Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Where?

I'd like to see how you can get around justifying the sytematic destruction of civilian population centers on the specious basis that they support the war effort.

The Heavy Water plant in Vemark is a good example, though.

How so? It was a military target under the control of the German government. You'd have a better time pointing out Doolittle's raid on Tokyo.

[Traianvs]

true imran...

[Panag]

hi ,

just one Q to the 15 idiots who voted yes , .....

come over to Israel , i shall take you to a childrens hospital , ....

lets see if you still vote yes then , .....

have a nice day

[The Vagabond]

To avoid ambiguity of the word 'legitimate', I'd say terrorism is a valid form of warfare.

Indeed, if some large group of people is strongly dissatisfied with how things are, but at the same time they are weak to stand for themselves in a "conventional" way, how else can they make their voice heard?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Panag,

Come over to Iraq, you can go to a children's hospital, let's see if you consider the war against Iraq as legitimate then .

Nice to see you appeal to emotions, because you don't have a logical argument.

[Panag]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
To avoid ambiguity of the word 'legitimate', I'd say terrorism is a valid form of warfare.

Indeed, if some large group of people is strongly dissatisfied with how things are, but at the same time they are weak to stand for themselves in a "conventional" way, how else can they make their voice heard?

hi ,

so you dont mind then if your brother , sister , mother , child , etc , ..... get blown up by a two bit terrorist , ......

intresting , .....

so if its a valid form of warfare , you dont mind then if a two bit terrorist blows himself up cause he wants your house and you have refused to give it to him , .....

very intresting theory , .....

bye

[Panag]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Panag,

Come over to Iraq, you can go to a children's hospital, let's see if you consider the war against Iraq as legitimate then .

Nice to see you appeal to emotions, because you don't have a logical argument.

hi ,

please explain how they got there , ....

because of "terrorism" , .....

the topic is > "Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare"

bye

[Imran Siddiqui]

How did they get there? Because we decided Saddam should go. I'm not saying that was wrong, but simply because there are injured in children's hospitals isn't gonna change my viw.

[gsmoove23]

Why not try to divorce yourself from the situation and ask yourself if you find terrorism used against the French in Algeria is valid.

[GePap]

Originally posted by 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)

Oh Slowwly, I could never, ever, even if I tried, ever match your ability for stupidity..I mean, its legendary! You lovable luggnut, you......

(its fun having some right-winger hate you..at least you know somebody thinks about you.)

As for the agrument..My God! It is sad to hear the stuff spewed here.

Terrorism is not War. These two things are different forms of one other underlying act political violence. Both War and Terrorism are methods (strategies) of creating a specific set of political realities. The difference between War and Terrorism is that in War the two sides are recognized (have some legal standing, legitimacy) while in terrorism, either one or neither side has any legitimacy granted to it. Now, the caveat tot his is that terrorism has come to signifiy specific methods of violence and not only the status issue. For exmaple., in Colombia, the gov. held negotiations with the FARC, which means that some legitimacy is attached to them, but at the same time FARC attacks in cities are labelled terrorist attacks. The same is true for the Tamil Tigers (For all those arab haters- the Tamil Tigers and FARC are the two MOST active terrorist orgs, and neither is made up of Arabs, so grow up you racist ) in Sri Lanka.

As for the legality issue: we have as much right to impose laws on violence as on anything else. The fact is that there have always been rules to violence: war has NEVER been just blind violence without direction. There have always been acceptable places to atatck, and places in which war is unacceptable, and there have always been individuals or types of individuals specifically to be protected: of course these rules get broekn, all laws get broekn, but the fact that law breaking occurs does not invalidate the laws.
The fact is that war today, even WW2, was in general much less horrific that ancient war: here we are talking about bombing of cities: remember that 2000 years ago, a city that resisted was razed to the ground, the males slaughtered and the rest enslaved, and that was a fully legal act of war.

If we find allied actions in bombing civilian centers immoral, it is not only becuase perhaps the very act is immoral (debatable) but also becuase when areal bombing begun it was denounced. Someone unwilling to call Allied bombings of cities immoral can't then call Japanese and German bombings immoral, after all, what was the difference?

Any state has the right to label a certain form of political violence terrorism (which, as was pointed out before, is a name that inherently means ilegal and immoral), htough of course, otehrs are free to decide whether it is "terrorism" or another type of political violnce, besied understanable political dissent in a violent form.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How did they get there? Because we decided Saddam should go. I'm not saying that was wrong, but simply because there are injured in children's hospitals isn't gonna change my viw.

nice to see you appeal on the iraq's side , but you dont have a logical argument given yet as to how children in iraq are there because of "terrorism" , ......

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by panag
so you dont mind then if your brother , sister , mother , child , etc , ..... get blown up by a two bit terrorist , ......

intresting , .....

Of course, I mind. I also mind if they get blown up in a conventional war.

so if its a valid form of warfare , you dont mind then if a two bit terrorist blows himself up cause he wants your house and you have refused to give it to him , .....

very intresting theory , .....

It's your analogies that are very interesting...

[CyberGnu]

I'd like to see how you can get around justifying the sytematic destruction of civilian population centers on the specious basis that they support the war effort.

Yeah, as I thought. You don't know what the word "genocide" means. I suggest you look it up, and we can continune the debate when you've figured it out.



So targeting raw materials production for weapons is OK. How about bakeries that supply bread for the soliders? Refineries that make the fuel? How about the bakeries that supply the bread for the refinery-workers? And this is the point: In the modern industrial world the distinction is worthless.


Doolittles raid on Tokyo comes from the other side of the argument. It's valid, but not in response to Kidicious post.

[Spiffor]

Terrorism is definitely of form of warfare.

Since terrorists cannot hope to defeat the enemy army on the field, they try to change the enemy's public opinion by killing civilians. Or in an older idea of terrorism, they try to change the enemy's politics by killing leaders.

Most terrorist organizations are plunged into this form of walfare because it is the only one that has some efficiency. Outright walfare, at least against a world power, cannot work when done by a small organization like a terrorist one.

However, even if terrorism is a 'necessary' form of warfare for those who do it, it is not legitimate in any meaning. In warfare, there is no legitimacy to wantonly kill people who are unaware of living in a war zone/who are defenseless.

When a regular army does so, it is charged (or should be charged) of war crimes or even crimes against humanity. Terrorists are doing a war crime everytime they are attacking

[CyberGnu]

DinoDoc, I'm sorry if you consider my prvious post too aggressive, but I think that if you are going to accuse someone for something, you should at least know what you are accusing him of before you do it...