Let's talk about Terrorists

[Exist]

ter·ror·ism n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

If you believe that in war, there are no innocents, then how is terrorism not a valid tactic?


Or do you believe that there are innocents in war?

 

[Exist]

No opinions on whether or not there are innocents in war, or if terrorism is a valid tactic?

I want to discuss it...

 

[Marek]

Technically, by your definition, terrorism is a valid tactic and has been used and is still used by many countries and individuals today. The problem that people have with terrorists today is that their reasons for violence seems unjustified. As for their targets, I would consider the individuals in the WTC innocents, since the US was not at war against these terrorists. Now that we are, I believe that no US citizen is an innocent target. All contribute to the war effort and are valid targets for terrorists. As for individuals in the middle east that are victims of suicide bombings, I don't really know...

 

[Exist]

The problem that people have with terrorists today is that their reasons for violence seems unjustified.

I would agree. But I'm talking about the military acts themselves.

I mean, if you're willing to kill many people, or better yet, willing to die for a cause, then what's terrorism? What's torture?

I believe that I would agree with the Art of War and the old saying of "There are no rules in love or war".....all morals fly out the window when you're putting your life on the table for a cause.

But getting back to the original thought, I agree with you. Since I am paying taxes that create bullets that go into the enemy, I am just as guilty as the soldier who shoots the bullet, am I not?

 

[UberLutheran]

If you believe that in war, there are no innocents, then how is terrorism not a valid tactic?


Or do you believe that there are innocents in war?

Why I believe there are innocents in war:

A war crimes investigation photo of the disfigured leg of a survivor from Ravensbrueck, Polish political prisoner Helena Hegier (Rafalska), who was subjected to medical experiments in 1942. This photograph was entered as evidence for the prosecution at the Medical Trial in Nuremberg. The disfiguring scars resulted from incisions made by medical personnel that were purposely infected with bacteria, dirt, and slivers of glass.

Edith F. was a victim of the children’s euthanasia program which took place in Germany between 1939 and 1945.

Some children survived at Auschwitz because they were twins useful in genetic research conducted by Dr. Josef Mengele at the camp.

Children in a German concentration camp.

Men imprisoned in the Omarska detention camp of northern Bosnia-Herzegovina, where 6,000 Croats and Muslims were held by Serbs.

Victims of the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia

A man shows the skulls of Khmer Rouge victims to a boy in Tuolsleng Genocide Museum in Phnom Penh.

The exhumation of the Killing Fields at Choeung Ek, Cambodia

Victims of the Rwandan genocide, 1994


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Child burned with napalm, Vietnam, 1968[/FONT]
​

 

[Exist]

I'm sorry, I didn't get your point.

Why aren't there innocents in war? Because war is brutal? Not emotionally pleasing?

 

[JustOneWay]

But getting back to the original thought, I agree with you. Since I am paying taxes that create bullets that go into the enemy, I am just as guilty as the soldier who shoots the bullet, am I not?

By law you pay your taxes. I would consider you blameless because of the law, unless of course you contribute in the manufacturing of weapons.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I am not veteran of combat, however, as a Marine leader I have been through enough combat leadeship courses to know that innocents are always killed in a war. We usually refer to it as collateral damage and we do our best to limit it. The big difference between a national military and a terrorist organization, are terrorists kill indiscriminately and have no governmental entity to answer to.

 

[Mister Emu]

I believe that I would agree with the Art of War.....all morals fly out the window when you're putting your life on the table for a cause.

I would have to ask if you've ever read the Art of War based on this statement... I have... multiple times... I never saw this concept appear...

There are innocents in war... children for one... the infirmed for another...

There is a fine line between terrorism and acceptable military startegy in my philosophy...

 

[Alarum]

I am not veteran of combat, however, as a Marine leader I have been through enough combat leadeship courses to know that innocents are always killed in a war. We usually refer to it as collateral damage and we do our best to limit it. The big difference between a national military and a terrorist organization, are terrorists kill indiscriminately and have no governmental entity to answer to.

Terrorists do not kill indiscriminantly. That is a mistake. From the bombing of the USS Cole to the 9/11 attacks, nothing terrorists have done smacks of killing indiscriminatly, without planning, forethought, or selection. In fact the killings are partially that of opportunity, but also highly discriminating - targets that will cause the most fear and panic. Thus shopping malls and buses are preferable to individual homes or meeting halls (because meeting halls can be secured to make people feel safe, whereas people know there's no realistic way to secure a bus). Boats in the middle of the ocean are preferable to boats at harbor, the largest buildings in the largest city in America is preferable to a random section of city, etc.

 

[nvxplorer]

Terrorists are fighters without conventional weapons. If the Palestinians, or Al Qaeda for that matter, possessed tanks and fighter jets, they would use them and find themselves in a more conventional war.

Attacking civilian targets is not unique to terrorists. Hitler bombed London, the US bombed Hiroshima, and invading forces inherently invade civilian space.

 

[Exist]

I would have to ask if you've ever read the Art of War based on this statement... I have... multiple times... I never saw this concept appear...

Hmm, it's been a while since I've read it, but I thought that was part of it. I do remember it talking about fighting unconventionally, and that if you want to win, you must not follow the restrictions of the King/Ruler, but I think you're right. It doesn't just say, "All morals go out the window."

 

[Verv]

If you believe that in war, there are no innocents, then how is terrorism not a valid tactic?


Or do you believe that there are innocents in war?

Naturally, there are innocents in war -- those who do not volunteer to fight the war. Someone who is not in the process of bearing arms against a nation cannot b conceived as the nation's enemy due to the fact it is a mere resident of a country one is at war with.

However, attacking anyone engaged n the military services of their nation is entirely valid.

 

[Law of Loud]

in war, there are no innocents

Just because somebody said this doesn't mean it's true. There are plenty of innocents in war.

 

[Blackguard_]

Naturally, there are innocents in war -- those who do not volunteer to fight the war. Someone who is not in the process of bearing arms against a nation cannot b conceived as the nation's enemy due to the fact it is a mere resident of a country one is at war with.

However, attacking anyone engaged n the military services of their nation is entirely valid.

So we're back to the 18th century in terms of who is a legitimate target?

I thought modern military thought was Total War, which is why they bomb factories and power plants and the like. Plenty of civilians there. And aren't they considered legitamate targets? In WW2 they certainly were.

Would the Schweinfurt Raid have been considered a legitimate attack by todays military?

 

[Law of Loud]

So we're back to the 18th century in terms of who is a legitimate target?

I thought modern military thought was Total War, which is why they bomb factories and power plants and the like. Plenty of civilians there. And aren't they considered legitamate targets? In WW2 they certainly were.

Would the Schweinfurt Raid have been considered a legitimate attack by todays military?

To be entirely honest, I dislike the concept of total war. Still I'm willing to accept it on the grounds that you are fighting a war for national survival with a very real threat to that survival present. For example, if we were at war, and our enemy was carrying out a total war, I'd expect that we'd return it. Sure, these days that's also termed MAD, and I'd die, living next to Boeing... but that'd be the reality of a total war. You can't let somebody carry out a total war on you, and not retaliate, or there's no reason for them not to.

I'm not certain exactly what was so horrid about Schweinfurt as compared to a number of the firebombings that in many cases seemed to affect civilian targets as much as they did military-related targets. To that note, I'm still split on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You see, I'm not entirely convinced that Japan would have surrendered, and that shock and awe might have been necessary to avoid an invasion that would have cost exhorbitant amounts of life on both sides. To some extent too, I would never have been born. My grandpa was attached to an armor unit that would have landed in the first wave of an amphibious assault, and the expected casualty rates for those units were catastrophic.

 

[Exist]

To be entirely honest, I dislike the concept of total war. Still I'm willing to accept it on the grounds that you are fighting a war for national survival with a very real threat to that survival present

So in less serious situations where you are sending troops in to shoot other human beings in the face for your cause, you have to shy away from blowing up factories, because even though it would help you win, which is the point of war, the cause isn't worthy of those types of acts?



And if it is moral to kill "innocent" civilians to help win a war, then what's wrong with a small underdog faction killing civilians to spread awareness and fear, or bombing key places or killing key people to help win their cause? Don't argue that these terrorists don't have a good cause, because I haven't given them one, you don't know their cause. If their cause was worthy, is this a valid war tactic?

Naturally, there are innocents in war -- those who do not volunteer to fight the war.

What about those who volunteer to give money to organizations that train and equip soldiers, soldiers that are fighting the war. Are they innocent?

 

[Blackguard_]

Sure, these days that's also termed MAD, and I'd die, living next to Boeing... but that'd be the reality of a total war. You can't let somebody carry out a total war on you, and not retaliate, or there's no reason for them not to.

That's not quite what I meant by Total War. I meant the enemy country's populace is considered the enemy and not just the military.

MAD refers specifically to nuclear war, which while it would be a total war, a total war does not have to be nuclear.

I'm not certain exactly what was so horrid about Schweinfurt as compared to a number of the firebombings that in many cases seemed to affect civilian targets as much as they did military-related targets.

It wasn't supposed to be a horrid example, but Jmverville said only those baring arms were legimate targets, and this seems to contradict a lot of American military practice, and I was especially curious as IIRC Jmverville is in the military, so I am curious as to why he though that and how it relates to the present military, especially as IIRC they bombed civilian targets like power plants in Iraqi Freedom.

And I thought a bombing a ball-bearing factory important to producing panzers would be a better example of targeting the unarmed than targeting civilians that have nothing to do with the war effort, which is much less of a gray area.

 

[Autumnleaf]

When fighting a war there are military targets and targets which support the military such as bullet factories, power plants, and even farms which feed the men on the ground. Then there are plain old civilian targets such as the welfare office and the corner 711. Terrorists seldom attack military targets. They do things like blow up buses filled with civilians which is terrorism because they can not hope to win a war. The people shooting and blowing up Marines in Iraq are in essence fighting a guerilla war against the US.

 

[Exist]

Terrorists seldom attack military targets. They do things like blow up buses filled with civilians which is terrorism because they can not hope to win a war.

So what you're saying is, they know they're going to lose, so they're blowing up stuff out of spite, all because they hate our freedom?

The people shooting and blowing up Marines in Iraq are in essence fighting a guerilla war against the US.

And guerilla warfare is quite effective, isn't it? I mean, it usually is. When you have low troops, low money, you use intellegence. You lower enemy morale. If you have a cause, you make yourself and your cause known, using propoganda to sweeten it up, make it look beautiful. Civilian support of the enemy will go down. Tagged with intellegent guerilla warfare, knowledge of the terrain and how to exploit that knowledge....

If you don't have any of that, you're screwed.

I'm tired, and sick. And sick and tired of work.