Terrorism and terrorist are basically meaningless words

[arildno]

What do you mean by this?
Did Machiavelli discuss when terrorism is effective?

As how to to use terror as a means to retain power, sure, that is discussed in "The Prince".

 

[cesiumfrog]

As how to to use terror as a means to retain power, sure, that is discussed in "The Prince".

Does it explain under which circumstances is terrorism effective?

Particularly, if the enemy is thinking rationally, why should terrorising them strengthen their resolve? Shouldn't it disrupt their rationality? Or (by changing the input data) alter the output of the equation that is determining their behaviour? And if the enemy is thinking irrationally (emotively?) then why shouldn't terrorising them still strengthen their (emotive/vengeful?) resolve? (I think this last one is relevant to islamic extremists: I agree with Christopher Hitchens that they should be opposed, but cannot agree that so callously hurting their civilian population base was among the better ways of doing so).

By the way, I like the word "terrorising", it hasn't been sullied yet.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Cesiumfrog, you should really just read the book -- it's short and quite readable.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Guys, this is very simple and my patience is wearing thin. This thread will not be allowed to continue much longer unless proponents of the OP's thesis start doing the following:

1. Cite (quote, with citation of the source) a definition of terrorism and critcize it directly, explaining what is wrong with it. This shouldn't be hard as opponents of the OP's thesis have already posted several for you to work from.
2. Cite an official list of terrorist groups and show that the government's definition does not logically fit one of the groups on that list.

I did #1 (though I used an existing citation for the definition I criticized) but I'm not a proponent of the OP's thesis.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The point is not that they have been improperly labeled terrorists according to the definition, not at all; rather, the opposite is the point! The point is that the definition or definitions are themselves elastic enough to contain almost any military organization opposing the state in which they are established, but which are not states themselves. I can not think of a war having no civilian casualties. However, civilian casualties are almost always enough to for an non-state military organization with ideological goals to be labeled a terrorist group. Together with the psychological effect, the label is nothing but a function of propaganda in some cases. The opposing group are not "fighting for rights", they are "terrorizing". Do you see the point?

Would you further explain your thesis that South African apartheid regime era could be correctly considered a terrorist organization (toward the end of showing the broadness of that definition of terrorism)?

 

[disregardthat]

Would you further explain your thesis that South African apartheid regime era could be correctly considered a terrorist organization (toward the end of showing the broadness of that definition of terrorism)?

I don't understand your question. How can an era be an organization? Also, if I understand your question correctly I was posing this "thesis" as a rhetorical question in my post, and I consider it irrelevant to my point - so I do not wish to pursue it further.

I am also astounded how this thread became a strict question of correct or incorrect use of terrorist according to the modern definition, and about not the traditional and current use of the word.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't understand your question. How can an era be an organization?

I copied that part, word for word, from your post. You tell me!

Also, if I understand your question correctly I was posing this "thesis" as a rhetorical question in my post, and I consider it irrelevant to my point - so I do not wish to pursue it further.

Care to make any clarifications about post #34, then? In the absence of such claim ("the opposite is the point") it makes no sense to me.

 

[disregardthat]

I copied that part, word for word, from your post. You tell me!

I don't think you did. I think it is pretty clear in my quotation that they had held their designation as terrorists from the apartheid era.

Care to make any clarifications about post #34, then? In the absence of such claim ("the opposite is the point") it makes no sense to me.

I said "rather; the opposite", in the sense that the opposite is closer to my point. I am not focused on the modern definition, but on the use. If your definition of "proper use" is equivalent to "according to the modern definition", then I don't agree. I am concerned with the traditional use of the word. Definitions is a function of the use, and when they're not - well, I don't think they are a relevant part of the discussion in that case.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I said "rather; the opposite", in the sense that the opposite is closer to my point.

Precisely. So rather than saying that it is an inappropriate designation, you say that it's an appropriate designation and use that as an example of how the label "terrorism"/"terrorist" is overly flexible, to the point of being useless.

So my question was why you think it was an appropriate label (in that era) rather than just a mislabeling.

 

[madness]

Precisely. So rather than saying that it is an inappropriate designation, you say that it's an appropriate designation and use that as an example of how the label "terrorism"/"terrorist" is overly flexible, to the point of being useless.

So my question was why you think it was an appropriate label (in that era) rather than just a mislabeling.

Because there are no definitions of terrorism which manage to cover all the people who we don't like and would like to call terrorists and manage to avoid misfiring and classifying either ourselves or groups we support as terrorists. The designation is only appropriate with respect to a particular definition of terrorism, and we would like to find a definition which groups all of the people we think are bad as terrorists and all the people we think are good as not being terrorists. Unfortunately it won't work.

 

[disregardthat]

So my question was why you think it was an appropriate label (in that era) rather than just a mislabeling.

What is in question here is the use. It is naive to render all inappropriate use (according to some particular definition) as wrong and therefore irrelevant. The whole point is that, without regard to any definition, the term is too widely used to make any definitive sense. At least not objective sense (It almost always makes sense to call the enemy terrorists). Even "inappropriate" use is relevant use. No (artificial or not) definition changes that. As I previously said, a definition is a function of use.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Jale, I still don't understand your post #34. Your responses seem almost evasive. Could you make it any more clear?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Because there are no definitions of terrorism which manage to cover all the people who we don't like and would like to call terrorists and manage to avoid misfiring and classifying either ourselves or groups we support as terrorists.

That looks like a strawman. I don't think anyone here is advocating that standard for the definition of terrorism.

 

[disregardthat]

Jale, I still don't understand your post #34. Your responses seem almost evasive. Could you make it any more clear?

I don't exactly understand what to make clearer. Could you make a direct quote? Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned "definition or definitions", because I don't think this discussion should be dependent of any particular definition, and it is not my intention to base myself on any such definition.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't exactly understand what to make clearer. Could you make a direct quote?

"The point is not that they have been improperly labeled terrorists according to the definition, not at all; rather, the opposite is the point!"

I feel that you have a sensible and interesting point to make, but I can't grasp it. This may be due to my inability to understand, the inadequacies of this medium, or any number of other factors.

 

[disregardthat]

I feel that you have a sensible and interesting point to make, but I can't grasp it. This may be due to my inability to understand, the inadequacies of this medium, or any number of other factors.

I meant that the designation had been, without any doubt, proper.

"The ANC was classified as a terrorist organisation by the South African government and by some Western countries including the United States of America and the United Kingdom."

- wiki on history of ANC

And this is the key issue. The definition, as any definition, is altered to fit the context or situation. The elasticity of the definitions makes them unstable, and not stationary points. The use of the word is what is important - and the use is what must be analyzed. As I said, any military organization opposing the state in which they are established can arguably be considered terrorist organizations. Civilian casualties can in many cases be considered (improperly or not) as terrorist attacks. In my example they were.

 

[pallidin]

Terrorism is an event, action or purpose to incite fear with the direct intent of propagating the ideals of the "terrorists" such that "if you do not believe "this" you are worthy of death"

 

[vertices]

Because there are no definitions of terrorism which manage to cover all the people who we don't like and would like to call terrorists and manage to avoid misfiring and classifying either ourselves or groups we support as terrorists. The designation is only appropriate with respect to a particular definition of terrorism, and we would like to find a definition which groups all of the people we think are bad as terrorists and all the people we think are good as not being terrorists. Unfortunately it won't work.

Right on. It's a pointless exercise to precisely define something as abstract as 'terrorism' (or anything else, outside mathematics and if we are charitable, physics).

The only thing that matters is whether nation states apply to themselves the same definitions or standards they apply to others - in many cases they do not. Since most users on PF are American, take for example the DOD definition of terrorism - the US by their own definition have committed numerous acts of terrorism (only, they call it "counterinsurgency"). , and also one act of aggression (the "Supreme Crime") in recent history.

 

[russ_watters]

Before replying to posts after my last, I'll lay out my case now against the thesis of the OP:

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are basically meaningless words (there is no widely agreed definition) which are used to undermine and deligitimise a group or individual or state. I don't think these words are acceptable in any intelligent discussion or analysis of world events - they are clearly emotive words which have been engineered for propagandha purposes (now called "perception management" by the US government)...[separate post] All I'm saying is that the word "terrorism" is emotionally charged and doesn't belong outside of tabloid media.

"Terrorism" is a euphemism...

I would agree with OP. The terrorist label is not isolated to those who's main purpose is to harm civilians. A rebellious organization might unwillingly harm civilians in the process of fighting the state, even though their main purpose is not necessarily so. An example would be a bombing of a state-building where civilians incidentally were killed.

There are many examples of military organizations fighting for the rights of the minority they represent, but which are also labeled "terrorists" by the state, even though the state actually are suppressing the minority. These organizations lack the means to declare an official war and fight a "clean war", but are forced to fight in other means - and these means might have civilian casualties as a byproduct. Good examples are terrorist sabotage groups spontaneously formed in invaded states or overthrown states. The terrorist labels might be inverted the moment the state is overthrown.

By the FBI definition, many people who currently are treated as heroes/freedom fighters are also terrorists.

Ok...

The point of all this is that the term is not a serious term. It is a flippant, propaganda term with no objective legal or academic basis. An example of a term that would, to me, fit that criticism:

"Axis of Evil". That's a term invented by GW Bush (or one of his writers) that has no objective definition. It's a word invented for the purpose of being a talking point in a speech. As such, it carries no real weight and is never invoked in serious international or legal discourse.

I gave an example that deals directly with the misconceptions about terrorism in these opinions - the Taliban. And I got confirmation that the Taliban was incorrectly thought to be considered a terrorist organization by the US. So the logic of the OP, et al, is sound: if someone is going to use the term as a loosely defined word for propaganda purposes, it would be natural to label all unconventional geurilla type enemies as terrorists.

But the premise of the argument is wrong. The premise is that the definition of the term is not given serious academic and legal treatment. This premise is an assumption based on bias (shown by the fact that not a single post in the first two pages by the proponents of the OP's thesis utilized a referenced source as the basis for their opinions). Here's the direct evidence to contradict the premise and prove that the US government does treat the issue seriously and takes great pains to construct legitimate definitions and apply those definitions objectively/fairly:

30 April 2008

United States Identifies 42 Foreign Terrorist Organizations
Annual terrorism report released April 30

Washington -- The U.S. State Department identifies 42 Foreign Terrorist Organizations in its 2007 Country Reports on Terrorism, released April 30.

http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2008/April/20080429115651dmslahrellek0.9584772.html

That's a list of the organizations officially recognized as terrorist organizations by the US government. Note that the Taliban is not on it.

Now the Taliban is an interesting case as I hinted at earlier (hoping someone would try to figure out why I said it was interesting by researching it...). When the US invaded Afghanistan 8 years ago, the Taliban was a run-of-the-mill oppressive dictatorship government. Then the US overthrew the Taliban. But the Taliban retained support and since its overthrow has fought an insurgent-style war against the US. Many of the tactics, such as roadside bombs, are considered distasteful, but since the targets are virtually 100% military, no objective analysis could consider them terrorism. And so the fact that the US didn't flippantly add the Taliban to that list based on distasteful tactics shows that the US does objectively apply its definition of terrorism.

But something has changed:

The State Department intends to designate the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) as a "foreign terrorist organization" after the suspect charged in the failed Times Square bombing admitted to being trained by the group, two senior officials tell CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/22/pakistani.taliban.designation/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

The failed Times Square bomber was trained and partly financed by a Pakistani faction of the Taliban. The attack was pure/textbook act of terrorism. That makes it (in the words of the article) a no-brainer. The organization is a terrorist organization. So why does the article say the State Department "intends to designate" instead of "has designated"? The answer is obvious: the US treats the issue of terrorism seriously and in order to add them to the list, it requires them to study the issue and justify it with a legally defensible argument to fit the group to the definition:

"The weight of evidence, particularly in light of yesterday's court proceeding in New York, would suggest that a designation is inevitable," one senior official said. "It's a no-brainer. There is no doubt where this will end up, but there is a process that has to be done to gather all the needed evidence ... under law, and that process is not done yet."

In short, it echoes exactly what I said before: the US government takes the issue seriously and treats it with the appropriate academic/legal seriousness. It is not a flippant term like "axis of evil". It is a real, serious, legally relevant term.

Even if opponents of the term don't take it seriously and try to undermine it.

 

[rootX]

I gave an example that deals directly with the misconceptions about terrorism in these opinions - the Taliban. And I got confirmation that the Taliban was incorrectly thought to be considered a terrorist organization by the US. So the logic of the OP, et al, is sound: if someone is going to use the term as a loosely defined word for propaganda purposes, it would be natural to label all unconventional geurilla type enemies as terrorists.

You seem to be infatuated by that example . When I said Taliban is a terrorist organization I believed that it is on the terrorist list. I was relying on legal definition of terrorism based on which terrorist list is developed in defining Taliban as terrorists. Mistake was that I confused it with Al Qeada. I am stating this for third time now.

The premise is that the definition of the term is not given serious academic and legal treatment.

The premise is that the definition of the term is used for proganda purposes also beyond legal purposes. Second is that a world event consists of a cause, effect, and consequences. OP stated that terrorism definition is irrelevant in the analysis of a world event. I agree with him that in understanding cause of an event which is also part of analysis, definition terrorism has no place. In determining the consequences I full agree with you that legal definition is required.

This premise is an assumption based on bias (shown by the fact that not a single post in the first two pages by the proponents of the OP's thesis utilized a referenced source as the basis for their opinions).

If you are also including me in this, I referred to the definition in my second post in this thread which was on the first page. I did not feel the need to reference it directly because everyone was talking about the same FBI definition above me. (Edit: but yes, I did not use any referenced source in my defense, I thought you are again talking about not referencing definition being critcized)

 

[vertices]

It is a real, serious, legally relevant term

It is not a real, serious, legally relevant term, if it is only applied to enemies. (when states commit acts of terrorism against enemies they call it "low-intensity conflict" or "counter terror")

In the case of the US, it uncontroversial that it has committed acts of terrorism (using the DOD definition of the word) against nations like Vietnam, Cuba and Nicaragua.

 

[Spring Board]

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are basically meaningless words (there is no widely agreed definition) which are used to undermine and deligitimise a group or individual or state. I don't think these words are acceptable in any intelligent discussion or analysis of world events - they are clearly emotive words which have been engineered for propagandha purposes (now called "perception management" by the US government).

...

Should we not strive to avoid such emotive and subjective language in order to make an objective analysis of a situation?

Indeed we should - but if we succeed then the government might actually begin representing its citizens rather than the other way round. Sounds good to me.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is not a real, serious, legally relevant term, if it is only applied to enemies. (when states commit acts of terrorism against enemies they call it "low-intensity conflict" or "counter terror")

And I suppose "criminal" is not a real, serious, and legally relevant term if we only apply it to those whom we feel have wronged us?

In the case of the US, it uncontroversial that it has committed acts of terrorism (using the DOD definition of the word) against nations like Vietnam, Cuba and Nicaragua.

I would like to echo Russ's request for specific examples. It would make it easier to make any sort of case one way or the other.

The point of all this is that the term is not a serious term. It is a flippant, propaganda term with no objective legal or academic basis.

This seems to be the crux of the issue here, the manner of political rhetoric. Funny enough I had though of posting using the same example, "Axis of Evil", myself.

This reminds me of a person who suggested no longer calling the theory of evolution a theory because of the manner in which the term "theory" appears in certain political rhetoric.

 

[rootX]

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/7/7/4/p17749_index.html

I found an interesting paper but it requires membership to it. Summary as follows:

Throughout the American political realm post 9/11, contradictions in rhetoric about terrorism arise. While some statements inculcate a fear of terrorist attack, within the same speech government officials also reiterate that they will protect the American population. Why do these contradictions exist and what political purpose do they serve?
This paper explores political responses to and uses of the fear resulting from 9/11. Using examples from criminological literature and research on the topic of the politicization of fear of crime, fear of terrorism will be discussed as it relates to the “war on crime.” Previous research indicates that fear of crime is used for political gain and that various manipulations of data and facts can augment political advantage.
An analysis of public speeches from government officials was conducted during three periods of heightened fear and awareness of terrorist threats. During three different weeks when the Orange Alert System was elevated political leaders made numerous speeches and comments regarding terrorism, the “war on terror,” and the American response.

While I appreciate usuage of terrorism definition in the context of law but I am against the abuse of it for purposes like in the bold above. Kidnapping innocent people without any sufficient evidence, excessive use of torture, wiretapping are few instances where terrorism definition (e.g. use of "War on Terrorism " in their speeches) was abused by the US government.

 

[vertices]

I would like to echo Russ's request for specific examples. It would make it easier to make any sort of case one way or the other.

Well, take Cuba then.

The "376. Memorandum for the Record" (a directive to destabilise the country, providing a pretext to justify US military intervention in Cuba) is particularly telling: http://www.jfklancer.com/cuba/11-12-63.html

A question was asked as to what decisions remain to be made. Mr. FitzGerald replied that we were looking for a reaffirmation of the program as presented, including sabotage and harassment. When asked what was planned in sabotage for the immediate future, he said that destruction operations should be carried out against a large oil refinery and storage facilities, a large electric plant, sugar refineries, railroad bridges, harbor facilities, and underwater demolition of docks and ships. The question was also raised as to whether an air strike would be effective on some of these principal targets. The consensus was that CIA should proceed with its planning for this type of activity looking toward January.

And I suppose "criminal" is not a real, serious, and legally relevant term if we only apply it to those whom we feel have wronged us?

Facts matter; not what people "feel".

This 'terrorism' was totally unprovoked - the Cubans had the audacity to overthrow the Bastista tyranny whom the US supported. The Castro government posed no military threat to the US therefore the wanton terrorism and economic warfare unleashed on it was criminal. Predictably, a consequence of this terrorism was the Cuban missile crisis...

 

[Spring Board]

I may be over- (or under-) simplifying matters but here goes.

I believe that in U.S. courts one is allowed to plead guilty with an explanation - "mitigating circumstance". Sound complicated? No more than in my country where one is allowed to defend oneself "not exeeding the agression recieved". Perhaps "terrorism" (the taking of innocent-civilian lives, which I think lies at the core of the definition) can also be taken apart and put into categories of severness.

The Palmach bombed the King David Hotel in order to reach their target. It took the lives of many of their own countrymen as well. Terrorism? Fair game?

The Norwegian partisans sank a local ferry in order to destroy the occupying Nazi forces' transporting of "heavy water". It also took the lives of many civilian Norwegians. Terrorism? Worth it?

Does the fact that these acts themselves were not meant for the express purpose of killing the civilians as apposed to bombing market places, highly poplualted non-military target cities, or towers of World Trade affect the outcome of the deed?

Poland made a futile attempt at defending their country by sending horse-mounted calvery against the German tanks. Suicide.That's all they had.

Is it possible that Al Queida have an ounce of justification in bombing WTC in New York in retaliation for what the U.S. has meted out all over the globe since the end of WWII? Suicide bombers. That's all they have. Are they guilty of terrorism "with mitigating circumstance"?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Does the fact that these acts themselves were not meant for the express purpose of killing the civilians as apposed to bombing market places, highly poplualted non-military target cities, or towers of World Trade affect the outcome of the deed?

Of course it does (although my understanding is that most people classify the hotel bombing as an act of terrorism)

Poland made a futile attempt at defending their country by sending horse-mounted calvery against the German tanks. Suicide.That's all they had.

They made a suicide run at destroying a military target

Is it possible that Al Queida have an ounce of justification in bombing WTC in New York in retaliation for what the U.S. has meted out all over the globe since the end of WWII? Suicide bombers. That's all they have. Are they guilty of terrorism "with mitigating circumstance"?

It doesn't matter what the justification is, it wasn't a military target. The complaint isn't that they killed themselves in an attack, the complaint is that they killed themselves attacking civilians. The fact that the only way they had to strike at America is by killing themselves means that, if they didn't want to be terrorists, they should have tried to blow up a military base or something

 

[Spring Board]

Of course it does (although my understanding is that most people classify the hotel bombing as an act of terrorism)

Well, the Palmach didn't consider it "terrorism". Ben Gurion said so much himself and said if the bombing of the King David Hotel is terrorism then he is proud to be a "terrorist".

EDIT: Pardon me. I meant to write Yitzhak Shamir - NOT Ben Gurion.

They made a suicide run at destroying a military target

I'm guessing that Al Qeida have learned a lesson or two from such footnotes in history. The Poles attacked the Germans "head on" and perished without achieving anything. 9/11, on the other hand achieved a great deal, as did dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It doesn't matter what the justification is, it wasn't a military target. The complaint isn't that they killed themselves in an attack, the complaint is that they killed themselves attacking civilians. The fact that the only way they had to strike at America is by killing themselves means that, if they didn't want to be terrorists, they should have tried to blow up a military base or something

I think the justification does matter. Much of the third world has been given a rough shake by the U.S. Let's not go into all the examples - unless you want to. The only way to strike back is in the way you describe. Al Queda have taken the "devil may care" attitude of the Poles and the "no choice/necessity" of taking civilian lives and put them together. So "the complaint" and "the act" need to find a compromise, if we're going to create peace.

 

[Evo]

I'm guessing that Al Qeida have learned a lesson or two from such footnotes in history. The Poles attacked the Germans "head on" and perished without achieving anything. 9/11, on the other hand achieved a great deal, as did dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Germans invaded Poland. Don't make nonsensical comparisons. Personal opinions must still adhere to the guidelines and not be overly speculative. Do not state opinion as fact.

Please read the guidelines.

 

[rootX]

The Germans invaded Poland. Don't make nonsensical comparisons. Personal opinions must still adhere to the guidelines and not be overly speculative. Do not state opinion as fact.

Please read the guidelines.

I don't know where he is getting with it but I believe he was referring to:

Poland made a futile attempt at defending their country by sending horse-mounted calvery against the German tanks. Suicide.That's all they had.

 

[Spring Board]

The Germans invaded Poland. Don't make nonsensical comparisons. Personal opinions must still adhere to the guidelines and not be overly speculative. Do not state opinion as fact.

Please read the guidelines.

Neither opinion nor speculation have anything to do with it. Perhaps you are not aware of the definitions of these two words: "Invade" and "attack". The Poles did attack the Germans. The "nonsensical" segment here is second guessing what you have assumed - rather than reading what I actually wrote.

 

[arildno]

Does it explain under which circumstances is terrorism effective?

Are you saying it is NOT effective today?

It seems very effective to me.

 

[Evo]

Neither opinion nor speculation have anything to do with it. Perhaps you are not aware of the definitions of these two words: "Invade" and "attack". The Poles did attack the Germans. The "nonsensical" segment here is second guessing what you have assumed - rather than reading what I actually wrote.

Again, the Germans invaded Poland. The Poles did not invade Germany and attack civilians. See the difference?

 

[arildno]

The Norwegian partisans sank a local ferry in order to destroy the occupying Nazi forces' transporting of "heavy water". It also took the lives of many civilian Norwegians. Terrorism? Worth it?

Terrorism? No.
Worth it? Yes.

Is it possible that Al Queida have an ounce of justification in bombing WTC in New York in retaliation for what the U.S. has meted out all over the globe since the end of WWII?

1. What would that be?
2. What legitimacy has al-Qaeda to arrogate to itself the power to retaliate against whatever you are referring to in a military manner?
3. In particular, what prevented Osama bin Laden from initiating peaceful demonstrations against these phantasmogorial abuses the US supposedly have staged all across the world??

Suicide bombers. That's all they have.

What about writing furious letters to American newspapers?
Was that option closed to them?

Are they guilty of terrorism "with mitigating circumstance"?

Guilty of terrorism? Yes.
Mitigating circumstances? None whatsoever.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Well, the Palmach didn't consider it "terrorism". Ben Gurion said so much himself and said if the bombing of the King David Hotel is terrorism then he is proud to be a "terrorist".

EDIT: Pardon me. I meant to write Yitzhak Shamir - NOT Ben Gurion.

Of course you did, because Ben Gurion roundly criticized the attack. Shamir was wrong, that was easy. Is the point here to prove that there exists a person who has a different definition of terrorism than the people on this forum? Your goal should be to provide evidence of us applying the definition hypocritically in order to save face for events that we favored (which has failed for this situation already)

I'm guessing that Al Qeida have learned a lesson or two from such footnotes in history. The Poles attacked the Germans "head on" and perished without achieving anything. 9/11, on the other hand achieved a great deal, as did dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nobody said it has to be a head on attack, but it has to be against a military target. If the Polish flew a plane into the German command center that would have been a legitimate military strike (in fact, this was a common Japanese tactic as I'm sure you're aware). Notice nobody decries Japanese kamikazes as terrorism, because they were attacking military targets, not civilians

I think the justification does matter. Much of the third world has been given a rough shake by the U.S. Let's not go into all the examples - unless you want to. The only way to strike back is in the way you describe. Al Queda have taken the "devil may care" attitude of the Poles and the "no choice/necessity" of taking civilian lives and put them together. So "the complaint" and "the act" need to find a compromise, if we're going to create peace.

You say that the Polish method was unsuccessful. Ok, I guess you're taking a pragmatic approach here. What goals has Al-Qaeda accomplished by hitting the WTC. Don't list off the damages to the US, you have to demonstrate positive accomplishment in the fight against the US to get their part of the world less of a rough shake. Arguing the ends justify the means is worthless when the ends suck (which it certainly seems like it does for Al Qaeda)