Terrorists

[McC]

This comes from a conversation I'm presently having with my girlfriend. This topic probably will spill over a bit into the realm of N&P, but I put it here because I think it's also kind of a moral dilemma thing as well. Anyway, below is what I said to her, condensed:

You know what's ironic? We're fighting terrorists. But in almost all of our fiction, the good guys are terrorists. Robin Hood: thief, terrorist (to Prince John, anyway). Crichton: terrorist (to the Peacekeepers and Scarrens). Rebel Alliance: entire group of terrorist (to the Empire). Generally speaking, terrorists are terrorists because they attack an enemy in any way they can. Usually, they're too small to do it in open warfare, so smaller attacks (blowing shit up) is their only recourse.

But terrorists have to want something. Nobody engages in unadulterated violence just because they're bored.

"Jim, I'm bored. What should we do tonight."
"Man, I hear ya. I dunno. Want to go blow some shit up?"
"Yeah, sounds good."

That doesn't happen. Terrorists have to have a reason for doing what they're doing. I don't actually know why Al'Qaeda has such issues with us...I mean, fundie Islam pretty much hates the rest of the world, but I don't really see that as being the reason.

So, given the preceding, I'm curious: why are terrorists heroes in our fiction but enemies in real life? Further, what the hell is Al'Qaeda's beef with us? Is it really just fundie Islam, or is it more? Also, shouldn't we be a bit concerned that we're doing something wrong if we can spark enough hate to launch more than just isolated terrorists attacks against us?

[Montcalm]

In fiction terrorists are heroes cause they directly attack the evil leaders,as real life terrorists are cowards who attack mostly unarmed civilians

[neoolong]

Because even though both can be considered underdog fights, the ones in fiction are justified, at least to us.

Like Robin Hood was fighting against corruption and tyranny as well as trying to bring back the rightful king.

Crichton was trying to survive.

The Rebel Alliance is trying to free the universe from the Evil Empire.

Al'Qaeda killed a bunch of innocent people.

It is the reason for the fighting and how it is conducted that determines whether or not we view them as heroes or villains.

[BoyRocketeer]

The Rebel Alliance doesn't go into a cafeteria and blows people up, use your head please.

[McC]

The Rebel Alliance doesn't go into a cafeteria and blows people up, use your head please.

You missed the point of my comparison. It was not my intent to suggest that Al'Qaeda and the Alliance are similar bodies, simply to state that they are both terrorists in the eyes of their corresponding "enemy regimes."

And what of the other questions? Why does al'Qaeda feel the need to attack?

[Master of Ossus]

There's a difference between terrorists and freedom fighters, contrary to what you hear a lot of pseudo-philosophizers saying. Terrorists attack and kill innocent people. Freedom fighters do not. Last time I had this discussion, people asked why we celebrate George Washington even though he was a terrorist. My answer was simple: George Washington did not go out of his way to massacre civilians, even if they supported the British, unless they actually fought for the British army.

We celebrate freedom fighters in books primarily because they always have a legitimate purpose for what they're doing. They're also almost always up against overwhelming odds, and we celebrate people who fight under those conditions.

[BoyRocketeer]

al-Qaeda was freedom fighter when it attacked Soviet military personnels in Afghanistan.
Now it attacks civilian targets so it's a terrorist organization.
Big difference there.

[McC]

<snip>

Ah, interesting distinction and good point. Thank you.

So, that still leaves open the question of motivation...

[McC]

We celebrate freedom fighters in books primarily because they always have a legitimate purpose for what they're doing. They're also almost always up against overwhelming odds, and we celebrate people who fight under those conditions.

This just occured to me -- sorry for the double post.

In the eyes of the freedom fighter, the purpose is always legitimate. Although your distinction about the targets of terrorists/freedom fighters is certainly important, this follow-up paragraph actually starts to muddy it again. Does al'Qaeda not find its purposes legitimate? Do they not find themselves facing overwhelming odds?

I'm not trying to suggest that they're the good guys or anything like that. I'm just curious about it from this perspective.

[BoyRocketeer]

This just occured to me -- sorry for the double post.

In the eyes of the freedom fighter, the purpose is always legitimate. Although your distinction about the targets of terrorists/freedom fighters is certainly important, this follow-up paragraph actually starts to muddy it again. Does al'Qaeda not find its purposes legitimate? Do they not find themselves facing overwhelming odds?

I'm not trying to suggest that they're the good guys or anything like that. I'm just curious about it from this perspective.

I think the purpose is always legitimate, or that legitamacy isn't the point. It's the way they carry out their ideals that defines the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.

[McC]

Council on Foreign Relations says:

Does al-Qaeda have a charter or manifesto?
In an al-Qaeda house in Afghanistan, New York Times reporters found a brief statement of the “Goals and Objectives of Jihad”:

1. Establishing the rule of God on earth
2. Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God
3. Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity

In 1998, several al-Qaeda leaders issued a declaration calling on Muslims to kill Americans—including civilians—as well as “those who are allied with them from among the helpers of Satan.”

I don't really buy that, though. It sounds like a bogus bullshit front for some other objectives to me.

[Sea Skimmer]

al-Qaeda was freedom fighter when it attacked Soviet military personnels in Afghanistan.
Now it attacks civilian targets so it's a terrorist organization.
Big difference there.

Except al-Qaeda didn't fight the Soviets and didn't exist during there occupation of Afghanistan. Bin Laden didn't even begin to discuss forming the group until late 1988 by which time the Soviets had already decided to withdraw.

[BoyRocketeer]

al-Qaeda was freedom fighter when it attacked Soviet military personnels in Afghanistan.
Now it attacks civilian targets so it's a terrorist organization.
Big difference there.

Except al-Qaeda didn't fight the Soviets and didn't exist during there occupation of Afghanistan. Bin Laden didn't even begin to discuss forming the group until late 1988 by which time the Soviets had already decided to withdraw.

wasn't Al-Qaeda's original name Makhtab-Al-Khidamat, a mujahedeen group founded by bin Laden and supported by the CIA to fight the soviets?

[Darth Wong]

There's a difference between terrorists and freedom fighters, contrary to what you hear a lot of pseudo-philosophizers saying. Terrorists attack and kill innocent people. Freedom fighters do not. Last time I had this discussion, people asked why we celebrate George Washington even though he was a terrorist. My answer was simple: George Washington did not go out of his way to massacre civilians, even if they supported the British, unless they actually fought for the British army.

So only legitimate military forces are allowed to butcher civilians, as per, say, Dresden or Tokyo?

[BoyRocketeer]

There's a difference between terrorists and freedom fighters, contrary to what you hear a lot of pseudo-philosophizers saying. Terrorists attack and kill innocent people. Freedom fighters do not. Last time I had this discussion, people asked why we celebrate George Washington even though he was a terrorist. My answer was simple: George Washington did not go out of his way to massacre civilians, even if they supported the British, unless they actually fought for the British army.

So only legitimate military forces are allowed to butcher civilians, as per, say, Dresden or Tokyo?

you know what, we should make a smart bomb that only targets military personnel.

Missile computer: Target area includes personnels not wearing military insignia, mission aborted.
army hq: wtf @*$%$

[Sea Skimmer]

wasn't Al-Qaeda's original name Makhtab-Al-Khidamat, a mujahedeen group founded by bin Laden and supported by the CIA to fight the soviets?

Al-Qaeda was launched separately and then swallowed up most of the remnants of Makhtab-Al-Khidamat after the Soviets left Afghanistan. However Makhtab-Al-Khidamat didn't fight the Soviets directly anyway, its job was to funnel Arab volunteers and there money to Mujahideen groups. Somtimes CIA money did run through it as well however most CIA operations where seperate.

[Seggybop]

you know what, we should make a smart bomb that only targets military personnel.

Missile computer: Target area includes personnels not wearing military insignia, mission aborted.
army hq: wtf @*$%$

Dresden/Tokyo weren't "collateral damage" incidents. They were massive bombing runs for the sole purpose of killing thousands and demoralizing the survivors.

[Master of Ossus]

So only legitimate military forces are allowed to butcher civilians, as per, say, Dresden or Tokyo?

I never said that. Dresden and Tokyo were not acceptable conduct, and the planners of both operations should have been charged with war crimes for violating international law and deliberately targetting civilian areas.

[Master of Ossus]

In the eyes of the freedom fighter, the purpose is always legitimate. Although your distinction about the targets of terrorists/freedom fighters is certainly important, this follow-up paragraph actually starts to muddy it again. Does al'Qaeda not find its purposes legitimate? Do they not find themselves facing overwhelming odds?

The second paragraph only addressed the heroes we have in books, where authors go out of their way to explain the reasons why the King/Empire/Country that the heroes fight against is evil. Legitimacy is not a criteria we should use in real life to determine whether or not to celebrate anybody.

[Durandal]

you know what, we should make a smart bomb that only targets military personnel.

Missile computer: Target area includes personnels not wearing military insignia, mission aborted.
army hq: wtf @*$%$

That'll happen when we can develop a registration algorithm that only approves members who will contribute something worth two farts from a rat's cunt.

[Sea Skimmer]

I never said that. Dresden and Tokyo were not acceptable conduct, and the planners of both operations should have been charged with war crimes for violating international law and deliberately targetting civilian areas.

Destroying Tokyo and Dresden wasn't a war crime, not by the laws of the time anyway. As both where defended cities and in use for warmaking purposes they where subject to bombardment. It would only be a warcrime to bomb them if they had been declared open cities, as the French did for Paris and America Manila. That didn't happen however.

[Sarevok]

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. It depends on the point of view. Sometimes legitimate freedom movements get branded as terrorism. The Palestinian insurgency and Chechnia are good examples.

[Shroom Man 777]

Destroying Tokyo and Dresden wasn't a war crime, not by the laws of the time anyway. As both where defended cities and in use for warmaking purposes they where subject to bombardment. It would only be a warcrime to bomb them if they had been declared open cities, as the French did for Paris and America Manila. That didn't happen however.

French bombed Paris?!

Heheh, I know what you're talking about, but you kinda make it sound like the French bombed Paris after it was declared an open city, but that's just me.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. It depends on the point of view. Sometimes legitimate freedom movements get branded as terrorism. The Palestinian insurgency and Chechnia are good examples.

Freedom fighters conduct themselves in a fashion very different from terrorists. FFs like the Rebel Alliance only blew up Stardestroyers and moon sized planet busting battle stations while terrorists blow up buildings and nurseries and eat babies and kittens.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

France declared Paris an open city, obviously.

[Shroom Man 777]

France declared Paris an open city, obviously.

I was just kidding. But he did make it sound like the French bombed Paris after Paris was declared an open city.