Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare

Dis · May 1, 2003, 03:03

the key word here is warfare. Terrorism is war. Period.

Because terrorism is war I don't agree with trying them as civilian criminal cases. That seem silly to me.

And because terrorism is warfare, and we have a war on terrorism, I have no problem with detaining enemy combatants. Sure we still have combatants in custody, but that is because the war on terror is not over. Hell, we aren't even done with the war in Afghanistan, we aren't going to release those people until the war on terror is over. Which is probably never, or until some lefty president gets into office and feels sorry for them like Bill Clinton.

Sure they target civilians, but civilians are the unfortunate casualties in war. The terrorist nations do not have any other means of fighting a war against a superior enemy. They have to do what they have to do. And consequently, I don't like hearing *****ing and moaning about the what the Israelis are doing. The Israelis are fighting a constant war as well. They are being targeted, and doing what they can not to be annhilated.

So basically you have one side (the terrorists) that intentionally target civilians. And you have another side who does not intentionally target civilians, although some die due to collateral damage. Now which side do you think is more evil? Hmm

Terrorism is war. 'nuff said.

Inverse Icarus · May 1, 2003, 03:06

the fact of the matter is that civilians die in war.

the difference, as you stated, is that america doesn't do it on purpose. we plan ahead and do everything in our power to minimize civilian casualities.

... it doesn't help when the enemy dresses in civilian clothing

Dis · May 1, 2003, 03:11

To sum up my post some more.

We cannot force our enemy to abide by certain conditions of war.

The geneva convention is nice and all that, but if our enemy doesn't follow it, what are we to do?

I just wish people would see terrorism as war like I do, and not individual acts.

Zevico · May 1, 2003, 03:12

Of course its a war, but it is the most despicable form of it-attacking those who cannot defend themselves.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 03:12

Legitimate? Nay. Practiced? Yes.

Unfortunately, until it is decided that any who support them deserve the same fate as the ones pushing the button, we aren't going to solve the problem.

Progress is being made. Hopefully, there will come a time when people no longer think that disguising themselves and deliberately killing civvies will be useful to gain their political ends.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 03:15

PS. Lined up against the wall and given a quick exit would be too good for the pr!cks.

Dis · May 1, 2003, 03:15

I am just trying to look at it from their perspective. they see their whole livelihood being threatened. They face a superior enemy in every regards. But the enemy has a weakness- fear. And the enemy has another weakness- democracy.

what you do is use both of those things against them. First you instill fear into the population with terrorist acts. Attacking the military does not scare the general population. the point is to make the general population fearful of their lives and have that influence their voting and public policy. And hopefully the policy will be favourable as in they are willing to cave into your demands in exchange for not performing terrorist acts.

Basically they are exploiting a our only weakness. But can you blame the enemy for wanting to win?

But I disagree things are getting better. Terrorism will get worse before it gets better.

Alvaro · May 1, 2003, 03:17

"The geneva convention is nice and all that, but if our enemy doesn't follow it, what are we to do?"

You don't follow it either, so you have no right to feel superior. I think they're much closer to abiding it than yours, or any other western army for that matter.

The US Army uses 5.56mm ammo which is strictly forbidden by the Geneva Convention due to the nature of the impact (likely to hurt/kill more than one person with a single round).

You can't pick and choose which clauses you follow and which you ignore. Your tanks' ammo, your infantry granades... they all break the convention's decisions.

I'm an officer in army that does all those things too, by the way. But I don't judge others with that stupid convention. Common sense is the way...

Terrorism is killing civilians for a political goal. War is different.

JCG · May 1, 2003, 03:18

******* No.

Of course it is war, but one of the worst forms of it.

If you believe that "all means of waging war are equal", then please go back to firebombing and nuking cities.

Dis · May 1, 2003, 03:19

Is war not about politics? Yes it is. Terrorism is war.

We don't just go invading and attacking other countries for the fun of it. War is about politics the same as terrorism is about politics.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 03:21

And we should exploit our strength. We should crush any group or state who supports those who seek to gain their aims through the use of terrorism.

I don't blame people for wanting to better their situation. But when bettering their situation involves blowing up cafes, taking theatres for hostages, or flying planes into buildings, a line has been crossed. They should be treated as the vermin they are, and the holes they come from should be fumigated.

Dis · May 1, 2003, 03:22

I agree with that post completely.

orange · May 1, 2003, 03:30

Going strictly by the dictionary...

Terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Legitimate
Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.
Born of legally married parents: legitimate issue.
Of, relating to, or ruling by hereditary right: a legitimate monarch.
Of or relating to drama of high professional quality that excludes burlesque, vaudeville, and some forms of musical comedy: the legitimate theater.

No. By definition, terrorism is illegitimate.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 03:35

But, are there any laws in many countries against setting out to blow up infidels in other countries?

Edited.

The Mad Monk · May 1, 2003, 03:39

Originally posted by Dissident
I am just trying to look at it from their perspective. they see their whole livelihood being threatened. They face a superior enemy in every regards. But the enemy has a weakness- fear. And the enemy has another weakness- democracy.

what you do is use both of those things against them. First you instill fear into the population with terrorist acts. Attacking the military does not scare the general population. the point is to make the general population fearful of their lives and have that influence their voting and public policy. And hopefully the policy will be favourable as in they are willing to cave into your demands in exchange for not performing terrorist acts.

Basically they are exploiting a our only weakness. But can you blame the enemy for wanting to win?

But I disagree things are getting better. Terrorism will get worse before it gets better.

Except they miscalculated what a fearful American populace means.

It dosen't mean we back off.

It means we get viscious.

orange · May 1, 2003, 03:39

I don't think any nation has that on the books.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 03:43

Actually, many do.

You plot to carry out a crime (by our books) anywhere in the world, you get locked up. That's in Canada. I suspect that many nations have similar statutes. However, I'm not a lawyer and stand ready to be corrected.

orange · May 1, 2003, 03:44

i'm sorry, i misread it...or did you change it? I don't know...i thought it was asking if any nations had laws that supported terrorism.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 03:46

I did edit it quickly. The against was always there though.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 03:54

The government of the US and coalition countries avoided civilian casualties in Iraq at tremendous cost. Terrorists on the other hand target civilians. You point out that terrorists don't have the ability to confront our power on an equal basis and so terrorism becomes a legitamate form of warfare.

If a nation or political or religious system ever, through atrocities, convinces the public of, say, the US to operatate on such a basis...

Anyway, the society which enables such a war on innocents should consider the abyss.

Imran Siddiqui · May 1, 2003, 04:00

the society which enables such a war on innocents should consider the abyss.

You mean like the US in WW2 (Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima)

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 04:07

Awareness is different now Imran, as you know. Also, don't forget London. I'm not taking the side of those who bombed Dresden, but I understand them. It was total war, as the people of that time understand it. Now its something different entirely, so people recoil from it more in this time.

Frankychan · May 1, 2003, 04:11

Terrorism is NOT war. Terrorism is armed, private combat. WAR encompasses more than just combat...it contains economic sanctions, diplomatic procedures, yadayadayada.

Terrorism is armed conflict that borders on the definition of "atrocity".

James Adams · May 1, 2003, 04:13

There are no legitimate forms of warfare!

Sorry, but I think combat now that Nuclear warefare can happen no war is justified!

Imran Siddiqui · May 1, 2003, 04:18

I'm not taking the side of those who bombed Dresden, but I understand them.

So why can you not understand those that undertake in terrorism? That was the purpose of Diss's thread. This isn't different. In fact, it is very similar.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 04:20

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

the society which enables such a war on innocents should consider the abyss.

You mean like the US in WW2 (Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima)

There was a slight difference. The bombers came in shapes that could be recognised and combated. They followed similar excesses from the other side. It was a situation that both sides found themselves escalating in.

To introduce Dresden as an excuse for the acts of the terrorists is to open the door to the carpet bombing and fire bombing of the home towns of the suicide bombers. Is that a good idea?

Inverse Icarus · May 1, 2003, 04:22

Originally posted by notyoueither
To introduce Dresden as an excuse for the acts of the terrorists is to open the door to the carpet bombing and fire bombing of the home towns of the suicide bombers. Is that a good idea?

if all the arabs were dead, we wouldn't be in this mess, now would we?

stupid politics

Imran Siddiqui · May 1, 2003, 04:30

To introduce Dresden as an excuse for the acts of the terrorists is to open the door to the carpet bombing and fire bombing of the home towns of the suicide bombers. Is that a good idea?

It may be. It depends on the circumstances. Right now, naw it ain't a good idea. We have much more power than they do and there are easier ways out.

Frankychan · May 1, 2003, 04:31

Nuclear "Warfare" is an atrocity.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 04:33

Imran, because in those times there was no force in human hands that could end all life on Earth. That changes everything.

Also, Dresden followed London, the allies didn't start the war, niether did the Brits. So anything that shortened it was ok, to those that waged it. Only in the aftermath was Dresden considered wrong, unarmed.

Nagasaki built fighters, Hiroshima, I don't recall, something though. At any rate the Japanese should not have expected quarter. Total warriors, waging a total war.

The US and Britain didn't start the war, so anything that facilitated its end was considered productive.

Regarding terrorism, it's war on innocent people. I understand that. It's a power play on the part of aggressors. Those that take part in such tactics play with oblivion. If the US were to ever engage in Jihad one day, there would be no day 2 for our enemies.