Terrorism as "collateral damages"

[Tiassa]

Those answers just don't work

Terrorists deliberately attack civilians (non combatants) only. Rare is the event when a terrorist would attack a military target...they prefer instead to attack unarmed civilians.

A bit out of date, eh?

Perhaps you can help me understand this phenomenon. In the face of certain questions, people often back away from applied definitions and retreat to abstract ones. Why?

Collateral damage occurs when attacking legitimate combatant targets.

Like firing a missile into a crowd of civilians because a couple of people you think might be terrorists might be there?

 

[BenTheMan]

Isn't terrorism also collateral damages of political policies?

Why isn't it treated like other collateral damages are?

Could you imagine if al Qaeda had the military capabilities of, say, America? Do you think they'd bother with tactical weapons?

Three words disprove your argument:

Carpet bombing works.

Is there a difference between American Special Forces pulling out children from their beds and executing them and Afghanis pulling up missionaries and beheading them?

How many missionaries behead Afghanis?

 

[Tiassa]

Um ....

How many missionaries behead Afghanis?

Relevance?

 

[GeoffP]

Why are you implying that Joe's response is an abstract definition? Do you understand the difference between firing a missile at a target who surrounds himself with civilians and simply detonating a bomb in a crowd of civilians that you hate, and wish to oppress or destroy?

 

[GeoffP]

Relevance?

The relevance is clear, though I think Ben intends it as a humorous rebuttal.

 

[kenworth]

Because it is not collateral damage. Terrorists deliberately attack civilians (non combatants) only. Rare is the event when a terrorist would attack a military target...they prefer instead to attack unarmed civilians.

terrorists dont attack military targets.by definition

 

[S.A.M.]

Could you imagine if al Qaeda had the military capabilities of, say, America? Do you think they'd bother with tactical weapons?

Which al Qaeda? The actor who taped his voice? The British/Americans dressed in Arab clothing setting off car bombs in Iraq? The ones fighting the US in Iraq/Afghanistan since seven years?

Three words disprove your argument:

Carpet bombing works.

Where has it worked? For whom?

How does it "work"?

 

[Tiassa]

Dresden? Rotterdam? Wesel?

Where has it worked? For whom?

It worked for the Allies in Germany during WWII.

How does it "work"?

Carpet bombing is also called "terror bombing" for a reason. In addition to clearing everything hostile out of the way, it scares the holy bejeezus out of anyone who survives and crushes morale.

 

[S.A.M.]

It worked for the Allies in Germany during WWII.

Did it really? How do you figure that? What did it change, besides killing maybe millions of civilians?

Carpet bombing is also called "terror bombing" for a reason. In addition to clearing everything hostile out of the way, it scares the holy bejeezus out of anyone who survives and crushes morale.

Ah, its terrorism. But terrorism doesn't work, does it?

 

[GeoffP]

Did it really? How do you figure that? What did it change, besides killing maybe millions of civilians?

It killed skilled civilians working in factories. It destroyed the German labour force.

Ah, its terrorism. But terrorism doesn't work, does it?

As in all things, it utterly depends on the will of the terrorists and the resistance to them.

So then...since carpet bombing is terrorism, and terrorism is bad - as you allude to above - ...then is terrorism bad?

 

[Tiassa]

Coercive force

Ah, its terrorism. But terrorism doesn't work, does it?

Depends on who you ask. Additionally, as society evolves, standards change. Terrorism, biological warfare, crimes against humanity: it used to be called, simply, "war".

 

[S.A.M.]

Depends on who you ask.

Didn't the Germans invent the concept of Blitzkrieg?

 

[GeoffP]

Didn't the Germans invent the concept of Blitzkrieg?

Relevance?

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

Didn't the Germans invent the concept of Blitzkrieg?

Yes and no. Kind of, sort of. The idea of moving swiftly and ruthlessly in order to overwhelm the enemy was not new, but the specific elements emerging in WWII were, according to the technology involved.

• • •​

Relevance?

Tit for tat? Do unto others as they have done unto others? The idea that since the "bad guys" behave badly, so can the "good guys"? Kind of like Americans and torture in the War on Terror? Or, maybe, the willful destruction of civilians?

Quit trolling.

 

[GeoffP]

Tit for tat? Do unto others as they have done unto others? The idea that since the "bad guys" behave badly, so can the "good guys"? Kind of like Americans and torture in the War on Terror? Or, maybe, the willful destruction of civilians?

Actually, the point was that Blitzkrieg, as a more tactical-maneuver concept, doesn't really relate all that well to atrocities against the industrial base of an entire nation. It wasn't revolutionary because it allowed the user to mow civilians down more effectively. I think this is often confused in the layman, and Sam was creating a link that wasn't real.

Quit trolling.

Don't be absurd. This hasn't the slightest thing to do with trolling.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Actually, the point was that Blitzkrieg, as a more tactical-maneuver concept, doesn't really relate all that well to atrocities against the industrial base of an entire nation. It wasn't revolutionary because it allowed the user to mow civilians down more effectively. I think this is often confused in the layman, and Sam was creating a link that wasn't real.

Only to those predisposed to finding something to complain about. The question makes perfect sense to me in its context—e.g., pay attention to the discussion.

Don't be absurd. This hasn't the slightest thing to do with trolling.

Then don't wait for an invitation to be useful.

 

[GeoffP]

Only to those predisposed to finding something to complain about. The question makes perfect sense to me in its context—e.g., pay attention to the discussion.

A bit too esoteric to be averagely esoteric.

Then don't wait for an invitation to be useful.

I don't. The condition of the questioner always precedes such questions, frankly.

 

[BenTheMan]

Where has it worked? For whom?

How does it "work"?

Ask the survivors from Hamburg or Dresden.

 

[quadraphonics]

Or, to consider the validity of the question, does it matter so much whether one plunges the knife into the heart, or flips the switch that starts the Rube Goldberg process that drops the bowling ball to crush their skull? Or, in that latter case, can we blame the hamster running frantically in his wheel at stage 27?

It does if the hamster is a moral agent in his own right. And to that question, I reject the notion that terrorists are some sort of automata. This sort of moral reductionism makes a hash of reality, and in any case is only being applied selectively and cravenly to provoke one side while exhonerating the other: it's destructive, and done in bad faith.

If applied in good faith, you end up in a situation where everybody is reactive and nobody has political agency, and the whole thing is the fault of God (if you're religious) or simply human nature (if you aren't).

 

[quadraphonics]

Ah, its terrorism. But terrorism doesn't work, does it?

Depends on what you want to achieve. Terrorism works great if your goal is to terrorize people. For most other purposes, it's not so useful.

Likewise torture: great for terrorizing populations, not so much for gathering information.