Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare - Page 5

DinoDoc · May 1, 2003, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Where?

I'd like to see how you can get around justifying the sytematic destruction of civilian population centers on the specious basis that they support the war effort.

Quote:

The Heavy Water plant in Vemark is a good example, though.

How so? It was a military target under the control of the German government. You'd have a better time pointing out Doolittle's raid on Tokyo.

Traianvs · May 1, 2003, 17:55

true imran...

Panag · May 1, 2003, 18:00

hi ,

just one Q to the 15 idiots who voted yes , .....

come over to Israel , i shall take you to a childrens hospital , ....

lets see if you still vote yes then , .....

have a nice day

The Vagabond · May 1, 2003, 18:10

To avoid ambiguity of the word 'legitimate', I'd say terrorism is a valid form of warfare.

Indeed, if some large group of people is strongly dissatisfied with how things are, but at the same time they are weak to stand for themselves in a "conventional" way, how else can they make their voice heard?

Imran Siddiqui · May 1, 2003, 18:12

Panag,

Come over to Iraq, you can go to a children's hospital, let's see if you consider the war against Iraq as legitimate then

.

Nice to see you appeal to emotions, because you don't have a logical argument.

Panag · May 1, 2003, 18:14

Quote:

Originally posted by The Vagabond
To avoid ambiguity of the word 'legitimate', I'd say terrorism is a valid form of warfare.

Indeed, if some large group of people is strongly dissatisfied with how things are, but at the same time they are weak to stand for themselves in a "conventional" way, how else can they make their voice heard?

hi ,

so you dont mind then if your brother , sister , mother , child , etc , ..... get blown up by a two bit terrorist , ......

intresting , .....

so if its a valid form of warfare , you dont mind then if a two bit terrorist blows himself up cause he wants your house and you have refused to give it to him , .....

very intresting theory , .....

bye

Panag · May 1, 2003, 18:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Panag,

Come over to Iraq, you can go to a children's hospital, let's see if you consider the war against Iraq as legitimate then

.

Nice to see you appeal to emotions, because you don't have a logical argument.

hi ,

please explain how they got there , ....

because of "terrorism" , .....

the topic is > "Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare"

bye

Imran Siddiqui · May 1, 2003, 18:19

How did they get there? Because we decided Saddam should go. I'm not saying that was wrong, but simply because there are injured in children's hospitals isn't gonna change my viw.

gsmoove23 · May 1, 2003, 18:20

Why not try to divorce yourself from the situation and ask yourself if you find terrorism used against the French in Algeria is valid.

GePap · May 1, 2003, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
So far, 10 people I'll say a special prayer for.
That you experience what you say is legitimate.

Sometimes the vast amount of stupidity sprayed here is overwhelming.

(psssst! GePap, this is your cue)

Oh Slowwly, I could never, ever, even if I tried, ever match your ability for stupidity..I mean, its legendary! You lovable luggnut, you......

(its fun having some right-winger hate you..at least you know somebody thinks about you.)

As for the agrument..My God! It is sad to hear the stuff spewed here.

Terrorism is not War. These two things are different forms of one other underlying act political violence. Both War and Terrorism are methods (strategies) of creating a specific set of political realities. The difference between War and Terrorism is that in War the two sides are recognized (have some legal standing, legitimacy) while in terrorism, either one or neither side has any legitimacy granted to it. Now, the caveat tot his is that terrorism has come to signifiy specific methods of violence and not only the status issue. For exmaple., in Colombia, the gov. held negotiations with the FARC, which means that some legitimacy is attached to them, but at the same time FARC attacks in cities are labelled terrorist attacks. The same is true for the Tamil Tigers (For all those arab haters- the Tamil Tigers and FARC are the two MOST active terrorist orgs, and neither is made up of Arabs, so grow up you racist

) in Sri Lanka.

As for the legality issue: we have as much right to impose laws on violence as on anything else. The fact is that there have always been rules to violence: war has NEVER been just blind violence without direction. There have always been acceptable places to atatck, and places in which war is unacceptable, and there have always been individuals or types of individuals specifically to be protected: of course these rules get broekn, all laws get broekn, but the fact that law breaking occurs does not invalidate the laws.
The fact is that war today, even WW2, was in general much less horrific that ancient war: here we are talking about bombing of cities: remember that 2000 years ago, a city that resisted was razed to the ground, the males slaughtered and the rest enslaved, and that was a fully legal act of war.

If we find allied actions in bombing civilian centers immoral, it is not only becuase perhaps the very act is immoral (debatable) but also becuase when areal bombing begun it was denounced. Someone unwilling to call Allied bombings of cities immoral can't then call Japanese and German bombings immoral, after all, what was the difference?

Any state has the right to label a certain form of political violence terrorism (which, as was pointed out before, is a name that inherently means ilegal and immoral), htough of course, otehrs are free to decide whether it is "terrorism" or another type of political violnce, besied understanable political dissent in a violent form.

Panag · May 1, 2003, 18:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How did they get there? Because we decided Saddam should go. I'm not saying that was wrong, but simply because there are injured in children's hospitals isn't gonna change my viw.

nice to see you appeal on the iraq's side , but you dont have a logical argument given yet as to how children in iraq are there because of "terrorism" , ......

The Vagabond · May 1, 2003, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
so you dont mind then if your brother , sister , mother , child , etc , ..... get blown up by a two bit terrorist , ......

intresting , .....

Of course, I mind. I also mind if they get blown up in a conventional war.

Quote:

so if its a valid form of warfare , you dont mind then if a two bit terrorist blows himself up cause he wants your house and you have refused to give it to him , .....

very intresting theory , .....

It's your analogies that are very interesting...

CyberGnu · May 1, 2003, 18:27

Quote:

I'd like to see how you can get around justifying the sytematic destruction of civilian population centers on the specious basis that they support the war effort.

Yeah, as I thought. You don't know what the word "genocide" means. I suggest you look it up, and we can continune the debate when you've figured it out.

So targeting raw materials production for weapons is OK. How about bakeries that supply bread for the soliders? Refineries that make the fuel? How about the bakeries that supply the bread for the refinery-workers? And this is the point: In the modern industrial world the distinction is worthless.

Doolittles raid on Tokyo comes from the other side of the argument. It's valid, but not in response to Kidicious post.

Spiffor · May 1, 2003, 18:39

Terrorism is definitely of form of warfare.

Since terrorists cannot hope to defeat the enemy army on the field, they try to change the enemy's public opinion by killing civilians. Or in an older idea of terrorism, they try to change the enemy's politics by killing leaders.

Most terrorist organizations are plunged into this form of walfare because it is the only one that has some efficiency. Outright walfare, at least against a world power, cannot work when done by a small organization like a terrorist one.

However, even if terrorism is a 'necessary' form of warfare for those who do it, it is not legitimate in any meaning. In warfare, there is no legitimacy to wantonly kill people who are unaware of living in a war zone/who are defenseless.

When a regular army does so, it is charged (or should be charged) of war crimes or even crimes against humanity. Terrorists are doing a war crime everytime they are attacking

CyberGnu · May 1, 2003, 18:45

DinoDoc, I'm sorry if you consider my prvious post too aggressive, but I think that if you are going to accuse someone for something, you should at least know what you are accusing him of before you do it...

Dis · May 2, 2003, 02:17

my poor thread is rated with one star

. This after I got a thread rated with 5 stars- which I thought would be rated with one star

LoneWolf · May 2, 2003, 02:19

Well sure terrorism is , in a sense, "legitimate".

So is crushing it with every available means.

Jack_www · May 2, 2003, 02:29

how can you ever justify the killing of unarmed civilian? ANd that is the main targets of terrorist. They dont even mind if they kill someone who belongs to the same religion as they do.

Zero · May 2, 2003, 02:30

Quote:

Originally posted by LoneWolf
Well sure terrorism is , in a sense, "legitimate".

So is crushing it with every available means.

he's right you know. Anything is legitimate as long as you can do it.

There is no such thing as illegitimate in war, so evything is fair game. Since when did we turn into a group of wussies who whine about whats not fair and unfair?

Unless you argue war in itself is illegitimate, but that would be another can of worms.

Zero · May 2, 2003, 02:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
how can you ever justify the killing of unarmed civilian? ANd that is the main targets of terrorist. They dont even mind if they kill someone who belongs to the same religion as they do.

there are no such thing as civilians. I really dislike the idea of "innocents" in these modern day thinking. If you and I was fighting you and some ***** kept helping you out by throwing in weapons you can use into the arena, Id go knock his jaws out.

gsmoove23 · May 2, 2003, 02:34

There have been many situations in the past where legitimate authorities/governments have done horrible things caring very little for civilian lives, civilian rights and having far too much power for opposition to fight effectively in a conventional way. In these situations I think terrorism is certainly understandable.

Dis · May 2, 2003, 03:37

Well, there are some interesting things in this thread. Despite a few trolls things managed to be fairly orderly. There are some good discussions about modern and past warfare and civilians and military. That is what I was aiming for in this thread.

There are some grey areas I have not addressed in my posts on page 1.

One major grey area is the different types of terrorism. While we use one word to generalize many hostile acts, there are distinct differences. Take the Unabomber, for example. He would be classified as a terrorist. But what were his motivations? Were they to take down a country? I don't think they were (I may be wrong- I'm really not sure what his motivations were- I think he was anti-technology).

Then you have another level with the shoe bomber. He appears to have worked alone or with one other person. He was not part of a large scale operation. But his intention was the same. To instill fear in the enemy countries in an effort to either bring them down or effect policy change favourable to his cause.

And finally you have large scale terrorist networks like Al Quida and Hamas. They are much more organized, and their intent is the total destruction of their enemy. This is the type of terrorism I really addressed in my original post. These guys mean business. They want everyone of us dead. If they want to completely annhilate a country, to me that is war. It's either kill or be killed.

As for nuclear weapons, well I do support their use in extreme situations. I will not sit here and say they should never be used. But I have to admit, I cannot envision a scenario in which we would use them. Only if our country was seriously faced with being overrun by invaders, would I support their use. But of course in that case, we would be nuking our own land/cities. But if that is the only way we can prevent our country from being overrun...well...

As for military/civilian distinctions. Well I still support they are seperate entities. In fact things are much better today than in ww2. I hope we never see a war as brutal as that again. I do not support bombing civilians in any fashion by our troops, but if it ever came down to a matter of our country being overrun by invaders...well...

But to be fair, I try to look at things from their perspective. Something an Israeli poster above did not do. In the terrorists eyes, terrorist acts are legitimate. So because they see these acts as legitimate, we really have no choice but to accept it. Sure we can get on tv and say how wrong it is, but that won't do anything to stop it. Yes I understand there are children in hospitals who were there because of terrorism. But they are there because the state of Israel is at war with terrorists. The Israelis are fighting for their very lives. I'm not saying you shouldn't do anything about it. On the contrary, I think because it is a brutal form of warfare intent on destroying every Israeli citizen, your country is justified in using whatever means it has to eliminate terrorists. Your country is fighting for its very survival, as is my country. Sure people giggle, and think the U.S. faces no danger from terrorists, but I do believe they can destroy the United States given enough nuclear/biological weapons.

If you have a group of people that want to eliminate every christian and jew from the face of the planet, how can you look at that as just individual acts?

Lord Merciless · May 2, 2003, 04:10

Terrorism is of course a legitimate war tactic. However, terrorists should not be surprised to face ruthless retributions.

kmad · May 2, 2003, 05:19

Some Americans might not outright hate the tactic of 'terrorism' once they realize that the American revolutionaries that defeated the British to gain independence were thought of the same way people today think of the 'terrorists'.

The Mad Monk · May 2, 2003, 05:30

Some Americans might not, I'm not one of them.

BeBro · May 2, 2003, 11:00

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Well, I've clarified it for you in this thread. How much can be implied in one sentence? Not that much. I assume your point is that the clarifications are contradictory to the initial statement, right? If so, I disagree. Our entire culture assumes that we will act with restraint when we can.

I agree with your last sentence, however, I still don´t understand how you can claim that there´s no contradiction between your different statements. If you say your later statement ("with minimal loss" etc.) is to clarify your position I have to accept it (I even would agree with it), but then your earlier statement ("victim always right, regardless what means" etc.) makes no sense.

Because "acting with restraint" is only possible when we seriously care about what means are used. Hence "always right, regardless what means" is just the opposite of "acting with restraint". It is like fire and water.

Quote:

Compare the statement "murder in self-defense is OK". Turn to the next person around you, and ask "do you think murder in selfdefense is OK?". If he/she says "yes", follow up with "So you think it is OK to execute prisoners?". If the person doesn't know you, he/she will probably move away a little and worry about his/her own personal safety, after which they'll say something like "what, are you nuts? Of course not!" Do you see what I mean?

No, I don´t see it, because I see no link between self-defense and executing prisoners.

Quote:

They are valid targets, as long as the aggressor wont capitulate.

So war crimes do not exist if you are acting as defender?

gsmoove23 · May 2, 2003, 11:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Terrorism is of course a legitimate war tactic. However, terrorists should not be surprised to face ruthless retributions.

I think many times terrorism is born out of the fact that authorities already use ruthless acts for retribution to more legitimate or peaceful forms of opposition. To most terrorists your statement is a no-brainer.

gsmoove23 · May 2, 2003, 11:15

Dissident, I think the Unabomber and people like Timothy McVeigh did have the motive of bringing down the government or changing our society in fundamental ways just like Al Qaida. Al Qaida doesn't actually want to kill us all, just fundamentally change our society. However, this is the most extreme of their rhetoric and more likely they just want us to get the hell out of the ME. So I don't think you could really call it us or them, unless perhaps your Israeli.

gsmoove23 · May 2, 2003, 11:17

BTW Dissident, I posed a question before, if terrorism is warfare, why treat the Guantanamo prisoners any differently. Especially since most of them didn't carry out terrorist acts but simply, fought in a conventional way, for an organization that carried out terrorist attacks.

Zero · May 2, 2003, 11:37

Quote:

Originally posted by kmad
Some Americans might not outright hate the tactic of 'terrorism' once they realize that the American revolutionaries that defeated the British to gain independence were thought of the same way people today think of the 'terrorists'.

Its all in the eyes of a beholder.

BTW, Dissdent you sounded like a maniac despot who would go kamikaze on your views on nukes.