Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare - Page 9

gsmoove23 · May 6, 2003, 23:39

Uh, Edan, I think your quotes only mention military casualties. I'm not sure but I think they're a little low.

Edan · May 6, 2003, 23:46

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Uh, Edan, I think your quotes only mention military casualties. I'm not sure but I think they're a little low.

You might be right - those were the only numbers I could find. That doesn't change that the original numbers included both military and civilians, and put blame solely on the US.

GePap · May 6, 2003, 23:53

you can't blame the US for all those deaths more than you can, say, the soviets or other players. It is important to fess up for ones faults: it is another thing to make yourself responsible for the actions of others: that is absurd and denies them agency.

The US did, and does, support bad regimes, but these regimes exist for internal political reasons mainly. The US can only manipulate (and be itself maipulated) what is already present.

Like the Contras: yes, we gave them aid, but they existed already, nicaraguans who supported the previous dictatorial regime. If they had not existed, or if they had been unwilling to harm their fellow Nicaraguans, the US could not have done what it did. It is wrong to deny this.

Panag · May 7, 2003, 05:28

hi ,

the biggest problem with civilian's is that they dont have id tags , .... there is no way of telling how many bought a farm , .... not in large conflicts anyway , .....

in rwanda the bodies where laying everywhere , sometimes several rows high , ..... the just showed some earth over it , .... no count , .....

huh , the exact numbers of american soldiers , or its allies in vietnam can be found on the net , ....

the figure is closer to 56000 , ... (us)

dont forget the assies , the nz's , the koreans , the japs , the phillipino's , the mercenaries for the cia , ... the thai , .....

have a nice day

chequita guevara · May 7, 2003, 10:26

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Like the Contras: yes, we gave them aid, but they existed already, nicaraguans who supported the previous dictatorial regime. If they had not existed, or if they had been unwilling to harm their fellow Nicaraguans, the US could not have done what it did. It is wrong to deny this.

If the US hadn't given them any support, they would have remained a small group of a few hundred bandits, instead of becoming a ten thousand strong terrorist army. Even that much is debatable, as Cart began giving aid to what would become the Contras in 1979, very soon after Somoza was overthrown.

GePap · May 7, 2003, 10:38

I know well enough about he effects of US giving aid to some scumbag or another to further its aims.But I think you do yourself a dis-service bty minimizing the responsibility of the scumbag in such scenerios.

The Us bear some responsibility, but not all, and ussually not even primary responsibility. As long as we think that what the great powers command is what happens, and other have no agancy beyond ours, then we fail to really understand the world.

After all, the flip-side of this notion of yours is to claim that anything good that has happeend is also the 'fault' of the US or the imperialist, since they laid the foundations, or were key in giving support and financing.

chequita guevara · May 7, 2003, 12:00

A lot of these brushfire wars would have gone nowhere if the US hadn't given them weapons and training in said weapons. Many of these coups wouldn't have happened. And US bombs falling on Hanoi are solely the fault of the US. The fact that there is shared responsibility doesn't mitigate US responsibility.

If I help some guy kill ten people, am I guilty of five murders or ten?

Cruddy · May 8, 2003, 09:39

Terrorism is a label to demonise the opposition.

No warfare is legitimate. Even warfare in self defence must, by definition, have an aggressor party that starts it.

Not to say warfare isn't necessary. But DON'T YOU EVER THINK IT IS RIGHT OR MORAL OR CORRECT.

dojoboy · May 8, 2003, 09:50

Yes, I believe terrorism is a valid form of warfare. If my people/country was under attack/oppression by a foreign power. I would do any and everything to the enemy. There would be no boundaries.

Arrian · May 8, 2003, 10:00

Quote:

After all, the flip-side of this notion of yours is to claim that anything good that has happeend is also the 'fault' of the US or the imperialist, since they laid the foundations, or were key in giving support and financing.

Bingo, but you will never hear the "US is the root of all evil" crowd take their "logic" to that eventual conclusion. Doesn't fit in the worldview.

Quote:

If I help some guy kill ten people, am I guilty of five murders or ten?

You are partially guilty of ten. How big is your part? It depends, doesn't it? Even if you literally handed the guy a gun, he is the one who pulls the trigger, and thus is the most guilty party. You're right behind him, though. But what if you showed him how to use a gun he already had, and then he goes out and uses it to kill ten people? Some blame? Perhaps, if you knew the guy was likely to do something like that, yeah. But it's not exactly an even split there.

Anyway, the blame game can get ridiculous, partly because the issues are complex, partly because few people know for sure what *really* happened (though many claim to), and partly because the people are still dead no matter who killed them.

-Arrian

DAVOUT · May 8, 2003, 11:35

Originally, the terrorism was the beginning of civil wars; then it was a revolt against a foreign oppressor (partisans, résistants). In these instances, legitimacy was not an issue, or totally useless. What is new is the terrorism of foreign origin, that is in place of conventionnal wars; as conventionnal wars are regulated by international laws, it could be argued that foreign terrorism is not legitimate.

But international laws are not really binding : before attacking the Soviet Union, Hitler made a conference to all the generals participating in Barbarossa, and give them the order not to apply the generally accepted laws of war, and to ignore the convention of Geneva. No one of the attending generals, professionnal soldiers, élite of the Prussian aristocracy, objected. But that was terrorism. This led directly to the harsh behaviour of the democracies later.

In the same manner, against foreign terrorism we observe that special operations are greatly developping. It can be said that there is no great objective difference between terrorism and special operations, except that one is the consequence of the other.

The Algeria war (1954-1962. 23000 military casualties, proportionally three times more that the 56000 suffered by the US in VietNam) was a terrorism war during which all existing special ops were used, and which ended by something close to a civil war and internal terrorism (attempt to kill De Gaulle by French officers, assassinations, etc).

When we are involved in circomstances where terrorism is our only possible way to fight, or where we have to protect our community against terrorism, we have to decide, alone, what to do. I absolutely deny any outside party to tell what is the right thing to do.

BeBro · May 8, 2003, 12:01

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT
But international laws are not really binding : before attacking the Soviet Union, Hitler made a conference to all the generals participating in Barbarossa, and give them the order not to apply the generally accepted laws of war, and to ignore the convention of Geneva. No one of the attending generals, professionnal soldiers, élite of the Prussian aristocracy, objected. But that was terrorism. This led directly to the harsh behaviour of the democracies later.

I still don´t understand the current obsession with the label terrorism. Why not call these things you describe warcrimes, since done in an "official" war, by regular armies, against (you said it) the rules of the Hague Convention or the Geneva Conventions?

Is now everything terrorism?

Straybow · May 8, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Half a million Indonesians died the same way. A third of the population of East Timor were killed by the Indonesians in an invasion that occured the day after President Ford left Indonesia (we gave our assent).

Oh, that's a good one. Just like Saddam Hussein claiming that the US gave him permission to invade Kuwait!

Indonesian toadies: Please, please, pretty please with whipped cream on top, can we invade East Timor again and kill a zillion people?
Ford: OK, guys! But only if you're good little tykes and eat all your peas at dinner. And what have I got in my pocket?
Indonesian toadies: Ummmmm, a bribe from us? [whispers amount in ear]
Ford: Why, how cleaver of you! Run along and play in traffic!

Cruddy · May 10, 2003, 11:02

No, the debate was not that mature! There certainly wasn't a political outcry about the invasion, which seems to me like appeasement.

OliverFA · May 16, 2003, 09:58

The worst thing that can happen to a terrorist is that they have someone strong in front of them that do not accept their blackmail. Even if that means a very high price, but definitely much lower than it would be accepting what they say.

Panag · May 16, 2003, 10:34

Quote:

Originally posted by OliverFA
The worst thing that can happen to a terrorist is that they have someone strong in front of them that do not accept their blackmail. Even if that means a very high price, but definitely much lower than it would be accepting what they say.

hi ,

and that is exactly why you dont negociate with them , ....

have a nice day

Frogman · May 16, 2003, 19:56

Terrorism would be a lot more legitimate if it was even remotely effective. I just don't see terrorist activity helping anyone's cause. Surely after the gloating and apparent victory, Osama must have been very disappointed in the results of 9-11. Palestinians and the IRA have also got very little to show for their efforts except a hardened enemy.

The question isn't so much is it legitimate. The question is, is it effective. I just don't think it is and it makes all the pain and suffering all the more pointless.