If a "freedom fighter"

[On Yer Flour]

I consider legitamate targets to be:

-Military and all related personnel, equipment, and infrastructure (including military bases, military hospitals, veicheles, etc..)

I disagree. Hospitals of any kind should never be targets for violence. EVER.

-Government and all related personnel and infrastructure (including politicians, government buildings, police, etc...)

I disagree completely. Armies should attack other armies and leave the civilians unmolested, including the government-employed civilians. Besides which, most government employees have nothing to do with war or even politics - what did a mailman or accountant ever do to deserve getting embroiled in combat?

It could be argued that an exception should be made for civilians who are involved in perpetrating war crimes or crimes against humanity, though.

 

[RedRalph]

Strictly military targets: Not a terrorist, whether I agree with their objectives or not.

 

[Steph]

Armies should attack other armies and leave the civilians unmolested, including the government-employed civilians.

I suggest we come back to good old time. The commanders of the two armies would select a fair battlefield, then arrange their respective troops and start the battle at a time agreed in advance.
Then at a specified time, the battle is over. We count the points, and the team with the most points is the winner.
...
It reminds of something...
...
Ah, yes, now we call it sports

 

[Bast]

The way I see it all battles should be resolved on the battleground. Isn't that the way they used to do it?

 

[Steph]

Who?
The medieval knights and footmen who forraged and pillaged village?
The crusaders who pillaged cities and killed hundreds of civilians?
The Napoleonic armies in Spain?
The partisans and counter partisans during WWII?

There was always some involvment of the civilians in war. Most of the time, it was just to get pillaged, raped, etc. after the victorious army breached the wall.

The main difference is back there, when the main armies were defeated on the battleground, the civilians suffered the consequences "immediately", then the war was other.

Now, the "civilians" dare to fight bacl, so they suffer the consequences longer.

Back to the good old days, a war ended when a side recognized the defeat of their armies on the field, and sued for peace.
Their was a clear beginning, and a clear end. You have been defeated, give us Alsace and Lorraine, and see you next time in 30 years.

But in our modern time, the war does not end. Their is always a kind of resistance, and so the war drags and drags...

Look at Iraq... "Conventional" war won in a matters of days... But for the Americans the war itself has already lasted longer than WWII had. And it's not really closer to being won.

 

[Bast]

Who?
The medieval knights and footmen who forraged and pillaged village?
The crusaders who pillaged cities and killed hundreds of civilians?
The Napoleonic armies in Spain?
The partisans and counter partisans during WWII?

There was always some involvment of the civilians in war. Most of the time, it was just to get pillaged, raped, etc. after the victorious army breached the wall.

The main difference is back there, when the main armies were defeated on the battleground, the civilians suffered the consequences "immediately", then the war was other.

Now, the "civilians" dare to fight bacl, so they suffer the consequences longer.

Back to the good old days, a war ended when a side recognized the defeat of their armies on the field, and sued for peace.
Their was a clear beginning, and a clear end. You have been defeated, give us Alsace and Lorraine, and see you next time in 30 years.

But in our modern time, the war does not end. Their is always a kind of resistance, and so the war drags and drags...

Look at Iraq... "Conventional" war won in a matters of days... But for the Americans the war itself has already lasted longer than WWII had. And it's not really closer to being won.

I've always, always said that there will be collateral damage in wars. All those cases you've cited are WARS! I don't have a problem with this.

But if anyone has a problem with the US Army or US why don't they fight them one on one instead of bombing civilian buildings or even military targets. Take them on one on one. You'll go down fighting but at least with honour instead of as a cowardly terrorist.

 

[Steph]

Dying with honnour is way overrated. It doesn't help much your wife to raise your children. And even if it would, you're not there to see them grow.

Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other son of a . .. .. .. .. . die for his.

I agree with him.

]
But if anyone has a problem with the US Army or US why don't they fight them one on one instead of bombing civilian buildings or even military targets. Take them on one on one. You'll go down fighting but at least with honour instead of as a cowardly terrorist.

If the Americans have a problem with the Iraqi army, why don't they fight them hand to hand staring them in the eyes, instead of sending cruise missiles or bombing them from the sky without giving them a real chance to retaliate?

Because you win war by killing as many opponents as possible while losing as few as possible.

If my country was occupied by an ennemy much more powerful than me, I won't try to fight it openly, I would use any method seems suitable.

However, I would avoid civilian casualties...

 

[Bast]

Dying with honnour is way overrated. It doesn't help much your wife to raise your children. And even if it would, you're not there to see them grow.

Well it hope help them if they commit terrorist acts either, they'll still die.

If my country was occupied by an ennemy much more powerful than me

That's what it comes down to isn't it? They're not good enough and that's why they have to resort to cowardly tactics. Beggars can't be choosers. Either try and as powerful as your enemy or put up with it. They only have the intelligence to blow themselves up.

I don't have a problem with Americans bombing as that would save most of their people's lives and it will mean the war will be over quicker. It's a good strategy in war declared between two sovereign nations.

 

[holy king]

But if anyone has a problem with the US Army or US why don't they fight them one on one instead of bombing civilian buildings or even military targets. Take them on one on one. You'll go down fighting but at least with honour instead of as a cowardly terrorist.

great satire, really great satire....

 

[Steph]

Well it hope help them if they commit terrorist acts either, they'll still die.

If you are speaking of suicide strike, then yes. I was speaking of terrorist attack not involving the death of the terrorist, like planting a bomb in a car.
Suicide attack are counter productive, because you end, well... dead, you know.
Better to live and fight another day.

That's what it comes down to isn't it? They're not good enough and that's why they have to resort to cowardly tactics. Beggars can't be choosers. Either try and as powerful as your enemy or put up with it. They only have the intelligence to blow themselves up.

Come on, how an Iraqi fighter is supposed to fight Abrams, Stealth bomber or aircraft carriers? The resort to the most efficient tactics they are able to use.
And again, I'm speaking of non suicidal attacks. These I would put aside as stupid.

I don't have a problem with Americans bombing as that would save most of their people's lives and it will mean the war will be over quicker. It's a good strategy in war declared between two sovereign nations.

So, an American pilot who is bombing a tank without any risk that the tank can retaliate (and so without putting is life in much danger) is a kind of noble knight in shinning armor because it's war, but a guy who use a bomb to kill soldiers passing by is an evil scum?

Spoiler :

I do not imply in any way that the American pilot is an evil scum when he fights for his country from a plane. I'm against the double standard. Both side here are doing "their job" to kill the others.

Beside, the Americans are not at war with a sovereign nation. They are not at war with Iraq. They are at war against terror. Which is hardly a sovereign nation. The problem is it is reciprocical. American is at with terrorist. So terrorist are at war with America. America has planes and tanks and carrier. Terrorist have human bombs. Each side use the weapon it has at its disposal.

Criticing this would be like saying the Native Americans who fought the US cavalry were evil because they used bow and arrows, and a civilized army should use a civilized way to kill others, with a good rifle.

 

[Rhymes]

If I shoot a burglar who breaks into my house, and that he's an immigrant who was a couple years ago a member of the turkish army, does that make me a freedom fighter?

 

[Steph]

If I shoot a burglar who breaks into my house, and that he's an immigrant who was a couple years ago a member of the turkish army, does that make me a freedom fighter?

Only if you killed him with renamed French fries.

 

[holy king]

you mean like this?

 

[Bast]

Come on, how an Iraqi fighter is supposed to fight Abrams, Stealth bomber or aircraft carriers? The resort to the most efficient tactics they are able to use.
And again, I'm speaking of non suicidal attacks. These I would put aside as stupid.

That's not my concern. I don't want to fight them. Why do they want to fight them? All I'm saying is if for whatever reason you want to fight - do it on the battlefield.

Criticing this would be like saying the Native Americans who fought the US cavalry were evil because they used bow and arrows, and a civilized army should use a civilized way to kill others, with a good rifle.

I don't have a problem with them fighting with bows and arrows on the battlefield. As long as they don't infiltrate into a house full of women and children and shoot arrows at them. That's cowardly? No?

 

[Steph]

All I'm saying is if for whatever reason you want to fight - do it on the battlefield.

If the ennemy is much more stronger than you in the battlefield, you kill him while he sleeps. It's war, not a gentlemen duel for the love of the princess.

I don't have a problem with them fighting with bows and arrows on the battlefield. As long as they don't infiltrate into a house full of women and children and shoot arrows at them. That's cowardly? No?

You are comparing two different things here.
First, lets put the civilians aside for a a while.

A freedom fighter put a bomb near an American convoy. It's not a suicide attack. It's not aimed at civilians. Just at killing American soldiers. It is a good way to fight for you? If not, in what way is it worse than destroying a convoy by bombing it from an F15?

 

[MobBoss]

Let me clear this up for everyone.

Apparently the question is 'can an attack on military forces be considered a terrorist attack'? The answer is yes.

Consider the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beiruit, Lebanon. That was a terrorist attack.

Truth be told, todays terrorists/terrorism is just a new way of labeling yesterdays sabotuers/sabotage. It was against the law of war then to do such things, and its against the law of war today.

 

[bhsup]

No. I have already elaborated on this before.

 

[RedRalph]

Let me clear this up for everyone.

Apparently the question is 'can an attack on military forces be considered a terrorist attack'? The answer is yes.

Consider the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beiruit, Lebanon. That was a terrorist attack.
.

Stop being so ridiculously pompous and high-handed. as if you announcing that you have the answer is going to convince anyone just because its your opinion. you have not "cleared this up" for anyone, no one who disagreed with you before that post has changed their mind so get over yourself. I dont consider any attack on military forces terrorism, be they military forces I like or dislike. No attack on any US soldiers in Iraq is terrorism in my view. I would also consider, as much as I would disagree with it, an attack on a Venezuelan army barracks by dissidents a military assault, not a terrorist attack. Even if you disagree with the act, it dosent automatically change thye catergorisation

 

[MobBoss]

Stop being so ridiculously pompous and high-handed.

As opposed to you? Please.

Terrorism is a 'tactic'. It is a strategy/tactic that can be employed against both military and civilian targets. Killing 400 marines in their sleep also causes terror among the populace. Are you really so ignorant as to not recognize this?

as if you announcing that you have the answer is going to convince anyone just because its your opinion.

I have 20+ years of military experience behind my belt. My opinion on this particular issue is rather informed. What do you do for a living?

you have not "cleared this up" for anyone,

Perhaps I should use smaller words?

no one who disagreed with you before that post has changed their mind so get over yourself.

Yup. Smaller words.

I dont consider any attack on military forces terrorism, be they military forces I like or dislike.

Then you are a hypocrite. Because you would refer to the geneva accords to make your point about civilian casualties; but not recognize what they say about such attacks on sleeping soldiers by spys/sabotuers/terrorists.

No attack on any US soldiers in Iraq is terrorism in my view.

Thats because you are a terrorist-apologist. In your opinion the only good US soldier is a dead one.

I would also consider, as much as I would disagree with it, an attack on a Venezuelan army barracks by dissidents a military assault, not a terrorist attack. Even if you disagree with the act, it dosent automatically change thye catergorisation

Please refer to the law of land warfare and the geneva accords for your 'categorization'. If you would actually READ them perhaps you might learn something about what is legal in war and what is not.

 

[RedRalph]

OK then, did anyone who disagreed with Mobboss before that post have their minds chnaged for them after he "cleared it up" for you?