Can the early American settler's attacks on the Native Americans be seen as terrorism?

Question

What about Agent Orange, or the atomic bombs on civilian populations in Japan, or the CIA "covert" operations in Guam, or any "covert" operation.

Answer 1

2 big questions go towards the definition of terrorism and terrorist. The generally accepted definitions:

Terrorism - An act designed specifically to afflict damage and insight fear among the general civilian populus. Terrorism targets civilians, not governments or military. As with most forms of military action, there is some civilian casualties - the difference is the intent. Ifthe intent is to eliminate a military or government asset, it is terrorism. If the intent is to eliminate civilian assets or life, and/or to crete fear in the civilian populus, it is terrorism.

Terrorism is not limited to fringe terrorist groups. Governments are capable of carrying out such activities. Some recent examples would be the former Czech republics, where active genocide was undertaken by the formal military of a recognized government, and the destruction of the airliner over Lockerbie.

Some examples:
9-11 - launching an assult on the Pentagon would not be true terrorism since the pentagon is a military asset. Killing civilians on an airliner to do so is borderline. Bombing 2 large skyscrapers which have little to no srategic value using airliners with civilians on board is definitely terrorism. Attempting to bomb concentrations of civilians during the Y2K celebration would definitely be terrorism.

Israeli destruction of civilian assets in southern Lebanon is an example of secondary damage. Their target was to destroy strategic assets of Hezbollah which was launching unguided rockets into the population centers of israel with no hope of damaging government or military targets. Because Israel was targeting hezbollah's military assets and their ability to move their assets from 1 location to another, and because damage to civilian assets and life was secondary, this would not qualify as terrorism. because Hezbollah rockets were targeting civilians, this would be terrorism.

Side note: If they so desired, Israel has the resources to destroy every structure and kill or dislocate the entire populus of Southern Lebanon, leaving no structure intact. If they worked towards these ends as their primary target this would be terrorism.

Terrorists are individuals not part of a country's military that undertakes terrorism as defined above. If they target government or military assets with civilian damage as secondary, they could be considered rebels or other similar title. If the intention of their attacks are to create fear among the populus by killing civilians or their assets as the primary target, they are terrosists. They may be privately funded, funded indirectly by a government, or a fringe para-military asset directly under the control of a government.

For example, lets use Iraq.
You could argue that attacks againstt government offices, US military, police stations, etc. is not terrorism. Bombing of market places and Mosques and busy civilian streets is definitely terrorism performed by terrorists.


This leaves some grey areas:
The intent of attacking a fringe government asset could be considered terrorism if its intent is not the destruction of the asset, but spreading fear in the populus. An example would be the bombing of a police station in Iraq.

Another would be bombing an embassy. An embassy could be considered a government target, but the intention is not the destruction of the asset but to spread fear among those hat posess and use the asset.


In short, the question comes to the primary intent. if the primary intent is to insight fear and "terror' in the general populus, it is terrorism (see the connection in the name?). if the intent is to attack government or military, it is not terrorism, even if fear in the populus results.


American indians - absolutely yes. In many cases the goal was to inflict terror in the populus forceing then to surrender and move. in many cases the objective was the worse kind of terrorism - Genocide.

Along the same lines, conquest of the Mexican territories in itself isn't terrorism. Harassment of former Mexican civilians in the territories in an effort to get them to leave is terrorism. Piracy on the seas which was common and condoned by governments was nasty but not terrorism as the intent was not to insight fear.

So what. It was over a century ago. Don't expect any American to really care if you bring up this point ant more than you would expect an Italian to care about the activities undertaken by the Roman empire. In both cases the populu as well as the government and military leaders have changed many times since they occurred.


Agent Orange - the primary target was the elimination of transportation routes for military supplies to an opposing military force. Civilian casualties were a side effect, not the objective. Absolutely not.


Atomic bombs and the fire bombing of Japan cities - The primary target was to eliminate the manufacturing and support base of the military of an opposing army. At the time, there was no technology available to target an enemies manufacturing sector without bombing the surrounding civilian population. This would not meet the definition of terrorism. In addition, the US avoided the obvious target of Tokyo for dropping the bomb. The goal of dropping the Atomic bomb was not to insight fear but to show the Japan military (by then almost empty of assets other than personnel and small arms) and government the futility of attempting to force a negotiated peace by slaughtering personnel by the millions in a hopeless defense. The government and military was well aware the war end was a given and that they had no means of hoping to defend japan successfully. it is also worth noting that an invasion would not only have caused far more US casualtiess, it would have caused far more Japanese lives. Some have argued that the 2nd Atomic bomb was not needed, but keep in mind the allies had little knowlege of the status of the Japanese government at the time - looking back we find it amazing that after the 1st bomb was dropped, many inside the military wanted to continue the war. Even after the 2nd bomb, several days passed before a surrender was received.

side note:
The US has spent billions developing and deploying armaments capable of targeting a speific building minimizing the civilian casualties as much as possible. No other country in history has placed greater effort in minimizing the dmamge to civilian property and non-strategic targets than the US. Period. And the armaments continue to be developed and deployed to continue this effort. In WWII an entire city would be destroyed by hundreds to thousands of bombers over several days and nights to eliminate a factory. Now this can be done with 1 bomber and a handfull of "Smart' weapons that minimize damage to the surrounding communities.


Covert operations - since the 70s, the US has begtan to insist that military funding to foreign governments, militias, and rebel forces be tied to these forces targeting government and military institutions, and not an attempt to simply strike fear in the general populus. Most of this came about concerns with the Contras in Central America.

For any covert operation ,the question is the tactics and target. If it meets the requirements above, a covert operation could be considered terrorism. if you fund operations that target military and government facilities as the primary target, it is not terrorism.

Answer 2

I don't think its the same thing, because most of all the native American nations gained land by fighting wars against other nations. We just joined in the fight and won. Its also something that happened a long time ago.
We have got to get on the same page in this country. These terrorists see us divided and they think we are weak. And they're right. We are weak. I feel this country which I love very much is going to be defeated and soon. We have whole countries like Venezuela and Iran aligning against us and they are building their military and nuclear weapons.
Stop trying to find fault in your own country and look at whats going on in the rest of the world.

Answer 3

General Information About Terrorism
Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom.

Terrorists often use threats to:

Create fear among the public.
Try to convince citizens that their government is powerless to prevent terrorism.
Get immediate publicity for their causes.
Acts of terrorism include threats of terrorism; assassinations; kidnappings; hijackings; bomb scares and bombings; cyber attacks (computer-based); and the use of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons.

High-risk targets for acts of terrorism include military and civilian government facilities, international airports, large cities, and high-profile landmarks. Terrorists might also target large public gatherings, water and food supplies, utilities, and corporate centers. Further, terrorists are capable of spreading fear by sending explosives or chemical and biological agents through the mail.

Within the immediate area of a terrorist event, you would need to rely on police, fire, and other officials for instructions. However, you can prepare in much the same way you would prepare for other crisis events.

Answer 4

That is a tough question. I am part "Native American". I am one eighth Choctaw. I am also part Irish, English, French, and German. Can the attacks of Native Americans upon other Native Americans be seen as terrorism? Can the attacks of the Spanish upon the Native Americans be seen as terrorism? Can the attacks of the French upon Native Americans be seen as terrorism? Can the attacks of the Native Americans upon the American settler's be seen as terrorism? I guess what mattered most at the time was "Are they in my backyard, and if so, are they friendly?"

Answer 5

I wonder if all of you concerned with the Native American plight are willing to remove yourself from this country. Settler's did not attack Native Americans. Most were trying desperately to survive and had neither time nor resources to be used in such an endeavor. Attacks were often instigated by the NA population, much like they perpetrated upon each other. Military campaigns were initiated when troubles arose. It is true that there were characters of poor judgement in some rare cases. I wonder if you did an actual poll of American Indians, explaining the life span 25 women, 30 men starvation, disease, poverty that was the jist of their peoples life in the 1600-1800, and then asking how many want to go back and be "one with the land". Would there be many takers?

Answer 6

In so far as it was meant to be conquering or occupying land, it would not be considered so. If they native Americans resisted, they might be called terrorists by the settlers. Just as the Palestinians resisting Israel's occupation of the West bank are called terrorists now.

Answer 7

I don't know.
But I am sure that the indians were not too liberal. Did they celebrate diversity?
Did the indians create multi-lingual documents for the whites?
Did the indians give equal opportunity to their ladies?
Did many squaws get abortions without telling the father?
Could women vote or otherwise be involved with picking a tribal leader?
And lastly,,,had they even invented the wheel yet?

Answer 8

Genocide

Answer 9

That and then some. There is one significant difference. Terrorists can stop being terrorists and they will be left alone. The America Natives couldn't just stop being Indians and so they were exterminated.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/native14.htm

Answer 10

hell no. Winners are conquerors and the losers are terrorists. If terrorists are the people who kill innocent people just because of their race, lifestyle or religion. hell yeah the settlers were terrorists. But i guess terrorists are the fighters who donot wear uniforms by definition.