what's GOOD about terrorism?(for once)

[FluroChoco]

But is 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' being used as a buzz word? Sure sept 11 was an act of terrorism, and rightly labeled one. However,George Bush uses september eleven to justify his 'War on Terrorism'. But Bush's war is not on terrorism. When did Saddam's Iraq commit terrorism(against America)? Ghandi may not have been a terrorist, but the fact that he was labelled one is siginficant. The modern notion of terrorism differs from the dictionary definition and this needs to be considered when discussing the pros and cons of 'terrorism'.

[Cuchulainn]

If only it were that simple.

Oh, but it is. We're talking semantics here - and terrorist has a very distinct meaning. It's not a buzz-word. When a freedom-fighter only kills military targets, he's a guerilla fighter. If he kills civilians, he's a terrorist. Simple as that.

I repeat, name me on armed force that hasn't killed innocents, either directly or indirectly. Don't use the 'they deliberately target civilians' card as many MANY of the world's powers have deliberately done that, masked or openly.

Like I say, it's only that simple if it's convenient for your viewpoint. It's a mass of grey if you're honest.

Just yesterday the 'legal' protestant ornagemen started riots all over Northern Ireland because they weren't allowed to march down Catholic streets. Let me put this into perspective for you. It's a Protestant March comemorating their defeat of King James' catholic Monarchy in 1690 and is openly anti-Catholic. It's like the KKK marching through Harlem or the PLO through Tel Aviv. It's reasons like this the IRA were formed. The roads are blocked, houses set alight, people shot & as a Catholic I'm pretty much housebound until it's over. Everyone bangs on & on about the IRA. No one mentions the beasts on the other side.

[Skyblade]

If only it were that simple.

Oh, but it is. We're talking semantics here - and terrorist has a very distinct meaning. It's not a buzz-word. When a freedom-fighter only kills military targets, he's a guerilla fighter. If he kills civilians, he's a terrorist. Simple as that.

I repeat, name me on armed force that hasn't killed innocents, either directly or indirectly. Don't use the 'they deliberately target civilians' card as many MANY of the world's powers have deliberately done that, masked or openly.

Like I say, it's only that simple if it's convenient for your viewpoint. It's a mass of grey if you're honest.

Just yesterday the 'legal' protestant ornagemen started riots all over Northern Ireland because they weren't allowed to march down Catholic streets. Let me put this into perspective for you. It's a Protestant March comemorating their defeat of King James' catholic Monarchy in 1690 and is openly anti-Catholic. It's like the KKK marching through Harlem or the PLO through Tel Aviv. It's reasons like this the IRA were formed. The roads are blocked, houses set alight, people shot & as a Catholic I'm pretty much housebound until it's over. Everyone bangs on & on about the IRA. No one mentions the beasts on the other side.

I'm not sure I can. I haven't bothered to keep track of every military action in history. Tell me though, how many military forces make it a policy that targeting innocents is the correct thing to do? Apart for some extreme total war situations, such as World War II, where everyone was supporting the war effort, which means that there were no civilians, militaries agree that targeting civilians is off-limits. If a single military commander does so, that is his actions, and those of the people serving under him, not the actions of the military force as a whole, and he will probably be brought up on charges of war crimes when his superiors find out. The military universally condemns the slaughter of innocents, while terrorists seem to think that it is the right thing to do.

And, yes, specifically targeting them as opposed to having some die with collateral damage does matter. You're saying that ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents is morally equivalent to accidently hitting a civilian while carrying out an air raid on people who are engaged in war with your country? You must have the most screwed up set of morals since the terrorists themselves.

[Cuchulainn]

There were no civilians? What on earth kind of tripe is that? There are always non-belligerents, total war or not & Geneva protects them. That is the most preposterous thing I think I've heard here, and most dangerous. If there are no civilians why on earth did the Nuremberg Trials take place? Think before you type, it works better that way.

If you believe for one minute that generals and commanders do not condone the killing of innocents then you are very naive. It's been done here in Northern Ireland, in Vietnam, in British controlled interests throughout the world. Everywhere, and it is rarely brought to account.

Furthermore, don't accuse me of having screwed up morals you twisted little man, it isn't me saying there 'are no civilians' during total war. Many times, and I'm sure you will deny this in your own blinkered little way, places are obliterated to 'break the will to oppose' by deliberately targeting civilians, where do you think these lost & warped 'terrorists' got the idea? WWII was a hell I hope we never see again & civilians were nothing to either side. Both committed massive attacks directed solely to obliterate them in an effort to 'break the will' and both failed, bar the atomic attacks. Your blind faith that your country is always right is equal to the blind faith that these people have that they're going to paradise with 20 virgins.

To quote you mis-quoting me, no I’m not equating 'ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents is morally equivalent to accidentally hitting a civilian while carrying out an air raid on people who are engaged in war with your country'. Those words never left my keyboard. I am, however, equating ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents to dropping bombs from a plane or launching missiles from 1,000 miles away onto a city full of thousands of innocents.

Don't put words into my mouth, nothing you say deserves that quote, you twisted little man, it isn't me saying there 'are no civilians' during total war. Many times, and I'm sure you will deny this in your own blinkered little way, places are obliterated to 'break the will to oppose' by deliberately targeting civilians, where do you think these lost & warped 'terrorists' got the idea? WWII was a hell I hope we never see again & civilians were nothing to either side. Both committed massive attacks directed solely to obliterate them in an effort to 'break the will' and both failed, bar the atomic attacks. Your blind faith that your country is always right is equal to the blind faith that these people have that they're going to paradise with 20 virgins.

And lastly, no I’m not equating 'ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents is morally equivalent to accidentally hitting a civilian while carrying out an air raid on people who are engaged in war with your country'. Those words never left my keyboard. I am, however, equating ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents to dropping bombs from a plane or launching missiles from 1,000 miles away onto a city full of thousands of innocents.

Don't put words into my mouth; nothing you say deserves that quote.

[bipper]

First off I think you are getting a little too defensive here.

Second of all Sky is banned from Eotw for two weeks.

Thirdly, tes, there are times when we cannot protect civilians. Yes, military operations does not neccesarily mean that they will not, under any circumstances kill civilian. The saftey of our enemies civilians are taken into acount. This is way off track though. We are talking war, and not terrorism at this point. Terrorism basically strives by creating mass _terror_ among the people. (that's how they got thier name!)

Sure when a terrorist fights a war, he can be a patriot, that is not ruled out. They are two close words, but they cannot be used innerchangably in all circumstances.

Bipper

[Cuchulainn]

First off I think you are getting a little too defensive here.

Second of all Sky is banned from Eotw for two weeks.

Thirdly, tes, there are times when we cannot protect civilians. Yes, military operations does not neccesarily mean that they will not, under any circumstances kill civilian. The saftey of our enemies civilians are taken into acount. This is way off track though. We are talking war, and not terrorism at this point. Terrorism basically strives by creating mass _terror_ among the people. (that's how they got thier name!)

Sure when a terrorist fights a war, he can be a patriot, that is not ruled out. They are two close words, but they cannot be used innerchangably in all circumstances.

Bipper

OK, I apologise if my point seemed strong, but it was in response to one equally finger-pointing.

[ShunNakamura]

Terrorism may indeed be there to cause fear but that does not mean that you have to kill civilians. If someone got in and blew up fort knonx(if I spelled it right) where there were no civilians(or even if they druged and removed the guards) it would still make many people afraid. A lot of people few knonx as being very difficult to penetrate.

Terrorism is an illegal action in order to cause fear. That is all. No more, no less.

Guerilla force

n : an irregular armed force that fights by sabotage and harassment; often rural and organized in large groups [syn: guerrilla force]

The often rural makes it sound like it could easily be illegal.Check

The sabotage and harassment can lead to causing fear. Check

Thus in many situations a guerilla force can be a terrorist group.

freedom fighter
n.

One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

This definately is illegal(at least by the sovergn government). However, it won't neccesarily cause fear, though there may be a very good chance that they will. In either the government or the populace.

So thus one mans freedom or guerrilla fighter can be another mans terrorist.

[DarkLadyNyara]

I am, however, equating ramming a plane into a building with thousands of innocents to dropping bombs from a plane or launching missiles from 1,000 miles away onto a city full of thousands of innocents.

Yeah, exept that the later isn't usually condemned. Terrorism itself is a fact, but what gets called terrorism is pretty subjective.