Did I miss a thread about the massacre in Xinjiang?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The short answer is no. Attacks against civilians where the attackers are intending to sew panic and terror among the general populous are terrorist attacks. If a rebel group attacks agents of the state who are directly employed by the state then it's just a rebel attack and not a terrorist attack. This would seem to be a legitimate attack against state security forces by a rebel group.

The 911 attack on the pentagon was against state agents by a group who saw themselves as freedom fighters.

When you say this attack in China was legitimate, are you also saying that you support it?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Cort: Can you explain to me what value there is in repeating one's self when the question being put before you has already been answered?

Where did you answer it?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Where did you answer it?

On what basis do you feel that attacks on non-civilians especially those involved in the security services can reasonably be described as being terrorist?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by DaShi
Didn't this happen a while ago?

Yes, Dashi, and I've been on holiday, and hence was asking whether there had been a thread on it.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
On what basis do you feel that attacks on non-civilians especially those involved in the security services can reasonably be described as being terrorist?

That looks like a question, not an answer, but I'll assume from it that your position is that this type of attack is not terrorist, hence you considered most IRA attacks as not terrorist actions.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


The 911 attack on the pentagon was against state agents by a group who saw themselves as freedom fighters.

When you say this attack in China was legitimate, are you also saying that you support it?

9/11 targeted civilians so obviously it was a terrorist attack just as hijacking civilian planes and then crashing with all the civilians aboard into a military target is still terrorism. A lawful attack is when a military group attacks another military group attempting to keep civilians out of the fighting as much as is reasonably possible. The East Turkistan group didn't involve civilians at all and targeted state security forces so obviously it qualifies.

This is pretty straight forward stuff.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Yes, Dashi, and I've been on holiday, and hence was asking whether there had been a thread on it.

Ok, there was just no date in your article, so it was confusing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
On what basis do you feel that attacks on non-civilians especially those involved in the security services can reasonably be described as being terrorist?

Those who carried out the attack are "illigitimate," thus their violent act is illigitimate and thus terrorism.

So Dino, were the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the US barracs in KSA in 1996 and the attack on the Cole terrorist acts, or not? In all three circumstances all the victims were military personnel.

[Heraclitus]

Everyone is missing the point here. Don't you guys know the proper definition of terrorist?

Angry Muslim = evil terrorists



So this is clearly a terrorist attack.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
So Dino, were the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the US barracs in KSA in 1996 and the attack on the Cole terrorist acts, or not? In all three circumstances all the victims were military personnel.

Can you explain to me what value there is in repeating one's self when the question being put before you has already been answered? If you want to continue this conversation, at least do me the courtesy of not continuing to try and drive it over the same ground.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap


Those who carried out the attack are "illigitimate," thus their violent act is illigitimate and thus terrorism.

So Dino, were the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the US barracs in KSA in 1996 and the attack on the Cole terrorist acts, or not? In all three circumstances all the victims were military personnel.

I'd say no as they didn't target civilians.

[Arrian]

Yeah, to me a terrorist attack is one that intentionally targets civilians. I never saw the Cole attack as a terrorist attack.

That doesn't make it ok, obviously. I wonder what the government's response will be...

-Arrian

[BeBMan]

I'd say it was terrorism, since it was done in peacetime, by irregular, non-state forces.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin

I'd say no as they didn't target civilians.

What the hell does the victims being "civilians" have to do with anything?????

This idea that "civilians" are sacrosant, angels not to be touched in any way is "cute", but irrelevant to the idea of terrorism, at least, the modern idea.

As Bebro said:

I'd say it was terrorism, since it was done in peacetime, by irregular, non-state forces.

That is a very decent working definition of what a terrorist is defined as by State actors (the ones who get to define it), who have every incentive to deligitimize political violence that isn't in their own hands.

[One_more_turn]

I sympatize with China, we are fighting against a common enemy - Islamofascists.