Terrorists?

Saint Marcus · September 8, 2003, 06:19

Are the "terrorists" who target soldiers and military installations, really terrorists?

I mean, specifically targetting civilians like in busses in Israel, or the WTC 2 years ago, that's clearly terrorism and horrible.

But those that send that plane into the Pentagon (military installation), or that are killing American troops in Iraq, or Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories, are they terrorists too? Or more broadly, are they as "evil" or "wrong" as those that kill civilians?

Kropotkin · September 8, 2003, 06:26

Well, I'm not one of the masters of the written words that are commonly known as laws. However, for the attacks to be perfectly legal I think they have to have some way of distinguish themselves from people around them, ie some sort of substitute for a uniform. I don't know if any of those that have killed troops in Iraq has had anything like that. That they don't doesn't, as far as I know, mean that they are terrorists though. No matter what we think or what the law says, they'll be called terrorists though. It's part of the propaganda war.

Harovan · September 8, 2003, 06:34

Resistance against occupants, aimed at soldiers and military installations, is not terrorism. If it were so, the French resistance and the Russian and Yugoslav partisans would have been terrorists too. One can argue if their cause is right or not, but they are certainly not terrorists.

Agathon · September 8, 2003, 06:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Resistance against occupants, aimed at soldiers and military installations, is not terrorism. If it were so, the French resistance and the Russian and Yugoslav partisans would have been terrorists too.

And that's what the Nazis claimed they were. Just shows you who's company GWB and Co. are keeping these days.

Saint Marcus · September 8, 2003, 06:38

The partisans or resistance in WW2 against the Nazis were terrorists too then? (no uniforms, etc). And what about American (and other countries') covert ops?

and of course it's a propaganda was, and all enemies are terrorists, but their has to be some legal destinction.

I believe the Pentagon themselves used the term "unlawful combatant" for those without uniforms. But is every "unlawful combatant" a terrorist?

Kropotkin · September 8, 2003, 06:38

There, there. Making quick and random refrences to nazis is never fair.

Agathon · September 8, 2003, 06:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Making quick and random refrences to nazis is never fair.

But always guaranteed to produce howls from the targeted party.

Kropotkin · September 8, 2003, 06:48

Yeah, surely. As a matter of fact there was a very amusing example of this in a swedish paper last week. As the referendum for the EMU is comming up, a swedish tabloid that's pro-euro printed something quite amusing. One of the parties against the euro is centerpartiet, a party that's eh center on the political spectrum, lead by Maud Olofsson. The paper, called Expressen, published a text by a far right wing party that's also against the euro (for nationalist reasons) that hailed the center leader for her "common sense".

To summon up, a paper for the euro published a piece where nazis hailed one of the front figures against the euro for her common sense...

Agathon · September 8, 2003, 06:54

That's just terrible. Funny, but terrible.

Chemical Ollie · September 8, 2003, 06:54

We see both kinds. IMO, those attacking US soldiers in Iraq are guerilla fighters, while those attacking UN and civil leaders are pure terrorists. By the way, a recent UN resolution stated that attacks on UN personel is a crime of war.

Saint Marcus · September 8, 2003, 08:21

What about the Sept 11th hijackers who crashed into the Pentagon (not WTC). Terrorists or not?

BeBro · September 8, 2003, 08:26

Terrorists, since there wasn´t a war going on between the US and the countries of the terrorists who piloted the planes.

Kropotkin · September 8, 2003, 08:30

There where also civilians on the plane that crashed into pentagon. They would have to be taken into consideration.

Harovan · September 8, 2003, 08:32

Even if the planes would be empty otherwise, they would be Terrorists for the reason mentioned by BeBro.

BeBro · September 8, 2003, 08:39

Also they were not more than private persons - normally in international law states make war, not private persons. If I go and kill my neighbor, I do not declare war against him. There are certainly grey zones, as guerilla movements etc. but the US hadn´t occupied eg. Saudi Arabia (from where most of the terrorists came), so Al Quaeda cannot count as liberation movement.

red_jon · September 8, 2003, 08:50

Is having dissenting thoughts without a uniform also terrorism?

Kropotkin · September 8, 2003, 08:52

Yeah, well, everyone is a possible terrorist until proven to be a patriot!

Spiffor · September 8, 2003, 09:01

I heard that in Italy, the word "terrorist" is misused terribly, and describes about any form of disobedience. For example, a colleague of mine was in a train stopped on the train. She heard that "terrorists blocked the track"

And anti-globalization demonstrators in Genoa were called "terrorists" too

Proteus_MST · September 8, 2003, 09:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Yeah, well, everyone is a possible terrorist until proven to be a patriot!

So everyone should be sent to Guantanamo Bay

Or, as Scott Adams (the Creator of Dilbert) mentioned:

To prevent crime throw everyone livng on earth into a Jail and let there be only one Person remaining outside as a Guard:
Marlyn vos Savant, the most intelligent Person on earth

Whaleboy · September 8, 2003, 09:08

If you must I'm sure theres something about this on my site.

Otherwise, I'll spare you the obligatory rant involving several mentions of "this sucks".

Sandman · September 8, 2003, 09:27

I consider terrorism to be guys with bombs or improvised explosives sneaking around and blowing stuff up. The civilian/military distinction doesn't matter; it certainly doesn't to the countries involved.

Spiffor · September 8, 2003, 09:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
I consider terrorism to be guys with bombs or improvised explosives sneaking around and blowing stuff up.

Not quite. Terrorism is a technique that aims solely at striking fear in your enemy's public opinion, so that it pushes for a policy change in your favor.

Attacking troops is "terrorism" only if you consider it is anormal for troops to die.

Proteus_MST · September 8, 2003, 09:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
I consider terrorism to be guys with bombs or improvised explosives sneaking around and blowing stuff up. The civilian/military distinction doesn't matter; it certainly doesn't to the countries involved.

So you de facto consider the Partisans of the WW2 (in Yugoslavia, France etc.) Terrorists

MichaeltheGreat · September 8, 2003, 11:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Are the "terrorists" who target soldiers and military installations, really terrorists?

I mean, specifically targetting civilians like in busses in Israel, or the WTC 2 years ago, that's clearly terrorism and horrible.

But those that send that plane into the Pentagon (military installation), or that are killing American troops in Iraq, or Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories, are they terrorists too? Or more broadly, are they as "evil" or "wrong" as those that kill civilians?

Those who sent the plane into the Pentagon hijacked a plane with civilians on board and killed several dozen of them.

Foreigners in Iraq who attack US or allied military forces would also nicely fall under the category of unlawful combatants, if you want to be legalistic. Iraqis who attack solely military targets may be lawful combatants.

Car bombing mosques or the UN building shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

Lefty Scaevola · September 8, 2003, 12:27

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Car bombing mosques or the UN building shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

You are talking about typical Apolytoneers here?

GePap · September 8, 2003, 13:39

The attack on the pentagon counts as terrorism: first, as MtG stated (obviously), the men hijacked a civilian airliner for their kamakaze attack. Also, Al qaeda ius a transnational private org: no state of war between it and the US exists, nor could exist. sicne Al Qaeda is not viewed as a member in standing of the club of nations.

Lefty Scaevola · September 8, 2003, 13:42

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Al qaeda ius a transnational private org: no state of war between it and the US exists, nor could exist.

Not entirely correct, nations may wage war on such private organizations, but they may not lawfuly wage war back or otherwize wage it.

GePap · September 8, 2003, 13:45

How could that be? the state would not have to follow the rules of war in such a case: simply use their own internal criminal codes. The struggle maybe a war rhetorically, but not legally.

Lefty Scaevola · September 8, 2003, 14:30

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
How could that be? the state would not have to follow the rules of war in such a case: simply use their own internal criminal codes. The struggle maybe a war rhetorically, but not legally.

It happens all the time, maybe more commonly that wars between nations. Rebellion is the most coomon form of war with a private group, but there is also with terrorists, pirates, philabusteros/private adveturers, freebooters.
One of the 4 1947 Genava Convetions codifies some of the particular rules for "War not of an International nature". Dealing with some of this area. The history of various colonial areas is replete with wars against private armies od foreigners trying to take over. You fight them with all the rigors of war, and then you pick and choose among the survivors whether and how you want to prosecute for various things like treason, rebellion, piracy, war crimes, non-war crimes, etc. You get to apply all the harhness of BOTH war and crimminal prosecution against them. When a RN frigate ran down and blast a pirate ship with cannons, it was not serving a warrant, it was waging WAR against the pirates. Walker's private expeditions to take over a Central American country were met with and crushed by WAR, with the few survivors being then subjected to crimminal prosecution.

Lefty Scaevola · September 8, 2003, 14:44

The around 4 years ago little rebeelion out in west Texas by "The Republic of Texas" guys could have been treated as War by Either Federal of Sate government, and its participants could have been charged with treason. The goverments in that case CHOOSE to use exclusively the regime of crimminal law and police power, because it was adquate to the task, but they could have called out the Militia and rolled over them with tanks if they so chose.