Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Terrorism is a form of warfare. But not all warfare is terrorism. I would say that terrorism/freedom fighting is pretty much synonomous with guerilla warfare.

When states use such brutal tactics that result in the killing of innocent civilians I don't know what to call it.

I once read a good quote from a book that was cynical on poloticians. It went something like this:

"Of course, as the wars went on and our enemies learnt that they couldn't face us in a fiar fight they resorted to desperate guerilla tactics. But we called it 'terrorism' so that our people knew it was a bad thing."

Emperors Faithful wrote:When states use such brutal tactics that result in the killing of innocent civilians I don't know what to call it.

Strategery!

Really the idea of rules in War between opponents is really quite silly. Even when they were put into place could be broken at any time for a strategic advantage. The British Officers weren't big fans of our snipers and skirmishers picking off their officers in the Revolutionary War but we did it anyway ( ). The whole idea of civilian and military being separate entities is a total mind job. We say it to make ourselves feel safer in some capacity but the one doesn't exist without the other. You can have a civilian population with no army but the opposite is not true. The civilian side supplies, funds, and feeds a military. Using civilians has long been a strategy because it is a viable. In the Vietnam conflict the NVA/VC knew that if they destroyed support at home in the US we would pull out. Or you can just bomb civilian targets. A military can only get so far with no bread and no oil and the civilian side supplies those things. Those rules only last as long as things are not going downhill. If one's country or family is under attack and the situation is dire people are not going to pay head to them. I think it is good that we try to come up with these artificial rules as they can help to minimize deaths and destruction in some ways, but in others they are just another example of arrogant Western mindset. At least that is what Kid Kyoto told me.

Genocide?
Collateral Damage?
Ooops?

You're right about it not being possible to feild an army without a population, but I don't think the VC purposefully did much to destroy support for the war in America.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
You're right about it not being possible to feild an army without a population, but I don't think the VC purposefully did much to destroy support for the war in America.

They did openly refuse any attempt at serious negotiation, and not because they felt as though their military was somehow superior to that of the US.

What would the atom bomb on Japan be considered as?

Its terrifying check
Killed bunch of civilian check.

It was terrible, and it did incite terror among the civilians, but it was decidedly not an act of terrorists or a form of terrorism. I find it interesting that this situation keeps being brought up...

I would actually call it a pretty good example of terrorism.

I think the attempt to keep it out of the 'terrorist' category is motivated by nothing more than the desire to find a new 'evil' category to oppose.

JEB_Stuart wrote:It was terrible, and it did incite terror among the civilians, but it was decidedly not an act of terrorists or a form of terrorism. I find it interesting that this situation keeps being brought up...

Yes because we figured , since USA is so powerful that instead of petty tactics they can openly
blow Japan to oblivion and suddenly they are free of the terrorist label.

Joy.

dogma wrote:I would actually call it a pretty good example of terrorism.

I think the attempt to keep it out of the 'terrorist' category is motivated by nothing more than the desire to find a new 'evil' category to oppose.

Im very impressed , an American that isnt biased for their war decisions . I would add you to my friends list .

LunaHound wrote:
Im very impressed , an American that isnt biased for their war decisions . I would add you to my friends list .

Don't be too hasty. I don't necessarily believe that terrorism is intrinsically reprehensible.

dogma wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Im very impressed , an American that isnt biased for their war decisions . I would add you to my friends list .

Don't be too hasty. I don't necessarily believe that terrorism is intrinsically reprehensible.

Thats why i said "would" i never said you would like me lol.

America... FETH YEAH... wait we are how broke? Uh oh...

dogma wrote:I would actually call it a pretty good example of terrorism.

I think the attempt to keep it out of the 'terrorist' category is motivated by nothing more than the desire to find a new 'evil' category to oppose.

Actually the desire to not label it as terrorist does not come from a desire to find a way to justify it or oppose some other evil. Trust me when I say that I am not eager to embrace the memory of the atomic bombs and what they did to Japan, far from it. I would think that you and Luna, who have both seen my argument concerning this on another thread, should also realize that this is not driven by a jingoistic, arrogant need for justification. I simply weigh it as the much lesser of two evils. It was a horrible thing, and that unfortunately is the way of war. The great general Robert E. Lee declared that it was good that war was so horrible, in order that men would not grow to love it. The main reason I do not declare it to be an act of terrorism is this: the truly terrorist act would have been to sacrifice, unnecessarily, the millions of Allied and Japanese lives that would have been lost if Operation: Downfall had commenced. Why do people refuse to see the logic and the simple truth of this choice. There was simply no other way to stop the needless conflict. I have spent much of the past week, since that thread became so incendiary, pouring over my books and other books on the subject, and I am forced to reach that conclusion, despite my desire to find otherwise. I simply refuse to believe that this, which in such a drastic way produced at least some good, is comparable to a terrorist attack. I do find it interesting though Dogma, that you are not instantly repulsed by the idea of a terrorist attack. I will admit that it intrigues me and that I haven't pondered much over the moral and ethical quandary of the results of terrorism. Please share with me your ideas, you just might make a convert outta me. That is only because I trust you enough to not simply allow emotion to flaw your argument.

I think the bombing of Japan to end WW2 was nessicarry. How many soliders would we have lost in an invasion, probaly more then how many civilans were killed by the bomb.


EDIT: Defintion of terrorism is: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ...

JEB_Stuart wrote:Actually the desire to not label it as terrorist does not come from a desire to find a way to justify it or oppose some other evil.

I should have been more specific. The desire I spoke of wasn't meant to relate to a different evil, but to the 'evil' of terrorism. Its difficult to call something evil while believing that one's forefathers engaged in that thing.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Trust me when I say that I am not eager to embrace the memory of the atomic bombs and what they did to Japan, far from it. I would think that you and Luna, who have both seen my argument concerning this on another thread, should also realize that this is not driven by a jingoistic, arrogant need for justification.

I wasn't necessarily speaking to you, but a general desire.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I simply weigh it as the much lesser of two evils. It was a horrible thing, and that unfortunately is the way of war. The great general Robert E. Lee declared that it was good that war was so horrible, in order that men would not grow to love it.

Terrorism is still terrorism, even if its the lesser of two evils.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
The main reason I do not declare it to be an act of terrorism is this: the truly terrorist act would have been to sacrifice, unnecessarily, the millions of Allied and Japanese lives that would have been lost if Operation: Downfall had commenced.

This makes it seem like you want to define terrorism as a generic 'bad'.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Why do people refuse to see the logic and the simple truth of this choice. There was simply no other way to stop the needless conflict.

You're correct, but it was still terrorism. Remember, I don't see terrorism as necessarily evil.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I have spent much of the past week, since that thread became so incendiary, pouring over my books and other books on the subject, and I am forced to reach that conclusion, despite my desire to find otherwise. I simply refuse to believe that this, which in such a drastic way produced at least some good, is comparable to a terrorist attack.

Because you believe that terrorist attacks cannot produce any modicum of 'good'.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I do find it interesting though Dogma, that you are not instantly repulsed by the idea of a terrorist attack. I will admit that it intrigues me and that I haven't pondered much over the moral and ethical quandary of the results of terrorism. Please share with me your ideas, you just might make a convert outta me. That is only because I trust you enough to not simply allow emotion to flaw your argument.

Honestly, it isn't all that complex of a position (though it is based on some fairly esoteric ethical reasoning). To summarize:
Most violence produces terror. Any intelligent person will realize this fact, and utilize it to his advantage. Placing the onus of one's in intent on the production of terror is not especially distinct from placing said onus on another facet of violence, and accepting the production of terror. Ergo, terrorism is no worse than any other form of violence. In fact, you could claim that its superior (should you believe that quality of life has no bearing on morality).

That is without a doubt the first time I have heard any reasonable argument to justify terrorism in any form. I will think over your statement for the next few days, and run it by some of my friends for their opinions, (one of them is easily the most brilliant guy I have ever met, he is starting his Doctoral program at Fordham this semester. Naturally, it is in philosophy.) I am a hard man to convince on anything, but it can be done. After all, I am an American who has very willingly and wholeheartedly embraced the political philosophy of Constitutional Monarchy over any other form of government. Thanks for the simple, yet effective argument. And that is why I do actually respect your opinion.

Fordham is a good philosophy school. Too vertical for my tastes, but still a good school.

Anyway, if you want any of the ethical (meta-ethical is a better term, I suppose) underpinning send me a PM.

Freedom Fighting/Terrorism. Anything to prevent this.

LunaHound wrote:

Yes because we figured , since USA is so powerful that instead of petty tactics they can openly
blow Japan to oblivion and suddenly they are free of the terrorist label.

Yea, thats what happens when you launch a surprise attack in the month of X-mas against thousands of unsuspecting people aka Pearl Harbor. Not to mention kamikazes, using chemical and biological weapons, raping and pillaging Korea/China/neighbors, etc.

It also unfortunately put Japanese-Americans into interment camps; an example of how relatively easy for one's rights to vanish and hopefully won't be repeated.

And your point is...?

That terrible actions can be justified by terrible conditions.

So that's an arguement FOR terrorism?
(seeing the conditions some of them fight in)

Its an argument for the use of reprehensible tactics as a whole.

Would you not throw them in the same bucket?

Define 'them'? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

Dirty tactics and terrorism. Would you describe them as the same thing?

Yeah, I guess. I would throw terrorism in the 'tactics' bucket. Whether or not its dirty is up to you.

I'm assuming that you are a 'Yes' in the above poll?

If so then two thing,
1) I'm in the same boat
2) I must wonder when it simply crosses the line and no amount of justification can cover it. I would say the use of child soldier, not 16, 15 or even 14 year-olds, I mean 8 year-olds and the like. Dabbling in child prostitution is also despicable, regardless of whther it works or not. (I'm reffering to the situation in ?West? Africa.

Emperors Faithful wrote:committed mabye, but they certainly didn't go for it full-heartedly.

Anyway, who here is disputing that 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'? Any solids No's on this?

The short answer is "Yes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". That seems to be what you're going for, for one reason or another.

But the a longer answer is ''Yes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but that's only because it's a pretty crappy statement that basically says 'people have different opinions on stuff'. The only reason the observation is perpetuated is because it's a sneaky way of drawing equivalence between organisations that people can't honestly draw equivalence between. I mean, yes there are people out there that believe in the cause of AQ, and yes more respectable organisations sometimes do things that are really messed up, but is anyone honestly drawing a parallel between AQ and say, the US government? Because if you are, you're being very silly."

How so?
Why is the devastation be wreaked in the middle east any less important than the devastation wreaked by 9/11?

It's not a matter of "importance", it's a matter of what the goals and actions of the parties in question are.