Define Terrorism: Win $1000

[mrmitchell]

Terrorism. Any action not popular with the American mass media that originates in oil-rich countries, or countries with geographical/poitical closeness to oil-rich countries.

Used in a sentence:
The middle east is a hotbed of terrorism. Except for Israel, of course!

[David Floyd]

che,

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

Then again, soldiers have control over their own actions - no one is absolutely forcing them to commit oppressive acts or violate someone's rights.

If they are shot while trying to rob someone, or get killed while trying to put down a free independence movement, that is their problem.

But, this does not mean I think that soldiers should be punished after the fact for following orders, if disobedience would have gotten them killed or thrown in prison.

Azazel,

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 .

By that argument, you can justify any war, on the basis that the people involved were better off after than before.

Sandman,

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.

You are talking about the Douhet-Mitchell doctrine of strategic bombing as a means of winning wars, and yes, that is CERTAINLY terrorism. It creates terror within the civilian population as a means to an end - ie, civilian deaths are both intentional and encouraged.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by korn469
can a war ever be legal?
has the united states ever engaged in an illegal war?

Define legal in this context.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
che,
Then again, soldiers . . .

I'm just pointing out what is wrong with that particular definition. I think targetting soldiers is legitimate, even if I really think its a damn shame kids have to die occupiying someone else's country.

[David Floyd]

even if I really think its a damn shame kids have to die occupiying someone else's country.

Oh, I agree, it's a damn shame, which is why they should have the courage to stand up to their officers and governments when they are told to kill oppress or kill civilians.

[Az]

By that argument, you can justify any war, on the basis that the people involved were better off after than before.

how so? what was the justification of hitler's beginning of WWII?
why do you think that the war has caused more happiness, than sadness, and destruction?

[David Floyd]

why do you think that the war has caused more happiness, than sadness, and destruction?

Because, as any other war, it was fought with the aim to improve the condition and/or power of the STATE at the expense of the INDIVIDUAL.

[Sandman]

You are talking about the Douhet-Mitchell doctrine of strategic bombing as a means of winning wars, and yes, that is CERTAINLY terrorism. It creates terror within the civilian population as a means to an end - ie, civilian deaths are both intentional and encouraged.

All methods of warfare have the opportunity to create terror within the civilian population. Conversely, many 'terrorist' acts do nothing of the sort.
The civilian/military distinction is irrelevant to most terrorists, and pretty much to anyone in a serious war situation. Attacks on military targets, such as the USS Cole, and Israeli soldiers, are considered terrorism just as much as attacks on civilian targets.

Terrorism is covert operatives using bombs. Terrorism is the wrong word, but that's life.

[Az]

Because, as any other war, it was fought with the aim to improve the condition and/or power of the STATE at the expense of the INDIVIDUAL.

so that war DIDN'T improve the condition of the individual. I am saying that a military action that WILL improve the condition of inidividuals, is moral.

[David Floyd]

All methods of warfare have the opportunity to create terror within the civilian population.

Then perhaps, as I suggest, all war is terrorism

Attacks on military targets, such as the USS Cole, and Israeli soldiers, are considered terrorism just as much as attacks on civilian targets.

Doesn't make it correct terminology

[David Floyd]

so that war DIDN'T improve the condition of the individual.

Every war in which conscription was used, for example. Enslaving people and sending them to their death isn't an improvement

I am saying that a military action that WILL improve the condition of inidividuals, is moral.

And I'm saying that not only does military action very rarely improve the condition of individual, but that that alone does not justify a war.

[Sandman]

Then perhaps, as I suggest, all war is terrorism

Please supply a new term for the use of covert operatives employing explosive devices (readymade or improvised) within a target society.

[Az]

And I'm saying that not only does military action very rarely improve the condition of individual, but that that alone does not justify a war.

So I guess our moral values are not alligned. And the sun will shine tomorrow.

say that only few people were hurt in the Soviet intervention. the regime would grant much more freedoms to women ( and therefore make them happy) , and would promote more education, and develop some industry ( more than anything that was in place before the pro-soviet regime, and CERTAINLY after )
the people will be happy, and their inconveniences during the military operations would be outweighed by the prospects of a more advanced form of society. In my view, therefore, the intervention would be moral.

[David Floyd]

Please supply a new term for the use of covert operatives employing explosive devices (readymade or improvised) within a target society.

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

Based on the answers, it could be either terrorism, or valid self defense/freedom fighting.

[David Floyd]

the regime would grant much more freedoms to women ( and therefore make them happy)

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

In my view, therefore, the intervention would be moral.

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).