Terrorists?

[Saint Marcus]

Are the "terrorists" who target soldiers and military installations, really terrorists?

I mean, specifically targetting civilians like in busses in Israel, or the WTC 2 years ago, that's clearly terrorism and horrible.

But those that send that plane into the Pentagon (military installation), or that are killing American troops in Iraq, or Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories, are they terrorists too? Or more broadly, are they as "evil" or "wrong" as those that kill civilians?

[Kropotkin]

Well, I'm not one of the masters of the written words that are commonly known as laws. However, for the attacks to be perfectly legal I think they have to have some way of distinguish themselves from people around them, ie some sort of substitute for a uniform. I don't know if any of those that have killed troops in Iraq has had anything like that. That they don't doesn't, as far as I know, mean that they are terrorists though. No matter what we think or what the law says, they'll be called terrorists though. It's part of the propaganda war.

[Harovan]

Resistance against occupants, aimed at soldiers and military installations, is not terrorism. If it were so, the French resistance and the Russian and Yugoslav partisans would have been terrorists too. One can argue if their cause is right or not, but they are certainly not terrorists.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Resistance against occupants, aimed at soldiers and military installations, is not terrorism. If it were so, the French resistance and the Russian and Yugoslav partisans would have been terrorists too.

And that's what the Nazis claimed they were. Just shows you who's company GWB and Co. are keeping these days.

[Saint Marcus]

The partisans or resistance in WW2 against the Nazis were terrorists too then? (no uniforms, etc). And what about American (and other countries') covert ops?

and of course it's a propaganda was, and all enemies are terrorists, but their has to be some legal destinction.

I believe the Pentagon themselves used the term "unlawful combatant" for those without uniforms. But is every "unlawful combatant" a terrorist?

[Kropotkin]

There, there. Making quick and random refrences to nazis is never fair.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Making quick and random refrences to nazis is never fair.

But always guaranteed to produce howls from the targeted party.

[Kropotkin]

Yeah, surely. As a matter of fact there was a very amusing example of this in a swedish paper last week. As the referendum for the EMU is comming up, a swedish tabloid that's pro-euro printed something quite amusing. One of the parties against the euro is centerpartiet, a party that's eh center on the political spectrum, lead by Maud Olofsson. The paper, called Expressen, published a text by a far right wing party that's also against the euro (for nationalist reasons) that hailed the center leader for her "common sense".

To summon up, a paper for the euro published a piece where nazis hailed one of the front figures against the euro for her common sense...

[Agathon]

That's just terrible. Funny, but terrible.

[Chemical Ollie]

We see both kinds. IMO, those attacking US soldiers in Iraq are guerilla fighters, while those attacking UN and civil leaders are pure terrorists. By the way, a recent UN resolution stated that attacks on UN personel is a crime of war.

[Saint Marcus]

What about the Sept 11th hijackers who crashed into the Pentagon (not WTC). Terrorists or not?

[BeBMan]

Terrorists, since there wasn´t a war going on between the US and the countries of the terrorists who piloted the planes.

[Kropotkin]

There where also civilians on the plane that crashed into pentagon. They would have to be taken into consideration.

[Harovan]

Even if the planes would be empty otherwise, they would be Terrorists for the reason mentioned by BeBro.

[BeBMan]

Also they were not more than private persons - normally in international law states make war, not private persons. If I go and kill my neighbor, I do not declare war against him. There are certainly grey zones, as guerilla movements etc. but the US hadn´t occupied eg. Saudi Arabia (from where most of the terrorists came), so Al Quaeda cannot count as liberation movement.