US Sacks Iraqi Army, Beurocracy, 400,000 all told

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, terrorism is just guerrilla warfare - Which itself just references, really, to "unconventional warfare" in a whole spectrum of the idea of light-armed troops attacking targets which can inflict disproportionate harm upon the harm where otherwise they would be useless against the heavy elements of an enemy army. Terrorism has often been applied against strategic or economic targets, but the basic principle has remained the same, be it raiders plundering the fringes of the Roman Empire, or Osama's fanatics bombing the WTC or the U.S.S. Cole alike.

There is nothing special about it, and trying to claim that there is, would be simply an aspect of our culture in attempting to fight things which are not fightable: We say we are fighting drugs, when our military efforts (which really are on a military scale), are directed against cartels--which virtually have the power of governments. And so on does it go. The concept of "terrorism" is a semantics trick to avoid dealing with the real problem: people who commit terrorism are fighting a war against us, but simply using unconventional means to fight it. Instead we use language to create an entirely new category for it, and this is false. I would hardly think that someone who saw 9/11 up close, for all the trauma involved, would be more terrorized than the survivor of a Hunnish raid upon the Roman Empire. The terror, ultimately, is a side-effect to the primary aims of the act, which can vary, but are all effected by irregular forces acting in an unconventional fashion.

[Axis Kast]

That's the argument I apply to.

If you're a terrorist, you're simply a soldier without a nation.

[NapoleonGH]

See no, terrorists are not the same as guerilla warfare people. Terrorists attack civilian targets with the sole purpose of striking terror into the hearts of a nation's population. Guerilla warfare is a military action against an occupying/opposing nation's armed forces. Attacking the USS Cole was no more of a terrorist attack than the US bombing a Sam site in iraq. Attacking the pentagon, had their been no one in the plane, would not have been a terrorist attack. Threatening US troops is not terrorism, it is freedom fighting or guerilla warfare against an invading and from their perspective conquering nation (regardless of what bush has said he will do, so long as our troops stay any government that doesnt actively oppose us will be seen as a puppet government and us as the conquerers, no government made by the US will be seen as legitimate by many of the people in either afghanistan or iraq, unless it turns around and opposes us and our policies)

[Axis Kast]

Attacking the pentagon, had their been no one in the plane, would not have been a terrorist attack. Threatening US troops is not terrorism, it is freedom fighting or guerilla warfare against an invading and from their perspective conquering nation.

You're ignoring Marina's argument.

One result of driving a plane into the Pentagon would be driving home terror for the American population. Now obviously any military defeat or disaster drives home a certain degree of fear - although I think you are enough a big boy to be able to discern the difference between a defeat in the field and an actual assault by one or two men on a heavily fortified - or at least sufficiently remote - American military installation.

[Axis Kast]

You've also got to see who these people are.

A regular military is unlikely to lob a plane at us. It wouldn't win them points in the United Nations.

Therefore, the most likely pilots behind the controls of that plane would be hired terrorists and non-state actors that fall under the same designation in terms of jurisprudence.

[NapoleonGH]

im not ignoring her argument im DISAGREEING with it. She is saying terrorists are anypeople who try to instill fear on anyone else through force if i read her argument correctly. Im saying that terrorists are those who attack civilian targets with the purpose of attacking civilians and causing fear among the civilian population.

[Axis Kast]

The attack on the U.S.S. Cole served no tactical purpose. It was a strategic attack by people who hoped to bring the American public itself to oppose deployment in the Persian Gulf. Terrorism. The same was true of the attacks on Khobar Towers and the Beirut barracks.

[NapoleonGH]

the attack on the USS Cole was an attack on a military target, that did not harm any civilian and did not have as any of its aims the deaths of members of the civilan population of the US, not terrorism

[Thirdfain]

Are you shitting me?

Please tell me, the soldiers from WHAT country were attacking our vessel in a legitimate act of war?

[NapoleonGH]

I didnt say it was a legitimate act of war, but it wasnt terrorism either. There are other categories you know for such actions. I maintain that terrorism only is occuring when an attack is directed at the civilian population of a country, and that attacks on military/government targets are not terrorism but something else entirely, in the case of the cole it appears to be caused by organized crime, organized groups of civilians committing the civil crimes of murder, attempted murder, and destruction of american government property.

Regardless of the Cole, people saying they will use suicide bombings against us troops to end the occupation is not terrorism however you look at it.

[Axis Kast]

Napoleon, it's designed to strike fear by extension into the very public that supports the war.

The attack on the U.S.S. Cole was the terrorists' version of a public decree: "Pull your troops out or this will happen again." Inspired to strike terror at a target even if not represented at the "kill."

[Thirdfain]

Axis Kast has it dead right. An attack against soldiers can be a terrorist attack- this one said:

"Your SOLDIERS aren't safe overseas. How safe are you, civilian-boy?"

[NapoleonGH]

Yes it was a "pull your troops out, or we will continue to attack your troops" aka a military threat designed to cause a military action to occur, namely be the withdrawal of military units. This is the same thing as bombing a scud missile launcher to say "get rid of your ballistic missiles, or we will continue to attack them". That action is also known as a "warning shot" and is not a terrorist act, but either a military act, or a criminal act of as i said murder, attempt to murder, assault with deadly weapons, and destruction of property.

[Axis Kast]

Yes it was a "pull your troops out, or we will continue to attack your troops" aka a military threat designed to cause a military action to occur, namely be the withdrawal of military units. This is the same thing as bombing a scud missile launcher to say "get rid of your ballistic missiles, or we will continue to attack them". That action is also known as a "warning shot" and is not a terrorist act, but either a military act, or a criminal act of as i said murder, attempt to murder, assault with deadly weapons, and destruction of property.

And yet:

(A) It was carried out by non-state actors responsible to no government represented at large but simply to a perverted ideology all their own.

(B) It was meant to achieve its "military goal" - which was really disengagement on all levels, including the financial, political, and cultural - by playing on civilian fears.

[Thirdfain]

Erm, no. You bombard a Scud missile launcher to say :
"your missle launcher is now little bits of metal. It won't shoot at me again, thank you very much."


The attack on the Cole was a clear attempt to tell America that they would not be tolerated overseas.

[NapoleonGH]

yes it was thirdfane, it was a clear message to the us government that its military and its influence was not desired over seas. I dont see the argument here, it was not a clear message to the american public that they should fear leaving their houses in the morning or that they should fear breathing the air.

As i said we do attack singluar targets to send a message about other targets, and when have Scuds actually ever hit their intended targets anyway?

Axis for A then once again they are civilian criminals engaged in the acts of murder, attempt to murder, assault with deadly weapons, and destruction of property.

for B. then that is exactly what i have been classifying it as, it was NOT an attack to cause the american public to fear leaving their homes during the day, it was not an attack to cause the american public to fear going into a city, it was not an attack to cause us to fear flying, it was an attack that caused the US public to fear having our military attacked. Do you see the difference there? One is attempting to use Fear to gain a military and political end, the other is using terror to gain a political end. That is a huge difference, terror and fear are not the same thing.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

im not ignoring her argument im DISAGREEING with it. She is saying terrorists are anypeople who try to instill fear on anyone else through force if i read her argument correctly.

You're incorrect. I'm saying terrorists do not exist. Terrorism is a faux-name for certain acts committed by irregular combatants, and terrorists, the irregular combatants who commit them.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It took me a while to decide on that, mind, but it's really the only logical conclusion. The idea of defining an army based on its tactics is ludicrous, and does not change the fact that it is an army, even if it is not one based around a nation-state.

[Coyote]

I can never tell if Ted is a left winger, right winger, or simply an idiot.

Your posts in this thread are awefully close to banable offences.

An-a-one, an-a two....

Die Fahne hoch, die Reihen dicht beschloggen....
SA marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt...
Kameraden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen....
Marschiern im Geist in unsern Reihen mit...

Damn, let a guy have an opinion.

[Knife]

Terrorism is not guerilla warfare.
guerilla warfare is fighting using unconventional means. This could be the U.S. aiming for officers during the revolution, or the homemade mines and guns of vietnam.
Terrorism is the targeting of facilities expresselly for the purpose of causing fear in the people. Dresden and Tokyo were terrorism. They were however highly conventional attacks. One is not the other.
Modern terrorism however has moved from being conventional, somewhat immoral attacks on population centers during war time, to being a political tool in an attempt to get attention to some cause. The targets are almost always unimportant, heavily occupied locations and the intent is fear for the sake of fear.

Recap guerilla warfare and terrorism are incredible different. While modern terrorism in mostly conducted like guerilla strikes, terrorism can also be performed entirely by conventional means.

sorry bout the disorder, this was a sort of think and type style rant.

Irregular troops can and have targeted both civilian and military targets durring the same campaign. So called death squads (paramilitary irregular troops) keep the locals in line and fight the enemy. It is not all that unheard of in history. Terrorism is more of a tactic than a type of trooper, and can be used by just about anyone, be it Air Force, Army, Irregular, or what ever else.

[Vympel]

When I think 'terrorist' attack, I think the assault of a coward on a civilian target who cannot defend itself, rather than say an irregular fighting against armed occupying forces. IMO it's a question of cojones.

[Axis Kast]

yes it was thirdfane, it was a clear message to the us government that its military and its influence was not desired over seas. I dont see the argument here, it was not a clear message to the american public that they should fear leaving their houses in the morning or that they should fear breathing the air.

As i said we do attack singluar targets to send a message about other targets, and when have Scuds actually ever hit their intended targets anyway?

Axis for A then once again they are civilian criminals engaged in the acts of murder, attempt to murder, assault with deadly weapons, and destruction of property.

for B. then that is exactly what i have been classifying it as, it was NOT an attack to cause the american public to fear leaving their homes during the day, it was not an attack to cause the american public to fear going into a city, it was not an attack to cause us to fear flying, it was an attack that caused the US public to fear having our military attacked. Do you see the difference there? One is attempting to use Fear to gain a military and political end, the other is using terror to gain a political end. That is a huge difference, terror and fear are not the same thing.

The clear message to the American public was that it would begin seeing many more bodybags lined up portside if it didn’t exert pressure on its own government to end the war. Ho Chih Minh’s strategy in Vietnam practiced by non-state actors on a much smaller and more selective scale.

SCUD missiles are area-effect weapons. You lob them at cities or large concentraitions of troops, not necessarily a fixed target. At least in the form we saw Saddam deploy. I believe earlier SCUDs – the unmodified Russian types – were actually more accurate.

The “civilian criminals” moniker is very much technical. One can argue that terrorism is a non-state activity sanctioned by no official organization and carried out by people who have essentially taken on the classification of combatants out of uniform. That last part – the “combatants out of uniform” designation – sets them entirely apart from civilian criminals.

Napoleon, it’s very much the same thing. Terrorists don’t strike just to make us afraid. They strike to make us afraid to do certain things. The September 11th, 1998 African embassy, and U.S.S Cole attacks were all carried out with the same goal in mind: ejection of American forces from the Middle East by preying on public fears of a long war and thus initiating a push for extraction. Political and military goals.

I agree with Marina. There is no actual “terrorism” as seperatedly defined from a military strike. The issue is whether we can move without hinderance from the Geneva Convention to detain and punish those people. The answer is yes.

[Pu-239]

I believe "terrorism" is attacks on civilians by individuals using unconventional methods for political reasonss

[Ted]

Technically, Bush and the Pentagon are terrorist's, Shock and Awe.

Shock and Awe was basically to terrorize the people enough to not fight the Americans, therefore, it is an act of terrorism, and those perpetrating it are terrorists.

[Ted]

[Ted] There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry: Lone Star! [/Ted]

You're Goddamned right.

Read the announcements:

An example of behavior that would merit a one or two day ban would be ... making baseless accusations against other members, flaming other members without provocation