Define Terrorism: Win $1000

[korn469]

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

hehe i got a fix for that

doesn't target entities that do not have the political authority to end the occupation or agents thereof

it was one thing for the Viet Cong to attack US soliders in VietNam but it would have been another thing for them to car bomb factories in germany and other european states that didn't have troops in VietName because they were significant US trading partners

[Az]

First of all, I think you mean protect more freedoms, but that's beside the point

oh, no, my wording was correct. I don't believe that rights exist outside human societies, and reflect usually reflect the utilitarian, and non-violently-competitive solution to govern society, in a way, like newtonian physics are the right approximation for the common scales of everyday life.

But this doesn't address the fact that, prior to the intervention, the Mudjaheedin were not attacking the Soviet Union, and that the Soviet Union involved itself in a civil war. To me, the only valid war is one of self defense, and most assuredly Afghanistan was not about self defense (or even about promoting freedom and self determination - the Soviet Union was not into those notions).

it was not about self-defence, but it did bring freedoms, even if it wasn't the main reason the USSR acted.

I'll continue tomorrow, It's now 2 AM here, and I've got classes... today...

[Sandman]

First tell me if civilians are being targeted. Then tell me if this action is unprovoked.

Irrelevant. Precision bombing is still precision bombing if it is destroying a command post or a childrens creche. Unrestricted submarine warfare is still USW if it's targeting weapons convoys or passenger liners.

Terrorism is still terrorism if it's blowing up soldiers or civilians.

[David Floyd]

Azazel,

oh, no, my wording was correct. I don't believe that rights exist outside human societies, and reflect usually reflect the utilitarian, and non-violently-competitive solution to govern society, in a way, like newtonian physics are the right approximation for the common scales of everyday life.

OK, let's not threadjack

it was not about self-defence, but it did bring freedoms, even if it wasn't the main reason the USSR acted.

But the intent is important, because the end has nothing to do with whether or not the means were justified.

Sandman,

Irrelevant.

Not in a thread where we are defining terrorism

Precision bombing is still precision bombing if it is destroying a command post or a childrens creche.

Wait a second, I thought we were talking about carpet bombing German/Japanese cities, not precision bombing command posts? One is terrorism, the other is only potentially terrorism.

Terrorism is still terrorism if it's blowing up soldiers or civilians.

If terrorism is defined as blowing up soldiers and civilians, then how is war not terrorism? You don't think states can commit acts of terror?

[Sandman]

Wait a second, I thought we were talking about carpet bombing German/Japanese cities, not precision bombing command posts? One is terrorism, the other is only potentially terrorism.

Carpet bombing and precision bombing are methods of waging war. So are trench warfare, USW, blitzkrieg, guerilla warfare etc. All can be utilised against either civilian or military targets.

I'm saying that terrorism (the use of covert operatives employing explosive devices (readymade or improvised) within a target society) is a method of waging war.

[korn469]

sandman

Terrorism is still terrorism if it's blowing up soldiers or civilians

either you saying that all unconventional forms of warfare are terrorism [damn that Merrill and all of his terroristic Marauders ] or you are defining terrorism by saying it is terrorism

there is a difference between a legitimate military campaign and a wave or terrorism

ok what i'm seeing is something like this

legitimate military campaigns:
US led liberation of Kuwait

illegitimate military campaigns
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait

legitimate freedom fighters
castro fighting against batista
Viet Minh

State sponsored terrorism
holocaust
bosnia

non state sponsored terrorist campaigns
WTC attacks
attack on the lsreali atheletes at the olympics

so now all we got to do is figure out what each has in common, and our definition (and the thousand bucks will be ours!)

[Sandman]

either you saying that all unconventional forms of warfare are terrorism

Terrorism = the use of covert operatives employing explosive devices (readymade or improvised) within a target society.

It is an unconventional form of warfare, but not the ONLY one. It's not immoral per se, just the application of it generally is.

In my view, terrorism has about as much to do with terror as clogs do to sabotage. That's why I think that it would be a good idea to rename it.

[chequita guevara]

Why don't you just call what you're thinking of something else, and leave terrorism to the deliberate invoking of terror as a means of effecting political change.

[Zero]

How do you define terrrorism? it is ridiculous. It is soley based the eye of the individual to judge such thing. That is the message that the $1000 challenge is trying to get across. You cant go ahead and define terrorism if you cant even start to make a valid arguement that our society at the current time in this current world can make a judgement that is universally moral and just.

[korn469]

Sandman

Terrorism = the use of covert operatives employing explosive devices (readymade or improvised) within a target society

but that means that the antrax laced letters wouldn't be considered a terrorist act, nor would many of the airline hijackings in the 1970's, and how about eco terrorists, like the ELF who have burned down numerous buildings in order to stop economic development, and it would include parts of the french resistance against the Nazi's (when they blew up bridges) yet leave out other parts like when then would simply pull railroad spikes to derail trains

worst yet it would include actions by the US army, which would lose us the 1,000 bucks

Calc

How do you define terrrorism? it is ridiculous. It is soley based the eye of the individual to judge such thing.

while there are certainly actions that fall into a grey area, if somebody blew up a children's hospital in Japan because they were trying to force the united states to stop exporting rap videos that would certainly be different than a group of kuwaiti citizens who car bombed an iraqi military command post during iraq's occupation of kuwait

[Zero]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by korn469 [/SIZE

while there are certainly actions that fall into a grey area, if somebody blew up a children's hospital in Japan because they were trying to force the united states to stop exporting rap videos that would certainly be different than a group of kuwaiti citizens who car bombed an iraqi military command post during iraq's occupation of kuwait

I dont wanna be too much of a pain with bring subject of values and moral questions, but once again you are stating your own view. You find killing and fighting to stop rap videos to be manufactured ridiculous. Well I find going to war to stop some dictator to own his personal weapons of destruction ridiculous too.

There are areas where it is less grey than some, but not all of it is still crispy black and white, Sorry if it sounds almost accusatory but who are you to judge japanese people who risk their lives to put an end to what they think is their rightful cause of ending soul-corrupting rap video to end?

Moral-question wise, if doesnt give a definitive answer.

[JoeDaddy715]

I don't want the $1000, you can just copy this lol
Dictionary type-
terrorism: 1) A designation applied to certain acts of aggression applied in order to differentiate them from "acts of war" and imply their unlawful nature. This designation is typically used by a group seeking to lower the audience's opinion of the individual or group involved in the acts of "terrorism." Similar to heresy, infidel, heathen, barbaric, and evil. 2) Any use of (deadly?) force whose primary goal is to cause panic and fear, typically to push some political agenda , rather than traditional military objectives. e.g. WTC, attacks on israeli civillians, attacks on airliners. 3) Any use of force by the losers in a given fight, when the losers do not have state backing.
There is only one thing that makes rebelling anything but terrorism. If you win. Look at the American Revolution...

[Zero]

Originally posted by JoeDaddy715
I don't want the $1000, you can just copy this lol
Dictionary type-
terrorism: 1) A designation applied to certain acts of aggression applied in order to differentiate them from "acts of war" and imply their unlawful nature. This designation is typically used by a group seeking to lower the audience's opinion of the individual or group involved in the acts of "terrorism." Similar to heresy, infidel, heathen, barbaric, and evil. 2) Any use of (deadly?) force whose primary goal is to cause panic and fear, typically to push some political agenda , rather than traditional military objectives. e.g. WTC, attacks on israeli civillians, attacks on airliners. 3) Any use of force by the losers in a given fight, when the losers do not have state backing.
There is only one thing that makes rebelling anything but terrorism. If you win. Look at the American Revolution...

Bah. I think the dictionary definition was worse than most people's attempt at defining Terrorism.

If Osma eventually wins, you state that his act will no longer be recognized as terrorism but rather revolution. Somehow, I think alot of people will disagree with you on this one.

[korn469]

calc II

I dont wanna be too much of a pain with bring subject of values and moral questions, but once again you are stating your own view. You find killing and fighting to stop rap videos to be manufactured ridiculous. Well I find going to war to stop some dictator to own his personal weapons of destruction ridiculous too.

you're not being a pain at all, if anything i probably am, but it's all in good fun

while i disagree with the proposed war in iraq because it smacks of hyprocracy on america's part (since we have large arsenals of nuclear weapons, ballistic missles, etc.) i do think that war while horrible is a tolerated (if not embraced) tradition by the great majority of people on the planet, and that war while far more tragic on a nation that terrorism is fundamentally different

as for the japanese children hospital it was blown up by terrorists from Burkina Faso who are in cult that believe all rap music must come from their spiritual leader, and they want to put pressure on America's trading partners

ok how about this

Terrorism: The act of commiting violence against a sovereign entity, NGO, or particular population to further political or ideological goals. The violent acts have no expressed legal authorization from a recognized sovereign entity or multinational body that could grant such authority either in the form of a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing force. Additionally the actions are considered terrorism if there is expressed legal authorization from a sovereign entity to engage in acts of violence the international community has deem illegal through various international agreements, conventions, and recognized tribunals. Terrorism is different from a legitimate military campaign, because terrorism does not seek to achieve military dominance over its foe; its only hope of victory is that its violence can cause enough fear, confusion, and loss of cofidence that its foe will change their policies or behaviors in order to head off future attacks. Terrorists will attack benign or even neutral entities that have no direct political power to change the policies that it opposes, in order to exert indirect pressure on its stated or implied foe, or to simply generate notoriety for its cause. Terrorists will forgo attacking legitimate military, governmental, or economic targets having a direct bearing a sovereign entity's war making capabilities in favor of symbolic, economic, or civilian targets that are easier to destroy and have a far greater publicity factor while having little strategic or tactical value in a traditional military campaign. Terrorism usually employees covert tactics, and it ignores established international conventions on the use of force in a conflict. Terrorism always relies on violence as its primary method of causing changes, and that violence is often indiscriminate violence against noncombatants who are not direct agents of the entity they are trying to effect.

[David Floyd]

Terrorism = the use of covert operatives employing explosive devices (readymade or improvised) within a target society.

So, then, a special forces operation that involves concealed C4 is a terrorist act?

Good, I'm glad we agree.