“You talk about “war on terrorism” and how great it is.”
Who are you addressing? I can’t find any comment here which praises the “war on terrorism”.

“I mean what the hell is this double standard. … Does war not constitute terrorism?”
Does this mean you are a pacifist? This would be an honourable position to take, although one which should lead you to disapprove of terrorists and armies alike as I think Arif does. Or do you believe terrorism is a justified response to war? Or do you believe there is no difference between those who deliberately cause death and harm to innocent civilians and those who take care not to cause such death and harm?

“I guess the blood of a muslim is worth nothing…”
I presume you don’t have ready access to the western (European) media, the majority of whom condemn the Iraq war and many of whom give only lukewarm support for the Afghan war, because of the loss of Muslim lives. (see for example http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1805917,00.html )

“GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR COUNTRIES AND STOP KILLING OUR PEOPLE..AND THEN MAYBE WE’LL FINALLY LIVE IN A PEACEFULL WORLD.”
Sudan Darfur, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Algeria, India (Jammu-Kashmir, Assam). The West has – quite rightly – got the hell out of these countries and has stopped killing their people. How does the continuing violence there fit with your apparent world-view?

How would you judge that, except by reference to your own moral convictions? Each man his own judge? Isn’t that where we are now?

Our view of the morality of an armed forces objectives necessarily decides our stance, but I doubt it can be a criteria for deciding what is terrorism and what isn’t.

“in which case they are subordinating their moral judgments of rightful violence to another – in effect they do not so much care who they are responsible for killing and what it is for.” Even though my “military experience” is limited to membership of the Cadet Corps at school, I know that inculcating the willingness to refuse unlawful orders (ie not in line with Geneva Conventions) is a key development in military training since WWII. The horrors of Nazi Germany have made the excuse “I was only obeying orders” a sick joke.

“Armies do not appear to shrink from using violence on civilians when it helps to meet a political objective” Depends on which army you’re talking about, doesn’t it? If the UK army was to consider a deliberate tactic or strategy of using violence against civilians I imagine it would shrink from doing so – at least to the extent that they’d want to take extreme steps to hide it from the media, MPs, public and probably from most of their own troops too. I doubt if this has much to do with resources.

I totally agree with your last para.

Who precisely is this ‘we’ you see as doing this? From a UK persepective, guerillas are heros, posters on walls, subjects of films.

In the popular ‘SAS thriller’ genre (Andy McNabb and so on), one main theme is the lack of difference between the sides. Spy stories even more so (and the spy is really the closest cultural equivalent to the terrorist). Spies are seen as morally ambiguous even when they don’t kill anyone, precisely because they break all the rules about uniforms.

It’s hard to name one british film produced post-1970 that had a soldier as hero. ‘Dog Soldiers’ comes as close as I can think, and that was still clear to paint the werewolves as just different, not evil, or ‘fuelled by an irrational hatred’.

America is another place, of course.

The main moral differences seem to be:

1. motivation
2. methods

I agree with you that we should take what people say to be an honest reflection of their motivations in the first instance, and that if I were to look for underlying agendas, I should do the same for each side or individual.

The article lists the most aggressive opinions on their website. I found the litany of bigotry and selectivity upsetting, but not in an exceptional way. I can imagine them appearing on Pickled Politics, for example, and I’d put them in a mental filing cabinet I have for “Daily Mail type attitudes”. If they had not been linked to a terrorist cell, it would be considered just the usual nuttiness. But I’m not going to diminish the hatred they have. It is there and it is dangerous. But I don’t think it is the final word on what attracts people to terrorism.

I would expect that people have a wider range of motives to join an army. But I believe the reason for this is that armies are socially acceptable, so the threshold of identification with the causes you fight for is much lower and requires less reflection. If we were to decide terrorism is socially acceptable, there may also be a lot more people joining for different reasons.

In terms of motives, a soldier or a terrorist can equally sign up because they are fired by incredible hatred, idealism or identification with a cause. Or they may have other personal reasons, in which case they are subordinating their moral judgments of rightful violence to another – in effect they do not so much care who they are responsible for killing and what it is for. None of this seems a good enough reason to help kill people. Yet we do not normally judge soldiers on their motives, except perhaps to glorify them for patriotism, but we do judge other warriors for their motives – usually to stigmatise them as fuelled by no objectives other than an irrational hatred. We give the best slant on one and the worst on another, and I’d like to be clearer why that is.

You also draw attention to rules of engagement as the an important moral distinction. Or at last systems to inculcate rules of engagement. I do think these are important, but again, they are partly a function of resources which in turn are linked to social acceptability. They are also partly a function of motivation (in terms of objectives). Armies do not appear to shrink from using violence on civilians when it helps to meet a political objective. Terrorists do appear to shrink from using violence on civilians when doing so helps to meet a political objective. In both cases it is their objectives and resources that primarily seem to determine rules of engagement.

I think once violence for political goals is seen as legitimate by armies, it is equally legitimate for non-State actors. You seem to say so too. If either an army or a non-State actor knowingly harms civilians, you would class them both as terrorist. I’d agree with that too. But then how would I two sets of terrorists without moral equivalence of all behaviours?

Firstly by asking how much they tried to avoid violence in the first place and attempt to find peaceful solutions (whether it is aggressive or defensive). Secondly by the morality of their objectives (whether it is to remove an injustice or to be able to perpetuate an injustice). Thirdly by the humanity with which they treat their opponents (willing to bring down the level of hostility and come to a just peace at any time).

Arif – I agree the transgressive nature of terrorism is not necessarily a factor in any moral judgement about it. To my mind “technology, level of control over members, ease of communication and training, financial incentives and social acceptability” would also be irrelevant to any moral judgement.

Soru and Roger have pointed out other key differences between terrorists and national armies – uniform and “effective violence”. I’d add to Roger’s by pointing out that modern conventional armies actually have a minority of personnel – I think 10%-20% – designated for combat duties, the rest doing stuff like communications, logistics, transport etc. I can see though that, as you point out, factors like these might not be clinchers for a moral judgement – terrorist organisations could and do set up similar structures (quartermaster, bomb-maker, communicator, get-away driver etc).

In my view, motivation is highly relevant to moral judgement. I don’t think the hatred I ascribe to the Canadian Wannabe Terrorists and their wives is an entirely subjective judgement or unfair projection by me onto these characters. The hatred is pretty evident to me from the statements these individuals have voluntarily posted on their blogs (see the article that Aparita links to). If soldiers or their wives or leaders expressed such sentiments then, as I said, I WOULD judge them as in many important ways morally equivalent to these terrorists and their spouses.

For me the other major differences crucial to these moral judgements revolve around treatment of innocent civilians (where “innocent civilians” is defined as something like those who have nothing but most peripheral connection to command, control and support of “opposition” military activity). For example

– strategy and tactics which deliberately cause death and harm to innocent civilians (eg 7/7, 9/11)

– lack of system which tailors plans as far as possible to avoid killing/harming innocent civilians

– lack of any system to inculcate values and behaviours which reduce propensity for deliberate killing/harming of innocent civilians and to investigate/punish/prevent such acts when they do occur

– system which deliberately fosters the kind of hatred and love of nihilistic violence which reduces the inhibitions and increases the propensity to cause deliberate death and harm to innocent civilians

For what it’s worth, you seem to draw your definition of terrorism wider than I would. A non-state force which applied all the various criteria above as far as they were practicably able (particularly care for civilians) would not in my mind be terrorists – just non-state combatants. Conversely, a national army or national leaders which failed these tests would to my mind (and I believe according to Geneva Conventions) be war criminals and no better than terrorists.

This of course leads to uncomfortable conclusions. How would I judge an insurgent group in Iraq if it stuck to the criteria set out above as far as they were able? (Sadly for Iraq, no insurgent group I know of even remotely tries to meet such conditions. Clearly those pesky insurgents don’t care much about my opinion.)

This brings us back to that age-old debate about defining terrorism.

“Would you extend this idea to accept the possibility that terrorist groups are usually organised, with discplined members, but that these members may be used or controlled by psychopaths who want to vent their self-righteous anger”

I would first disagree that most terrorist groups are usually organised with disciplined members. I think the 7/7 and 21/7 events showed the decentralised, fractured nature of these organisations, lack of fixed memberships or command and control structures etc etc and the relative lack of discipline of many of their members.

I would also argue that any “member” of a terrorist “organisation” – one which fails the tests above – is not simply being used or controlled by “psychopaths” but is indeed a “psychopath” him-/herself (although probably not in the clinical sense).

“I think I perceive the same kind of hatreds all around me, coming through the mass media from the most respectable politicians and commentators”

That’s certainly true of certain quarters – commentators like Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin etc. But most – even the Sun and George Bush – are careful in their public pronouncements not to express these kinds of hatreds. (Whether you believe they secretly harbour these hatreds is a different matter of course. But that risks being the kind of unfair projection that you referred to.)

There is a broader problem I have with seeking moral equivalence between all behaviours. Being an agnostic verging on atheist, I accept that any system of morality and any moral judgement is ultimately an abstract human construct. For me such abstract human constructs are only useful (and I find them very useful) in that they identify behaviours which a “society” (for which read something like “community of human beings”) does or does not want to encourage in order to safeguard or promote the welfare of its members.

Moral equivalence between all behaviours therefore to my mind removes the very justification for having a system of morality at all. And that means? There is no good and evil. Only the strong and the weak. Winners and losers. George W Bush and Osama Bin Laden are the top dogs. Arif and Ravi4 are worthless insects skittering around struggling for survival under these demi-gods’ shoes …

What else might account for the ability to switch off after a conflict? What is it about taking off a uniform? It suggests that the hate is abstract (as for people who play for another team) or that it is a role (submitting to authority like civilians in the Milgram experiment). Either way they wouldn’t have to actually believe their opponents are evil so have no personal hostility. A terrorist would likely come to make their choice as a result of their own moral reasoning and emotional reactions, but why would they be more personally hostile to those they consider unjust?

It could also be that the common identity of being a soldier (on whatever side) enables both sides to empathise with one another. And that terrorists may have a similar potential for empathy with other terrorists (or “unlawful combatants”). But that State and non-State combatants would have less of a common identity, hence more potential for ongoing hostility.

Roger’s suggestion that military violence is more controlled, with little time spent on violence doesn’t seem to differ from terrorists, who seem to need to pre-plan actions a long time in advance, while training or going about their daily lives. Am I mistaken?

The other point about how most soldiers on the field of battle actually avoid killing others is suggestive about human nature, but I don’t think you mean to suggest that human nature is different between volunteer soldiers and non-State actors. When you think of individuals planting bombs, they might be compared to soldiers laying mines. When you think of people killing civilians, they might be compared to soldiers on special missions, out of control, undertaking collective punishments or otherwise being used to suppress local opposition on behalf of the Government or following orders to break the will of the enemy. When you think of people making very intricate plans to take hostages or assassinate others, it is analogous to special operations. These are undertaken with effectiveness by both sides, and I don’t see a reason to believe there is much difference in the natures of people undertaking them – to the extent of condemning one while condoning the other.

Is the difference in effectiveness something which has been studied or theorised about more deeply? It would be an interesting difference – suggesting maybe that terrorists should be compared to highly professional SAS type operatives rather than regular soldiers.

Is there a way of preserving it for easy reading when it finaly finishes?

Justforfun.

The real difference is when the time comes to declare peace. The guy who dropped the A bomb on Hiroshima took off his uniform, stopped taking orders, and went to leave a normal life, apparently with untroubled sleep.

An equivalent terrorist bomber who did something like that out of uniform, with much more freedom of action, and because he believed much more strongly and explicitly in the cause, will follow a very different future life path.

Veterans of the Falklands war drink in pubs together, and swap stories of how they tried to shoot each other down.

The IRA always considered itself an Army, not a collection of gangs, and went to great lengths to maintain internal discipline, typically with shotguns to kneecaps. Nevertheless, it took it many years to actually stop fighting from the point its leadership decided to do so, and the end of violence was messy and partial.

The same applies in quadruplicate to the Palestinians. I can’t see Hamas and Mossad sitting down together over a coffee anytime ever and laughing ‘remember that time you blew up my sister?’

The wearing of uniforms, and the taking off of uniforms when a peace is declared, is the critical thing.

On the issue of being transgressive – I think David T puts his point fairly, that it is a motivation and that does not mean there is any particular moral lesson to be drawn from it. Other than, like all human beings, people in guerilla armies or terrorist cells will have base motivations alongside their ideals.

The “incredible contempt and hatred for humankind” is a motivation you can ascribe to any opponent you might have. And I feel it is similar to the kinds of motivations routinely ascribed to the leaders of armies by their most threatened opponents.

As you point out – people who have such motives might be attracted to join a conformist army as much as a transgressive army. And just as it would be wrong to tar professional soldiers with a simple negative set of motives, I think it would be wrong to assume unprofessional soldiers have simple negative motives, from a particular example.

But it does make sense to argue that, since they are unpaid and put themselves in greater danger than professional soldiers, they are likely to have an ideological attachments to their leaders/causes more than soldiers who may be more thoughtless in giving up their moral authority. And I think this makes me agree with you to the extent that someone joining al Qaeda would have their hatred ready formed, rather than have to have it inculcated in preparation for a coming battle. But when a war is on, how much difference is their really between the attitudes of fighters on each side?

Knowing people who go into the army (as I did too), and perhaps not knowing people who join terrorist groups, we might not be in a good position to tell how different they are in motivation. That soldiers are likely to be decent human beings is something I have never doubted, but I think they make moral choices which are indistinguishable from terrorists unless they join with the intention to become conscientious objectors when it comes to using violence.

Deterring violence is a political goal which is equally applied by (other?) terrorist organisations. For example using violence to deter other countries from joining a military campaign, which (from their perspective) would be as moral a goal as armies deterring aggression across a border by other armies.

The act of destructive nihilistic violence you ascribe to those you consider terrorists seems like an unfair projection which people can use both ways. I think David T’s approach is more even-handed. And his view of home counties gents who have self-righteous prejudices but essential kindness, and those who lack that kindness, seems to ring true enough to help me also understand the women who blogged their opinions on the state of a Canadian society they did not really care to understand.

On discussing police, though I came to see your distinction more clearly. I would say militias (although in this case the accused were not seeming to organise as militias) are a form of volunteer policing. And like police they may be indisciplined, badly motivated, corrupt, threatening and unaccountable. Some may be attracted to militias in order to be predatory and others in order to protect the community. And I can see that in a well ordered militia or police force, predatory people will have less freedom to harm others and so find it unattractive, but a badly run police force or militia will attract precisely the most vicious personalities.

I think your argument is really for armies and terrorist organisations to be well run with strong chains of command to minimise the freedom of psychopaths who would otherwise be attracted to join them. And I think you perceive terrorist organisations to be insufficiently disciplined, therefore attracting the people you characterise as nihilistic.

Would you extend this idea to accept the possibility that terrorist groups are usually organised, with discplined members, but that these members may be used or controlled by psychopaths who want to vent their self-righteous anger? Would this also apply to normal armies? Your post has led me to reflect that the differences may be more based on technology, level of control over members, ease of communication and training, financial incentives and social acceptability.

While you concentrate on the hatred that motivates such people, I think I perceive the same kind of hatreds all around me, coming through the mass media from the most respectable politicians and commentators. It does not seem a particularly abnormal way of thinking, but one we are all prone to unless we make conscious attempts to overcome it.

In particular, you gain control of a military with a budget ranked 9th in the world, fractionally behind India and over double that of Turkey or Israel.

Won’t be called ‘Saudi’ any more, of course.

Historians may well refer to current events as the War of the Arabian Succession

By the way, above I was referring only to the wives who want their husbands to join the army and “kick butt”. I said their sentiments sounded familiar. Given that I grew up amongst army personell, I certainly don’t see them as crazed, violent people.

The kinds of ideologies that are said to be being promoted from Saudi Arabia is the same one that threatens the kingdom today. What country do these people want more except Saudi Arabia? Palestine, KAshmir, Chechnya is nothing compared to Saudi Arabia. Nothing. When you have Saudi you have leverage.

Very well put.

I really have to agree with Sid on this one. Any attempt to equate the morality of soldiers and (wannabe) terrorists has serious flaws.

There are no doubt some common motivations to both “professions” – the excitement of risk-taking, putting yourself in danger, of trying to best an opponent in “mortal combat”.

But there are also big differences. There’s the transgressive nature of terrorism as described by DavidT.

But there’s also the more general context of incredible hatred and contempt for fellow mankind and determination to purify society through destructive violence, as described in Aparita’s excellent article, which drove the wives and their wannabe terrorist husbands. We all know there are soldiers who are motivated by such feelings, and they are indeed morally no different to terrorists. But it would be wrong to describe the profession as a whole as being similarly motivated.

I know several blokes from school and uni who became soldiers and they are certainly not motivated by a wish to cause pain and suffering to anyone, particularly civilians. They and their wives don’t glorify in the acts of violence that they may or may not have committed. Being nice public school boys, they’re not motivated by poverty either. As well as the excitement, they are also motivated by duty, patriotism, tradition, team spirit etc – which we can mock (and I occasionally do) but hatred does not figure for them as a motivation. I would be surprised if these blokes are atypical of the military.

Sonia’s comment that “career soldiers still kill – for a living” is also misleading in that it implies that the whole point of armed forces is to kill people. In fact a major benefit of armed forces is to deter violence in various ways, whether by defending a border or through peacekeeping. Most soldiers go through whole tours of duty – whether in Northern Ireland or the Balkans – without harming anyone. Whole careers could be spent like this in the British Army, particularly during the Cold War, until Iraq and Afghanistan – which both actually represent a failure of this violence deterring role in one way or another.

On the other hand, the point of being a terrorist is not to deter violence at all – the very act of destructive, nihilistic violence is the point of being a terrorist.

To take this moral equivalence argument further, would we say that terrorists are no worse than the police, who routinely carry firearms in most countries in the world, just because the police too are theoretically trained to kill people? And that policemen’s wives are no different to these hate-filled lunatic women in Canada?

Oh, I’m not making a judgement about the relative moral merits of the diverse contexts within which people feel at home expressing joy over the destruction of human life.

The point I’m making is that part of the attraction of extreme – and in particular violent – politics, including jihadism in this country is that it is specifically countercultural, and provides a focus for an identity which is meaningful to the individual, specifically because it is confrontational. It is a chance to set yourself against your peers.

That is not to say that an entire culture cannot become radicalised, and embrace a politics of violence and anger.

There is, I think, a difference between a conservative patriotism – the sort of conventional expression of group identity politics which you find in retired accountants living in Surrey who have always voted Tory, or the old folks, dreaming of the homeland – and the sort of people who find themselves attracted to jihadism or ‘white nationalist politics’.

Ok, now I have. Thank you Bikhair.

I actually partly agree with you, ‘traditional orthodox statis(t?) Islam’ isn’t the issue in itself. However, combine those underlying assumptions with some basic (western) political theory, common sense and freedom of thought, and you are very likely to spot that the Saudi royal family are a bunch of morally corrupt US/UK stooges.

That’s when things start getting radical.