BF2S Forums Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

FEOS wrote:

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.

Neither of those definitions specifically excluded military goals or specified political goals exclusively, so I dunno why you bothered posting them.

I disagree with your suggestion that there is never a military goal involved, mainly because military and political goals are inexorably linked.

As for not considering them terrorists - again, as I have pointed out several times, only according to certain readings of certain definitions. Did they use terror as a means of fuirthering their military and political agenda? Almost certainly. Ergo, terrorists.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

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.

Disagree, the definition is a very pertinent point, indeed essential. I prefer to take the most logical and widest meaning - do you use terror to further your aims? Then you are a terrorsit. Simple. I'm NOT putting ANY moral apporbation or approval on that term. It's just a factual definition. I don't say 'terrorists are bad' because I do believe in that one man's freedom fighter idea, no matter what Spark says. It's not rhetoric. However, when you hear 'terrorist' do you think rag-head/9-11/we're fighting for freedom in Iraq? Well done, you've been taken in by the REAL rhetoric then innit. Although I agree that you could easily say insurgents are not terrorists, soething the media does all the time...

None of those are examples of terrorism.

Raping local women isn't terrorism, or robbing from them? An IED against a military target only isn't terrorism but one that involves civilian casualties is? Alright, interesting definition, although I think you're just splitting hairs tbh - terror is terror innit.

Spark wrote:

What the soldiers were doing is whatever they were told by their superiors.

But you were talking about motivation I think, and I don't think soldiers are just automatons, they do generally 'believe in' the cause they're fighting for, don't they? The motiovation is the same for the soldier and the 'terrorist' surely?

Spark wrote:

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.

Sorry disagree again. 9/11 wasn't solely aimed at terrorising the populace buit to put pressure on the govt, as I explained my opinion before. And if you think the blitz ONLY had military objectives, and that the NAzi's had NO political motivation hand-in-hand with their military ones, then I'm afraid you need to read more history

Spark wrote:

Suicide bombing is something you can employ. Crashing buildings into planes is something you employ.
Terrorism is not.

I'm afraid your use of English is kinda screwy mate. Terrorism is a strategy. you employ a strategy. Flying planes into buildings is terrorism, you said, yet just above you say that's a strategy you emply but terrorism isn't? huh? Doesn't make sense. What is terrorism if not a STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING CERTAIN POLITICAL (in your opinion) GOALS?

Spark wrote:

A distinction used only by those who like to be loose with their terminology.

Not at all. A true statement in fact.

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).

I understand you, I just disagree with you, so it's not about 'grasping' your idea. I certainly disagree that the goals of terrorist groupds and 'mainstream' armies must be different, in fact quite the opposite would be true I imagine. The media-driven fear thing is a good point and one that you haven't mentioned before, although again I disagree that it's only something the terrorist may be interested in achieving. Although there are rules of war they are regularly and comprehensively flouted so again, I don't see whay those rules mean that 'terror' is not employed. Armies do not always declare attacks. Would be kinda dumb if they always did that yeah? Again, you're probably right about the media though.

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.

What about soldiers doing things AGAINST the rules of war? Terrorists?

What about soldiers doing things AGAINST the rules of war? Terrorists?

No, just war criminals. That's not exactly a good thing...

Armies do not always declare attacks.

Armies have to declare war. In which case the rules of war apply. Terrorists do not, there are no 'rules of terrorism'.

Raping local women isn't terrorism, or robbing from them? An IED against a military target only isn't terrorism but one that involves civilian casualties is? Alright, interesting definition, although I think you're just splitting hairs tbh - terror is terror innit.

No, but not terrorist does not imply good, neither does evil imply terrorist. An IED against a military target intending to damage the military capabilities of the enemy would not be terrorism - but an IED in the middle of a crowded market which is blatantly designed to kill as many civilians as possible? That could well be defined as terrorism depending on circumstance.

But you were talking about motivation I think, and I don't think soldiers are just automatons, they do generally 'believe in' the cause they're fighting for, don't they? The motiovation is the same for the soldier and the 'terrorist' surely?

In a disciplined army, it shouldn't matter. What matters is doing your job, not the whys and wherefores.

And if you think the blitz ONLY had military objectives, and that the NAzi's had NO political motivation hand-in-hand with their military ones, then I'm afraid you need to read more history hmm

Of course not, but that is beside the point. The whole point of the term terrorist is to identify the set of actions which are designed to inflict terror on a populace in a manner that falls outside the scope of the rules of war.

Not at all. A true statement in fact.

The term terrorists and freedom fighters are mutually exclusive. If someone is being called one by one person and one by another, then one of those people is being intellectually dishonest.

---

Really, I think you'll find, in this issue, on practical matters I agree with you in principle in most things. However, my position on this comes from the fact that I strongly think that especially when it comes to such a politically charged term such as "terrorist" - a term so charged that some news agencies refuse to use it - it is of utmost importance to be very, very careful and very strict about the way in which such terms are used.

Yes, but it doesn't help to make a bad situation worse by being sloppy.

ruisleipa wrote:

I dunno, I just want to call a spade a spade. Does a force use terror to achieve a specific goal? Terrorist. For me that's as simple as it gets.

Okay, but the there are a vast range of implications of that choice which you have to consider.

And it means that terrorism in its most common usage is a term you have to take with a bucketload of salt, as its implied negative connotations may not necessarily imply.

Last edited by Spark (2010-04-15 00:55:14)

ruisleipa wrote:

Spark wrote:

Okay, but the there are a vast range of implications of that choice which you have to consider.

And it means that terrorism in its most common usage is a term you have to take with a bucketload of salt, as its implied negative connotations may not necessarily imply.

sure there are implications for some people, but as far as I'm concerned I have two ways of looking at the word. 1) The way the media and most people use it, i.e. the terrorists are people who are fighting for something we are not, or are against us. To be sure, they fight in generally underhand ways, but the main point is they are against 'us', hence the negative connotations of which you speak. Or, 2) the broader more realistic way whereby a terrorist is simply someone or a force who use terror to achieve their objectives. Yes, that includes 'us' most of the time. but in the second usage there is NO moral judgement associated with it. Terrorists does not equal evil, it is simply a statement of method, and the goals can be political, social, military, or whatever, since they are all so linked it is impossible to have one without the others.

No, plenty of wars fought where our enemy was not labeled terrorists, and they fought for something we did not and they fought against us, I refuse to accept your claim that two armies or countries fighting a war is the same god damn thing as strapping a bomb to a child and sending her into a marketplace.

Last edited by lowing (2010-04-15 04:05:21)

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

sure there are implications for some people, but as far as I'm concerned I have two ways of looking at the word. 1) The way the media and most people use it, i.e. the terrorists are people who are fighting for something we are not, or are against us. To be sure, they fight in generally underhand ways, but the main point is they are against 'us', hence the negative connotations of which you speak. Or, 2) the broader more realistic way whereby a terrorist is simply someone or a force who use terror to achieve their objectives. Yes, that includes 'us' most of the time. but in the second usage there is NO moral judgement associated with it. Terrorists does not equal evil, it is simply a statement of method, and the goals can be political, social, military, or whatever, since they are all so linked it is impossible to have one without the others.

No, plenty of wars fought where our enemy was not labeled terrorists, and they fought for something we did not and they fought against us, I refuse to accept your claim that two armies or countries fighting a war is the same god damn thing as strapping a bomb to a child and sending her into a marketplace.

But lowing, wouldn't that depend on the tactics used by a "regular" army ? To me, for example, mass bombardments of cities in WWII ( Dresden, or Coventry ) would fit a very basic definition of "terror" ( as outlined by ruisleipa above ), because those tactics were specifically designed to instill fear into the civilian population. Is that not terror, just because those who did it happened to wear a uniform, and carried a flag ?

The basic definition of "terrorist" simply says, if you employ those tactics, you are a terrorist, regardless of wether you wear a uniform, or not.

In the end, it all depends on which definition you use personally, and - as has been demonstrated in this thread - this then has consequences on how you judge people's actions. To you, a member of a regular standing army can never be a terrorist, and even if he engages in such activities, he doesn't become a terrorist, but a war criminal.
To me, that's just arbitrary, depending on which side you're on, and which ideology you follow.

I am going with the context of the OP and what Roland Martin is trying to say. He is distinguishing the confederates as terrorists simply because of the slavery issue. He is not prepared to label soldiers of the north, or soldiers in any other war as terrorists, regardless if they fit the critera or not. His agenda is to keep slavery and racism alive and well and at the forfront of every social issue regarding the black community. THe SOuth has nothing more to be ashamed of than any European country that bought and transported slaves to the new world, or any African country that fuckin sold slaves to the Europeans. I really do not see the EU having to address, or answer for, or apologize for its roll in history regarding slavery

I wanna see him come out and call the coalition terrorists, or the contenential army terrorists, or the veterans of WW2 terrorists, because based on this forum ( and no surprise) anyone that picks up a gun is a terrorist. I refuse to accept that, and I will use the example I agave as one of many distinguishing differences.

Last edited by lowing (2010-04-15 06:05:31)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The definition is sitting right in the fucking dictionary.

well quite:

a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon.

Thanks for that.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

Neither of those definitions specifically excluded military goals or specified political goals exclusively, so I dunno why you bothered posting them.

I disagree with your suggestion that there is never a military goal involved, mainly because military and political goals are inexorably linked.

As for not considering them terrorists - again, as I have pointed out several times, only according to certain readings of certain definitions. Did they use terror as a means of fuirthering their military and political agenda? Almost certainly. Ergo, terrorists.

Now you get into the area of state vs non-state actors. That is where the distinction of terrorism vs war crime is usually made. If it is a non-state actor (ie, AQ) acting on behalf of their own movement (not a nation-state), then it is terrorism. If it is someone acting on behalf of a nation-state, then it is a war crime. This is where international law is lagging behind the times.

Yes, when nation-states are engaging in military activity, that military activity is linked to political objectives. However, non-state actors, by definition are not military (not recognized under international law as military) and thus their activity is not military in nature, therefore it is terrorism. They are not following the laws of armed conflict and are therefore by definition of international law terrorists.

Which takes us back to the OP. Confederate soldiers did not fit that profile, and therefore could not be considered terrorists. They could certainly be considered war criminals for certain actions (as could Union soldiers), but not terrorists.

ruisleipa wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The definition is sitting right in the fucking dictionary.

well quite:

a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon.

Thanks for that.

Now use it instead of "well since there IS no accepted definition of 'terrorism' and several possible ones my position is as valid as yours or anyone else's" crap.

You are not using the accepted definition. You yourself state that fact many times. The accepted definition is in the dictionary. There is little to no difference between dictionaries. Anyone who uses any other definition is manipulating words to their own ends, not making an argument on its own merit. You act like this makes their definitions valid.

FEOS wrote:

Now you get into the area of state vs non-state actors. That is where the distinction of terrorism vs war crime is usually made. If it is a non-state actor (ie, AQ) acting on behalf of their own movement (not a nation-state), then it is terrorism. If it is someone acting on behalf of a nation-state, then it is a war crime. This is where international law is lagging behind the times.

Yes, when nation-states are engaging in military activity, that military activity is linked to political objectives. However, non-state actors, by definition are not military (not recognized under international law as military) and thus their activity is not military in nature, therefore it is terrorism. They are not following the laws of armed conflict and are therefore by definition of international law terrorists.

Which takes us back to the OP. Confederate soldiers did not fit that profile, and therefore could not be considered terrorists. They could certainly be considered war criminals for certain actions (as could Union soldiers), but not terrorists.

Interesting post, and I have a lot of sympathy for it, except I still don't agree that non-state actors cannot engage in miliotary action by definition or anything else. If you have a gun or a bomb and attack military targets, you're doing military stuff. I don't agree with the distinction. Perhaps the idea of targetting or ignoring civilians is a better route to go down when trying to define terrorism? I just don't agree that states cannot engage in terrorism.

Non-state actors CAN follow the international law, they just don't get punished if they break it.

face palm in honor of blademaster who started this thread