Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


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.

You don't have to advertise yourself to lose the "terrorist" status. Same things go for guerrilla units, special operations forces, spies, etc. Are they terrorists too? Under your definition apparently yes.

Since when is the right to fight back "legitimate"? When you get into a fight do you let your opponent hit you back? hell no!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by 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 .

So, you base atrocities on a per annum basis? Sad...

[Master Zen]

BTW I think 11 million is too high in terms of directly responsible deaths (i.e. war-related). However, indirectly (i.e. consequences of foreign and economic policy), I'd think it may even be waaaay too low.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So, you base atrocities on a per annum basis? Sad...

Um... YEAH!

11 million over 5 years is NO WAY comparable to the same number over 50!

[Rogan Josh]

Terrorism is not a legitimate form of warfare (ie. it shouldn't be supported by governments) but neither is 'freedom fighting'.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen
BTW I think 11 million is too high in terms of directly responsible deaths (i.e. war-related). However, indirectly (i.e. consequences of foreign and economic policy), I'd think it may even be waaaay too low.

hi ,

*cough*

when the IDF sended a couple people to goma zaire as liason officers in relief efforts they found themselfs standing on layers of humans , ....

rwanda / burundi / zaire lets say about 2.5 > 4 million , ....

1975 > 1980 cambodia , 1.5

somalia , eritrea , 3 million

shall we go on , .....

ethiopia , count stopped at 2.2 , sudan , more then a million ,

not to mention about all the people who are buying a farm each day cause they step on landmines , .....

bye

[Master Zen]

I agree with those figures Panag, I was just referring to wars directly related to US intervention, i.e. Vietnman, Korea, etc.

Those numbers would of course count in the "indirect" consequences but the blame should also go with the soviets for fostering revolutions just like the US did, and ESPECIALLY to the European colonialists who left a rotten mess out of Africa. I still find it the most hipocritical that these countries still have african countries pay debts when they have yet to pay their own moral ones.

[Straybow]

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.

Still waiting on statistics. US had no policy roles in the purges listed by Panag. What pogroms have been carried out on the behest of US policy?

Unless, of course, you mean the general US policy of dealing with recognized governments instead of overturning every oppressive, thieving dictator as we've just done in Iraq. Is that what you think the US should be doing?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So, you base atrocities on a per annum basis? Sad...

Um... YEAH!

11 million over 5 years is NO WAY comparable to the same number over 50!

So, until some country comes up with an atrocity comparable to the Nazi Holocaust, then under your PoV its allright??

Being responsible for the deaths of 11 million over 5 years, over 50 or over 500 is just as terrible. Ask the families of those killed if they gave a damn about the years.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Straybow

Unless, of course, you mean the general US policy of dealing with recognized governments instead of overturning every oppressive, thieving dictator as we've just done in Iraq. Is that what you think the US should be doing?

Chile. Allende. Legit government. Toppled thanks to heavy CIA involvement.

BTW, what's your definition of "recognized govermnents"? Won an election? So did Hitler. Hey, didn't the US came to be formed after a revolution also??

[Straybow]

As Imran originally said, "Even if it is true."

Master Zen, you still haven't shown that the US "has blood on its hands" for some alleged 11 million deaths. What isn't "alright" is accusing the US, or the West in general, of causing 11 million deaths without substantiation. Where and who are these alleged victims?

Imran, you shouldn't have given them that inch, as the lefties always take a foot.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Those numbers would of course count in the "indirect" consequences

How does "indirect" compare in level of guilt with direct & indirect? I'm guessing that it is tangential at best.

[Bereta_Eder]

Why wouldn't it compare?

[My Wife Hates CIV]

It's all simply war. where did things get so screwed up?

A terrorist, be it a suicide bomber or whatever you want to call a terrorist, is simply someone at war with you who does not follow the same set of 'rules' that you've outlined, as far as combat goes. who says they have to??

that makes them an enemy of you. beyond that you can call them whatever you like.

Sure, some dress in ways that make them all but impossible to tell them apart from anyone else. Some (like the US) 'dress' their weapons so it's all but impossible to see them coming. what's the difference? That could be debated forever. In the end, be it a terrorist or a cruise missile, you've got a pile of dead people.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Chile. Allende. Legit government. Toppled thanks to heavy CIA involvement.

Yes, we also helped to topple the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. And the 11 million casualties were in Chile and Nicaragua? No, not even 100k IIRC.

BTW, what's your definition of "recognized govermnents"? Won an election? So did Hitler. Hey, didn't the US came to be formed after a revolution also??

Many recognized governments come to power by offensive means. Unless we are prepared to war against them we recognize them in the hopes of changing their oppressive nature through diplomacy and economic pressures. Like PRC. Does that make us responsible for the tens of millions killed by the Chinese Commies? No.

When Hitler invaded neighboring countries we knew that only removing his party from power could stop him. Are you saying we should have intervened in 1935, at the first hint of oppression?

Where are the 11 million casualties bloodying our hands?