Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare

[Dre of Compton]

I am an irish nationalist who supports the use of terrorism- against military targets, such as barracks, airfeilds, civilian owned cafes where 99% of the customers are soldiers, ammunition tramsport trucks, that sort of thing, but i do not in any war, support the use of neuclear weapons, i see their use and all, but i do not agree with the use of them ecsept as was said before, "The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated" but only if that means not killing ALL of the population of that country/state/whatever

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by paiktis22
In theinternational arena int. laws are seldom obeyed which means that people take the law (as they see it) in their own hands.

Yes, I know law (as internat. law) is not a strong argument these days but if we speak about "what should be" then it is ok to argue with ideal constructions

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Dre of Compton
I am an irish nationalist who supports the use of terrorism- against military targets, such as barracks, airfeilds, civilian owned cafes where 99% of the customers are soldiers, (....)

No, you´re a DL

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by BeBro


Yes, I know law (as internat. law) is not a strong argument these days but if we speak about "what should be" then it is ok to argue with ideal constructions

it never was.

plus i dont think that's ideal constructions. if there were there wouldnt be nothing. they are not so there is, both state sponcored as well as "independent" terrorism.

it is not a quest for the perfect (although it should be) it is an explanation of why.

[CyberGnu]

Bebro, I think you are taking the analogy a bit to far. The concepts you introduce aren't translatable. A nation can't escape - the land stays where it is at. The only options are to give up or to fight.

Also, who would the wife and kids be? Neighbouring nations of the same ethnicity or kinship? I'm guessing that you intended civilians in the same nation, but that doesn't fit. In your analogy, I get the impression that the wife and kids have only an emotional relationship with the aggressor. In a nation, the civilians and the army have a much more dependant relationship, as the army can not function without a civilian support structure.

For the analogy to work we would have to assume that the wife is busy reloading your enemys weapon for him, which does make her a viable target, right?

[Sava]

Who says terrorism is only a tool of Islamic fundies or the IRA? The United States firebombed Tokyo, Dresden, and many other Germany and Japanese cities. And look at the atomic bomb. Not 1, but 2. To seperate terrorism from war is wrong.

Rummy and the US just want to consider them enemy combatants so they don't have to follow the Geneva convention on POW treatment, but yet, they want to try the supposed terrorists in war tribunals.

Sure, some people can try to make rules for war. But in the end, anything goes. I'm voting for "There are no legitimate forms of warfare".

[CyberGnu]

Sava, I'd change that to "There are no legitimate forms of aggression"

[Sava]

I'm just reading what the poll says

[CyberGnu]

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Dino, why does that scare you?

Because all hope of a discussion on the concept would go out the window at that point.

[CyberGnu]

?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Bebro, I think you are taking the analogy a bit to far. The concepts you introduce aren't translatable. A nation can't escape - the land stays where it is at. The only options are to give up or to fight.

But terrorism isn´t about nations, it is about individuals or oganizations who kill other individuals. Thats the main difference (although I agree that it is extremely difficult to draw exact lines here ).

One could argue that terrorists often are only labeled as such, when they are (or at least call themselves) actually freedom fighters. But if we not even try do look at concrete circumstances to find out if actions are really in self-defense or terrorist than we simply can´t argue about anything. So, we have to look at means, goals, level of support and (various other factors) to say if one individual/group is rather terrorist or not.

Also, who would the wife and kids be? Neighbouring nations of the same ethnicity or kinship? I'm guessing that you intended civilians in the same nation, but that doesn't fit. In your analogy, I get the impression that the wife and kids have only an emotional relationship with the aggressor. In a nation, the civilians and the army have a much more dependant relationship, as the army can not function without a civilian support structure.

For the analogy to work we would have to assume that the wife is busy reloading your enemys weapon for him, which does make her a viable target, right?

Who poses a direct threat? If you say everyone of the other side (because eg. also civilians could work for the army etc.etc.) then you open the floodgates for every possible reaction.

Americans could then say, "Hey, we were justified to nuke Japan completely, not only two cities!" (because those civilians there produced weapons, food, fuel, etc. for Japan´s army)

Palestinians could say "Hey, we are justified to kill all Israelis" as well as Israelis could say "Hey, we are justified to kill all Palestinians!" because it is a matter of interpretation who started the conflict.

....and so on, and so on. So this wouldn´t allow any peaceful solution as long as one side has not reached total victory. But many experts believe that conflicts like ME or Northern Ireland can finally only be solved politically, so waiting for one side´s victory may be a dead end.

[CyberGnu]

But terrorism isn´t about nations, it is about individuals or oganizations who kill other individuals. Thats the main difference (although I agree that it is extremely difficult to draw exact lines here ).

Umm, no... Terrorism is violence for a political goal, right? As such, it is not about individuals anymore...

So, we have to look at means, goals, level of support and (various other factors) to say if one individual/group is rather terrorist or not.

No, I think we only have to look at the goals. Reid (the shoebomber) is considered a terrorist even though he worked completely alone, based on the goals of his attempted bombing. Likewise with the guy who shot two people at LAX.

You touch on an important point, though: my arguments concerns only "resistance" in conflicts between nations. People like McVeigh, who are terrists in their own country, are simply criminals.

Who poses a direct threat? If you say everyone of the other side (because eg. also civilians could work for the army etc.etc.) then you open the floodgates for every possible reaction.

Americans could then say, "Hey, we were justified to nuke Japan completely, not only two cities!" (because those civilians there produced weapons, food, fuel, etc. for Japan´s army)

Well, I don't see a problem with that. It doesn't mean a carte blanche to nuke away with wild abandon, though. Capitulation should be induced with minimal loss of life on the aggressors side, but only as long as the victim is safe.

In WW2, the US decided that two bombs were necessary, or it was believed that Japan would think it was a one trick pony. I think it is beyond question that this decision saved american lives, and I thus consider it justified. If Japan hadn't capitulated, the US would have been justified in bombing city after city until Japan waved the white flag...

Do you see the distinction? It's just like a policeman making an arrest: As long as the cop isn't in danger, he is authorized to shoot for the legs. But if the cop fears for his life, he is authorized to kill. The severity of his response is directly related to the threat level.

Palestinians could say "Hey, we are justified to kill all Israelis" as well as Israelis could say "Hey, we are justified to kill all Palestinians!" because it is a matter of interpretation who started the conflict.

Which is another good reason as to why we need an international court with some clout behind it...

This is actually the focal point of my beliefs. In order to make this a better world, we need to look beyong the simplistic view of "terrorist" vs. "soldier". We need to look at who broke the law, not who is the best at propaganda or who can build the most tanks.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Umm, no... Terrorism is violence for a political goal, right?

That describes war. Is your position that war=terrorism? That´s of course debatable, I just want to clarify where we are.

Well, I don't see a problem with that. It doesn't mean a carte blanche to nuke away with wild abandon, though. Capitulation should be induced with minimal loss of life on the aggressors side, but only as long as the victim is safe.

But that´s not the same as you said earlier: "The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated."

I see no limitations for the use of force there, not even implied. So if those Civilians support an army in various ways, why not get rid of them completely, since all those who provide such support are valid targets?

WW2, the US decided that two bombs were necessary, or it was believed that Japan would think it was a one trick pony. I think it is beyond question that this decision saved american lives, and I thus consider it justified.

According to your statement this is irrelevant because the victim (USA) of an aggressor (Japan) is always right - no other/further justification needed.

[SlowwHand]

So far, 10 people I'll say a special prayer for.
That you experience what you say is legitimate.

Sometimes the vast amount of stupidity sprayed here is overwhelming.

(psssst! GePap, this is your cue)