Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Yet the US still bombed Germany

... which was only feasible due to the fact that the Red Army was diverting huge amounts of German resources.

Btw, what are you getting at?

That you are bringing up a failed strategy that had little to no effect on the outcome of WWII to support an idiotic point about the legitimacy of terrorism.

[Master Zen]

The Red Army had nothing to do whether the Allies would have tried to bomb Germany or not. The British had been doing it since 1940, the US developed long range bombers since the 1930...bla bla bla. That it was more successful thanks to the diversion of resources yes, that it wouldn't have been launched no.

Again, I am not arguin whether it was a failure or not. IMO it was a failure. But it was DONE with the explicit intent of causing civilian casualties. In fact, your supposed point proves YOU wrong as it is much more inhumane to do such damage when you have already won the war as you claim.

Anyway, who's to say if terrorism is legit or not? Invading iraq wasn't legit from the International Law point of view yet the US did it in defense of its interests. Same with the terrorists, they have the same right to do it.

[Kuciwalker]

So we need Iraqis to man the oil well? Well, they probably already are there, so why don't we nuke the rest of the country? We don't need a bunch of frigging desert. Is that what you want?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, I am not arguin whether it was a failure or not. IMO it was a failure. But it was DONE with the explicit intent of causing civilian casualties.

Exactly. Dresden was solely intended to target civilians. The fact that it didn't work may make it more of a tragedy (to us), but it still doesn't mean it wasn't intended to have a political cause.

Just because the intended political cause didn't work, doesn't mean it wasn't the targetting of civilians for political change. Or else, you'd have to say Palestinian bombings aren't terrorism because they are failing to effect political change the way they desire.

[Kuciwalker]

We aren't arguing whether or not that was terrorism - we're arguing over whether terrorism was wrong.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by BeBro


Yes, but it is the logical consequence when so many people seem to believe that terrorism is legitimate.....

I absolutely agree with Strangelove here, when people say something like that (or even better "no rules in war") then everything is justified, and for all sides, so why complain about it? Then we could all agree that there are no limits in warfare, that all sides have the right to do everything to win.

Sure, the entire concept of humanity would go downhill, but....

What rules? terrorists aren't the only one who are lawless or even the most damaging.

As said both state and indivindual/"independent" terrorism are to be condemned.

[Master Zen]

Terrorism is the same whether you use a homemade bomb or an F-16 to do it. Ultimitely it is an attempt to change the policies of an enemy nation, weaken its will, or right a supposed wrongdoing. Under this definition it's not just the arabs who are doing the terror...

EDIT: forgot to mention that it is done not in accordance with international law

[Spiffor]

MasterZen :

To be more precise, terrorism is the use of force in order to instill terror in a population, so that it changes its behaviour, or its government changes its policies.

As such, an army that wantonly and systematically kills civilians is waging terrorism. An individual blowing himself on enemy soldiers is not.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Spiffor
MasterZen :

To be more precise, terrorism is the use of force in order to instill terror in a population, so that it changes its behaviour, or its government changes its policies.

As such, an army that wantonly and systematically kills civilians is waging terrorism. An individual blowing himself on enemy soldiers is not.

The suicide bomber generally disguises himself as a civilian, and travels among civilians, therefore using civilians as shields. If you allow that his enemies have a legitimate right to fight back then they are left with no choice but to fight civilians. Thus the suicide bomber is a terrorist even if he targets enemy soldiers because he is virtually mandating terrorim as a defensive reply. It is as if a group of soldiers, uniformed or not, had gathered a crowd of civilians around themselves as they approached an enemy position.

[GePap]

I think people continue to mix political violence with war. War is a form of political violence, it is not the only one. A purge is a form of political violence, but not a war.

"Terrorism" is a form of violence that like war is meant to bring about a certain desired political aim. But terrorism always coems into play when the status of the two sides differs greatly. Zionist actions against thew British in 1947 count as acts of terrorism, since one had noo-recognized bodies attacking the legitimate legal authority. Once the british left and partition was supposed to take place, we have two sides of equal standing and, by now, more equal capabilities, and thus we get WAR.

As for the question of the "validity" of "terrorism": As I said earlier, the very name is designed to de-legitimize the act. "Terrorists" lack legal standing and thus are not seen as legitimate actors. There are lots of people here talking about how "killing civilains is wrong", well, the fact that the US does not target civilains is a side-effect of tehcnology, and not just ethics. The US does not need to kill civilians to achieve its aims, and experiences from previous wars show that indescriminate levelling of civlians centers hardly ever speeds up or makes more likely the sorts of aims the US seeks. As such, it is a waste of resources and time to go kill civilians. If the US does not kill civlians then, it is a matter of expediency, and not that we care so much: our actions in vietnam and in WW2 shows that when we think killing of "innocents" will help us win, we will do it. "terrorists", as illegitmate orgs. with limited resources, don;t have the luxury of clean hands. Civilains targets are called "soft" for a reason, and if that is the only type of target they can hit, or if they think that type of violence is what will speed up the political process in thier favor, well, they will do it.

Civilains are "innocents" not because it is somehow naturally ordained, or even 'common sense'. Over the last 300 years the definitions pof valid targets have changed , and as of now, we deem people out of uniform and without a gun as non-combatants and worthy of protection. The same authority that allows us to define them as such is what gives us the ability to decry certain acts of violence as illegal. It certainly is not fair, but it is the way of the world. Killing is not, and has never been, equal. That is why we have murder, manslaughter, and why if you kill 50 people in one occasion we condemn you to prison, (or to die) while in another situation we make you a Hero and applaud you.

Terrorism is not a valid form of political violence, if simply because that is the rule. and as far as i am concerned, that is a fine rule, and one to be changed with great discretion.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by UberKruX
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.

This is only a very new policy instituted in the last couple of years. Even during the Kosovo war we engaged in the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Furthermore, in our low-intensity wars, the ones in which we aren't the direct combants, but rather the men behind the curtians, we are murderous bastards. The blood of eleven million people since the end of WWII is on our collective hands. That doesn't sound like minimizing casualties. That sounds like a Holocaust.

[GeneralTacticus]

Furthermore, in our low-intensity wars, the ones in which we aren't the direct combants, but rather the men behind the curtians, we are murderous bastards. The blood of eleven million people since the end of WWII is on our collective hands. That doesn't sound like minimizing casualties. That sounds like a Holocaust.

I didn't think it was that high. Where did it all come from?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The blood of eleven million people since the end of WWII is on our collective hands. That doesn't sound like minimizing casualties. That sounds like a Holocaust.

Even if it is true:

Hmmm... 11 million in 40-50 years vs. 11 million in 4-5 years... yep, totally comparable .

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Furthermore, in our low-intensity wars, the ones in which we aren't the direct combants, but rather the men behind the curtians, we are murderous bastards. The blood of eleven million people since the end of WWII is on our collective hands. That doesn't sound like minimizing casualties. That sounds like a Holocaust.

Even if that number is correct, and I'm skeptical - which wars are these, exactly? - I have two questions:

1. Were those "eleven million people" civilian casualties?

2. Would all of these wars that the US played so devious a role from behind the curtains - would they not have occured had the US not been involved?


Imran - 58 years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Edan, I don't know if that number is Cold War deaths or not. I'd assume a majority, if not all, were from that era.