Terrorists? - Page 3

Sandman · September 10, 2003, 16:44

Yes, it is.

lord of the mark · September 10, 2003, 16:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
Well, ask yourself, why Hamas doesn't send suicide machine gunners? Machine guns are too difficult to hide and are not as instant as explosives, that's why. Terrorists use explosives because explosives are the best for their purposes.

Although, if they did, for some reason, use machine guns, it would still be terrorism, by virtue of them using covert operatives in the midst of the enemy population to deliver the weapons to the target.

actually they have shot israeli civilians, especially in the territories.

Arrian · September 10, 2003, 16:56

There are tons of examples of that - usually attacks on settlements. Guys sneaking in and shooting up families in their beds and whatnot.

-Arrian

lord of the mark · September 10, 2003, 16:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman

For me, the definition of terrorism is the methods they use. The targets, whether civilian or military, legitimate or illegitimate, are irrelevant. Aerial bombardment is aerial bombardment, regardless of whether the target is a village or a tank column. So it is with terrorism: to me terrorism is covert operatives with bombs.

Hamas etc are terrorists because they use covert operatives with bombs, not because they target civilians.

I believe my definition of terrorism is ultimately more helpful than other definitions, which basically equate terrorism with war.

whats a covert operative? If a uniformed soldier sneaks around a corner is that covert? What if wears camouflage to avoid being seen?

Youre basically using the wearing of a uniform as your criteria - which is definitional for GUERILLA WARFARE.

Sandman · September 10, 2003, 17:21

Quote:

whats a covert operative? If a uniformed soldier sneaks around a corner is that covert? What if wears camouflage to avoid being seen?

There's a grey area between terrorism and guerilla warfare, to be sure. Terrorists achieve a greater level of stealth than guerillas by sacrificing size, organisation, and weapons versatility.

Guerillas are hard to find, but terrorists are even harder. The difference is in the degree of covertness.

Guerillas operate in groups, whilst terrorists tend to attack individually. Guerillas have a more rigid command structure and can operate on a tactical basis. Terrorists operate in very open command structure, and seldom attack tactical targets.

Quote:

Youre basically using the wearing of a uniform as your criteria - which is definitional for GUERILLA WARFARE.

There's more to guerilla warfare than what you're wearing. The methods employed are what is important, and whilst guerilla warfare is similar to terrorism, there are enough differences to make a case for the two being distinct from each other.

centrifuge · September 10, 2003, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

But those that send that plane into the Pentagon (military installation) ...are they terrorists too?

Civilians work at the pentagon as well. For example they have a Subway (fast food not train) in the building.

They have to go through big time background checks, but civilians do work there.

aaglo · September 11, 2003, 03:38

Since now the Us officials want to know these thing from the people who come to the states by air:
1# food the person want's to eat during flight
2# credit card number

Well, I don't have a credit card, and if I would want to eat vegetarian food or Falafel or Kebab - would I be considered a terrorist?

Saint Marcus · September 11, 2003, 16:25

Quote:

Civilians work at the pentagon as well.

Collatoral damage? I mean, the US blows up bridges that are used by civilians as well, same goes for many other targets.

Rogan Josh · September 11, 2003, 16:49

Does anyone have any statistics for number of civilian deaths due to terrorism per country?

MichaeltheGreat · September 11, 2003, 16:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Did the.. Minutemen of American independence war wear uniforms?

The laws of war at the time were quite a bit different, and there were no formal international conventions on the subject. The minutemen qualified as regular militia by two means, both of which are now codified as part of the determination of lawful combatant status in the Geneva Convention relative to treatment of prisoners of war. Those two means are the open carrying of arms, and the organization of the individuals into units with a definite command structure.

MichaeltheGreat · September 11, 2003, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
yes, what about black ops by, for instance, the CIA?

The CIA, per se, is irrelevant since it is an organization of a recognized government. What the CIA does, the US does by definition - in that respect, it's no different from the Army. There are types of direct action SO missions where it is recognized by the participants that if captured, they will not be subject to the protection of the Geneva Convention.

lord of the mark · September 11, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman

There's a grey area between terrorism and guerilla warfare, to be sure. Terrorists achieve a greater level of stealth than guerillas by sacrificing size, organisation, and weapons versatility.

Guerillas are hard to find, but terrorists are even harder. The difference is in the degree of covertness.

Guerillas operate in groups, whilst terrorists tend to attack individually. Guerillas have a more rigid command structure and can operate on a tactical basis. Terrorists operate in very open command structure, and seldom attack tactical targets.

There's more to guerilla warfare than what you're wearing. The methods employed are what is important, and whilst guerilla warfare is similar to terrorism, there are enough differences to make a case for the two being distinct from each other.

a guerilla fighter can fight in a single group, as necessary. The distinction that everyone else uses is that terrorists stir up TERROR, by attacking civilians. you can choose to use the word another way if you wish, but dont be surprised if this causes confusion with others,

Whaleboy · September 12, 2003, 07:41

Didn't you know? Anyone that disagrees with the West is a terrorist.

Bereta_Eder · September 12, 2003, 07:49

and since the west disagrees with itself it gets even more complicated

Whaleboy · September 12, 2003, 07:56

indeed

According to some definitions, even I am a terrorist (though the last explosion I caused was in GCSE chemistry), because I critisize aspects of the west. Orwell would have said I am objectively pro-terrorist, although he sucked. That statement is a misnomer, because I would only appear so subjectively. Objectively, I am not pro or anti anything when I am independent from that. Orwell as an idiot and totalitarianism still sucks.