49 police officers killed in India

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious


If I understand what you are saying you are right, but that's because I'm a communist. I wouldn't be saying that this was a terrorist attack though. I wouldn't even be arguing that they are just criminals like some people are here.

Yeah, I meant You'd support their extermination. I'm tired this week, so I often can't express myself properly.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'd have to agree that an attack on a police station is not necessarily terrorism... a rebel group could consider that a valid military target.

So you did not consider the IRA as terrorists? Most of their attacks in Ireland were on Police and Military targets.

[Arrian]

It's a gray area to me. The IRA also did (deliberately) kill civilians, did they not?

Had they strictly limited their attacks on police/military... I'd have to question the "terrorist" label. That doesn't mean I approve, mind you.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's a gray area to me. The IRA also did (deliberately) kill civilians, did they not?

Sometimes, but it wasn't at the core of their policy, AIUI. They apologised for the Enniskillen massacre - and most of their attacks were on State targets. I gather they denied the infamous pub bombings of Birmingham and Guildford, (whose convictions turned out to be unsound) and most of their London bombings involved advanced warning to clear civilians out.

[Arrian]

I remember the advance warning bit. Still, the target of such attacks was civilian - clearly "terrorizing" civilians, even if they were warned. I see that as different than an attack on a police station or military base.

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

The term "terrorist" doesn't really figure in the Indian political lexicon. After 9/11 and Teh War on Terror, Islamic fundamentalist cells in the cities that plant bombs on trains, etc., are sometimes called terrorists, but armed, organised groups like the Naxals/Maoists, Kashmiri separatists, etc., are still called "militants," "insurgents," and "ultras."

[Kidlicious]

These guys aren't terrorists. It's not their strategy. Even when they attack civilians it's because the civilians are helping their enemies. They make it known.

[LordShiva]

Well, you're the expert, of course. But if I may provide some anecdotal counter-evidence: A friend of my Mom's family was associated with the Naxals at their birth. She was an idealistic West Bengal communist, and believed firmly in their stated goals. But she was soon disillusioned and quit (and is now a senior member of the Communist Party of India (M) which is in power in Bengal and in the ruling coalition in Delhi). She's spoken about how the Maoist organisations are now run: poor, teenage boys are recruited and given guns. They soon discover that they then have free access to money, women, and alcohol. When the power, or the alcohol, mix with their youth and hormones, they forget that it's wrong to start killing civilians who get in the way of their free access to aforementioned objects of desire. And their superiors happily pass off these murders, which happen ALL THE TIME, as actions against "police informers." And why wouldn't they? Not only do they (many of whom likewise started out as opportunists) enjoy money, alcohol, and women themselves, they also benefit from a local population made much more pliant out of fear of being killed as informers.