Validity of terrorist attacks

[Tsukiyumi]

An assault on a military force is one thing, but when civilians are injured or killed, it truly is terrorism.

It's terrorism regardless of who's being attacked. Unless you think the nightclub bombing in the eighties, or the attacks on the USS Cole and the Pentagon were perfectly justified.

Military targets are valid in war. Civilians aren't.

Where did I say "perfectly justified" again?

[Captain Seafort]

Military targets are valid in war. Civilians aren't.

Correct. What's that got to do with Northern Ireland?

Where did I say "perfectly justified" again?

Your statement that I quoted came extremely close to justifying terrorism aimed at the military.

[Lt. Staplic]

yes it's all terrorism, but even you have to agree in that situation, the people in the military know what their facing, and are (suppossidly) prepared for it. The Civilians aren't.

[Captain Seafort]

yes it's all terrorism, but even you have to agree in that situation, the people in the military know what their facing, and are (suppossidly) prepared for it. The Civilians aren't.

Utterly irrelevent. There is no moral difference between the murder of a soldier and the murder of a civilian.

The only difference is that the soldiers don't have to be there - they're mostly English, or Scots, or Welsh, not Northern Irish. They chose to join up knowing that they would probably be sent into harms' way (although these days Northern Ireland is probably the last place they expected to find themselves in harms' way). That says a good deal about their courage. It says fuck all about the morality of the scum responsible for their deaths.

[Tsukiyumi]

Military targets are valid in war. Civilians aren't.

Correct. What's that got to do with Northern Ireland?

I'm going to avoid putting words into your mouth, but this sounds like the start of another "it's not a war unless recognized countries are involved" argument to me.

Where did I say "perfectly justified" again?

Your statement that I quoted came extremely close to justifying terrorism aimed at the military.

What, exactly, is the difference between a SEAL team blowing up an enemy military facility, and an armed militia blowing one up? One is sanctioned by a government?

And, the Pentagon is most assuredly a valid target, as long as you don't use a plane full of civilians to attack it. The Cole was definitely a valid attack. No civilians involved.

Utterly irrelevent. There is no moral difference between the murder of a soldier and the murder of a civilian.

Which means every war in history is immoral on all sides. The immorality of the attack isn't in question on my end; it's the validity of the target that seems to be in dispute.

[Sionnach Glic]

Exactly. This is terrorism, pure and simple. That it's against military targets has no bearing on this.

[Tsukiyumi]

Exactly. This is terrorism, pure and simple. That it's against military targets has no bearing on this.

Okay, then SEAL teams, and all spec-ops soldiers are "terrorists", right? They certainly fall under the definition when viewed in that context.

[Lt. Staplic]

I'm not supporting/condoning or anything positive about the terrorist attacks, we've had our share of them.

It's a terroristic tactic to attack an army barrack, where soldiers are suppossed to be safer (even if it was an active war zone.) But attacking civilians is more terrorizing, and IMO a little eviler. Think about it from a terrorists point of view, if you had to choose between attacking an enemy civilian center, or a civilian military base, most of the time they choose the civilian center (World Trade Centers for example as oppossed to one of our bases in the middle east.)(This situation is a little differet as the terrorists are attacking the military "occupation" trying to "liberate" the civilians even though the don't so they won't attack civilians on purpose). IMO it's a little eviler because to the terrorists it's a war, the enemy soldiers are "oppressing" the terrorist population. The civilians haven't done anything however.

That's my thinking as to why I think, and probably what Tsuki thinks as well, that attacking civilians just seems a little more horrific, even if in reality it isn't.

[Lt. Staplic]

Exactly. This is terrorism, pure and simple. That it's against military targets has no bearing on this.

Okay, then SEAL teams, and all spec-ops soldiers are "terrorists", right? They certainly fall under the definition when viewed in that context.

Except that usually when SEAL teams and Special Ops go in it's during a time of War, making it...war.

Black Ops is a different thing, IMO every country that uses black ops can be accused of terrorism in certain context.

[Tsukiyumi]

Except that usually when SEAL teams and Special Ops go in it's during a time of War, making it...war...

Yes, and to the jihadists, (and the people in this incident) they are at war. Just because we choose not to call it that doesn't change anything on their end.

EDIT: the spec-ops teams we've used in Afghanistan, for example: we aren't at war with Afghanistan, are we? No. So how is them blowing up people's homes different? Those homes were used by the militias that we are at war with, therefore, they're valid targets to us.

[Sionnach Glic]

Tsu, these aren't Jihadists. They're Irish "patriots" who think that the people still want what we'd given up on over half a century ago.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm going to avoid putting words into your mouth, but this sounds like the start of another "it's not a war unless recognized countries are involved" argument to me.

There are three main criteria for an armed fighting force to be legal:

1) The must carry their weapons openly. (Probably true in this instance - an AK is a bit on the large side to hide under your coat, although the Provos rountinely failed this criterion)
2) They must wear a distinguishing mark, visible at a distance. (Not a fucking chance)
3) They must have a chain of command. (Possibly, although a big blank given out knowelge of how the Real IRA is organised. The Provos ranged from very well organised to a rabble)

The IRA, in all it's recent forms, fails criterion 2)

What, exactly, is the difference between a SEAL team blowing up an enemy military facility, and an armed militia blowing one up? One is sanctioned by a government?

See above. If the militia has a recognised command structure, wears a distinguishing insignia, and carries it's weapons openly, they're legal. If not then they're nothing but terrorists.

And, the Pentagon is most assuredly a valid target, as long as you don't use a plane full of civilians to attack it.

Very well.

The Cole was definitely a valid attack. No civilians involved.

They didn't carry their weapons openly, and they didn't have a distiguishing mark. That was a terrorist attack, pure and simple.

Which means every war in history is immoral on all sides.

Not at all - there's a difference between murder and killing in self or collective defence.

[Tsukiyumi]

Tsu, these aren't Jihadists.

I know, and I'm not trying to justify their attack any more than I would our rocket attacks against people's homes in Afghanistan from a moral standpoint. They are still valid military targets, just like the mosques housing RPG's and machine gun emplacements in Iraq.

See above. If the militia has a recognised command structure, wears a distinguishing insignia, and carries it's weapons openly, they're legal. If not then they're nothing but terrorists.

Well, then I suppose the majority of the Continental Army were terrorists, right? There may be a few people who would disagree with that assessment.

Not at all - there's a difference between murder and killing in self or collective defence.

Which is exactly what the jihadists, and apparently, these Irish militias are doing. It's more "moral" if your country tells you to do it?

[Captain Seafort]

They are still valid military targets, just like the mosques housing RPG's and machine gun emplacements in Iraq.

No they fucking aren't. Whether they're in the military or not, no one is a valid target for a terrorist.

Well, then I suppose the majority of the Continental Army were terrorists, right?

The Continental Army, IIRC, filled the criteria I mentioned. Command structure, carrying arms openly, and distinguishing mark (they wore uniforms did they not?) The Minutemen were another matter - no command structure I'm aware of, and no distinguishing mark (unless they wore armbands or something).

Which is exactly what the jihadists, and apparently, these Irish militias are doing.

Bull. Fucking. Shit. Regarding the IRAs and AQ anyway. The Taleban are another matter - as I understand the situation in Afghanistan, they fill the criteria I mentioned, although the "distinguishing mark" one is a bit iffy, and one they might fail.

It's more "moral" if your country tells you to do it?

See the criteria I've been explaining for the last few posts.

[Tsukiyumi]

They are still valid military targets, just like the mosques housing RPG's and machine gun emplacements in Iraq.

No they f***ing aren't. Whether they're in the military or not, no one is a valid target for a terrorist.

But, they are valid targets for an airstrike?

Well, then I suppose the majority of the Continental Army were terrorists, right?

The Continental Army, IIRC, filled the criteria I mentioned. Command structure, carrying arms openly, and distinguishing mark (they wore uniforms did they not?) The Minutemen were another matter - no command structure I'm aware of, and no distinguishing mark (unless they wore armbands or something).

We barely had money for ammunition, let alone uniforms for the rank-and-file. Most of them were just, by your definition, civilians, who took up arms in defense of their homes. At least, that's the way they saw it, and that's the way our history books see it.

Which is exactly what the jihadists, and apparently, these Irish militias are doing.

Bull. f***ing. s**t. Regarding the IRAs and AQ anyway. The Taleban are another matter - as I understand the situation in Afghanistan, they fill the criteria I mentioned, although the "distinguishing mark" one is a bit iffy, and one they might fail.

Again, just because they don't meet some criteria for being "soldiers" doesn't change the fact that we are at war.

It's more "moral" if your country tells you to do it?

See the criteria I've been explaining for the last few posts.

So, if I kill people under the criteria of the Geneva Convention, it's somehow more "moral"? Okay.

Again, I'm not disputing the immorality of these attacks. They are, however, just as valid as targets as when we blow up people's houses in Afghanistan when they pull double-duty as ammunition dumps or machine gun emplacements.