Terrorism: Good Strategy or Crime against humanity?

[superstring01]

And I think guerilla warfare methods were around long, long before the American revolution.

Correct, but it didn't get its name until the early 1800's from Spain. But, suffice it to say, this type of fighting long predates skirmish lines.

Was that terrorism, or guerilla warfare? Big difference!

Also correct, but terrorism existed in all of them, and the British have always sited the blowing up of civilian targets as one of the prime reasons for growing tired of Ireland. And even without Ireland, Algeria, Eritrea & Madrid were all resounding successes, whether intended or not.

True, but often times they are mixed.

True, but nobody can say that terrorism is not effective.

The thing in Spain just might, maybe, be a "victory" for the terrorist, but I'm not going to speculate until I know a lot more about it. In particular, was that the intent of the terrrorists, or just a happy accident?

I'm leaning towards LUCK. The attacks were intentionally set off to effect the election, but it wasn't sure which way it would cause Spain to vote. As it turned out, it benefited the terrorists.

~String

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Terrorism is relative. Me standing in the area in front of your front door everyday, leering at your door, would in no way terrorise me. Perhaps I just want your door. Fucking waterbags have no known option but to kill each other off for whatever reason. Humanity is the crime against humanity. Death to waterbags!

 

[one_raven]

When the American patriots declared their independence, they did so with written notification and they signed their names to the document. John Hancock signed it so large you could see it from across the room so "king George could read it without his spectacles". Terrorists don't do that. They cower in the shadows never owning up to their actions.

The American revolution was fought by an army. It was a declared conflict, and they attacked military targets. THEY WERE NOT TERRORISTS.

http://www.daveross.com/binladen.html

 

[S.A.M.]

Thanks for the link, I've never seen the whole thing before.

 

[one_raven]

Benjamin Franklin said, upon signing the declaration of Independence,

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.​

Why did he say that? Because he was not a terrorist, hiding in the shadows, but a patriot, making a stand against tyrany. George Washington, rather than hiding in the mountains, faced the British on the field of battle; and ultimately defeated them. These were no terrorists. Any definition of terrorism that includes the founding fathers is so broad as to be meaningless.

No.
Because they all knew they were committing acts of treason against their government and that it was punishable by death.

 

[Vkothii]

War is not terrorism; terrorism is when countries (with people in them) kill each other, but call it "a war".
Wars are excuses, for dirty tactics. Necessarily, propaganda of one 'side' labels the other side 'a group of terrorists', which the other side also does in respect of the actions of the first side.

It's all about finding a reason to kill someone, really.
It's easier to 'take' something like land when you've cleared it of the verminous terrorists first. You kill all the nasty terrorists since they are not 'human', or 'kind and compassionate', so they deserve nothing - no land, no water, no buffalos, no life.

 

[one_raven]

Any definition of terrorism that includes the founding fathers is so broad as to be meaningless.

HAHAHA!

I just caught that.

I am not necessarily saying the founding father were terrorists, but that's just ridiculous.

In other words, it doesn't matter what they did - they could do no wrong.
We should base our guage of right and wrong on their actions.

You are arguing from a forgone conclusion, which essentially makes your argument as meaningless as any apologist's.

Any argument aginst the existence of God is invalid for my God.
There! I just proved the existence of God. I should get a Nobel Prize for that.

Any definition of slavery that includes the founding fathers actions is so broad as to be meaningless.
How's that?

 

[one_raven]

Any definition of terrorism that does not include the founding fathers is too narrow as to be meaningless.

How valid is that argument?

 

[Baron Max]

No. Because they all knew they were committing acts of treason against their government and that it was punishable by death.

But it wasn't terrorism!!

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Any definition of terrorism that does not include the founding fathers is too narrow as to be meaningless.

How valid is that argument?

Not very valid. Because if nothing else, the definition becomes so broad as to be meaningless.

Hell, if it was that broad, terrorism would include hard, fast, reckless driving in rush-hour traffic!

Baron Max

 

[Vkothii]

It's a label.
It means what the person using it thinks it means. It's so general as to be all-encompassing.
When it comes to any military exercise of any kind or political end whatsoever 'terror' is employed, which generally is equivalent to 'fear'.

How many politicians never use fear, to promote their political ends? How many wars have been fought that never used terrorist tactics? How about: "absolutely none"?

 

[iceaura]

No. Because they all knew they were committing acts of treason against their government and that it was punishable by death.
”
But it wasn't terrorism!!

What the Revolutionaries did to the Loyalists was terrorism under any definition that includes the Algerians and Tamils. What the Revolutionaries did in fighting the British was terrorism under any definition that includes the IED planters from Fallujah.

On what basis? {buffalo}
”
The basis that no one counted them.

The estimates are based on evidence: including actual counts of kills, bills presented by the professional hunters, the physical alterations of the landscape and ecological adjustments, eyewitness observations by experienced biologists, the organization of mass hunts, the scale and intensity of the nomadic civilizations dependent on them, and so forth.

The killing of the buffalo on the Plains was as deliberate an act as Stalin's starving of the kulaks. And quite similarly motivated. This was usually called "terrorism", in the latter 20th century, when Stalin was under discussion.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Sure. They revolted against the British [an act of terrorism].

Please see the discussion of the definition of "Terrorism" on the Linguistics board. Attacks against legitimate military targets may be revolution, insurrection, guerrilla warfare or many other things, but they are not terrorism. And the phrase "military target" takes on a broad meaning in the context of one people occupying another. Strictly speaking, it could conceivably apply to all able-bodied adult nationals of the occupying nation who have indicated their intention to support the occupation.

Terrorism has worked for the United States. As I insist in the other discussion, the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki perfectly fit what should be the textbook definition of the word "terrorism": An attack of military style, scope or magnitude against civilian targets, as an attempt to terrorize the civilian population into supporting a cause so unpopular among them that there is no peaceful way to garner that support.

Terrorism is extortion. And the U.S. nuclear attack on Japan was the only major terrorist act in history that actually achieved its goal. (As I said in my other post, please correct me if I'm wrong on that.) The Japanese citizenry gave up its code of honor and demanded that its government surrender. Every modern terrorist can point to the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and say to his skeptical countrymen, "See, terrorism worked for America so it can work for us."

This is a bad enough legacy for us to live with. There's no need to creatively redefine the American Revolution as terrorism. Once again, Sam is falling into her old habit of pretending to be an expert on America and the West when she doesn't know shit about us.

BTW, Sam, did you notice that Obama really has promised to shut down Guantanamo, just as we told you he would the last time you started pontificating bullshit about America?

 

[S.A.M.]

Please see the discussion of the definition of "Terrorism" on the Linguistics board. Attacks against legitimate military targets may be revolution, insurrection, guerrilla warfare or many other things, but they are not terrorism. And the phrase "military target" takes on a broad meaning in the context of one people occupying another. Strictly speaking, it could conceivably apply to all able-bodied adult nationals of the occupying nation who have indicated their intention to support the occupation.

But who was occupying whom? Even the "Patriots" were occupying the native Americans. So it was basically a part of the occupation fighting another part of the occupation using terror tactics for the purpose of coercion.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Any definition of terrorism that does not include the founding fathers is too narrow as to be meaningless.

How valid is that argument?

Any definition of slavery that includes the founding fathers actions is so broad as to be meaningless.
How's that?

All right, settle down . It's true, I do sort of idolize the founding fathers. When someone calls them terrorists, I may tend to react a bit like SAM when someone criticizes Muslims. May I refer you to Fraggle's more dispassionate definition of terrorism and how it does not apply to the founding fathers.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

But who was occupying whom? Even the "Patriots" were occupying the native Americans.

Applying the standards of our era to events of an earlier era is rarely helpful in understanding them. Up until a few decades ago it was an almost universal tenet of Western civilization that we had not just a right but a duty to conquer the remaining Neolithic tribes and "civilize" them. Almost every civilization is built upon the ruins of the villages of the previous residents. Even you Indians are latecomers who moved in on somebody else's homeland. Even, almost surely, the Dravidians. It doesn't do much for our analysis of our dealings with each other to start flaming us over the way we all dealt with the aboriginal populations of our lands.

The American Revolution was fought by the imprecise rules of war and revolution that were accepted, informally, in its day. The Geneva Convention was quite a few years off.

 

[S.A.M.]

But we're not judging anything by the rules of its day, are we? The definitions of today apply retrospectively, or do you redefine everything based on time and space?

 

[distantcube]

Terrorism has worked for the United States. As I insist in the other discussion, the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki perfectly fit what should be the textbook definition of the word "terrorism": An attack of military style, scope or magnitude against civilian targets, as an attempt to terrorize the civilian population into supporting a cause so unpopular among them that there is no peaceful way to garner that support.

Whether Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets is a matter of controversy.

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Bombing_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Hiroshima was a strategic military headquarters and target. Supporters of the bombings have emphasized the strategic significance of the targets. Hiroshima was used as headquarters of the Fifth Division and the 2nd General Army, which commanded the defense of southern Japan with 40,000 military personnel in the city.

Hiroshima was a communication center, an assembly area for troops, a storage point and had several military factories as well.
Nagasaki was an industrial center and military target. Nagasaki was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

The bombings were incredibly indiscriminant, though. But I guess that's the nature of all bombings, including the firebombing of areas of Imperial Japan, and the bombing of Dresden.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Might is right? So terrorism should work?

It works about as good as any human infection works.

 

[Ophiolite]

When has terrorism ever worked?

Arguably it played a contributory role in the establishment of Israel, or was the King David Hotel explosion a novel approach by Conrad Hilton to dealing with competitors?