Is this terror?

[Ringel05]

Damn, the OPs argument is so full of rationality twists and turns as to make him a illegitimate political PR person. Too many political philosophy classes?

 

[Saigon]

Damn, the OPs argument is so full of rationality twists and turns as to make him a illegitimate political PR person. Too many political philosophy classes?

No, I was away the day they taught philosophy!

I think my overall point here is fairly straightforward, given the complexity of the topic.

I consider all attacks against civilian targets indefensible in any conflict, by any group and at any time.

I also consider attacks against government buildings and offices to be indefensible, because it is usually civilians who get hurt.

Attacks against military targets can be considered terrorism, and as such I think most of them are abhorrent and also unacceptable. However, I do think that we have a right to defend our land from invaders who would seek to oppress or enslave us, and I think the Nazi regime was an example of an invader who should be fought.

 

[Ringel05]

Damn, the OPs argument is so full of rationality twists and turns as to make him a illegitimate political PR person. Too many political philosophy classes?

No, I was away the day they taught philosophy!

I think my overall point here is fairly straightforward, given the complexity of the topic.

I consider all attacks against civilian targets indefensible in any conflict, by any group and at any time.

I also consider attacks against government buildings and offices to be indefensible, because it is usually civilians who get hurt.

Attacks against military targets can be considered terrorism, and as such I think most of them are abhorrent and also unacceptable. However, I do think that we have a right to defend our land from invaders who would seek to oppress or enslave us, and I think the Nazi regime was an example of an invader who should be fought.

Rationalization is still rationalization, ain't it great.........

 

[Artevelde]

HOW would that qualify as terror?

An ENEMY invader in time of war should be given a free pass because ships containing war supplies and materials may be (nominally) "civilian?"

No. The OP "questions" is founded on abject ignorance. It is clearly not even remotely akin to "terrorism."

I don't think it is terror either - that being my point.

No, your point is that you are desperately searching for ways to justify your claim that terrorist attacks against US military personnel in the Middle East aren't terrorism but justifiable self-defense.

 

[Artevelde]

Damn, the OPs argument is so full of rationality twists and turns as to make him a illegitimate political PR person. Too many political philosophy classes?

No, I was away the day they taught philosophy!

I think my overall point here is fairly straightforward, given the complexity of the topic.

I consider all attacks against civilian targets indefensible in any conflict, by any group and at any time.

I also consider attacks against government buildings and offices to be indefensible, because it is usually civilians who get hurt.

Attacks against military targets can be considered terrorism, and as such I think most of them are abhorrent and also unacceptable. However, I do think that we have a right to defend our land from invaders who would seek to oppress or enslave us, and I think the Nazi regime was an example of an invader who should be fought.

So the landing in Normandy was one great act of terrorism according to you?

 

[Artevelde]

So, your OP "asks" if "this" is terror when you already think that it pretty clearly is not?

Yeah, that's it.

It spun off from another thread, so made more sense to people who'd read that one too.

Yes, there they can see your real point is to defend terrorist attacks against US military personnel in the Middle East.

 

[Saigon]

Artevelde -

Do you really imagine I'd be in any way embarassed by a "quote" we both know you simply made up?

I have to say - your posting in the past few days has been absolutely dreadful. Manufacturing quotes is fairly low stuff, and you really should feel ashamed of your behaviour.

I have saved my original quote and the link to it, and am popping you back on ignore mode until you can show signs of posting honestly.

 

[Saigon]

double post.

 

[Artevelde]

Artevelde -

Do you really imagine I'd be in any way embarassed by a "quote" we both know you simply made up?

I have to say - your posting in the past few days has been absolutely dreadful. Manufacturing quotes is fairly low stuff, and you really should feel ashamed of your behaviour.

I have saved my original quote and the link to it, and am popping you back on ignore mode until you can show signs of posting honestly.

What a pathetic lie. You are even denying your own postings.

 

[Douger]

This is a video of a terrorist attack as perpetrated by the largest terrorist organization on the planet. NATO
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANv0e7gBXQA&feature=related]Bombs over Baghdad Live German TV iraq war 30 03 2003 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NeoTemplar]

Following on from a few other threads where the subject of terror has arisen, I thought it might be interesting to consider whether any kind of terror attack can ever be acceptable.

To my way of thinking, no attack against civilian targets is ever acceptable for any reason.

I am also opposed to most attacks against government buildings, such as the 9/11 strike on the Pentagon, the King David Hotel bombing, etc, because I think most of the casualties often end up being civilians as well.

But what about resistance against oppression?

Here's one case I often think of - that of Max Manus...his attacks would fit most peoples definition of terror, but was he really evil?

Max Manus, a Norwegian resistance leader whose Oslo Gang sank so many German warships, blew up so many German planes and kept Norwegian spirits so high during the Nazi occupation in World War II that he became a national hero, died on Friday, The Associated Press reported. He was 81.

Once he and a countryman had parachuted safely into the countryside outside Oslo and been supplied with hundreds of pounds of explosives and other provisions in follow-up air drops, there was hardly a day that the Germans did not feel their sting.

Although his chief target was German shipping in the Oslo harbor, Mr. Manus, who sometimes spent days under stinking piers waiting for cargo ships to tie up and who claimed even a battleship among his prizes, blew up virtually any German military or industrial target he encountered, including more than 100 German warplanes.

Max Manus, 81, Dies - Fought Nazis in Occupied Norway - Obituary; Biography - NYTimes.com

I'll have to disagree with the Pentagon part, taking out your enemies base of operations is just good tactical sense regardless of what side your on.

 

[Douger]

Here's a different type of terror.
Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » WWII Vet Warren Renn Bodeker Needs Your Help

 

[Saigon]

I'll have to disagree with the Pentagon part, taking out your enemies base of operations is just good tactical sense regardless of what side your on.

I know what you mean...and if we were talking WWII and a strike against Berlin I guess I'd have had few complaints.

But most of the people hurt in the Pentagon were low-level functionaries and admin staff, and they aren't really military targets in my book. I doubt AQ gained any major strategic advantage from killing those people, really.

 

[NeoTemplar]

I'll have to disagree with the Pentagon part, taking out your enemies base of operations is just good tactical sense regardless of what side your on.

I know what you mean...and if we were talking WWII and a strike against Berlin I guess I'd have had few complaints.

But most of the people hurt in the Pentagon were low-level functionaries and admin staff, and they aren't really military targets in my book. I doubt AQ gained any major strategic advantage from killing those people, really.

Yeah but i don't think they could have known that, its a gamble you can never really know for sure if your target is actually there without photographic evidence and even then its slim chance they haven't left. In this case i think they actually chose their targets more because they were well known landmarks and would get alot of media attention then anything else thats why its terrorism though, its an attack designed to put the fear of God into every man, woman and child who sees it and its a much more effective tactic now that we have mass media like Television and Internet which can broadcast it immediately all you need to do for sites like Youtube is set someone up to record it yourself and then upload the video of the attack and your done.

 

[Saigon]

Neo T -

Yes, I agree. I remember thinking at the time that had they targetted the White House they might have killed the President, and equally at the Pentagon they may have killed hundreds of key personnel.

I always thought the Twin Towers was a terrible target - as you say it had TV appeal, so maybe it's just a sign of the times, but I think from a military point of view they'd have been better striking an army base or even the White House.

 

[editec]

He was fighting on behalf of the legitimate government of a legitimate state in a military conflict between two states.

No, he was not. His nation had given up. Ergo he was fighting the legitimate government at the time.

Of course we're all glad he did, and think him heroic, but he WAS a terrorist.


One man's terrorist is another man's FREEDOM FIGHTER, kiddies.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Following on from a few other threads where the subject of terror has arisen, I thought it might be interesting to consider whether any kind of terror attack can ever be acceptable.

To my way of thinking, no attack against civilian targets is ever acceptable for any reason.

I am also opposed to most attacks against government buildings, such as the 9/11 strike on the Pentagon, the King David Hotel bombing, etc, because I think most of the casualties often end up being civilians as well.

But what about resistance against oppression?

Here's one case I often think of - that of Max Manus...his attacks would fit most peoples definition of terror, but was he really evil?

Max Manus, a Norwegian resistance leader whose Oslo Gang sank so many German warships, blew up so many German planes and kept Norwegian spirits so high during the Nazi occupation in World War II that he became a national hero, died on Friday, The Associated Press reported. He was 81.

Once he and a countryman had parachuted safely into the countryside outside Oslo and been supplied with hundreds of pounds of explosives and other provisions in follow-up air drops, there was hardly a day that the Germans did not feel their sting.

Although his chief target was German shipping in the Oslo harbor, Mr. Manus, who sometimes spent days under stinking piers waiting for cargo ships to tie up and who claimed even a battleship among his prizes, blew up virtually any German military or industrial target he encountered, including more than 100 German warplanes.

Max Manus, 81, Dies - Fought Nazis in Occupied Norway - Obituary; Biography - NYTimes.com

Fighting back against ruthless oppressors, as a civilian is terrorism.


terrorist carries a stigma today, but in the years of our Revolution, we didn't care what we got called and I'm sure the brave men of Norway didn't care either.

Killing evil isn't evil when the desired outcome is freedom.

 

[Artevelde]

He was fighting on behalf of the legitimate government of a legitimate state in a military conflict between two states.

No, he was not. His nation had given up. Ergo he was fighting the legitimate government at the time.

Of course we're all glad he did, and think him heroic, but he WAS a terrorist.


One man's terrorist is another man's FREEDOM FIGHTER, kiddies.

That is simply not true. Norway had not given up the war.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

To my way of thinking, no attack against civilian targets is ever acceptable for any reason.

The Ordeal of Total War: 1939-1945 by Gordon Wright does a good job of exploring this issue. The justification was the people of Germany and Japan were as much a part of the war effort as actual soldiers or sailors. It was necessary to attack the means to make war as well. Duly acknowledged and authorized governments are also empowered to make a decision to attack civilian populations free from charges of ‘war crimes.’ Nixon used this reasoning to bomb North Vietnam, killing thousand of civilians. A variation of this justification was used by GWB – and by Obama now - to attack civilian ‘terror’ targets.

But what about resistance against oppression?

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter.”

The rationale for ‘terror attacks’ by entities such as al-Qaeda is to compel a civilian population to compel its government to end a practice considered oppressive by the ‘terrorists.’ This is why it’s important to not acknowledge or recognize al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization as ‘fighters’ or ‘soldiers’ or any type of legitimate governing body, as civilians alone can not justify attacks on other civilians; their acts are consequently criminal acts, and subject to prosecution accordingly.

 

[Saigon]

To my way of thinking, no attack against civilian targets is ever acceptable for any reason.

The Ordeal of Total War: 1939-1945 by Gordon Wright does a good job of exploring this issue. The justification was the people of Germany and Japan were as much a part of the war effort as actual soldiers or sailors. It was necessary to attack the means to make war as well. Duly acknowledged and authorized governments are also empowered to make a decision to attack civilian populations free from charges of ‘war crimes.’ Nixon used this reasoning to bomb North Vietnam, killing thousand of civilians. A variation of this justification was used by GWB – and by Obama now - to attack civilian ‘terror’ targets.

.

The means of production I totally agree with.

In war time, I totally understand hitting railway lines and airports, factories and supply lines. That makes sense.

But even in a war, consideration can be given to innocent people. Bombing factories and so forth could often mean hitting them at a time when few people were working there, and striking airports could often by done at night, or in such a way that damage was limited to the runway and hangers - and not the terminal itself.

In some cases this won't be viable, and innocent civilians will die, but at least it can be given consideration.

I think the US was very poor at this in Viet Nam, and lost a lot of local public support as a result.