Define Terrorism: Win $1000

[Japher]

Korn is close, I agree. DF has a point, though, about more clearly defining the idea of what is "just" in the minds of those terrorists.

I would define terrorism as killing or attacking people with no provocation

I would like to point out that even terrorists believe that they have been provoked into their actions.

Overall, I think the definition should include a line stating that they are cowardly baby killers with no perceived moral values or statute by which their tactics take shape.

[gsmoove23]

Korn's def is pretty good though it defines a terrorist and not terrorism. Important because an individual or an organization might be able to carry out an act considered to be terrorism and not be a terrorist or terrorist organization.(?)

[korn469]

here are a couple of questions for you guys

can a war ever be legal?
has the united states ever engaged in an illegal war?
while we all accept that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, can their be legitimate freedom fighters?
would the mujahideen, or viet minh and viet cong be terrorists or freedom fighters and what is the best way to distinguish between them?
Was the Soviet invasion of a legitimate war?
Why wasn't Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a legitimate war?
Would a near term invasion of Iraq by the US be a legitimate war?
Was either the North Korean invasion of South Korea, or the invasion of South Vietnam by the north in 1975 a legitimate war?
Are the chechnyans legitimate freedom fighters or terrorists?
Would a Chinese invasion of Taiwan be a legitimate war?
How about if Taiwan declared its independence, then would China have a legitimate reason to declare war?

i think if we can get that sorted out then we should have a kick ass definition

[David Floyd]

can a war ever be legal?

Only one in self defense.

has the united states ever engaged in an illegal war?

Every war except for the Revolutionary War, the Barbary Pirates conflict, and possibly WW2.

while we all accept that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, can their be legitimate freedom fighters?

Certainly, so long as they don't attack civilians.

would the mujahideen, or viet minh and viet cong be terrorists or freedom fighters and what is the best way to distinguish between them?

If one attacks a civilian who has done nothing wrong, then regardless of the circumstances, one is a terrorist.

Was the Soviet invasion of a legitimate war?

No.

Why wasn't Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a legitimate war?

Kuwait did not attack Iraq, and any problems could have been solved through diplomacy. Oil disputes do not justify killing people.

Would a near term invasion of Iraq by the US be a legitimate war?

Not unless Iraq attacked the US.

Was either the North Korean invasion of South Korea, or the invasion of South Vietnam by the north in 1975 a legitimate war?

No, although these are not quite clear cut cases. North and South Vietnam and North and South Korea were all nations, but were divided under illegitimate circumstances.

Are the chechnyans legitimate freedom fighters or terrorists?

If they are fighting the Russian military and Russian political system, when they can show it is violating their rights, they are freedom fighters. Otherwise, terrorists.

Would a Chinese invasion of Taiwan be a legitimate war?

No, the will of the vast majority of the people of Taiwan is for independence from China.

How about if Taiwan declared its independence, then would China have a legitimate reason to declare war?

Especially not then.

[Japher]

Eeeek!!!

[Japher]

A war due to defense does not always justify the war. Also, I feel that there are warrented reasons to unleash an offensive attack, a.k.a. war, without first being attack yourself.

i.e. genocide

DF, you say that the US Revolution was not illegal. Why?

[David Floyd]

Because the colonists felt their rights were being violated by an unelected sovereign in England. Further, they did not go around killing civilians to further their cause - at least not that I'm aware.

It might have been illegal according to British law, but then again, that's entirely the point, isn't it?

Also, I feel that there are warrented reasons to unleash an offensive attack, a.k.a. war, without first being attack yourself.

i.e. genocide

I don't really agree that genocide can be an excuse to wage aggressive war against someone.

[Az]

Was the Soviet invasion of (aphganistan) a legitimate war?

yes. It's goal was to stabilize the regime there, and to prevent it from being overthrown. The regime there was as freely elected and represented the people (a Utilitarian principle) , as the groups that tried to overthrow it, and it's politics were much better in terms of utility than the government that followed. In terms of general utility for the entire humankind ( mixing utility and humanism in a way here, but that's is MY pov ) the intervention was certianly correct, but wasn't waged correctly, which resulted in general "negative utility".

[Japher]

I fail to see your reasoning, but then it is yours.

[David Floyd]

The regime there was as freely elected and represented the people (a Utilitarian principle) , as the groups that tried to overthrow it, and it's politics were much better in terms of utility than the government that followed. In terms of general utility for the entire humankind ( mixing utility and humanism in a way here, but that's is MY pov ) the intervention was certianly correct, but wasn't waged correctly, which resulted in general "negative utility".

If such a large number of people opposed the government, then obviously it didn't do a good job of representing the people, now did it?

Further, either way, that does not justify the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The motives of the Soviet invasion were not to ensure self-determination - if they cared about that, they would have withdrawn from Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia when it became obvious those countries did not want the Soviet-imposed governments. The motives of the Soviet Union were simply to ensure that a Soviet-friendly communist government stayed in power.

[gsmoove23]

An extremely effective threadjack of an interesting thread

[Japher]

An extremely effective threadjack of an interesting thread

?

Seems relevant to me.

[Sandman]

I must say that I think that all this talk of sovereignty and legitimacy is utterly, utterly irrelevant when defining terrorism.

If one is talking about the morality of terrorism, then they could come into play.

[korn469]

ok so a preemptive war can be legal, but only if it protects your national sovereignty and doesn't threaten the national sovereignty of the state you are attacking

Like tell me if this is correct:

It would be legal for India to launch a preemtive conventional strike against against Pakistan as long as it followed all of the international conventions of waging war, if Pakistan was a clear threat to India's national sovereignty because of a build up of nuclear weapons for example. Yet if India decided to occupy Pakistan or change install a puppet government then India would have launched an illegitimate war of conquest.

[David Floyd]

I disagree that a preemptive war can ever be legal, but then again, I know that my opinion will never form the consensus