Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

2010-04-14 00:45:39
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6513|teh FIN-land

Spark wrote:

Um.

The rules of war do not condone terrorism.
They followed the rules of war.
Hence they did not use terrorism.
Um.

In the civil war 'terrorism' as we talk about it today didn't exist.

It all depends on what definition you use (and there is no agreed political definintion of terrorism anyway).

The rules of war have nothing to do with being 'terrorist'.

Taking a broad definition of terrorism, it is the use of terror to further political or military goals, right? You can argue all war is terrorism. Remember shock and awe? Blatant terrorism imo.

This is why I say that the very term has become practically meaningless, and merely refers to people we don't like doing things we wish we could get away with, and sometimes do.

Did the soldiers in the civil war attack civilians? Steal from them? Rape or kill? If so they were prima facie involved in terrorist behaviour.
2010-04-14 03:20:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

ruisleipa wrote:

Spark wrote:

Um.

The rules of war do not condone terrorism.
They followed the rules of war.
Hence they did not use terrorism.
Um.

In the civil war 'terrorism' as we talk about it today didn't exist.

It all depends on what definition you use (and there is no agreed political definintion of terrorism anyway).

The rules of war have nothing to do with being 'terrorist'.

Taking a broad definition of terrorism, it is the use of terror to further political or military goals, right? You can argue all war is terrorism. Remember shock and awe? Blatant terrorism imo.

This is why I say that the very term has become practically meaningless, and merely refers to people we don't like doing things we wish we could get away with, and sometimes do.

Did the soldiers in the civil war attack civilians? Steal from them? Rape or kill? If so they were prima facie involved in terrorist behaviour.
Then say soldiers in every war ever fought engaged in terrorism. Do not just claim the confederates were terrorists simply because they fought on the side that had legalized slavery.
He should be just as appalled at 4th of July, DDay celebrations, Veterans Day Memorial Day etc...But then again you can not satisfy your agenda of keeping your race card credit limit up by including everyone in that criteria.

Last edited by lowing (2010-04-14 04:23:25)

2010-04-14 04:37:24
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6965|Canberra, AUS

ruisleipa wrote:

Spark wrote:

Um.

The rules of war do not condone terrorism.
They followed the rules of war.
Hence they did not use terrorism.
Um.

In the civil war 'terrorism' as we talk about it today didn't exist.

It all depends on what definition you use (and there is no agreed political definintion of terrorism anyway).

The rules of war have nothing to do with being 'terrorist'.

Taking a broad definition of terrorism, it is the use of terror to further political or military goals, right? You can argue all war is terrorism. Remember shock and awe? Blatant terrorism imo.

This is why I say that the very term has become practically meaningless, and merely refers to people we don't like doing things we wish we could get away with, and sometimes do.

Did the soldiers in the civil war attack civilians? Steal from them? Rape or kill? If so they were prima facie involved in terrorist behaviour.
it is the use of terror to further political or military goals, right?
No, it is not. Terrorism by definition does not achieve a military goal.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-04-14 05:49:33
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:

No, it is not. Terrorism by definition does not achieve a military goal.
Of course it can, from catapulting heads into besieged cities to the sirens on Stukas.
Armies can and do engage in terrorism.
Fuck Israel
2010-04-14 05:52:20
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6965|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

No, it is not. Terrorism by definition does not achieve a military goal.
Of course it can, from catapulting heads into besieged cities to the sirens on Stukas.
Armies can and do engage in terrorism.
Yes, but not to achieve military goals.

Terrorism is defined as the set of tactics and methods where by one attempts to achieve ideological and political but not military goals via the imposition of terror or fear on a general populace.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-04-14 06:00:10
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX
Not heard this before, armies use terror often enough.
Who was 'Shock and Awe' aimed at eh?
Fuck Israel
2010-04-14 06:03:40
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not heard this before, armies use terror often enough.
Who was 'Shock and Awe' aimed at eh?
Well it sure wasn't aimed school children or women at the market. Who do you think it was aimed at?
2010-04-14 06:15:19
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX
The populace as a whole, since cities were bombed, pretty sure Saddam and the army knew what bombs going off looked like.
Fuck Israel
2010-04-14 06:15:47
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6965|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not heard this before, armies use terror often enough.
Who was 'Shock and Awe' aimed at eh?
All academic definitions of terrorism look very much like that. Imposition of terror to achieve ideological/political goals but they make it clear that it is not to achieve military or financial goals.

Note that modern day terrorism is now inherently linked to the media.

Here's a difference. 9/11 was an act of terrorism as it was directly aimed at terrorising the US populace into accepting al-Qaeda's ideological terms for the future Middle East.

On the other hand, the Blitz was aimed at terrorising the British populace into accepting defeat etc. etc. - military goals. Not terrorism.

Last edited by Spark (2010-04-14 06:22:45)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-04-14 06:23:19
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX
Seems remarkably woolly actually, and there is not yet an internationally agreed definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

If an army decides to depart from the rules of war and employs terrorism is that a war crime or terrorism or both?
Fuck Israel
2010-04-14 06:29:28
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:

On the other hand, the Blitz was aimed at terrorising the British populace into accepting defeat etc. etc. - military goals. Not terrorism.
But then the Germans call the British bombing campaign 'terror bombing' and still gripe about it.

Thats the odd thing, if armies decide to annihilate civilians its fine, if civilians do it its terrorism.
Fuck Israel
2010-04-14 06:50:00
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6965|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

On the other hand, the Blitz was aimed at terrorising the British populace into accepting defeat etc. etc. - military goals. Not terrorism.
But then the Germans call the British bombing campaign 'terror bombing' and still gripe about it.

Thats the odd thing, if armies decide to annihilate civilians its fine, if civilians do it its terrorism.
They can gripe but they'd be wrong.

If an army decides to depart from the rules of war and employs terrorism is that a war crime or terrorism or both?
One cannot "employ" terrorism. Terrorism is a status, and a strategy. It is not a tactic, it is not a tank or a plane.

Thats the odd thing, if armies decide to annihilate civilians its fine, if civilians do it its terrorism.
Wildly incorrect.

Last edited by Spark (2010-04-14 06:50:19)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-04-14 07:00:12
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7132|Cologne, Germany

the op is bullshit, if you ask me. First, you cannot take any definition of "terrorist" or "terroris that we use today and apply it to the Civil War.

Second, as Dilbert has said, there is no universally accepted defintion of "terrorist", or "terrorism". I agree with ruisleipa when he says that the term has been really become meaningless. Sometimes, it's soldiers doing the "terrorizing", sometimes it's civilians. Sometimes, it's even the government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

Thus, I suggest we skip all the modern day shit about definitions, and stick to the original history of the word in latin. It comes from "terrere", meaning "to frighten". In this very broad sense of the word, any tactic that has the intent to frighten another person is terrorism, and anyone engaging in frighting tactics is a terrorist. That includes confederates, the Taliban, US and german armed forces ( together with every other standing army ever invented, since the first war was fought ) , and also the fat, ugly chick next door that keeps bugging me. Jeez, I hate that bitch...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta go buy BC2.

PS: it's good to see you lowing.
2010-04-14 07:01:32
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6965|Canberra, AUS

B.Schuss wrote:

the op is bullshit, if you ask me. First, you cannot take any definition of "terrorist" or "terroris that we use today and apply it to the Civil War.

Second, as Dilbert has said, there is no universally accepted defintion of "terrorist", or "terrorism". I agree with ruisleipa when he says that the term has been really become meaningless. Sometimes, it's soldiers doing the "terrorizing", sometimes it's civilians. Sometimes, it's even the government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

Thus, I suggest we skip all the modern day shit about definitions, and stick to the original history of the word in latin. It comes from "terrere", meaning "to frighten". In this very broad sense of the word, any tactic that has the intent to frighten another person is terrorism, and anyone engaging in frighting tactics is a terrorist. That includes confederates, the Taliban, US and german armed forces ( together with every other standing army ever invented, since the first war was fought ) , and also the fat, ugly chick next door that. Jeez, I hate that bitch...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta go buy BC2.

PS: it's good to see you lowing.
Of course but such a vast definition makes it well, meaningless. "Terrorists!" "And?" (yes I know this is what some have argued)

Last edited by Spark (2010-04-14 07:01:48)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-04-14 07:02:40
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5528|Cleveland, Ohio

B.Schuss wrote:

I agree with ruisleipa
/facedesk
2010-04-14 07:05:04
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7132|Cologne, Germany

11 Bravo wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

I agree with ruisleipa
/facedesk
don't hurt yourself, young man...^^

I agree with a random person from teh interwebs on a random point in a random debate. I mean, that's huge, obviously...
2010-04-14 07:15:42
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7132|Cologne, Germany

Spark wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

the op is bullshit, if you ask me. First, you cannot take any definition of "terrorist" or "terroris that we use today and apply it to the Civil War.

Second, as Dilbert has said, there is no universally accepted defintion of "terrorist", or "terrorism". I agree with ruisleipa when he says that the term has been really become meaningless. Sometimes, it's soldiers doing the "terrorizing", sometimes it's civilians. Sometimes, it's even the government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

Thus, I suggest we skip all the modern day shit about definitions, and stick to the original history of the word in latin. It comes from "terrere", meaning "to frighten". In this very broad sense of the word, any tactic that has the intent to frighten another person is terrorism, and anyone engaging in frighting tactics is a terrorist. That includes confederates, the Taliban, US and german armed forces ( together with every other standing army ever invented, since the first war was fought ) , and also the fat, ugly chick next door that. Jeez, I hate that bitch...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta go buy BC2.

PS: it's good to see you lowing.
Of course but such a vast definition makes it well, meaningless. "Terrorists!" "And?" (yes I know this is what some have argued)
well, it is obviously very difficult to find universally accepted definitions for issues that are so complex as terrorism. I mean, you can surely try, but I don't think it's going to get you anywhere. What "terrorism" means is mostly a matter of perspective and/or ideology. And those change.
2010-04-14 07:18:35
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

The populace as a whole, since cities were bombed, pretty sure Saddam and the army knew what bombs going off looked like.
You mean the US TARGETED women and children and civilian centers as part of a military strategy??
2010-04-14 07:20:16
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6965|Canberra, AUS
In any case there is a critical point. Armies have strict international laws which stipulate what they may and may not do.

"Terrorist" - i.e. militant groups - do not.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-04-14 11:48:31
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6513|teh FIN-land

lowing wrote:

Then say soldiers in every war ever fought engaged in terrorism. Do not just claim the confederates were terrorists simply because they fought on the side that had legalized slavery.
He should be just as appalled at 4th of July, DDay celebrations, Veterans Day Memorial Day etc...But then again you can not satisfy your agenda of keeping your race card credit limit up by including everyone in that criteria.
OK fair enough, I will say that soldiers in almost every war (and I say almost just to be on the safe side ) engage in terrorism, cos it's probably true. That's why I say the word has essentially lost all meaning and is simply an ideological tool. Anyone who says that an army, i particular invading armies, do NOT use terror as a tool of war is just wrong, basically.

I'm not appalled at 4th of July, D-Day anniversary, whatever. Why should I be appalled? I'm not appalled at Palestinians having raucus funerals when some 'martyr' gets himself blown up per se, although I may well be appalled at the circumstances which led to the parade.

Dunno what you mean about race card credit limit tbh.

Spark wrote:

No, it is not. Terrorism by definition does not achieve a military goal.
I disagree with your definition.

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

No, it is not. Terrorism by definition does not achieve a military goal.
Of course it can, from catapulting heads into besieged cities to the sirens on Stukas.
Armies can and do engage in terrorism.
Yes, but not to achieve military goals.

Terrorism is defined as the set of tactics and methods where by one attempts to achieve ideological and political but not military goals via the imposition of terror or fear on a general populace.
Mmmm..hang on. So you're saying that in a siege, catapulting heads into the city is NOT aimed at achieving a military goal. So the successful resolution of a siege is NOT a military goal? Don't think I agree with that either.

The definition you gave, I don't see why you have the stipulation of not achieving a military goal, it doesn't make sense.

The guy laying an IED on a road, he doesn't have a military goal? The destruction of a small part of his enemy's army? That's not military? To be sure, he is probably ALSO motivated by political or other ideological motives, but it makes no sense to say that the goals cannot be military.

As for the imposition of fear on a general populace, who's to say that Confederate troops, iof thy were in Union areas, wouldn't want to intimidate the locals? Or is it only terrorism when somehow a whole nation is involved?

Spark wrote:

All academic definitions of terrorism look very much like that. Imposition of terror to achieve ideological/political goals but they make it clear that it is not to achieve military or financial goals.

Note that modern day terrorism is now inherently linked to the media.

Here's a difference. 9/11 was an act of terrorism as it was directly aimed at terrorising the US populace into accepting al-Qaeda's ideological terms for the future Middle East.

On the other hand, the Blitz was aimed at terrorising the British populace into accepting defeat etc. etc. - military goals. Not terrorism.
I would like to see these academic definitions of terrorism of which you speak. It is true that many have stressed the political aspect of 'terrorism', but then, the definition is still open to question, and can you show me an army that does not have political and military goals both in mind? You're saying no allied soldiers ever fight for political or ideological reasons? To drive back the communists/arabs/bogeymen, and so on.

You're right about the media link though.

9/11 was an act of terrorism but not because it was aimed at terrorising the populace into accepting AQ's terms etc, which is surely not what the aim of the attacks was, as anyone with even half a brain would realise that exactly the opposite would be much more likely to happen. no, the attacks were aimed at the government directly - we're striking at the heart of your global empire kinda thang going on. It was a terrorist act because it was aimed either directly at killing or with no due regard for the safety of civilians (this is pretty much the definition of terrorism I agree with btw). Just like your other example, the blitz, as well as many wars in the 20/21st century.

I tihnk your definitions are screwy. You say this:
it was directly aimed at terrorising the US populace into accepting al-Qaeda's ideological terms for the future Middle East.
and then this:
aimed at terrorising the British populace into accepting defeat etc. etc. - military goals.
How the hell do you figure the blitz had NO political goals? You know Hitler, right? The politican and inventor of the blitz? Srsly?

The two things are exactly the same.

Spark wrote:

They can gripe but they'd be wrong.
Only according to your bit weird definition.

Spark wrote:

One cannot "employ" terrorism. Terrorism is a status, and a strategy. It is not a tactic, it is not a tank or a plane.
You can't employ a strategy? eh?

Spark wrote:

Wildly incorrect.
One man's freedom fighter, etc.

lowing wrote:

Well it sure wasn't aimed school children or women at the market. Who do you think it was aimed at?
Presumably anyone who wasn't on the US's side, including the civilians in villages who were sympathetic to the Taliban (sorry I forget which war you were referring to - it was Afghanistan right?). Change sides or we'll bomb the fuck outtaya. Plenty of civilian casualities to fit the definition of terrorism given above I reckon, although again, that rather proves my point that the word is a meaningless media and political tool.

B.Schuss wrote:

well, it is obviously very difficult to find universally accepted definitions for issues that are so complex as terrorism. I mean, you can surely try, but I don't think it's going to get you anywhere. What "terrorism" means is mostly a matter of perspective and/or ideology. And those change.
exactly.

Spark wrote:

In any case there is a critical point. Armies have strict international laws which stipulate what they may and may not do.

"Terrorist" - i.e. militant groups - do not.
Well, 'terrorist' groups plainly DO have rules they follow, although they happen to be different from international law. But I don't see what this has to do with anything tbh. If they ignore the rules, then what? Do they become terrorists?
2010-04-14 12:33:04
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5679|Fuck this.
Ter'ror-ism n. the use of force to intimidate, etc., esp. as a political policy.

straight out of a Webster's NW dictionary. Every government, military, and political party in history has used some form of terrorism. The word now has a deluded and essentially lost meaning. Technically, confederate, union, and current united states soldiers are or were terrorists. Hell, making scary monster sounds outside of a child's bedroom could be considered terrorism.

Last edited by ROGUEDD (2010-04-14 12:33:38)

Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
2010-04-14 16:02:39
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6701|'Murka

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

@ the OP: NO.

    They were wearing uniforms, part of regular formations, following the rules of war as known and understood at the time.
None of which have anything to do with whether or not terror is used as a weapon to further political or military goals, do they?
All of which have everything to do with whether or not the individuals in question (ie, Confederate soldiers--read the OP) would be considered terrorists.

Hence the very first line of my post, to show that it was directed at the OP and not part of the conversation.

As to the debate about terror being a political or military (or both) tool...it is used for political goals, not military goals.

The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy wrote:

terrorism definition
Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion. Israel has been a frequent target of terrorism, but the United States has increasingly become its main target. (See also September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, and Basque region.)

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law wrote:

the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
(emphasis added)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-04-14 16:13:50
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85
All this stuff about the definition is so stupid. The same "discussion" would have take place 20 years ago about the word communist. The definition of terrorism is the same thing it was 20 years ago. The only problem is idiots need to use the vocabulary of the day to make their point for them, taking advantage of the negative connotations despite obvious contradictions in the meaning of the word and how they are using it. See: people indiscriminately calling insurgents terrorists and America bashers calling the US soldiers terrorists.

The word is not "devalued", the only devaluation going on here is the intelligence of people that have to listen to this rhetoric for dummies garbage.
2010-04-14 16:37:03
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The populace as a whole, since cities were bombed, pretty sure Saddam and the army knew what bombs going off looked like.
You mean the US TARGETED women and children and civilian centers as part of a military strategy??
'Shock' and 'Awe', who was meant to be shocked and awed?
Fuck Israel
2010-04-14 16:46:56
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6965|Canberra, AUS

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Of course it can, from catapulting heads into besieged cities to the sirens on Stukas.
Armies can and do engage in terrorism.
Yes, but not to achieve military goals.

Terrorism is defined as the set of tactics and methods where by one attempts to achieve ideological and political but not military goals via the imposition of terror or fear on a general populace.
Mmmm..hang on. So you're saying that in a siege, catapulting heads into the city is NOT aimed at achieving a military goal. So the successful resolution of a siege is NOT a military goal? Don't think I agree with that either.

The definition you gave, I don't see why you have the stipulation of not achieving a military goal, it doesn't make sense.

The guy laying an IED on a road, he doesn't have a military goal? The destruction of a small part of his enemy's army? That's not military? To be sure, he is probably ALSO motivated by political or other ideological motives, but it makes no sense to say that the goals cannot be military.

As for the imposition of fear on a general populace, who's to say that Confederate troops, iof thy were in Union areas, wouldn't want to intimidate the locals? Or is it only terrorism when somehow a whole nation is involved?
None of those are examples of terrorism.

Spark wrote:

All academic definitions of terrorism look very much like that. Imposition of terror to achieve ideological/political goals but they make it clear that it is not to achieve military or financial goals.

Note that modern day terrorism is now inherently linked to the media.

Here's a difference. 9/11 was an act of terrorism as it was directly aimed at terrorising the US populace into accepting al-Qaeda's ideological terms for the future Middle East.

On the other hand, the Blitz was aimed at terrorising the British populace into accepting defeat etc. etc. - military goals. Not terrorism.
I would like to see these academic definitions of terrorism of which you speak. It is true that many have stressed the political aspect of 'terrorism', but then, the definition is still open to question, and can you show me an army that does not have political and military goals both in mind? You're saying no allied soldiers ever fight for political or ideological reasons? To drive back the communists/arabs/bogeymen, and so on.
What the soldiers were doing is whatever they were told by their superiors.

You're right about the media link though.

9/11 was an act of terrorism but not because it was aimed at terrorising the populace into accepting AQ's terms etc, which is surely not what the aim of the attacks was, as anyone with even half a brain would realise that exactly the opposite would be much more likely to happen. no, the attacks were aimed at the government directly - we're striking at the heart of your global empire kinda thang going on. It was a terrorist act because it was aimed either directly at killing or with no due regard for the safety of civilians (this is pretty much the definition of terrorism I agree with btw). Just like your other example, the blitz, as well as many wars in the 20/21st century.

I tihnk your definitions are screwy. You say this:
it was directly aimed at terrorising the US populace into accepting al-Qaeda's ideological terms for the future Middle East.
and then this:
aimed at terrorising the British populace into accepting defeat etc. etc. - military goals.
How the hell do you figure the blitz had NO political goals? You know Hitler, right? The politican and inventor of the blitz? Srsly?

The two things are exactly the same.
No, they are not. One was purely and only aimed at terrorising the populace while one was an attempt to win a war. The war is the key difference as the Blitz was (although yes it was probably totally ignored) covered by the usual laws as to the conduct of war. al-Qaeda has no such impositions upon it.

Spark wrote:

One cannot "employ" terrorism. Terrorism is a status, and a strategy. It is not a tactic, it is not a tank or a plane.
You can't employ a strategy? eh?
Suicide bombing is something you can employ. Crashing buildings into planes is something you employ.

Terrorism is not.

Spark wrote:

Wildly incorrect.
One man's freedom fighter, etc.
A distinction used only by those who like to be loose with their terminology.

lowing wrote:

Well it sure wasn't aimed school children or women at the market. Who do you think it was aimed at?
Presumably anyone who wasn't on the US's side, including the civilians in villages who were sympathetic to the Taliban (sorry I forget which war you were referring to - it was Afghanistan right?). Change sides or we'll bomb the fuck outtaya. Plenty of civilian casualities to fit the definition of terrorism given above I reckon, although again, that rather proves my point that the word is a meaningless media and political tool.
Deliberately bombing civilians would be an illegal act. I'm fairly sure you'll find that the USAF does not deliberately bomb civilians only.

Spark wrote:

In any case there is a critical point. Armies have strict international laws which stipulate what they may and may not do.

"Terrorist" - i.e. militant groups - do not.
Well, 'terrorist' groups plainly DO have rules they follow, although they happen to be different from international law. But I don't see what this has to do with anything tbh. If they ignore the rules, then what? Do they become terrorists?
...

It's not hard to grasp. The reason I exclude armies from the definition of terrorism is that they do not utilise the same methods or have the same goals as terrorist groups because their actions are not aimed at causing media-driven fear. In addition they are covered by the rules of war which are VERY comprehensive in saying what you may and may not do as part of an army during a state of war.

Terrorist groups are not covered by those same restrictions. Whatever rules may apply are made up by them alone. Their success is directly proportional to the media coverage and hence irrational fear they create and critically terrorist groups have no problem making unprovoked attacks without "declaring" that such attacks will be made (which is what armies do).

---

Again. Insurgents bombing soldiers are not terrorists. Soldiers carrying out orders during wartime states in line with the rules of war are not terrorists. Guys who bomb subways and planes are terrorists.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard