Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare

[Bereta_Eder]

Americans terrorise so they terrorise them back.

[DinoDoc]

As if this thread didn't have enough idiots.

[MRT144]

doesnt shock me, just makes me wonder why people view the two differently?

[Bereta_Eder]

so are you leaving DD

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MRT144
doesnt shock me, just makes me wonder why people view the two differently?

Do you not see any difference between civilians blown up in a dance hall by a suicide bomber and soldiers killed by the enemy?

[MRT144]

i see a difference in inent, but the problem is civilians still die in military operations. in the end though, that doesnt matter to the victim who is after all the person we should try to help...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MRT144
i see a difference in inent,

Then you already understand why people see the two concepts differently. I was afraid that you were like CG and considered the distinction between the two concepts meaningless.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

What we should be concerned with is aggression. An aggressor is always wrong, regardless what means of fighting he employs. The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated.

Noone is always right.

And your statement makes it very easy to simply declare something an aggression and therefore justifying everything against it.

[CyberGnu]

BeBro, that's a different question though.

The gray areas are the reason we have courts - but this question is how to define the underlying principles.

If you will, make the analogy to being attacked on the street by an armed opponent. The law says you can defend ourself, and whatever you do in self defense is OK. However, if you prior to the attack insulted the virtues of his mother, a court might decide that there were mitigating circumstances in his attack...

Do you see what I mean?

[CyberGnu]

Dino, why does that scare you?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
The law says you can defend ourself, and whatever you do in self defense is OK.

Yes, as long it is really in self defense. To continue your example: The armed man attacks, I defend myself (no problem). Somehow I manage to get my hands on the guy´s weapon (fine) so he´s not a danger anymore (even better). All this would be justified, it would be even justified when I injure him, or kill him, as long as it is in direct defense.

It would however not be justified if I then, after I seized his weapon and took control of him, when therefore the direct threat for me is gone, take the weapon I got from him and say "Hey, you attacked me! So it is ok to kill you now! Prepare to die!"

*Kills the man*

That would make me a murderer, and every court in Germany would decide accordingly.

[CyberGnu]

Bebro, exactly. To quote from my earlier post:
The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated.

What you describe is the last part - when the aggressor can't harm you anymore you are obliged to treat him well.

[Bereta_Eder]

BebRo but in Germany there exists the rule of law. So youknow that the one who did you harm has good chancesof being sent to prison and be punished.

In theinternational arena int. laws are seldom obeyed which means that people take the law (as they see it) in their own hands.

[Bereta_Eder]

now of course their practice is to be contemned as of course is the practcies of "organized or state" terrorism against other countries or peoples.
there's no way around it.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Bebro, exactly. To quote from my earlier post:
The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated.

What you describe is the last part - when the aggressor can't harm you anymore you are obliged to treat him well.

But capitulation implies that you are always right as long as you didn´t get what you want politically, which is not exactly the same as being under direct threat for your life (which is the most important point to fall under the self-defense rule).

To go back to our example, let´s say I simply escape him the first time, then meet the same guy again, and say: "Hey yesterday you attacked me and got away with it, so today I kill your wife and children in pure self-defense!"

In this case, he hasn´t "capitulated", he may even still be a kind of threat, but my killing of his wife and children is by no means an act of self-defense.