The term "terrorism" is statist

[Kynes]

Whenever I read these sorts of news forums, I'm always amazed about the constant usage of the term "terrorism" as if that word seriously has any meaning. It is almost ubiquitous in the US news and even overseas people manage to utter it as if has a straight face.

Terrorism is a term which is hard to define. No matter how you slice it, you end up including or excluding people that get labelled as "terrorists" all the time. I challenge any of you to come up with a definition which is both necessary and sufficient.

In fact, the term is really used by the state to circumvent debate. The public and policymakers are conditioned not to resist policies targeted at "terrorism." Look at the continued existence of USA PATRIOT or the fact that the Iraqi war was originally justified under those auspices.

This makes the term inherently statist: placing the needs of the state above the needs of people. The term "terrorism" is used when citizens can't be trusted to make decisions on their own and they need to have thought short-circuited. It is a base emotional appeal that rational people would never use.

In conclusion if you think "terrorism" means anything, then you're an idiot.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Terrorism can easily be defined as a simply a PC-term for indirect or unconventional warfare against civilians, which has existed since bronze age armies sent out outriders to poison wells and burn crops rather than engage the enemy.

[Kynes]

Terrorism can easily be defined as a simply a PC-term for indirect or unconventional warfare against civilians, which has existed since bronze age armies sent out outriders to poison wells and burn crops rather than engage the enemy.

So you'd have no problem labelling Israel as a terrorist state, then. And for that matter, the United States. And for that matter, every nation that has ever deliberately waged an attack when they knew civilians were going to die (indirectly as per your definition).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So you'd have no problem labelling Israel as a terrorist state, then. And for that matter, the United States. And for that matter, every nation that has ever deliberately waged an attack when they knew civilians were going to die (indirectly as per your definition).

You misunderstood my usage of indirect. I meant through indirect warfare, not as an indirect cause of the attack.

[AdmiralKanos]

Terrorism can easily be defined as a simply a PC-term for indirect or unconventional warfare against civilians, which has existed since bronze age armies sent out outriders to poison wells and burn crops rather than engage the enemy.

So you'd have no problem labelling Israel as a terrorist state, then. And for that matter, the United States. And for that matter, every nation that has ever deliberately waged an attack when they knew civilians were going to die (indirectly as per your definition).

Remember: when an army blows up civilians (even more than a hundred thousand of them via nuclear fireball), they're either attacking the enemy's infrastructure or waging psychological warfare against enemy morale, both of which constitute legitimate military actions. But when a terrorist blows up civilians, he's a monstrous evil man who's killing innocent people.

My favourite part is the bit about the Geneva Convention's rules on wearing uniforms. It sounds like little kids in a playground. You're not wearing a uniform! You broke the rules! Rules like that in the context of an activity where carpet-bombing is allowed seem ridiculous in the extreme.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You misunderstood my usage of indirect. I meant through indirect warfare, not as an indirect cause of the attack.

(Guerrilla and partisan actions that avoid contact with the principle army, light troops acting behind the lines and avoiding contact with the main force of the enemy's heavy infantry, raiders acting against shipping instead of the main bulk of the enemy's battlefleet, and the modern Islamic "terrorism", which attacks civilian infrastructure while trying to avoid military retaliation.)

[beyond hope]

A lot of the distinctions in the Geneva convention seem pretty arbitrary to me. It's okay to tear people to pieces with fragmentation bombs and leave them missing limbs or slowly bleeding to death, but a nerve agent which will kill within seconds is Verboten. Shotguns aren't allowed, but nylon flechettes which don't show up on X-rays are.

[Joe]

Terrorism can easily be defined as a simply a PC-term for indirect or unconventional warfare against civilians, which has existed since bronze age armies sent out outriders to poison wells and burn crops rather than engage the enemy.

So you'd have no problem labelling Israel as a terrorist state, then. And for that matter, the United States. And for that matter, every nation that has ever deliberately waged an attack when they knew civilians were going to die (indirectly as per your definition).

There's a distinction to be made between actively trying to murder as many civilians as possible and killing civilians as an indirect consequence of a military action.

[AdmiralKanos]

There's a distinction to be made between actively trying to murder as many civilians as possible and killing civilians as an indirect consequence of a military action.

If the number of dead civilians is the same, then what is the significance of this distinction, apart from serving as a convenient piece of rhetoric?

[MKSheppard]

A lot of the distinctions in the Geneva convention seem pretty arbitrary to me.

...

Shotguns aren't allowed, but nylon flechettes which don't show up on X-rays are.

Shotguns ARE allowed. The germans made a big stink of this during
WWI because we used combat shotguns.

[Howedar]

Because the number of military killed and the infrasturucture destroyed is not the same.

For a purely hypothetical example, lets say we've got Sept 11th vs. destroying the Death Star. For the sake of argument, the Death Star has ten thousand civilians on it. I dunno, they're taking a tour on Family Weekend or something. They all die, as do about 3000 people in the WTC.

Would you lable the destruction of the Death Star as a terrorist action because it killed more civvies than Sept 11? Of course not, because the killing of the DS civilians was an incredibly minor footnote in the real action.

[MKSheppard]

If the number of dead civilians is the same, then what is the significance of this distinction, apart from serving as a convenient piece of rhetoric?

The difference is we try to avoid civilian casualties...during the Iraqi war,
USAF targetting planners actively used computer modelling software to
predict the behavior of bomb fragments as so to avoid civilian casualties,
such as if a bomb pattern was going right into a marketplace, the mission
was scrubbed or replanned.

On the other hand, terrorists, don't do this. Their primary objective is to
TERRORIZE, and that means inflicting maximum harm and death upon
civilians, and they purposely pack their bombs with nails and screws annd
detonate them in the middle of a crowd precisely to kill as many civilians
as possible and maim many more.

[AdmiralKanos]

Because the number of military killed and the infrasturucture destroyed is not the same.

For a purely hypothetical example, lets say we've got Sept 11th vs. destroying the Death Star. For the sake of argument, the Death Star has ten thousand civilians on it. I dunno, they're taking a tour on Family Weekend or something. They all die, as do about 3000 people in the WTC.

Would you lable the destruction of the Death Star as a terrorist action because it killed more civvies than Sept 11? Of course not, because the killing of the DS civilians was an incredibly minor footnote in the real action.

Interesting. So it becomes about ratio then? At what point does the ratio of civilian to military deaths label something as a military action vs a terrorist action? Or can you kill off a million civilians as long as you take at least one soldier with them?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If the number of dead civilians is the same, then what is the significance of this distinction, apart from serving as a convenient piece of rhetoric?

Intent.

[kojikun]

To me, terrorism is action taken against a group of people for the goal of causing fear (that is, psychological warfare) but not for the purpose of causing the enemy to cease fighting.

It's hurting people just to hurt them, not to stop them from hurting you. Civilian targets are legitimate targets if they are supporting the war effort directly (ie, a civvie owned farm thats selling food to the militayr) but they are not legitimate targets if theyre not engages in combat.

Attacking noncoms = terrorism.

[Joe]

There's a distinction to be made between actively trying to murder as many civilians as possible and killing civilians as an indirect consequence of a military action.

If the number of dead civilians is the same, then what is the significance of this distinction, apart from serving as a convenient piece of rhetoric?

Intent matters, in my opinion.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Intent matters, in my opinion.

I would submit that a State, in particular, has the right to commit what would be a crime within its own boundaries, outside of those boundaries, to protect its citizenry from another crime being perpetrated against them within its boundaries, when it otherwise has no reasonable means of enforcement/protection.

[Darth Wong]

Intent matters, in my opinion.

So if an action is taken with the intent of causing civilian casualties, it's terrorism.

Ergo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorism; the direct intent was to destroy large numbers of civilians as a demonstration of power and ruthlessness, in order to cow the Japanese government into surrender. Any military personnel killed in the blasts were incidental.

[MKSheppard]

Any military personnel killed in the blasts were incidental.

It was the headquarters of the Japanese Army defending
Kyushu and had major military installations
(some 32,00 soldiers were stationed in the city).

It was also a major transportation center, critical to the Japanese
war effort (inter-island shipping was never successfully interdicted
in the way Japan's international shipping was).

[Howedar]

Interesting. So it becomes about ratio then?

Given that the real world is not perfect, and crossover between civilian and military casualties is simply inevitable (I'm sure there where one or two people in the WTC that were in the National Guard), thats how I see it.

At what point does the ratio of civilian to military deaths label something as a military action vs a terrorist action?

I don't know. It is something I'd need to ponder.

Or can you kill off a million civilians as long as you take at least one soldier with them?

No offense, but that'd be a rather silly viewpoint.

[MKSheppard]

(some 32,00 soldiers were stationed in the city).

Damn typodemons!

make that 32,000 soldiers

[Darth Wong]

Any military personnel killed in the blasts were incidental.

It was the headquarters of the Japanese Army defending
Kyushu and had major military installations
(some 32,00 soldiers were stationed in the city).

It was also a major transportation center, critical to the Japanese
war effort (inter-island shipping was never successfully interdicted
in the way Japan's international shipping was).

Right, that's why it was largely untouched by Allied bombing until then

You're still evading the point; the purpose of the bombing was explicitly to terrorize the Japanese people into submission, not to gain any military advantage.

[Kynes]

So would those of you hopping on the "terrorism as panic-spreading" bandwagon agree that, oh, only a terrorist would use a tactic like "shock and awe?"

[MKSheppard]

At one point, it was proposed to use the bomb on Kyoto,
the ancient Japanese Captial, and Stimson, who was horrified
by that, forbade the use of the Bomb on Kyoto, which was full
of pretty much nothing but ancient wood frame temples, got
spared and Hiroshima got the chop. It's also worth noting that
we spared Kyoto from pretty much all the major firebomb raids,
due to the significance of it.

[Sea Skimmer]

Intent matters, in my opinion.

So if an action is taken with the intent of causing civilian casualties, it's terrorism.

Ergo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorism; the direct intent was to destroy large numbers of civilians as a demonstration of power and ruthlessness, in order to cow the Japanese government into surrender. Any military personnel killed in the blasts were incidental.

The city was in use for military purposes in a multitude of ways. Several times during WW2 locations where declared open cities to spare them from destruction. Manila and Paris come to mind. A mechanism exist in international law to protect civilians and civilian propery and the Japanese could have made use of it.