[Wilhelm]

Terrorism is defined by the use of fear upon a civilian population. That's why it's called TERRORism. They inflict terror upon the people.

Terrorism has been done equally by both sides.

[RedCommunist]

We're told all men are created equal and that this country was built on freedom.
Then enslaved good folks to farm the land that was stolen.

Yeah and we where founded on God also but that didn't last now did it.

[jaakko]

I don't agree that any of the examples you gave Jaakko are terrorism. Any action against a military target...be it to weaken that military power or to reduce morale...is not terrorism...but a legitimate military action.

Can't we conclude that at times terrorism is a legitimate military tactic? For me, terrorism in itself is neither good or bad. It's just use of violence to inflict fear on the enemy. Terrorism is terrorism, were the victims civilians or not. Remember the debate among Russian revolutionaries on the the use of individual terror, ie. one form of terrorism? Well, large number of the victims of individual terror (as exercised by anarchists and others) were other than civilian, okhrana leaders and hated military officers among others.

[DTguitarist99]

Okay, military actions designed to inflict terror can be called terrorism. But most of us agree that military actions are not morally equivalent to attacks on civilians. So we differentiate between them by only calling the attacks on civilians terrorism. If you have a better word for that, to differentiate between the types of terrorism, let us know.

[jaakko]

Okay, military actions designed to inflict terror can be called terrorism. But most of us agree that military actions are not morally equivalent to attacks on civilians. So we differentiate between them by only calling the attacks on civilians terrorism. If you have a better word for that, to differentiate between the types of terrorism, let us know.

Yes, basically I agree with you. But I've noticed how the word 'terrorism' is hardly ever used without political connotations. It's use depends on whose actions end in civilian casualties. I'm not saying anyone was free of biases with this word. Attacks on civilians are usually terrorism. What else could they be, than for breaking the morale of the enemy (either the troops or the whole population)? But terrorism can also be used in pure military operations.

The problem with the 'moral' use of terrorism is that one usually ends up calling all illegal armed enemies 'terrorists' even if terrorism was only one of the methods used by them, or even when terrorism wasn't used at all.

[Free the Six Counties!]

Okay, military actions designed to inflict terror can be called terrorism. But most of us agree that military actions are not morally equivalent to attacks on civilians. So we differentiate between them by only calling the attacks on civilians terrorism. If you have a better word for that, to differentiate between the types of terrorism, let us know.

I have never heard military operations such as the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo in WWII, called terrorism. Those operations clearest goal was to spread widespread terror among the populations of those, and other cities, yet they are considered legitimate military operations by the same people who label others with similar goals as "terrorists".

[Free the Six Counties!]

Thats true, but "total war" is incompatible with civilized society and its morally wrong. The moral way to fight wars is to separate civilians from soldiers. Civilians can only be killed as collateral damage. Many in the Arab world haven't reached this level of civilization yet, so to them "total war" is justified.

Some arabs may call terrorists heros, but they can still be wrong even if thats "just the way they see things." Murdering thugs are not heros, and the American soldiers who liberated 23 million Iraqis while minimizing civilian casualties are heros.

Isildur, you are fooling yourself if you think that total war is only accepted in the Arab world... World War II was a total war in the fullest sense of the term. More recently, the NATO cold war strategy for defending against a Warsaw Pact invasion called for total war, including the preemptive nuclear strike against major cities and infrastructure targets. The only reason that the Persian Gulf wars were not "total" was the U.S. did not see a need for them to be. If the Iraqis had mounted a stiffer resistance than expected, the U.S. and British militaries would have swung into total war mode as much as the press and civilian population would have allowed. And where do you get the idea that all those who accept total war and therefore "terrorists" are Arabs? A look at any one of the dozens of other groups around the planet (the IRA, the Shining Path, November 17, SNLA, and the Tibetan Liberation Army, just to name a few) would dispose of this ignorant and racist statement in an instant... As for the American "heros", its funny how one mans hero can be another mans oppressor.

[jaakko]

I have never heard military operations such as the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo in WWII, called terrorism. Those operations clearest goal was to spread widespread terror among the populations of those, and other cities, yet they are considered legitimate military operations by the same people who label others with similar goals as "terrorists".

Yes, because some can't accept 'terrorism' as 'use of violence to inflict fear on the enemy'. They don't want to treat 'terrorism' as a clear scientific concept, but to turn it into a political mocking name (ie. enemies are terrorists).

[Boondock Saint]

Well ... the term 'terrorist' seems to be fully applicable and apt to many people.

Al Qiada is most certainly a terrorist group. It is believed that Al Qaida was reponsible for the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia which was responsible for the deaths of not only westerners but also civilian arabs ... a group that intentionally targets civilians of the west in the name of arab or muslim freedom while having no problem killing arab or muslims seems more like a criminal organization to me ... a criminal organization that utilizes terror as its only means to conduct operations. But, there are plenty of people who would call them freedom fighters ... and I cant fault anyone for that.

The US recently has killed civilians, though I dont think intentionally the fact is civilians still died. Someone could easily point the finger and say 'terrorists' .... I wouldnt blame them either.

ISreal is accused of using terror methods ... as are the Palestinians ... so basically what we have are two terrorist groups fighting one another. Two terror groups that would have you believe they are 'freedom fighters' of a sort ...

Who is and who is not a terrorist is purely depending on which side of the barrel you find yourself.

I consider Al Qaida terrorists, why? They would happily kill me simply because I am a westerner ...

As for the WWII examples, I think that is a tad out dated. That war saw a level of technology that did not allow for any other options, especially with military targets so close to residential districts. There were no smart bombs or guided missiles back then ... and the stategies for war were rather new ... since that was the first war that saw such an emphasis on massive air campaigns.

I dont think you would see the US fire bombing any cities these days, just as I dont think you would see the US nuking any cities ... why? Cause it actually goes against the strategy ... not because we give a shit about the people ... but its counterproductive to level an entire city ... especially if occupation is the goal.

Where am I going with this? I forgot ...

[DTguitarist99]

FtSC: Like Boondock said, the World War II examples are outdated. back then, yes, we accepted the doctrine of total war (especially since the other side was using it too). Now, we would never use total war since we have the technology required to both win the war and save civilian lives. If we were ever facing a powerful enemy that used total war against us, we would also. That is the only case where the US would do that. Otherwise, it is not an option. Even if Iraq offered very tough resistance, it would be unnacceptable for the military to engage in total war. it would be a losing situation for the US and its military, president Bush would lose the next election for sure, and we wouldn't achieve one of our primary objectives, which was to protect the Iraqi people. Engaging in total war would make the effort a total failure, even if we defeated the enemy. Wars now are fought as much with public relations in mind as with winning the war in mind.

My statement "Many in the Arab world haven't reached this level of civilization yet" is not racism, just an observation. Had I said ALL arabs are uncivilized, that would be racist. There is no question that many arabs are uncivilized, as there are many involved in terrorism and many more who support terrorism. I didn't exclude other people from being uncivilized as well. There are uncivilized people everywhere.

[Gothmog]

FtSC: Like Boondock said, the World War II examples are outdated. back then, yes, we accepted the doctrine of total war (especially since the other side was using it too). Now, we would never use total war since we have the technology required to both win the war and save civilian lives.

-Hmmm....this is not true you don´t use total war because:
1-It is extremely expensive.
2-You gain nothing by doing it (Sun Tzu, 2000 years ago argued that "the best is to capture the enemy country intact, not to damage and destry things)
3-It makes no sense to devastate a country that is unable to defend itself. It´s like killing ants with flamethrowers....

However, this don´t make you more civilized than anyone. NAZI Germany also avoid total war until Barbarossa invasion. Civilian deaths due to military action in the starting campaigns were relatively low. In the opening phases of Battle of England, Hitler gave express orders to avoid bombing civilian areas, because he wanted to get a deal with England. Even the terror bombings against London were the result of an unintended escalation, instead of a plan to kill thousands of people. German Army only used mass terror against civilian population when confronted with an enemy that was willing to fight to death.

If we were ever facing a powerful enemy that used total war against us, we would also.

-That proves my point....

[Gothmog]

Thats true, but "total war" is incompatible with civilized society and its morally wrong. The moral way to fight wars is to separate civilians from soldiers. Civilians can only be killed as collateral damage. Many in the Arab world haven't reached this level of civilization yet, so to them "total war" is justified.

-Actually total war is an INVENTION of civilized society. Primitive wars usually spare non combatants. The invention of the airplane made it possible to target civilian populations, however, carpet bombings of cities proved to be costly way (loss of bombers in WWII were very high) and had relatively low impact in the war (Japanese economy was destroyed by unrestricted submarine warfare even before the bombings of Japanese cities started). So, strategic bombing of cities was abandoned in favor of more eficient tatics. This has nothing to do with humanity, but with military rationality

Some arabs may call terrorists heros, but they can still be wrong even if thats "just the way they see things." Murdering thugs are not heros, and the American soldiers who liberated 23 million Iraqis while minimizing civilian casualties are heros.

-An army who defeats a completely defenseless country is hardly made of heroes. Heroes are those who RISK their lifes to fight against an enemy. If you want to look at examples from your country, look at the crews of torpedo bombers at Midway in their qasi suicidal attacks. They suffered 85% losses flying their mousetraps against the Japanese best figher pilots, and their sacrifice made the US victory possible. On the other hand, I doubt if you remeber the names of US fighter pilots who decimated the incoming Japanese bombers in the Sea of Philipines battle. The disproportion between forces was so high that this result was expected. Same thing with US army in Iraq. They simply dindn´t find credible opposition. In the last two cases, the military cannot be considered heroes or cowards, they simply weren´t put on proof.

[DTguitarist99]

"Hmmm....this is not true you don´t use total war because:
1-It is extremely expensive.
2-You gain nothing by doing it (Sun Tzu, 2000 years ago argued that "the best is to capture the enemy country intact, not to damage and destry things)
3-It makes no sense to devastate a country that is unable to defend itself. It´s like killing ants with flamethrowers.... "

True, but we also don't use total war because we believe in civilized warfare. I think it depends on what you mean by total war also, because in true total war we would just nuke all of Iraq, which would never happen for a million good reasons. But if you say total war just means killing as many civilians as necessary to win the war, we could have wiped out Iraq more easily and with fewer American casualties had we bombed every Iraqi military unit with massive MOAB bombs, casuing large numbers of civilian causalities. The reason we did not do this was not because it was too expensive, as there was no risk of our planes being touched and the MOABS probably cost less than the precision bombs. We would in fact have gained something from it: fewer US causualties. And we wouldn't be decimating the country, but causing massive civilian casualties. Of course even if you believe in civilized warfare, if a country attacks using total war and the only way to win is to use their tactics against them, you will do that.

"They simply dindn´t find credible opposition. In the last two cases, the military cannot be considered heroes or cowards, they simply weren´t put on proof."

Well they did risk their lives to some extent, so I consider them heros, but soldiers in wars like WWII where they faced extreme risks were more heroic.

[Gothmog]

True, but we also don't use total war because we believe in civilized warfare. I think it depends on what you mean by total war also, because in true total war we would just nuke all of Iraq, which would never happen for a million good reasons.

-Wrong, in a total war against a strong enemy, any country with some sense of strategy would produce only the damage necessary to allow occupation.

But if you say total war just means killing as many civilians as necessary to win the war, we could have wiped out Iraq more easily and with fewer American casualties had we bombed every Iraqi military unit with massive MOAB bombs, casuing large numbers of civilian causalities. The reason we did not do this was not because it was too expensive, as there was no risk of our planes being touched and the MOABS probably cost less than the precision bombs. We would in fact have gained something from it: fewer US causualties. And we wouldn't be decimating the country, but causing massive civilian casualties. Of course even if you believe in civilized warfare, if a country attacks using total war and the only way to win is to use their tactics against them, you will do that.

-Wrong again. MOABS are less expensive, but they are imprecise and excessively destructive. They would have caused massive damage to Iraq infrastructure, making occupation a nightmare (it is actually becoming a nightmare, but it would be much worse). However, if Iraq had 1,000 SU-27´s and weel dug in troops with thousands of T-80´s, and long range missiles with ability to attack US airbases, your leadership wouldn´t hesitate just one minute before using lots of MOABS gainst Iraqi targets.

Well they did risk their lives to some extent, so I consider them heros, but soldiers in wars like WWII where they faced extreme risks were more heroic.

-The risks they faced is not much more than the risk of training missions (actually a substantial % of losses were due to accidents), and the human being is risking his life everyday, just by living....) I see no heroism in shooting defenseless enemies.

[DTguitarist99]

your leadership wouldn´t hesitate just one minute before using lots of MOABS gainst Iraqi targets.

But they would primarily be against military targets, with more collateral damage. Total war, like in world war II, would be directly targeting civilians to inspire fear. So even if Iraqis were more diificult to defeat, we would not engage in total war. Only if they were a massive threat like Nazi Germany that was using total war against us or our allies would we consider total war.

Getting back to the original topic, my point is that the US avoids total war when possible because it is not a murderous aggressor that conquers and targets civilians. Terrorists use total war as their primary strategy. Therefore they are uncivilized, immoral, and cannot be called freedom fighters.

-The risks they faced is not much more than the risk of training missions (actually a substantial % of losses were due to accidents), and the human being is risking his life everyday, just by living....) I see no heroism in shooting defenseless enemies.

The difference is that these soldiers saved and liberated people. Soldiers in training don't do that, and neither do people just living their lives. If you run across someone who stopped breathing and is about to die, and you use CPR to revive him, then you are a hero, even if there was no risk to yourself.

[Gothmog]

The difference is that these soldiers saved and liberated people. Soldiers in training don't do that, and neither do people just living their lives. If you run across someone who stopped breathing and is about to die, and you use CPR to revive him, then you are a hero, even if there was no risk to yourself.

-To many of them this "liberation" meant death....althought the number of civilian casualties were relatively small (3-4,000), late mortality resulting from the destruction of civilian infastructure, due both to bombings, looting and general anarchy will be much higher, probably in the range of tens of thousands. And on, liberation, I´ve seen nothing that could be called like this. What happened was the replacing of a brutal dictator with a state of anarchy, led by an occupation power that up to now was unable to enforce security and repair infrastructure. Actually, Iraq now can be mentioned as a proof that Hobbes was right. The worst government seems to be better than no government at all.....

[DTguitarist99]

What happened was the replacing of a brutal dictator with a state of anarchy, led by an occupation power that up to now was unable to enforce security and repair infrastructure. Actually, Iraq now can be mentioned as a proof that Hobbes was right. The worst government seems to be better than no government at all.....

In case you haven't noticed, the anarchy is winding down. I haven't heard anything about looting for at least a month. Lets see which is better, one month of anarchy, or brutal dictatorship to the end of your life?

To many of them this "liberation" meant death....althought the number of civilian casualties were relatively small (3-4,000), late mortality resulting from the destruction of civilian infastructure, due both to bombings, looting and general anarchy will be much higher, probably in the range of tens of thousands. And on, liberation, I´ve seen nothing that could be called like this.

How are looting and anarchy going to result in the deaths of tens of thousands??? Especially when control is starting to be regained already. SOme will die due the existence of unexploded cluster bombs, but that will not be tens of thousands. In any event the number of civilian lives lost in the war is not many compared to the number Saddam would have killed had he stayed in power. And freedom is not free. Should we have not entered World War II and liberated Europe because civilians would die?

[Gothmog]

In case you haven't noticed, the anarchy is winding down. I haven't heard anything about looting for at least a month. Lets see which is better, one month of anarchy, or brutal dictatorship to the end of your life?

-Reports from press suggests that there has been almost no progress in restoring law, order and civilian infrastructure (electricity and water mainly)

How are looting and anarchy going to result in the deaths of tens of thousands??? Especially when control is starting to be regained already. SOme will die due the existence of unexploded cluster bombs, but that will not be tens of thousands.

-The vast majority of excess deaths is due to destruction of water sources and hospitals (by looting or bombings). The is a New England Journal of Medicine article, published in 1992, arguing that "direct" bombings deaths were much smaller than late mortality due to infrastructure damage. And in 1991, civil infrastructure was repaired faster, because Iraq still had a working government (althought a bad one). Now, Iraq has no government.

In any event the number of civilian lives lost in the war is not many compared to the number Saddam would have killed had he stayed in power. And freedom is not free. Should we have not entered World War II and liberated Europe because civilians would die?

-You can´t prove this point. You have no reliable statistics on overall mortality in the 10 last years, and to what extent those deaths were caused by Saddam or by the embargo. And you obviously have no statistics for the next months/years. All you can say up to now is that your government killed something like 3-4 thousand people and much more are dying from disease. This can improve or degenerate even in more chaos.

[DTguitarist99]

Reports from press suggests that there has been almost no progress in restoring law, order and civilian infrastructure (electricity and water mainly)

Progress will be made soon I'm sure. Its not like you can snap your fingers and have everything restored.

-The vast majority of excess deaths is due to destruction of water sources and hospitals (by looting or bombings). The is a New England Journal of Medicine article, published in 1992, arguing that "direct" bombings deaths were much smaller than late mortality due to infrastructure damage. And in 1991, civil infrastructure was repaired faster, because Iraq still had a working government (althought a bad one). Now, Iraq has no government.

We'll have to see how soon the infrastructure will be rebuilt, but my guess is it will happen pretty soon after we get the government set up.

You can´t prove this point. You have no reliable statistics on overall mortality in the 10 last years, and to what extent those deaths were caused by Saddam or by the embargo. And you obviously have no statistics for the next months/years. All you can say up to now is that your government killed something like 3-4 thousand people and much more are dying from disease. This can improve or degenerate even in more chaos.

The human rights watch estimates hundreds or thousands of innocents were killed by Saddam every year. Theres no way to know exactly, but had we not gone to war, its reasonable to guess that many thousands would be killed during the rest of Saddams lifetime and many more after one of his sons took over.

[Putinist]

IsildurXI
3% Corrupt


Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Posts: 74

Is a Ronald Reagan avatar really necessary?