when does the definition change?

[Fintin]

i got a question for yall...

when does someone fighting for a cause they feel i just, become a terrorist?


im gonna let this sit for abit then get back with some thoughts of my own

[Kilgor]

Its changed alot lately, thanks alot to the left wing who consider normal military operations terrorist activities

[chauncy republicans]

Its changed alot lately, thanks alot to the left wing who consider normal military operations terrorist activities
:lol: Ignorance is so cute.

[Ratamacue]

It becomes terrorism when the target becomes civilians.

[Truthsayer]

Its changed alot lately, thanks alot to the left wing who consider normal military operations terrorist activities

You got it all backwards.

It's the neo-conservative that claims that groups like the Talibans where terrorists. No, they where morons with control-issues, but not terrorists. Not even when fighting the coalition 'against terrorism' since they wanted to stay in power (being the control-freaks that they where).

[chauncy republicans]

It becomes terrorism when the target becomes civilians. Targeting the civilian infrastructure could also be considered terrorism. Or threats of attacking or inprisoning of civilians, or just plain down-right creating an climate of fear and terror in the civilian population.

[NcDeuce]

It becomes terrorism when the target becomes civilians.

Beirut

[Tane Angle]

Fintin, I've been wondering the same thing for more than 25 years now. To be honest, there probably isn't a satisfying answer. Just today I was writing about whether or not hitting targets like the Cole are in fact "terrorism." I don't have any answers for myself, much less you or anyone else.

I suppose perhaps when civilians become the targets. Of course, the idea of not targeting civilians is a relatively now one. The classical legers that the West so often compares itself to had official rape policies, pacifying the people through "breeding."

I think Ratamacue might be right. It is very painful and tragic to me personally when our military or intelligence personnel are killed, but perhaps there is a difference between a roadside IED hitting a military convoy and taking civilians hostage.

One of the most major turning points in my life was when Bill Buckley, the CIA chief of station in Beirut, was executed. It was a tragedy, to be sure. Was it terrorism? I don't know, I honestly don't. It troubles me greatly to say that it might not have been, but he was a CIA officer. His torture was certainly not legitimate, but was his capture? I don't know. We were their enemies. I just don't know.

I don't know, bud. But it's a good question.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Kilgor]

It becomes terrorism when the target becomes civilians. Targeting the civilian infrastructure could also be considered terrorism. Or threats of attacking or inprisoning of civilians, or just plain down-right creating an climate of fear and terror in the civilian population.

So the large scale aerial bombing in ww2 to destroy industrial centres and their populatiosn would be considered terrorism ?

[Tane Angle]

What about Beirut, NcDeuce? You're referring to the hostage takings and bombings?

[Fintin]

Its changed alot lately, thanks alot to the left wing who consider normal military operations terrorist activities

You got it all backwards.

It's the neo-conservative that claims that groups like the Talibans where terrorists. No, they where morons with control-issues, but not terrorists. Not even when fighting the coalition 'against terrorism' since they wanted to stay in power (being the control-freaks that they where).

you raise a good point there...Al-Quada...clearly a terrorist group...the taliban was a religious group...but they did host a terrorist group in the territory they controled



but here is another question...during the American Revolution...the British said the Minute Men were terrorists...and believe it or not...civilians were attacked by both sides during the war...British sympathizers were attacked by Revolutionaries...any thoughts welcome

[NcDeuce]

What about Beirut, NcDeuce? You're referring to the hostage takings and bombings?

Just saying that terrorism can include military targets

[Tane Angle]

Kilgor, the question is, once a factory worker steps into the factory to begin building a tank, is he or she still a civilian?

As for Dresden, I'm not even sure terrorism is the right word for it. More like sheer stupidity and blood-revenge.

Fintin, nice to see that you know your history. What were many parts of the Indian Wars?

[Fintin]

What about Beirut, NcDeuce? You're referring to the hostage takings and bombings?

Just saying that terrorism can include military targets

can it...or is it just a declaration of war?...i guess if a group in uniform representing a specified nation...an attack on a military target is a declaration of war...IE Pearl Harbor...but the Cole does rase need for debate

[Flagg]

A vast gulf exists between generally accepted forms of civil disobedience and universally abhorrent terrorism.

The closer you get to the middle of the spectrum the greater the difficulty to make a clear distinction.

Other factors such as cultural norms, personal freedoms, and recent security issues/concerns play a big role in determining what may be considered civil disobedience in one place to be an act of terrorism elsewhere.

So my answer is a non-answer, because it depends....

[Tane Angle]

NcDeuce, it kills me to say this, but the Marine Barracks was probably a legitimate target. I hate saying that, and to be honest, I almost never concede that, but it might be true. Through Reagan's ignorance, arrogance, and naivety, their neutral position was destroyed when US shore- and sea-based artillery fired outside of the defense of civilians and peacekeepers. I don't blame the Marines, and I knew many of them personnally. They were just kids. I blame President Reagan and his Administration. They never should have been sent. A fool could have seen there was neither victory nor peace to be had in Lebanon. Not in 1983 at least.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Kilgor]

I got the world at war series on dvd.

And there was a quote to remember.

"it didnt matter if we got the hun in the factory or in his bed when he slept"

or something to that effect.

[chauncy republicans]

It becomes terrorism when the target becomes civilians. Targeting the civilian infrastructure could also be considered terrorism. Or threats of attacking or inprisoning of civilians, or just plain down-right creating an climate of fear and terror in the civilian population.

So the large scale aerial bombing in ww2 to destroy industrial centres and their populatiosn would be considered terrorism ?
You mean like Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes. I believe, especially in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the objective was to terrorize the population and destabilize the country into capitulation.
The question is...when is terrorism acceptable and when is it not?

[Fintin]

i just keep going back to the revolutionaries...when it started...no clear uniform...they had no country to fight for...if we had lost...how would we have looked at them?

[Kilgor]

I think if there is total war, the gloves come completely off.

The word "terror" is so vague, and always aparent in war.

Another situation, if a carload of bad asses gets wasted by a drone, but there are innocent casualities near by.. is that terrorism or collaterial damage ?

[Flagg]

The question is...when is terrorism acceptable and when is it not?

Terrorism and murder are never acceptable.

However, demoralizing and destroying your enemy is acceptable.

So I guess my answer is, if you win it's NOT terrorism, if you lose it IS.

[Tane Angle]

Or culturally, were Nagasaki and Hiroshima military targets? Or were those almost-certainly future-combatants still civilians, as they had not picked up weapons yet (but almost certainly would in the event of an invasion)?

On another note, while movies shouldn't really be used as historical examples, take a look at "The Patriot" for a relatively widely known example. That militia was based on an actual force. Fintin's got a point. Those guys were wearing civilian dress, targeting officers (the relative equivalent of targeting nuns today), shooting and then withdrawing instead of lining up in a field. And the British people back home were probably saying the same thing that many people here say today about Iraqis. "Stupid, ungrateful colonists, we should just level the whole colonies." Something to consider, good points Fintin.

[chauncy republicans]

Or culturally, were Nagasaki and Hiroshima military targets? Or were those almost-certainly future-combatants still civilians, as they had not picked up weapons yet (but almost certainly would in the event of an invasion)?
You and Fintin pose very thought provoking questions.

[Secret Squirrel]

i got a question for yall...

when does someone fighting for a cause they feel i[s] just, become a terrorist?


im gonna let this sit for abit then get back with some thoughts of my own

It depends on what time periods you're examining and what perspectives you're looking from. I dont think there is a general answer that will satisify anyone. Were those involved in the the Spanish Inquisition terrorists? They, as they viewed it, were fighting against religious heresy. And what about the French Revolution, do you label the tactics by Robespierre as terrorism? Was there a justification for actions commited during the Terror (aptly named perhaps?). What about the KKK formed (I believe) after the American Civil war to keep certain "peoples" (as they argued) in their place. One could easily call them terrorists, but were they a victim of their past? And were the revolutionary anti-Unionists in Ireland from say 1800 to 1923 terrorists? The British would certainly label them that way but from their perspective they were fighting for their country. Would dropping two nukes on Japan during WWII be considered a terrorist act? Some who endured the attack or the after-affects might argue it was. However, during WWII war was waged against a country's population as well as it's military. It was psychological warfare; break a country's will to fight and you win. And isnt psychological warfare what really embodies terrorism? I mean, isnt this the whole point of terrorists? They know they dont have the numbers, or technology, or tactics to conventionally defeat a proper military/army. So basically they have one choice, to develop tactics that attack the spirit of a country. But again, this is somewhat the same kind of war that was practiced during WWII and beyond. So, to end my rant, I dont believe the label terrorist is a proper one. I think its more approproite to classify conflicts as conventional and unconventional. But I will leave you with a thought...we (rightly so) condemn and prosecute those who harbor terrorists. But if you turn that same coin over, we (those who support the war against terror) are on the other side.

[chauncy republicans]

I think if there is total war, the gloves come completely off.

The word "terror" is so vague, and always aparent in war.

Another situation, if a carload of bad asses gets wasted by a drone, but there are innocent casualities near by.. is that terrorism or collaterial damage ?
But if those bad asses were allowed to live they very well may have killed more innocents than collateral damage. Tough question to answer.

[Kilgor]

Considering the losses that would have occured for a invasion of the mainland, it was definately the lesser of two evils.

My take on it though.

Terrorists targets are nearly always civilian, like we see suicide bombers blowing up busses and nightclubs. IF its a military target, then its justified.
Like the "devine wind"

But say the israeli's hit a military or political target like a hamas leader, but some innocent by standers get hurt, then its collaterial damage and not terrorism.

The left would have a different opinion on this though.

[NcDeuce]

NcDeuce, it kills me to say this, but the Marine Barracks was probably a legitimate target. I hate saying that, and to be honest, I almost never concede that, but it might be true. Through Reagan's ignorance, arrogance, and naivety, their neutral position was destroyed when US shore- and sea-based artillery fired outside of the defense of civilians and peacekeepers. I don't blame the Marines, and I knew many of them personnally. They were just kids. I blame President Reagan and his Administration. They never should have been sent. A fool could have seen there was neither victory nor peace to be had in Lebanon. Not in 1983 at least.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

^ Didn't know that :|

[Bombtrack]

I got the world at war series on dvd.

And there was a quote to remember.

"it didnt matter if we got the hun in the factory or in his bed when he slept"

or something to that effect.

But the "hun in bed" could be the same "hun in the factory" during the day. I think that in total war targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure isn't so much terrorism, since they ARE military targets, although not being in the military.
In total war the entire civilian population is mobilised, all joined in the war effort, working in the factories, contirbuting food and scrap metal, making clothing, and the list goes on. That being said, the aggressor in this theoretical total war would be the only one committing terrorist acts when attacking and invading other countries. The defending countries, in my opinion, are justified in attacks on cities/industrial areas, things of that nature.
Keep in mind though, I'm only speaking about total war.

[Truthsayer]

Then the question is: does 'total war' as a 'state' stop being a 'state' for two sides as soon as one side says "ok, now the war is over"?

(Rendering all attacks on civilians working on military installations terrorist-attacks, as oppose to attacks covered under 'total war' as legitimate targets.)

[mocking_loudly_died]

Or culturally, were Nagasaki and Hiroshima military targets? Or were those almost-certainly future-combatants still civilians, as they had not picked up weapons yet (but almost certainly would in the event of an invasion)?

On another note, while movies shouldn't really be used as historical examples, take a look at "The Patriot" for a relatively widely known example. That militia was based on an actual force. Fintin's got a point. Those guys were wearing civilian dress, targeting officers (the relative equivalent of targeting nuns today), shooting and then withdrawing instead of lining up in a field. And the British people back home were probably saying the same thing that many people here say today about Iraqis. "Stupid, ungrateful colonists, we should just level the whole colonies." Something to consider, good points Fintin.

You know we are coming back one day. :lol: p-)

[Fintin]

im extreamly pleased by the responses...my small pondering has produced many insightful responces and raised more worthwhile questions...


i think the one thing that is a constent truth for terrorism, is that it breaks the Geneva Convention...no uniforms...being the one that sticks out the most in my mind...anyways

[Secret Squirrel]

im extreamly pleased by the responses...my small pondering has produced many insightful responces and raised more worthwhile questions...


i think the one thing that is a constent truth for terrorism, is that it breaks the Geneva Convention...no uniforms...being the one that sticks out the most in my mind...anyways

Actually, not wearing a uniform doesnt necessarily break the Geneva Conventions.


Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

[Fintin]

Actually, not wearing a uniform doesnt necessarily break the Geneva Conventions.

[quote] Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

i guess then protecting civilians is the key part...the Minute Men of old were standing up for the rights of the other colonists...maybe if the act of agression is, in the long run protecting civilians its justifiable...9/11 no civilians were being protected...thus definetly terrorism...but if you asked the iraqi insurgetns they are protecting the civilians...i personaly dont see it...but i maybe thats the definition...how the individual sees it

[usa320]

My feeling is when armies are fighting eachother thats war.

When a bunch of armed whackos start killing people, including civilians with brutal tactics and weapons of mass destruction- thats terrorism.

Car bombs, hijackings. Kidnappings. Beheadings. crazed gunmen. ect.

[Fintin]

My feeling is when armies are fighting eachother thats war.

When a bunch of armed whackos start killing people, including civilians with brutal tactics and weapons of mass destruction- thats terrorism.

Car bombs, hijackings. Kidnappings. Beheadings. crazed gunmen. ect.

the definition cant be that loose though...we were the first contry to drop a nuke...no offence...just thinking alot tonight

[jedisponge]

terrorism is whatever we think it is. we consider terrorism to be car bombings, kidnappings and the like; while someone with a totally different view can consider dropping bombs from airplanes terrorism, or throwing grenades terrorism. it just depends on the perspective of the person.

in war rules go out the window. They're guidelines really, only there to show you a general direction to go. the point is to win a war you have to do whatever it takes to win. for them, it's car bombs, kidnappings, and executions. you can just compare (sort of in a weird way) that they're car bombs are like our fighter jets; it's just using what they have available. again, perspectives.

but the point is, we see all these things theyre doing as terrorism. and history shows that these terrorism tactics of rule by force, domination, and fear wont come out at top in the end. and no matter what they do, they're not gonna win. like the romans; theyre clamping rules led to their downfall. nazi germany, noreiga and panama, iraq. the list goes on and on.

[Fargin]

Terrorism is by definition an unlawfull act, terrorism is also a politically weighted word and often used in propaganda.

How do you fight Goliath?

If you don't fight to lose, you don't fight fair. What is fair when it comes to killing your enemy? War is fought with tactics and terror is a tactic too. Suicide attacks are used by people who have less to lose than their opposition. If your life is of less value than your enemies, you can make it valuable by using it as a weapon.

How do you fight terrorism?

You can use counterterrorism to terrorise the opposition and remove an public support, by interrorgating everyone with possible ties to the terrorists. Counterterrorism as terrorism have a tendency to strenghten the oppositions resolve. If you interrorgate or torture everyone you'll infiltrate the terror cells at some point, but on what costs. If you want to use brute force to combat terrorism, you can't hold back. You have to be willing to do what France did in Morocco to break the resistance. You have to be willing to accept the colateral damage caused by the iron fist.

or

You have to win the hearths and minds, you have to give your opposition something in return, something to lose. Increase their value of life and give them hope of a better future. You'll have to be willing to make compromises. You have to be willing to be the first one who extend the hand and not to extract it if you get bit.

[Phx_PL]

Guys almost every country has own definition of terrorism
for example title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

"The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
(I'm wondering what about apocalyptical terrorism [Aum Shinrikyo])

Also remember that very important criterion to recognize smb as terrorist is if he is using terror as primary fighting method or as secondary/tertiary
(for example guerrillas in south america)

[moughoun]

I have a question, in Somalia in 93 were the people involved in the BHD incident terrorist's, I've heard of them being reffered to as such, they wore civvie's, mutilated the dead , ect, but on the other hand, it was the US forces who took upon themselves the mission of capturing Aidid, they launched the attack and it was a more or less even battle, supirior U.S kit and training vs sheer number's and a hell of alot moreSomali's were killed then American's, so were they terrorist, or freedom fighter's or what?

[moughoun]

My feeling is when armies are fighting eachother thats war.

When a bunch of armed whackos start killing people, including civilians with brutal tactics and weapons of mass destruction- thats terrorism.

Car bombs, hijackings. Kidnappings. Beheadings. crazed gunmen. ect.

the definition cant be that loose though...we were the first contry to drop a nuke...no offence...just thinking alot tonight

Ye sa lttle to much, shouldn't you be drunk by now p-)

[Phx_PL]

I have a question, in Somalia in 93 were the people involved in the BHD incident terrorist's, I've heard of them being reffered to as such, they wore civvie's, mutilated the dead , ect, but on the other hand, it was the US forces who took upon themselves the mission of capturing Aidid, they launched the attack and it was a more or less even battle, supirior U.S kit and training vs sheer number's and a hell of alot moreSomali's were killed then American's, so were they terrorist, or freedom fighter's or what?

IMHO neither terrorists or freedom fighter's
they didn't belong to any terrorist group, did't use terror as fighting method, and most important of all they didn't want to achieve any political target.
They were just members of some sort criminal militias and clans.

[n4292936]

i got a question for yall...

when does someone fighting for a cause they feel i just, become a terrorist?


im gonna let this sit for abit then get back with some thoughts of my own It's simple really, if you bomb a school bus full children you are a terrorist, if you fire on troops you are not. The cause one is fighting for is absolutely irrelevant, it is the tactics one uses in that fight that determine whether or not you are a terrorist. In the case of Somalia, the attackers may have been weargin civilian dress, but that is essentially irrelevant. As Im sure you know the key advantage insurgents and guerillas have is that they can blend into the local population. That that population seems to have supported the fighters is also irrelevant. The Somali gunmen confronted the US and Pakistani soldiers directly. They did not attempt to kidnap civilians to use as bait or to behead - their campain was not a terrorist one. Somalia is a murky issue because the nature of the internal conflict did mean that the warlords ruled by terror - but that was qualitatively different than the "terrorism" used in common parlance.
Terrorism is a fad word, used promiscuosly, often for PR reasons rather than as a legitimate descriptor of a person or group - much like the word "hero". It has become almost meaningless.

[Phx_PL]

i got a question for yall...

when does someone fighting for a cause they feel i just, become a terrorist?


im gonna let this sit for abit then get back with some thoughts of my own It's simple really, if you bomb a school bus full children you are a terrorist, if you fire on troops you are not.

oh...so bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut isn't terrorist act? interesting idea :roll:

[mack pl]

i got a question for yall...

when does someone fighting for a cause they feel i just, become a terrorist?


im gonna let this sit for abit then get back with some thoughts of my own It's simple really, if you bomb a school bus full children you are a terrorist, if you fire on troops you are not.

oh...so bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut isn't terrorist act? interesting idea :roll:

hmm, we have big thread about killing soldiers in Iraq...Marmot1 opened thread about it- he ask-1)does polish soldiers are legitime(sp.) target for insurgent's(terrorists)?

well, it was big and interesting discussion about it....

PS. IMO Beirut was a terrorist attck....

regards

[Fargin]

Well Marines would not normally get classified as civilians.

[n4292936]

i got a question for yall...

when does someone fighting for a cause they feel i just, become a terrorist?


im gonna let this sit for abit then get back with some thoughts of my own It's simple really, if you bomb a school bus full children you are a terrorist, if you fire on troops you are not.

oh...so bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut isn't terrorist act? interesting idea :roll:That's a good point, bombing is THE classic terrorist tactic....

....however, the US intel community defines terrorism in accordance with Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

This definition would seemt o suggest that it was not a terrorist act - though I'll admit that this conclusion is fairly counterintuitive. My comment was based on the premise in this definition. Marine's were clearly combatants, and the Hizballah a subnational group. The State Dept.'s definition is similar" "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.". I suppose the conclusion is that a car bomb is similar to a JDAM or a RPG. They all cause death - just by different means. That a car bomb is classic tactic of terrorism does not make it soley a tactic of terrorism.

[Phx_PL]

i got a question for yall...

when does someone fighting for a cause they feel i just, become a terrorist?


im gonna let this sit for abit then get back with some thoughts of my own It's simple really, if you bomb a school bus full children you are a terrorist, if you fire on troops you are not.

oh...so bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut isn't terrorist act? interesting idea :roll:That's a good point, bombing is THE classic terrorist tactic....

....however, the US intel community defines terrorism in accordance with Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

this definition is far from perfection.
As I said - what about apocalyptical terrorism and combatant targets?



This definition would seemt o suggest that it was not a terrorist act - though I'll admit that this conclusion is fairly counterintuitive. My comment was based on the premise in this definition. Marine's were clearly combatants, and the Hizballah a subnational group. The State Dept.'s definition is similar" "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.". I suppose the conclusion is that a car bomb is similar to a JDAM or a RPG. They all cause death - just by different means. That a car bomb is classic tactic of terrorism does not make it soley a tactic of terrorism.

word
tool isn't important, you can do terrorist act only with knife.

there are other terrorism definitions if you like.

A.P. Schmid proposed short definition in 1992
Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

There is also quite big definition know as Academic Consensus (1988)

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought"

[Tane Angle]

mack pl and Phx_PL, no, the Marine Barracks was not a terrorist attack:

Tane wrote:

It kills me to say this, but the Marine Barracks was probably a legitimate target. I hate saying that, and to be honest, I almost never concede that, but it might be true. Through Reagan's ignorance, arrogance, and naivety, their neutral position was destroyed when US shore- and sea-based artillery fired outside of the defense of civilians and peacekeepers. I don't blame the Marines, and I knew many of them personnally. They were just kids. I blame President Reagan and his Administration. They never should have been sent. A fool could have seen there was neither victory nor peace to be had in Lebanon. Not in 1983 at least.
US forces were also training the LF. What the heck were peaceekeepers doing training any factions?

Here's another question: Was the main Embassy attack terrorism? It wasn't targeted at the Embassy itself so much as several CIA personnel, including Bob Ames. The attackers probably didn't mind the fact that the Embassy was collateral damage, but it wasn't the target. That was an assasination. And well...was Bob Ames a combatant?

People talk about how the US has never lost a war. Because of politicians back home (Republican ones, not Democrats, mind you), we were forced into a war that could not be one, and we lost it.

I'm not defending these attacks; I lost a lot of good friends in Lebanon. I am trying to understand them.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[n4292936]

Here's another question: Was the main Embassy attack terrorism? It wasn't targeted at the Embassy itself so much as several CIA personnel, including Bob Ames. The attackers probably didn't mind the fact that the Embassy was collateral damage, but it wasn't the target. That was an assasination. And well...was Bob Ames a combatant?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...That's a good question - are CIA agents or reps combatants? They belong to an organisation that has a combat arm, they impliment foreign policy, or help guide it via intel products. It could very well be argued that military intelligence people are combatants, and so therefore are CIA agents. But then where is the line drawn. Are State Dept. intel analysts combatants? Is it dependent on the organisations mandate/functions/deployment? The CIA has had a history of paramilitary activities so I think this is one of the few organisations where the lines are blurred. Still, that produces no clear answer to the question. How do we define combatant is the real question. Security guards? Military? what civilian agencies?..... you can see why there are no internationaly agreed upon definitions of terrorism. :|

[Phx_PL]

mack pl and Phx_PL, no, the Marine Barracks was not a terrorist attack:

Tane wrote:

It kills me to say this, but the Marine Barracks was probably a legitimate target. I hate saying that, and to be honest, I almost never concede that, but it might be true. Through Reagan's ignorance, arrogance, and naivety, their neutral position was destroyed when US shore- and sea-based artillery fired outside of the defense of civilians and peacekeepers. I don't blame the Marines, and I knew many of them personnally. They were just kids. I blame President Reagan and his Administration. They never should have been sent. A fool could have seen there was neither victory nor peace to be had in Lebanon. Not in 1983 at least.
US forces were also training the LF. What the heck were peaceekeepers doing training any factions?

Here's another question: Was the main Embassy attack terrorism? It wasn't targeted at the Embassy itself so much as several CIA personnel, including Bob Ames. The attackers probably didn't mind the fact that the Embassy was collateral damage, but it wasn't the target. That was an assasination. And well...was Bob Ames a combatant?

People talk about how the US has never lost a war. Because of politicians back home (Republican ones, not Democrats, mind you), we were forced into a war that could not be one, and we lost it.

I'm not defending these attacks; I lost a lot of good friends in Lebanon. I am trying to understand them.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

hmmmm
going this way we might say that every terrorists act isn't terrorists act at all.

bombing of marines barracs in beirut was terrorist attack. Why?
No state of war
Islamic Jihad [hizbollah] who calims responsibility for this attack wasn't at that time oragnization with clear structure and responsible leadership (check geneva conventions; not mentioning that IJ didn't fulfill other condiotions in that document)

In other way:
Was the bombing in US Raimstein base in Germany terrorist act, or wasn't?

[Tane Angle]

The view from the airport and in the city sure seemed like a state of war to me. We were supporting their enemies, and thus we became targets. We shouldn't have supported anyone in Lebanon.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[n4292936]

if I am not mistaken war was never officially declared in either Vienam or in A-stan, and yet both were clearly just that. Official proclamations have little to do with the issue at hand.

The bombing of the club in Germany may fit the conditions set out in the US definition as the target was a civilian building, which civilians frequented. Its true that it wasnt coincidental that servicemen also frequented that club, and that they were the targets though. Is it the type of casualties or the nature of the installation that is targeted or the intended victims that dicate whether or not an act of violence is also an act of terrorism? No flame intended, just pointing out that a line must be drawn.... and that it seems to be a very blurry line indeed.

[Phx_PL]

The view from the airport and in the city sure seemed like a state of war to me. We were supporting their enemies, and thus we became targets. We shouldn't have supported anyone in Lebanon.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

I could say the same about raimsten bombing
US supported their (red army fraction) enemy (imperialistic and capitalistic germany goverment ;) ) so became target.
Hmm...so if smb is my enemy or other one is supporting my enemy, then I can attack him without consequences of terrorist act? :roll:

[oldsoak]

Trouble is our definitions change with time. I suppose a question to ask is

- Does the party involved recognise international conventions re the treatment of civilians, property, military personnel etc etc and practice it ?

If an Iraqi faction attacks US troops , overcomes them and then provided medical treatment for captured US wounded, feeds them and does not mistreat them but treats them according to international conventions then I'd argue they are worthy of a better name than terrorists. If you dont behave according to international convention of the time ( because these change ) or hold yourself accountable to them then you are a terrorist.

[Phx_PL]

if I am not mistaken war was never officially declared in either Vienam or in A-stan, and yet both were clearly just that. Official proclamations have little to do with the issue at hand.

word
but
in vietnam and afganistan were regular military activities. I mean that both sides were trying to achieve control over territory. In Lebanon there were no such activities. In first deployment Marines helped oversee the withdrawal of the PLO from Beirut. In the second deployment, 1,800 marines were sent as part of a multinational force after Israel's Lebanese allies massacred civilians in the Palestinian refugee camps.

See difference?



The bombing of the club in Germany.......

I meant bombing of US base 5 years before club bombing

[Alphabet76]

...

[n4292936]

The Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof Gang) used classic terrorist tactics though, they could already be legitimately accused of terrorist acts. If hizbollah had only ever commited that act AND the Marine barracks bombing it could be debatable whether or not they were a terrorist organisation. As it stood at the time the Baader-Meinhof Gang was not only associated with, but perpetrated several terrorist acts before the base attack.
http://www.baader-meinhof.com/images/termbmgang.gif
http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/news01/uns01289.htm for more info on the attack

[oldsoak]

Wasnt that the lot that had accidents in their cells after Entebbe. ?

[n4292936]

word
but
in vietnam and afganistan were regular military activities. I mean that both sides were trying to achieve control over territory. In Lebanon there were no such activities. In first deployment Marines helped oversee the withdrawal of the PLO from Beirut. In the second deployment, 1,800 marines were sent as part of a multinational force after Israel's Lebanese allies massacred civilians in the Palestinian refugee camps.

See difference?

true, and as peacekeepers they should have been the nuetral force that peacekeepers are supposed to represent, however, as Tane pointed out they were in fact partial to one faction to the extent that they offered them training. Im absolutely not saying that in anyway the bombing of the Marine barracks was justified, only that they distinguished themselves as partial participants, therefore enemies of Hizballah, and therefore combatants in the Lebanon situtation. As a regular military force in Germany they were technically combatants as well - albeit in an ostensibly peaceful environment. Contrast this with the fact that the Israelis shelled the UN Peacekeepers base and injured Fijian soldiers. Is that a terrorist act? I would argue against such a lable. Diabolical yes, just as the USS Liberty attack was, but it wasnt terrorism.
I must admit, while the definiton I accept defines the German base bombing as a non-terrorist act, I have trouble reconciling that with what I feel in my gut. Logic-Feeling gap...

[n4292936]

Wasnt that the lot that had accidents in their cells after Entebbe. ? not sure but that would be interesting to follow up on.

[Phx_PL]

The truth is that one proper definition doesn't exist
There are many functional definitions in law systems but often there're totaly different.

For those interested in subject a recomend

Alex P. Schmid - "Political Terrorism: A research guide"

In this book Schmid collected over 100 definitions. It really gives pretty good point of view at problem with defining terrorism.

[Phx_PL]

word
but
in vietnam and afganistan were regular military activities. I mean that both sides were trying to achieve control over territory. In Lebanon there were no such activities. In first deployment Marines helped oversee the withdrawal of the PLO from Beirut. In the second deployment, 1,800 marines were sent as part of a multinational force after Israel's Lebanese allies massacred civilians in the Palestinian refugee camps.

See difference?

true, and as peacekeepers they should have been the nuetral force that peacekeepers are supposed to represent however, as Tane pointed out they were in fact partial to one faction to the extent that they offered them training.

and that faction was legal lebanese government
but it still a faction... :roll:


Im absolutely not saying that in anyway the bombing of the Marine barracks was justified, only that they distinguished themselves as partial participants, therefore enemies of Hizballah, and therefore combatants in the Lebanon situtation. As a regular military force in Germany they were technically combatants as well - albeit in an ostensibly peaceful environment. Contrast this with the fact that the Israelis shelled the UN Peacekeepers base and injured Fijian soldiers. Is that a terrorist act?


I would rather say that it is state sponsored terrorism cuz this attack was done by official state military forces. I don't know much about this tragedy.
Do you have any good web resourouces? But pliz not Fisk or other similar "objective jurnalist"



I would argue against such a lable. Diabolical yes, just as the USS Liberty attack was, but it wasnt terrorism.
I must admit, while the definiton I accept defines the German base bombing as a non-terrorist act, I have trouble reconciling that with what I feel in my gut. Logic-Feeling gap...

more gaps on the way :roll:

[Tane Angle]

It was a government in that the LF had forcibly seized power. The LF-government openly declared their desire for a second-class citizenry for Muslims. They were not the good guys. Once the Civil War began, there was no legitimate government in the traditional, recognizable sense. We shouldn't have been sleeping with the Phalange. I've been shot at by and shot at with them (they weren't always keen on Americans themselves), and I'm sorry, we should never have supported them.

Also, let us remember that the US was supporting Iraq (WMDs aside), because Iraq was fighting Iran. Iran said, "Hey, if you get a proxy, so do we" and so they got themselves a proxy, which they used against the US the same way that we used Iraq against Iran. We were doubley combatants. I don't agree with or have particularly high esteem for our enemy groups in Lebanon, but I do try to understand their logic. We were targets. Our leaders screwed up by putting us there in the first place and ordering us to breach our neutrality in the second place.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[aartamen]

Look, in the good old days of, uhm, take your pick, the victorious army would raise the cities of the enemy, rape the horses, and steal the women. The concept of total war is as old as the concept of a raid. It just very recently became unusual to do that. The Europeans kept doing it until just few centuries ago. And there's no accounting for the others. I just do not follow their histories. If the Aztecs did not rip a dozen beating enemy hearts out their whole day was ruined. And Cortez wiped them all out with the help of other indians. Therefore terrorism can't be it, since most people agree that terrorism is a 20th century concept.

The definition of terrorism is Use or threat of use of violence against civilians to achieve a political goal by a sub-national entity.

I like it.

[Apogee]

Heres the main problem, the word "terrorist" is a highly political term. Clearly, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. It really all depends on which side you are on as to who is a terrorist.

Our (the US government in my case) has left the definition of "terrorist" very open. So open in fact that I have a note book with 10 different 'offical' definitions of terrorists or terrorism from various agencies. Being the wise guy that I am, I asked "Why don't we just standardize the definition among the agencies?"

I really haven't gotten a great answer to that. But from what I can surmise, having multiple definitions and leaving it broad, allows us to classify many different things terrorism without classifing other groups (which are remarkably similar to the first group) as terrorists.

Oh yeah, and its good to be back.

[Tane Angle]

SCUBA! Welcome back!

And I think you guys are right about there being no real good definition, even for some specific attacks or people.

[Fintin]

i guess the problem i am having is the media calling the iraqi insurgents terrorists...they mainly attack military targets...(i know there are exceptions...thats why i said mainly)...and...they didnt really ask us to come...we made that desision...some, most seem to have welcomed us...but...the question i have to ask myself is...if i was in their shoes...living in an enviroment i found acceptable...would i fight if someone came in and over threw the government...i think thats a crusial part in being able to lable someone a terrorist...if i was in their shoes...would i do it?

[scott]

i guess the problem i am having is the media calling the iraqi insurgents terrorists...

i absolutely agree with you, but i often hear GWB falling into that trap as well.
they should be labeled insurgents and left at that

[Apogee]

SCUBA! Welcome back!

And I think you guys are right about there being no real good definition, even for some specific attacks or people.

Thanks Tane. I keep looking at your Avatar and thinking its FG for a sec.

[Tane Angle]

To tell you the truth, I've been doing that too. I usually look for my avatar and then start reading from the post one below it, but now I don't know what to look for. Any recommendations for a new one? I've been thinking of going back to a "Spy Game" one.

[EvanL]

To tell you the truth, I've been doing that too. I usually look for my avatar and then start reading from the post one below it, but now I don't know what to look for. Any recommendations for a new one? I've been thinking of going back to a "Spy Game" one.
I always found your Nebula ones to be rather inspiring. But i think somebody stole your mojo on that one as of late.

[Tane Angle]

Ballistic. is my fellow astronomer, he's more than welcome to them. p-) Glad you found them inspiring though. :D

[EvanL]

Ballistic. is my fellow astronomer, he's more than welcome to them. p-) Glad you found them inspiring though. :D
Cheers mate
How bout an avatar of a members only jacket?

[iflu]

sorry i quote my previous post. but that is my thought on this probelm. ;)

war is a military action taken by one military party against another military party with certain political purpose. That is to say, both of the parties are equal as far as killing oppotunity is concerened: gun vs gun, ok. (of couse, they will also try to define the rules of killing, that is another issue). A by-product of war is the civilian casualty and this makes war easily being confused with terrorism. civilian here is the opposite to military, which usually being defined as un-armed party ( therefore POW is civilian). We can not judge an action war or terrorism ONLY BY THE FACT that (many) civlian are killed or injured. The difference between war and terrorism is the target! If it is a military action targeted on military objects, it is war even civilian casualty is heavy. If not, terrorism. Problem comes when the targets are political objects such as city-bombing or atom-bomb drops in WWII, it is really hard to say that this kind of action is pure military actions but of course is not terrorism because the purpose is to end the war ASAP. In this case, I would like to say it is MILITARY TERROR, which should be avoided.
and i add one. so during war, there r many rules in fact. for example, if u wear ur enemy`s uniform and get caught, u will not be treated as a POW but a spy and could be SENTENCED to death.

[Kilgor]

Thats a good point to remember

Wearing a civilian or enemies uniform in ww2 got you infront of a firing squad... instantly.

There were very good reasons why such a instant and harsh form of punishment was delt out in ww2 and other conflicts.

[Phx_PL]

i guess the problem i am having is the media calling the iraqi insurgents terrorists...they mainly attack military targets...(i know there are exceptions...thats why i said mainly)...?

youp
but the problem is that we can't properly separate insurgents from terrorists. If some IED exploded under military truck we don't know who put this device on the road. You know what I mean? Look at other resistance movements, for ex. during the IIWW. They have structures, hierarchy, leaders, even own secret justice courts. In Iraq seems to be many smalls groups with often totally different and particular political targets. We don't hear about any leader (zarqawi is fake, he is probably dead for a quite long time) or structures. There is no one who will claim responsibility for attacks at military and testify that he is nothing to do with any kind of terrorist acts (for ex. bombing civilian muslims).

[Phx_PL]

but in other way...maybe there is a leader and organized resistance movement...but we just don't know it...:roll:

problem is that we haven't got enought information :(