Validity of terrorist attacks

[Aaron]

Do those guys ever actually surrender?

I guess they might be taken prisoner if they're wounded.

Sure they do. Not all of the Taliban are hardline psychopaths, a great deal sign up for the ration of rice and rat (that's hyperbole). There aren't allot of opportunities to make money or eat there so they join or just join out of revenge because a missile blew up Grandpa. The novelty of killing infidels wears off after a while, as it is wont to do after an artillery barrage or two

This argument (on my end, at least) has been about whether you can be at war with people apparently classed as "criminals". I say "yes", as does the current administration. Also, that method of classification would extend to our own spec-ops soldiers because of their SOP. I don't care for that method, and believe it should be changed.

I'm pretty sure that SF troops are covered under the system actually and if not then they are fully aware that they can be summarily executed as spies. "Criminal" in this sense is more of a dumping ground anyways, it allows a nation to not have to burden itself with dealing with every moron with a gun. And seeing as we are there by invite of the legitimate government of Afghanistan *snicker* then an attack on our troops by a criminal is a breach of their laws and several SOFA's.

Right. I used them as an illustration of my point; the UK may have viewed them as simple traitors, but a state of war existed whether they wanted to call it that or not. Therefore, things like the attack of HMS Eagle were guerrilla attacks, not terrorist attacks, as Seafort believes.

"War" in international legal-mumbo-jumbo is very specific in terms. The Revelation would be more of a counter-insurgency.

[Tsukiyumi]

Right; therein lies the problem: we don't see the war that founded our country as a counter-insurgency, and even if it is classed that way by the "international community", we certainly don't think the Boston Tea Party, or things like the attack on HMS Eagle (submarine tried to attach an explosive to her hull in the middle of the night - it didn't succeed, but a later attack on HMS Cerberus did) were terrorist acts. They were acts of defiance against an oppressor.

Ask any US citizen on here, I'm sure the majority feel the same way. So, I have a problem with labeling freedom fighters as terrorists. As long as they don't specifically target civilians. Which is how this argument started.

[Aaron]

Right; therein lies the problem: we don't see the war that founded our country as a counter-insurgency, and even if it is classed that way by the "international community", we certainly don't think the Boston Tea Party, or things like the attack on HMS Eagle (submarine tried to attach an explosive to her hull in the middle of the night - it didn't succeed, but a later attack on HMS Cerberus did) were terrorist acts. They were acts of defiance against an oppressor.

Ask any US citizen on here, I'm sure the majority feel the same way. So, I have a problem with labeling freedom fighters as terrorists. As long as they don't specifically target civilians. Which is how this argument started.

Hey, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The mujaheeden were our allies in the 80's and now their descendants are our enemies. Remember that for the Americans it was a war for their freedom, for the British it was a rebellion.

Edit: And its pretty silly to get choked up over an event that happened over two hundred years ago, don't you think?

[Sonic Glitch]

Right; therein lies the problem: we don't see the war that founded our country as a counter-insurgency, and even if it is classed that way by the "international community", we certainly don't think the Boston Tea Party, or things like the attack on HMS Eagle (submarine tried to attach an explosive to her hull in the middle of the night - it didn't succeed, but a later attack on HMS Cerberus did) were terrorist acts. They were acts of defiance against an oppressor.

Ask any US citizen on here, I'm sure the majority feel the same way. So, I have a problem with labeling freedom fighters as terrorists. As long as they don't specifically target civilians. Which is how this argument started.

Hey, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The mujaheeden were our allies in the 80's and now their descendants are our enemies. Remember that for the Americans it was a war for their freedom, for the British it was a rebellion.

Edit: And its pretty silly to get choked up over an event that happened over two hundred years ago, don't you think?

Kinda reminds me of the model U.N. conference this weekend. We were discussing Palestinian refugees and how best to aid them and perhaps cease the attacks. Almost everyone was against the idea of allowing Hamas into peace talks between Fatah and Israel, but my personal opinion (and the opinion of some of the other delegates) is: whether or not they are a legitimate military group or government power doesn't really matter. The fact is they exist and hold a great deal of sway in the region and ignoring them, or being perceived as ignoring them, would only make matters worse.

[Tsukiyumi]

Edit: And its pretty silly to get choked up over an event that happened over two hundred years ago, don't you think?

I'm not getting choked up. I just don't see the Revolutionary War that way, and neither do most Americans.

So, to avoid being hypocritical, I can see that from their perspective, AQ aren't terrorists, but soldiers. So, we are at war.

The primary differences are:

A) We weren't occupying their lands when this conflict started.

B) They want the freedom to oppress their people, whereas the founding fathers wanted to simply be free of oppression.

C) They're idiotic religious zealots.

D) They're the enemy.

The IRA claim to be fighting for freedom, but AFAIK, the UK isn't an oppressive bully anymore. I don't see that there's any cause for attacks at all, but if they are going to attack, they should only target military forces, not schools and civilians.

[stitch626]

All I have to say is expecting everyone to follow the same "rules of war" is nieve and stupid.
Just because they don't follow your rules to the letter doesn't make them terrorists.

I'm done. You may continue to argue.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm not getting choked up. I just don't see the Revolutionary War that way, and neither do most Americans.

You're welcome to see it how you like, but the facts are that the situation in North America in the 1760s and 70s was very similar to that in Ireland in the early 20s. You may not like it, but most of the early colonial independence movements were little more than armed thugs.

So, to avoid being hypocritical, I can see that from their perspective, AQ aren't terrorists, but soldiers. So, we are at war.

AQ can posture all they like. They are not soldiers - they are criminals. Well-armed and effective criminals, but criminals nonetheless. One of the earliest and biggest mistakes Bush made was the name "War on Terror". Apart from mangling English grammar, it pandered to these criminals' overinflated opinions of themselves, and played right into their hands.

A) We weren't occupying their lands when this conflict started.

That was one of bin Laden's original complaints - the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

Apart from that I fail to see how this distinguishes the US now from Britain in the 1760s and 70s. We weren't "occupying" the colonies any more than we're "occupying" Parliament square.

B) They want the freedom to oppress their people, whereas the founding fathers wanted to simply be free of oppression.

They want the freedom to express their religion as they see it

Your founding fathers simply wanted to avoid paying for the army and navy that had kept the French out of the colonies for decades. Even at a heavily subsidised rate.

C) They're idiotic religious zealots.

So's half the population of the US

D) They're the enemy.

Translation: Rah, America! Fuck yeah!

The IRA claim to be fighting for freedom, but AFAIK, the UK isn't an oppressive bully anymore. I don't see that there's any cause for attacks at all, but if they are going to attack, they should only target military forces, not schools and civilians.

There is no difference. If someone shot a policeman or an off-duty solider dead in a random killing spree, or while robbing a corner shop, they would be guilty of murder. Why do you think the IRA are any different?

[Aaron]

Edit: And its pretty silly to get choked up over an event that happened over two hundred years ago, don't you think?

I'm not getting choked up. I just don't see the Revolutionary War that way, and neither do most Americans.

So, to avoid being hypocritical, I can see that from their perspective, AQ aren't terrorists, but soldiers. So, we are at war.

The primary differences are:

A) We weren't occupying their lands when this conflict started.

B) They want the freedom to oppress their people, whereas the founding fathers wanted to simply be free of oppression.

C) They're idiotic religious zealots.

D) They're the enemy.

The IRA claim to be fighting for freedom, but AFAIK, the UK isn't an oppressive bully anymore. I don't see that there's any cause for attacks at all, but if they are going to attack, they should only target military forces, not schools and civilians.

Seafort already addressed everything else but as for B: you know that only applied if you were white, right? Several of the founding fathers where slave-holders and it's interesting to note that slavery wasn't abolished until the American Civil War, despite the freedom issue.

[Sionnach Glic]

I'm not getting choked up. I just don't see the Revolutionary War that way, and neither do most Americans.

What you consider it and what the majority of people call it is irrelevant. Citizens were rebelling against the governing body of their country. That's exactly what happened in Ireland, and it's exactly what's happening in Iraq, and it's exactly what's happening in Northern Ireland right now.

You think policemen and civilians who helped the British were left alone during the American War of Independance? Of course not. They were shot and killed, just as they are now.

So, to avoid being hypocritical, I can see that from their perspective, AQ aren't terrorists, but soldiers. So, we are at war.

They aren't soldiers. Neither was the IRA. Neither were the American rebels. They are or were terrorists. We just don't call them that nowadays because they won, and diplomacy prevents them being called what they are.

A) We weren't occupying their lands when this conflict started.

As Seafort pointed out, there were US troops in Saudi Arabia.
And what about the Iraqi resistance movements that were formed after the US invade? They are fighting against a nation occupying their country. Are they not terrorists?

Also, the British were not occupying another country. They were policing their own territory. That's like saying that Hawaii is being occupied by a foreign power.

B) They want the freedom to oppress their people,

Not all of them. Many of them simply want both the US and the Al-Qaeda-esque groups to both fuck off and leave them in peace. And many of them are also probably in resistance movements.

Not everyone who fights against you does so because they hate freedom, you know. That's Bush talking, and we've long established that he has no connection with reality.

whereas the founding fathers wanted to simply be free of oppression.

Yeah, and we all know just how well that went, right?

C) They're idiotic religious zealots.

Again, that's Bush talking. Many of the Iraqi terrorists are simply in those organisations to get the US to get the hell out of their country so they can be left in peace. They're no more zealots than the founding fathers were.

D) They're the enemy.

And so are the IRA. And so were the American rebels. Just what's the difference?

The IRA claim to be fighting for freedom, but AFAIK, the UK isn't an oppressive bully anymore.

The UK wasn't an oppressive bully back when we first rebelled. The original IRA rebelled because the UK made the world's biggest fuck up in the Public Relations department, and pissed most of the island off to the point where we just wanted them to get the hell off our land.

[stitch626]

And what about the Iraqi resistance movements that were formed after the US invade? They are fighting against a nation occupying their country. Are they not terrorists?

Actually, they are insugents, not terrorists.

Joking. Honestly, I can say that the colonist's were not terrorists because the current term of terrorist did not exist at the time. Sure, if it happened now, they would be terrorists. But at the time, the terrorist did not have the same meaning, therefore they are not terrorists.

[Sionnach Glic]

That's a rather pointless way of looking at it. We're asking if, from our point of view, the colonists that rebelled were terrorists. Saying "well, they didn't have the concept of terrorism back then" defeats the purpose, since we're looking at it from our point of view. Or do you think that if they did have a concept of terrorism back then, the rebels wouldn't have carried out such actions?

[stitch626]

What I'm saying is it doesn't matter what our point of view is. They are not terrorists because the definition did not exist. Whether or not they would have done the same thing had such a definition existed is irrelevant.

However, since your asking for our point of view, yes they were terrorists.

[Tsukiyumi]

Well, I guess this is just a difference of opinion. I believe there is a difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, namely that terrorists actively target civilians. I also believe that, under certain circumstances, rebelling against a government is perfectly acceptable, again, if you don't actively target civilians.

You guys apparently believe that no matter what the circumstances, anyone who rebels against the system though violent means is a terrorist. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

[Mikey]

The colonial rebels weren't terrorists, where the IRA was, because of the distinction of targetting civilian masses for political ends. Did loyalist individuals get attacked during the American Revolution? Sure, but it wasn't a policy of the rebels at large, as it was with the original IRA.

[Sionnach Glic]

The original IRA didn't target civilians all that much either, you know, and when they did it was because they were a direct threat to their organisations. This business of planting carbombs in the middle of busy streets didn't appear until long after we'd won our independance from Britain.

Of course, if you count the police as a civilian group then that all changes. The Royal Irish Constabulary was fucked six ways from sunday by the original IRA's actions, to the point where they withdrew to heavily defended barracks inside the cities. But I'm sure the American Rebels also hit police as well (not sure on this, US history isn't one of my strongpoints).