Terrorists or Freedom Fighters

[Verto]

One could argue that terrorism is one method of waging war, and not mutually exclusive.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Verto
One could argue that terrorism is one method of waging war.

Individuals or unrecognised groups of individuals can't wage war. War is reserved for autonomous states.

EDIT... to clarify:

1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR

[Pax]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Strategic bombing, or tactical bombing by regular armed forces, on another nation state, is not considered terrorism. It's considered an act of war.

The U.S. has bombed Libya, Iraq, and the Sudan without a declaration of war.

[Verto]

Is terrorism reserved for unrecognized groups of individuals?

The demoralization of a city's civilian and military populace was a primary purpose for many bombing runs during World War II. Certainly this was a method of warfare employed by both sides, but it can also be considered terrorism.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

The U.S. has bombed Libya, Iraq, and the Sudan without a declaration of war.

War is usually declared. Thats a general convention, not a prerequiste though.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Verto
Is terrorism reserved for unrecognized groups of individuals?

The demoralization of a city's civilian and military populace was a primary purpose for many bombing runs during World War II. Certainly this was a method of warfare employed by both sides, but it can also be considered terrorism.

The bombing was part of an open declared state of war between two nations, and is thus covered by the definition of war.

[Pax]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Individuals or unrecognised groups of individuals can't wage war. War is reserved for autonomous states.

EDIT... to clarify:

1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR

Maybe that's the old definition. President Bush has declared a war on Terrorism. I can't find it on the map. I'm not sure who the leaders are I thik Saddam Hussein but I'm not sure what his terrorist activity has been.

[Verto]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


The bombing was part of an open declared state of war between two nations, and is thus covered by the definition of war.

I am not debating that.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Maybe that's the old definition. President Bush has declared a war on Terrorism. I can't find it on the map. I'm not sure who the leaders are I thik Saddam Hussein but I'm not sure what his terrorist activity has been.

President Bush said "Freeance Peeance" in a speech. I wouldn't listen to what he says in terms of a discussion of definitive terminology.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Verto
I am not debating that.

I'd say what you mentioned was an act of war designed to evoke demoralization... not definitively terrorism, because it was specifically an act of war.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

what's the difference. Part of the reasoniung by hand the American revolution was the desire to expand westward which caused the genocide of many indian cultures vs the nazi determination to rid the world of one culture in particular.

Massachusetts did not even have a border with territories reserved for the Indians, yet it was in Massachusetts that the revolution began, so I don't see what your point is. While it's true that many American colonists wanted the lands beyond the Alleghanies opened for colonization it's obvious that this wasn't the primary reason.
On the other hand you have to consider that after the French and Indian War the British stripped the defenses of the old frontier line along the Alleghany mountains allowing incursions of Native American tribes west of the old line into what had been colonial territory before the war. There were numerous instances of settlements east of the demarcation line being attacked after the war, yet the British response was to prohibit those colonists from defending themselves. The middle colonies (Pennsylvannia, Virginia, and Maryland) were motivated by the desire to defend themselves.

[Verto]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


I'd say what you mentioned was an act of war designed to evoke demoralization... not definitively terrorism, because it was specifically an act of war.

Just because it was an act of war does not exclude it from also being terrorism, even if it was an action authorized by a government.

[Pax]

So MrBaggins,
You're saying that the Firebombing of Dresden and nuking Hiroshima are not Terrorist acts but 9/11, blowing up and hijacking airplanes is. I personally would be more terrorized by Dresden than 9/11. Defining terror as to cause fear. The purpose of Dreseden and hiroshima was to break the spirit and resolve of the Axis to conduct war. I believe Al queda saw the Pentagon, whithouse, and wtc as centers of western power and thius military targets as well as hoping to break the spirit of the west to continue what they see as a cultural/religous war. I believe President Bush sees it the same way. anyway this would make 9/11 not a terrorist act but would include Hiroshima as a terrorist act. The past defintion of a state has included land as a prerequisite but members of organizations classified as terrorist or hate groups normally have more allegiance to the organization than to the land they reside in.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Verto


Just because it was an act of war does not exclude it from also being terrorism, even if it was an action authorized by a government.

You might say that, but if there is a clearer and more direct definition, then thats the definition you should typically used.

An act of war is an act of war.

[JCG]

Originally posted by Wezil
Means not goal.

Yup. Anyone who says that sustained and indiscriminate violence against civilians (not military or government targets), is ok, pretty much doesn't deserve to succeed at whatever goal they are working towards.

Let's take the case of ETA. There are Basque separatists that totally reject their violent actions (several of which have hurt Basques too) and participate in protests against them, even if they might share what, superficially, are similar goals (with the added difference, of course, that ETA would do everything in its power to forcefully implant quite a different type of government, in any future Basque state, including resorting to even more terrorism....)