Define Terrorism: Win $1000

[Az]

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?

certainly. what makes you think the mujahedeen did a better job? after all, it's not like the pro-soviet regime didn't have supporters.

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 The motives of the Soviet invasion were not to ensure self-determination - if they cared about that, they would have withdrawn from Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia when it became obvious those countries did not want the Soviet-imposed governments.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.

I am not justifying their actions on the basis of self-determination, because it is only one of the values for which I am concerned. If there was an enormous group of people that would insist on living in caves in a primitive lifestyle of some sorts, and pass on that belief to their children, And I would see that that way of life has less utility than the general society type I am advocating, I'd consider going in with troops and changing their lifestyle moral, if the amount of "negative utility" by my forceful actions does not eclipse the benefits I bring to them. I am sure I forgot some reasoning, feel free to ask. ( have another discussion thread going )

[chequita guevara]

Only if India can prove that Pakistan was about to attack it. That is very difficult to do.

DF, that a large number of people took up arms against the Soviet occupation doesn't mean that the Soviets didn't do a good job in representing the utilitarian interests of the people there. The revolt against the government of Afganistan began because it granted women some rights. Clearical reactionaries found this offensive, and took up arms The US started funding it, the Soviets came in when invited, and then things started to go down hill. All in all, I would hae to say the reistence was illegitimate because it had as its goal the resubjugation of Afgani women first, and freedom from the USSR second.

[Ramo]

What y'all are missing is that laws are reflections of force, not morality, and therefore can be generalized as such. Anything someone can get away with is by defintion legal (at least in those cases).

[korn469]

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.

i think it does have relevence, simply because declaring war on a nation creates a context in which to judge violence, and if there is a legitimate reason to create that context it makes the actions understandable if not acceptable to all

for example in WW2 when the US was trying to target military and industrial targets, i think that this was legitimate, and although it was quite horrific, i do not think that it is terrorism, the fire bombing of dresden and tokyo, are debatable if they are terrorism or not, and the the bombings in bali certainly terrorism

i think the objects, the methods, and the legitimate authority of the groups carrying out the violence all come into play when distinguishing an act of terrorism from a legitimate act of war

[David Floyd]

Azazel,

I am not justifying their actions on the basis of self-determination, because it is only one of the values for which I am concerned.

Then on what basis do you justify their actions?

che,

All in all, I would hae to say the reistence was illegitimate because it had as its goal the resubjugation of Afgani women first, and freedom from the USSR second.

Very possibly, but that doesn't justify the Soviet intervention any more than it does US involvement.

[David Floyd]

for example in WW2 when the US was trying to target military and industrial targets, i think that this was legitimate,

Even though in many cases the industries were not necessarily owned by the Nazi government, and in every case, they employed a large number of innocent people, including slave labor? Not to mention the collateral damage that comes with the (relatively) primitive targeting of the time.

and although it was quite horrific, i do not think that it is terrorism, the fire bombing of dresden and tokyo, are debatable if they are terrorism or not

Wait - the fire bombings DELIBERATELY targeted civilians. How is that not terrorism, using your own definition?

[korn469]

ok so what makes a legitimate freedom fighter?

*self determination
*doesn't target civilians
*doesn't target entities that do not have the political authority to end the occupation or agents thereof
*doesn't rely solely on violence and terror to achieve its goals
*if it does rely primarily on violence it engages in the discriminate use of force
*it doesn't engage in attrocities

anything else?

[korn469]

Wait - the fire bombings DELIBERATELY targeted civilians. How is that not terrorism, using your own definition?

one could argue that the civilians themselves represented a valid military and industrial target and that since no established conventions existed at the time to ban it this was legitimate form of warfare at the time

i personally think it was an atrocity, just like the use of atomic weapons

[Atahualpa]

It has become clear that there exists more definitions for terrorism and many are valid. Its kind of pointless to aggressively search for this one definition that white-washes US military actions, since it is not the only one that is a valid definition for terrorism.








||
\/

[David Floyd]

one could argue that the civilians represented a valid military and industrial target

Fine, then what made the Holocaust wrong, or the Rape of Nanking? The manner in which those things were done? Oh, but wait, burning someone to death hurts as bad as roasting them in an oven or impaling them on a bayonet, and probably not as much as gassing.

and that since no established conventions existed at the time to ban it this was legitimate warfare at the time

Didn't the Geneva Convention protect civilians? Could be wrong, I'm no expert on that. But again, if this is the case, what was wrong with the Holocaust?

anything else?

Off the top of my head, I think you nailed it.

I DO think there should be a point in there about "no ulterior motives" - ie, a legitimate freedom fighter doesn't try to overthrow one dictatorship so that he can form another, but you sorta covered that in the self determination line.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Its kind of pointless to aggressively search for this one definition that white-washes US military actions, since it is not the only one that is a valid definition for terrorism.

But the one whih white-washes the US is the only one that gets you $1000.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by korn469
ok so what makes a legitimate freedom fighter?

*doesn't target entities that do not have the political authority to end the occupation

This makes the targetting of soldiers wrong, as they do not have the political authority to end the occupation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by korn469
the fire bombing of dresden and tokyo, are debatable if they are terrorism or not, and the the bombings in bali certainly terrorism

They were intended to provoke terror in enemy populations. They are absolutely examples of terrorism.

[Az]

Then on what basis do you justify their actions?

I don't think you've read my entire post. The soviet regime was going to give them a much better life that was before that, and certainly after that, esp. for the female population of the country. Therefore, the invasion was just .

[Sandman]

i think it does have relevence, simply because declaring war on a nation creates a context in which to judge violence, and if there is a legitimate reason to create that context it makes the actions understandable if not acceptable to all

Terrorism is a method of waging war, like trench warfare, guerilla warfare or unrestricted submarine warfare. It is not an 'illegitimate' alternative to war. Also, terrorism does not have to be understandable to be terrorism.

for example in WW2 when the US was trying to target military and industrial targets, i think that this was legitimate, and although it was quite horrific, i do not think that it is terrorism, the fire bombing of dresden and tokyo, are debatable if they are terrorism or not, and the the bombings in bali certainly terrorism

Anything involving enemy planes dropping bombs is not terrorism, no matter who it targets. It's some sort of aerial bombardment doctrine. Strategic bombing in this case.

Anything involving vehicles covertly filled with explosives parked next to an enemy target is terrorism, regardless of whether the casualties are civilian or military.