What is "terrorism", anyway?

[General Brock]

No, but "terrorism" is a redundant term in describing war crimes. The issue was finding a definition for such groups as Al-Quaeda, the IRA, FARC, Hizbollah and similar. The acts that you describe are already covered in the Geneva conventions, "terrorist" organizations are not.

OK.

[General Brock]

GHETTO EDIT (good grief, General Brock):

targeted Serbian civillian electrical power generating facilities,

That were used by the military.

Milosovich was persuaded to surrender; winter was coming, and although his army could take care of itself, his civillians were in peril and he could not protect them.

His army could NOT take care of itself.

The bombing of civillian facilities whose services might be shared by the military is not a war crime? I can see taking out power lines to military facilities, but not blasting the power plants themselves. It's not like they were military bases.

We can quibble over what is legitimate collateral damage and what was not indefinitely, so I won't. Suffice it to say, the Serbian civillian leadership was keen to avoid more 'accidents'.

After Milosovich gave up, the Serbian military pulled out. The withdrawl surprised western observers because so much equipment was there, intact, to be withdrawn. The air war had apparently only destroyed decoys, while the soldiers and their equipment evaded the bombers. The soldiers themselves were on the whole in good morale and still ready to fight. They would have been difficult to defeat, if at all, had the air war bluff been called and boots on the ground had to be sent in to root them out. For better or worse, the civillian leadership did not allow them to fight.


I apologize for not posting a reply sooner; I did not mean to be rude. Other things came up, and I did not have as much computer time and began to lose track of some of the threads.

[Oskuro]

I belive the name Terrorism clearly implies a direct relation with 'Terror'.

Basically, any action aimed at causing a reaction through fear would be terrorism.

Of course, this definition means many actions by many different groups, including most governments, would classify as terrorism. Given the negative implications of this, it comes as no suprise that most groups try to define terrorism in a way that does not affect them.
The "all is fair on war" excuse I find quite infuriating... Rolling your tanks into a nation's capital city will certainly cause massive amounts of terror amongst the populace.

Oh well, hoping for some coherence in politics is even more hopeless than expecting said coherence on what-is-canon for Vs.Debates.


PS: Didn't have time to read all the posts, sorry if I re-state concepts.

[Lord Zentei]

The bombing of civillian facilities whose services might be shared by the military is not a war crime? I can see taking out power lines to military facilities, but not blasting the power plants themselves. It's not like they were military bases.

We can quibble over what is legitimate collateral damage and what was not indefinitely, so I won't. Suffice it to say, the Serbian civillian leadership was keen to avoid more 'accidents'.

Bit touch and go there. I'd have to reaserch it. But yes, Milosevic was not willing to risk Serbia proper - though I submit that may just as much have been a matter of retaining his core powerbase, since he was plenty callous about using the Bosnian Serbs as pawns, not to mention his callousness with regards to the other ethnic groups there.

After Milosovich gave up, the Serbian military pulled out. The withdrawl surprised western observers because so much equipment was there, intact, to be withdrawn. The air war had apparently only destroyed decoys, while the soldiers and their equipment evaded the bombers. The soldiers themselves were on the whole in good morale and still ready to fight. They would have been difficult to defeat, if at all, had the air war bluff been called and boots on the ground had to be sent in to root them out. For better or worse, the civillian leadership did not allow them to fight.

The Serbian millitary had no way of defending itself from the might of NATO. None. It is pure fantasy to think they could have held Kosovo against the West. The only question was whether Clinton and Blair had the political will to commit ground troops, not whether said troops would be capable of taking Kosovo.

I apologize for not posting a reply sooner; I did not mean to be rude. Other things came up, and I did not have as much computer time and began to lose track of some of the threads.

No problem.