- This topic has 8 voices and 44 replies.
-
Posts
-
If what you say is true, it would make 9/11 a non-terrorist event, since it was an economic objective - whether symbolic or actual - that they hit. It would also make something like the Eric Rudolph bombing at the Olympics a non-terrorist event since some nails or shrapnel with an explosive in a backpack, by a lone person, isn't really "well thought out" (relatively speaking). It might also make acts by U.S. special ops to destroy bridges or piping or whatever "terrorist" acts since they're well-trained soldiers, it's deliberate and well-thought out, and they do it towards enemy governments.
Yes, but it was an economic objective against the American government. The target was not the people in the towers, their target was America.The Olympic bombing was more a criminal act than an act of terrorism.destroying bridges - war strategy, not terrorism. And it's done towards an enemy, not a government. Our guys blew up bridges to prevent the German army from advancing, that's the objective. Is that the same as bringing the German government down?(OK, did I dig myself out of this hole or just make it deeper. ;D)
For the most part, insurgents are not professional soldiers,
A year has passed and I would like to retract this statement. I am incorrect in saying this. Insurgents are very well-trained in guerilla warfare.On topic:Michael Collins, Gerry Adams, 1920's IRA, 1970's IRA and PIRA: not terrorists. The random killing of innocent civilians by British forces in the 1920 and 1972 Bloody Sunday incidents could, IMO, be defined more as acts of terrorism, but that may be stretching it. It was a tactic to make the Irish Revolutionists submit. Comments?About the only ones I'd say who are terrorists by definition would be CIRA,the paramilitary branch of the PIRA, as they were mainly the ones who randomly (or so it seemed) bombed city busses, civilians, and governement entities.(Although quite different, there are so many parallels with Iraq and the Northern Ireland conflict. To me, it's what makes this even that much more interesting)
So what is the difference between terrorists and revolutionaries? Just the side of the fence you are on?
How's this for a broad definition; Terrorists are not part of a legitimate armed forces.
The legal term is "unlawful enemy combatant."
Ok see if I'm going in the right direction…how much of a government does there have to be to have command over “Lawful combatants?”
Ok see if I'm going in the right direction...how much of a government does there have to be to have command over "Lawful combatants?"
Don't they need to be affiliated to a recognized nation state? Otherwise they are what are termed non-state actors. Al-Quaeda fits the definition of a non-state actor I think.
What about Hezbollah? If I'm not mistaken, they are a legitimate branch of the Lebanese government. But are they terrorists by definition?
Hezbollah were terrorists long before they got the cloak of legitimacy through winning the Palestinian elections. There actions since have shown that they still deserve the label.
Just throwing this for context, how long after the Declaration of Independence was is before we were recognized as a legitimate government? Prior to that could we have been considered terrorists to the British?
I believe that we were recognized by France even before the surrender at Yorktown. That was one of the things that torpedoed the Confederacy, no European government would recognize them for fear of alienating the superior economic might of the North, even though some nations, such as Britain, leaned towards recognizing the CSA none ever did that I am aware of.
Wouldn't it be fair to say that defining terrorism is like beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder. Defining a terrorist defies objective criteria no matter how hard we try because it is all in how the perpetrator is percieved by different audiences that determines whether he is a terrorist or not.The French thought Jerry Lewis was a talented actor and the Germans thought David Hasselhof could sing. I would disagree with both, so who is correct?
Wouldn't it be fair to say that defining terrorism is like beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder. Defining a terrorist defies objective criteria no matter how hard we try because it is all in how the perpetrator is percieved by different audiences that determines whether he is a terrorist or not.
That's probably the best definition yet.
