Is this terrorism?

[basta72]

All of them can be acts of terrorism. But there can also be situations where they are not.

 

[warpus]

It's only terrorism if the purpose behind the attack is to terrorize the local population

 

[zulu9812]

It's only terrorism if the purpose behind the attack is to terrorize the local population

The goal of terrorist groups is generally to put pressure on governments.

 

[GinandTonic]

So is the difference between shock and awe and terrorism just symantic?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The goal of terrorist groups is generally to put pressure on governments.

And the goal of governments is...?

 

[Tycoon101]

None, terrorism is subjective. It usally applies to un-organized guerrilla warfare, not organized state attacks.

Besides, terrorism is a stupid word; Is putting spiders into someone else's drink terrorism? Yes, if you think of the true definition. It is the act of spreading TERROR, not slaughtering innocents.

And besides, this type of warfare that kills off citizens is fine, everyone is an enemy combatant if I wish to say so. If they are armed, then they are combatants.

 

[Aegis]

No to all except 5, and that's only if cilillians are specifically targeted for the purpose of psychological warfare.

Not caring if you kill civillians is not the same as targeting them specifically.

 

[EdwardTking]

If terrorism can loosely be defined for this case as "deliberately targeting civilians," then only option 1 is not terrorism as it is the option present which minimizes civilian casualties. All other options, by definition, don't minimize them. We have to accept that in war civilians are going to die, but again by definition, in any military situation if you fail to minimize civilian casualties when pursuing the same military goal (ex., killing the same number of soldiers) then you are failing to be conscientious in your duty to avoid civilian casualties. In effect you are exercising homicidal neglect; we can argue about semantic differences but a corpse is a corpse and so that equals terrorism for me.

I agree. If an army or air force can not realistically expect to manage its attack program so as to ensure that more than 10% of the fatalities are enemy combatants, then it should not proceed with that attack program.

 

[Aegis]

I agree. If an army or air force can not realistically expect to manage its attack program so as to ensure that more than 10% of the fatalities are enemy combatants, then it should not proceed with that attack program.

Ah, but strategic sites do not have to involve "combatants" at all. Factories. Powerstations. Airports. Those are all strategic targets that do not necessarily have "combatants" there, yet nations are in their right to bomb the crap out of them, even though civillians can die.

 

[Tycoon101]

Do you think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist acts?
Or were they attempts to stop a bloody war?

By your definitions, the two nuclear bombings were terrorist acts.

 

[El_Machinae]

Does the defending army have an obligation to remove its assets from civilian locations?

I'd think so, especially if they knew they were using civilians to hide behind.

 

[Aegis]

Does the defending army have an obligation to remove its assets from civilian locations?

I'd think so, especially if they knew they were using civilians to hide behind.

Yes, absolutely. Otherwise, no one should cry foul if civillians die.

 

[King Alexander]

All are acts of terrorism, and not only that, but they also fit the definition of war crimes and crimes against humanity: for those who think otherwise, I only say: "if that's so, we shouldn't ever convict the nazis because they were innocent and fair".

 

[Tycoon101]

Does the defending army have an obligation to remove its assets from civilian locations?

I'd think so, especially if they knew they were using civilians to hide behind.

But many of these defending armies don't value life. If many poor civilians die, but many rich civilians are saved, then it is a worthy cause.

And please give me your definitions of "enemy combatants", we can say that only the army is the enemy, or we can say that the entire populous is the enemy.

 

[Aegis]

All are acts of terrorism, and not only that, but they also fit the definition of war crimes and crimes against humanity: for those who think otherwise, I only say: "if that's so, we shouldn't ever convict the nazis because they were innocent and fair".

There's a big difference between 1) sending people to gas chambers, performing scientific experiments on them and general ethnic cleansing and 2) civillian casualties of war due to collateral damage.

If you cannot understand the difference, there is no hope for you in this discussion.

 

[Tycoon101]

... for those who think otherwise, I only say: "if that's so, we shouldn't ever convict the nazis because they were innocent and fair".

How so? They may have been fair in some cases, and in others they may have been unfair.

Nazis were soldiers that fought against the enemy fairly, but they also slaughtered many civilians. Were they only soldiers? Or were they mass-murderers? They were both. But the Nazi's were not terrorists.

(This is starting to sound like Godwynn's law right about now...)

There's a big difference between 1) sending people to gas chambers, performing scientific experiments on them and general ethnic cleansing and 2) civillian casualties of war due to collateral damage.

Thank you for clarifying his post.

 

[warpus]

The goal of terrorist groups is generally to put pressure on governments.

Yes, by terrorizing the government's citizens.

 

[JoeM]

As usual with all these threads, it comes down to understanding what the word terrorism means.

None of the above are acts of terrorism.

Why are there so many threads based on definitions of words? Does this really get to the point?

Surely you really want to know whether people think they are good or bad things. Going down the 'is it terrorism?' road simply plays into the hands of those who want to rule by fear and promote the cotradiction in terms that is the War On Terror(tm)

 

[Tycoon101]

As usual with all these threads, it comes down to understanding what the word terrorism means.

None of the above are acts of terrorism.

Why are there so many threads based on definitions of words? Does this really get to the point?

Surely you really want to know whether people think they are good or bad things. Going down the 'is it terrorism?' road simply plays into the hands of those who want to rule by fear and promote the cotradiction in terms that is the War On Terror(tm)

Excellent post. You are absolutely correct, but I feel that the question is fine, but there should be a follow-up as to whether or not this is good or bad, as you said.

 

[King Alexander]

How so? They may have been fair in some cases, and in others they may have been unfair.

That I leave to you to find out: just look at the Nuremberg trial and find out.

Nazis were soldiers that fought against the enemy fairly, but they also slaughtered many civilians. Were they only soldiers? Or were they mass-murderers? They were both. But the Nazi's were not terrorists.

The nazis executed whole civilian villages becaus one of their soldier would be captured/killed by the resistance. That's a FACT, and they've been paying for it until today in courts.
Bombed indiscriminately cities and villages, another war crime and crime against humanity, and they didn't care about the civilian casulaties, but then again, maybe some people were used to such news and images from the recent Iraq war, who knows?

(This is starting to sound like Godwynn's law right about now...)

I don't give a crap about Godwin's law: I discuss whatever I want without having to use dirty words or racist remarks --- can't you handle that, if I may ask?