piece of writing until our founding fathers were put in the same light as others with much lower principles and morals who would kill innocent people. This is a shame as the message about what brought about this outbreak of peace is great.

Steve,

You have somewhat mistated my definition and perhaps I was not clear in it. It is an attempt to use fear to induce coercion. That doesn't necessarily involve the use of civilians. Terroist strikes can be used against purely military targets in an attempt to cause fear among the troops, dropping their morale and reducing their effectiveness. However, it is far more successful against civilians, as militares have learned methods of training and discipline the reduce its effectiveness against the military.

As for privateering, it depends largely on who's history you are reading. It was condemed by the major powers of the time(Britan, France, etc.) Captured American privateers were treated as criminals not as enemy combatants.

I never claimed that they committed atrocities or murdered civilians. Their tactics, however, were to attack civilian operations in an effort to spread fear and limit British shipping. Though they did make an impact through the direct seizure of goods, the impact was more dramatic as a display that even the mighty British fleet could not protect their shipping and therefore made merchant captians more fearful of sailing near America.

As for the commerce being government controlled, of course. That was part of the point. Are you arguing that those made them military targets? I don't think the being a government employee makes you a miltary target(and I imagine a number of shoolteachers, postment, and other government professions would agree ;)

I should perhaps emphasise that I am in no way attempted to equate the actions performed in the American Revolution with the actions of most modern terrorists.

Today most terrorists are focused on committing horrid atrocities in their attempts at instilling fear in their enemies. Such atrocities were not part of the American Revolution(though there may have been indivudal cases, they were not part of the policy of the colonial leaders).

I am trying to point out that terrorism does not equal atrocity. That is becoming a popular view in America, and it is reinforced greatly by the modern practioners of terrorist tactics, but that not not the only way to use terrorism.

Man, all that fuss over one sentence in the entire article.

I don't suppose anyone wants to talk about that, eh?

(crickets chirping)

Didn't think so. I'm really entertained by some of the verbal gymnastics I've seen in this thread already. Just to clear a couple items up (in sequence):

-Many of the tactics by terrorist groups today were also used in the southern colonies during the rebellion. These included attacking and (sometimes) killing those who supported the opposition, destroying homes, and running off the opposition.

By any sane standard, these actions - if performed today - would be nearly universally condemned as terrorist tactics. One may try to split hairs all day long about "goals," but the simple fact of the matter is that both Tories and Whigs committed acts of terror in the colonial south, Misters Gersh and Malynn's attempt at distinction not withstanding.

In fact, these two gentlemen suffer from a degree of confusion as to just what constitutes an act of terrorism. Mr. Gersh, for example, claims that "terrorism implies targeting and attacking civilians." By this logic, any attack that does not target civilians is, by definition, not a terrorist act. In other words, no attacks on military targets or soldiers are terrorist attacks.

By this logic, the 1984 Beirut bombing was not constitute a terrorist action, nor would any attacks on US servicemen currently in Iraq.

Mr Malynn, on the other hand, states "Supporters of the status quo were not neutrals, and suffered abuse," and "attacks on Tory's were ... made ... to deprive the British of food, shelter and support: immediate and tangible military objectives." (emphasis added) In other words, attacks on "non-neutral" civilians, or those who provide the British with "food, shelter, and support" constitute legitimate targets.

Replace "Tories" with "Jews," and "British" with the word "Israeli", and reread that sentence: a perfect description of the approach the Palestinian Authority follows today.

Mr. Malynn also directly contradicts contemporary wisdom with his statement that "Terrorism [is] purposefull[sic] intimidation of the populace unrelated to military purpose." (emphasis added) Again, by his logic Saddam Hussein's actions against the Iraqi people weren't terrorism because they had no "military purpose," nor are the PA's actions. For those not paying attention, the PA still holds as a goal the destruction of the state of Israel. I have to say that certainly constitutes a "military purpose," and is therefore (according to Mr. Malynn) not a terrorist goal. If Mr. Malynn should care to disagree, I look forward to his explanation why the avowed destruction of a neighboring state is not a "military" goal...

-yes, Virginia, there were Jewish terrorist groups. If this causes a problem, I suggest looking up the activities of the Irgun, and the Stern gang (AKA Lehi, "Lohamei Herut Israel," "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel.")

In response to claims that terrorists only target civilians, I cite the assassinations of Lord Moyne and Count Bernadotte. Neither were in the military.

As for the infamous King David Hotel bombing, Mr. Gersh excuses this action by pointing out that the hotel was the headquarters of the "English [sic] Army." But I feel compelled to point out that it was Irgun who placed the bomb, and set it off. If my comprehension of (at least American) law is not flawed, if a person or group sets off a bomb, then they are responsible for any damage or casualties. In this case, Irgun was responsible for 91 deaths. Of the 45 injuries, 15 were Jewish. This is not terrorism?

Also, I would like to point out that, at the time (July, 1946), Great Britain was not at war. Do Messrs Malynn and Gersh consider attacking a military headquarters during peacetime not an act of terrorism? What military purpose exists in attacking a country with whom one is -at least theoretically- at peace? Certainly an equivalent action by the Imperial Japanese Navy not 15 years before was considered causus belli by the United States.

-It is quite apparent that several readers find the association of the word terrorist with the Founding Fathers offensive. I would respectfully suggest re-reading the original article: "most rebellions use terror, the American Revolution included)." The authors do not claim that the men who founded our country were terrorists. Rather, they merely pointed out that most rebellions involved acts of terror; something that is easily verifiable in any history book.

The sad fact is that one can find evidence of heinous acts in any war, by any participant. I can easily cite an example of at least one Allied war crime during D-Day. Does this mean that the Allies were war criminals?

casey, the attempted parallel of equating palestinian suicide bombers to the founding fathers of the US or Israel is pure bs, an attempted genocide is not "just war" in any sense of the western concept, and I deny the moral equivalence of jihad to just war. Placing combatants in fear is not terrorism.

Casey you are attempting to compare: as regards to the American Revolution, acts of cruelty during a civil war, that were against the policy of the combatants, with intentional and planned murder to further dreams of genocide; as regards to 1948, you posit "peace" in the nascent Israel, as your first error. I should clarify my statement "unrelated to military purpose" to "regardless of military purpose"; that is just war requires the intentional shielding of innocents to the extent possible when in combat, terrorism is purposeful violence intended to damage innocents whether or not a valid or just military purpose is the goal.

While the distinction is to a great extent subjective, objectively anyone can understand "pushing jews into the sea" is not "just war," and the intentional targeting of civilians is not "just war." "Acts of Terror" occur in war, as you note, terrorism is the systematic use of terror against innocents as a policy. Scale and intent and objective all matter.

Steve,

You seem to want to choose a different definintion of terrorism than the official one. While you are certainly free to do so, you are going to run into a lot of misunderstanding and confusion when talking to people who are discussing military tactics and strategies.
While the targeting of civilians is rarely anything but terrorism, terrorism is not restricted to attacking civilians.

Terrorism is most certainly not unrelated or unreguarding of military purpose. It has a very clear military purpose, to use fear to reduce military effectiveness. It applied several ways depending on the situation. It is used against military troops to reduce moral or to encite panic and rash action. It is used against logistical(military and non-military) targets to cause supply chains to be more careful and therefore less effecient(requiring safer routes, more escorts, etc), and it is used against bystander civilian targets to reduce the will to fight through fear of further atrocity. You seem to focus only on that last application, however it is not the only one.

Further no one has attempted to equate palestinian suicide bombers with the founding fathers. The founding fathers were not responsible for everything that happened in the American Revolution and stating that there were acts of terrorism in that war does not implicate them.

The point is that terrorism is a tactic used almost always by a vastly inferior force attacking a larger force. Labeling a group as terrorists does not have the same negative connotation for everyone that it has for you.

Agaist a vastly superior force, terror is one of the few effective weapons that can be used. Almost any vastly inferior force that is engage in a war with a superior one is using it in some way. That does not necessarily mean they are commiting atrocities (though more and more commonly that has become the case). In America we have lately focused on one aspect of terrorism, but we would to well to remember that not everyone sees it the same way.

By this logic, any attack that does not target civilians is, by definition, not a terrorist act. In other words, no attacks on military targets or soldiers are terrorist attacks.

That is correct.

By this logic, the 1984 Beirut bombing was not constitute a terrorist action, nor would any attacks on US servicemen currently in Iraq.

Also correct.

In response to claims that terrorists only target civilians, I cite the assassinations of Lord Moyne and Count Bernadotte. Neither were in the military.

And these attacks are not terrorism. They are political assassination.

There has been a great deal of word-creation over this whole thing, and it will no doubt continue because we don't have a large vocabulary built up to cover war with non-nation-states. But changing the definition of terrorism is not helpful, in my opinion. If "terrorism" is broadened to include most or all violent acts that are politically motivated, then what the heck does "war" mean?

No, so far as I am concerned, terrorist acts are acts committed by someone other than a nation-state that target non-combatants for the purpose of influencing enemy morale or public opinion.

If the perpetrator is a nation-state, then it's not terrorism, it's an act of war or a war crime. If the perpetrator is not a nation-state and the targets are combatants, then the act is rebellion, or revolution, or war, etc., but it's not terrorism. Only when non-nation-states attack non-combatants with the view to influencing public opinion is it terrorism.

Here's just one quick example that seems to agree with me, the definition of 'terrorism' from dictionary.com:

ter•ror•ism
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.
Link

Dsmith,

So you would not describe a government "Reign of Terror" as terrorism? What else could you call it? I see no reson to exclude governments from being defined as engaging in acts of terror.

An alternate definition of terrorism from Webter's dictionary is "a mode of government by terror or intimidation."

Terrorism As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives".

Terrorism is about the applied use of terror(fear).

The tactics in war are used to reduce the enemy's ability to effectively fight. That can be done primarily through military attrition, logistical attrition, military morale, or civilian morale.

Terrorism is about using fear to target morale or the will to fight. The attack on the marine barracks in Beruit was not done primarily to reduce the number of soldiers we had in Beruit at the time through attrition. Instead it was designed create a sense of fear that our soldiers were not safe there, to reduce our will to keep soldiers stationed there. That is the only way such an attack could be effective on our mililtary. Our military's greatest weakness is our civilian morale, and instilling fear is the easiest way to damage that morale.

Aaron, then every totalitarian state is by definition terrorism. Then every war is by definition terrorism. Your definition has no bounds, unless we decide wars by Chivalric rules and jousting.

Steve,

No, though nearly every totalitarian state has used terrorism.

In most wars between major powers the focus has been on either military attrition(destroying military personell and/or equipment) or logistical attrition(destroying supplies and supply chains). Neither of those tactics are terrorism.

In most wars between vastly unequal powers terrorism has been used(which is what the original article stated), largely because they cannot win a war of either military or logistical attrition.

In some cases where such ineqality of force exists, guerilla tactics allowed the inferior force to continue fighting an attrition war despite the disparity in resources. This is also not terrorism.

"Terrorism As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". "

The problem with this is that I'm sure there are many older Southerners who would tell you that the forced desegregation of public schools was terrorism.

I have a rather serious issue with this article. Namely, it claims that those conflicts are fading but then fails to give any actual evidence or details of such. I need more information because all I see is someone making vague assertions.

infamouse,
Well, for one, check out some of the recent progress made in the conflict between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region. Then go check out the progress made against terrorists (including the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Abbu Sayyef) in the Philippines.
There has been progress against FARC in Columbia as well.
I'm not sure where things stand on Sri Lanka with the Tamil Tigers....

The problem with Terrorism is that it is difficult to define, because the edges are very blurry between terrorism and criminal activity on one end and guerrilla actions on the other.

If an action is taken for personal gain or other personal reasons, it is usually called crime. But if a terrorist group robs a bank to gain funds to conduct terrorist operations (like the Weather Underground, or Phineas Priest), it is still usually classified as a terrorist action, because the context of that robbery requires a different method of pursuit.
An act of war, whether through regular conflict or guerrilla conflict, is action taken upon a maneuvering military element. Thus, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the Air Force barracks (Khobar Towers) in Riyadh, and the USS Cole in dock in Yemen, are all terrorist attacks.
Terrorism is pretty much anything that falls in between guerrilla actions and criminal activities on the continuum. That does mean that different nations and different organizations will define terrorism differently, according to their responsibility in reacting to it. The FBI's definition of terrorism is different than the State Dept's, which is different from the Dept of Defense's (although only slightly).
One aspect that is certainly agreed upon is the indirect nature of terrorism: the terrorist is attempting to influence a government policy by creating terror among the populace to bring pressure upon the government.
Thus, the techniques the Viet Cong used on US troops in Viet Nam were psychological warfare, not necessarily terrorism, although they did use terrorism as well, such as when they would bomb a bar known to be a military meeting place.