The term "terrorism" is statist

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Like it or not, the line between military action and terrorism is finer than you think. Didn't you wonder why Marina is soft-shoeing this thread?

If you disagree, then provide me with a fixed, precisely worded, ironclad definition of terrorism which I can't turn around on you.

Oh, I'll come right out and say it: Terrorism is a military action. It's just a specific kind of military action that happens to be illegal under the Geneva Convention. But, yes, it's definitely a military action. That's clear--the Islamists understand this, probably better than most of us do (maybe even our leadership, considering they've spend since the 70s creating this nebulous thing called "ter-ror-ism"). After all, they've declared Holy War on us--the entire western world--and if you hunt around on the internet you can probably find a copy of the declaration.

Of course the real question is what the response to this should be.

[MKSheppard]

That was it. A huge number of civilians killed.

You're not even going to rebut the fact that the Bomb Aimpoint for Nagasaki
was right over Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works instead of the residental
section?

[HemlockGrey]

Funny how the bullshit rationalizations come out: "we were just trying to terrorize the government by killing a hundred thousand civilians, we weren't terrorizing the populace!"

Funny how you ignore the fact that the Hiroshima bombings saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese.

[MKSheppard]

Irrelevant. We're talking about intent, remember? Or are you changing the definition of terrorism yet again?

They had the chance to grab some Fed Ex jets with only a pilot and co pilot
aboard, instead of 100~ passengers, and yet they chose the passenger
jets for the sole reason of killing as many infidels as possible

[MKSheppard]

Funny how you ignore the fact that the Hiroshima bombings saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese.

Someone, please post the statistics for Coronet and Olympic, PLEASE

[Darth Wong]

That was it. A huge number of civilians killed.

You're not even going to rebut the fact that the Bomb Aimpoint for Nagasaki
was right over Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works instead of the residental
section?

And you seriously think the rebuttal that they could have used conventional bombs to hit that particular target rather than a weapon guaranteed to kill all of the surrounding civilians is not so obvious that it doesn't even need to be said?

If the cops wanted to take out a crackhouse so they dropped a MOAB on it and wiped out a whole residential block with it, would you have a problem with that?

[MKSheppard]

and yet they chose the passenger
jets for the sole reason of killing as many infidels as possible

And they would have scored a 4 for 4 instead of 3 for 4, since no passengers
would be aboard to rebel, forcing them to crash the jet instead of losing.

[Darth Wong]

Funny how you ignore the fact that the Hiroshima bombings saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese.

Someone, please post the statistics for Coronet and Olympic, PLEASE

Irrelevant. I've already answered this, in case you're too fucking stupid to recognize it. Even if the end justifies the means, it does not change the fact that the means was terrorism. If the Palestinians use terrorism to end the oppression of millions of their people, would you consider this no longer to be terrorism?

[HemlockGrey]

Irrelevant. I've already answered this, in case you're too fucking stupid to recognize it. Even if the end justifies the means, it does not change the fact that the means was terrorism. If the Palestinians use terrorism to end the oppression of millions of their people, would you consider this no longer to be terrorism?

So when did this go from Saudis flying jets into buildings to Palestinians? IIRC, the original comparison was the WTC and the Hiroshima attack.

[Darth Wong]

Oh, I'll come right out and say it: Terrorism is a military action. It's just a specific kind of military action that happens to be illegal under the Geneva Convention.

Thank you.

But, yes, it's definitely a military action. That's clear--the Islamists understand this, probably better than most of us do (maybe even our leadership, considering they've spend since the 70s creating this nebulous thing called "ter-ror-ism"). After all, they've declared Holy War on us--the entire western world--and if you hunt around on the internet you can probably find a copy of the declaration.

Yes, I remember the declaration of war although I don't recall the exact wording. It was quite explicit.

Of course the real question is what the response to this should be.

Obviously, we need to destroy their forces; this goes without saying. If we wish to lower ourselves to their level, we could also attempt to destroy any civilian sources of their income.

[MKSheppard]

So when did this go from Saudis flying jets into buildings to Palestinians? IIRC, the original comparison was the WTC and the Hiroshima attack.

Apparently I'm not the only one who knows how to throw red herrings out
to change a debate

[Darth Wong]

Irrelevant. I've already answered this, in case you're too fucking stupid to recognize it. Even if the end justifies the means, it does not change the fact that the means was terrorism. If the Palestinians use terrorism to end the oppression of millions of their people, would you consider this no longer to be terrorism?

So when did this go from Saudis flying jets into buildings to Palestinians? IIRC, the original comparison was the WTC and the Hiroshima attack.

Correct. Both attacks were designed primarily in order to kill large numbers of civilians for greater goals. You simply claim that there is a such thing as terrorism for the right reasons, and that this somehow negates the fact that it's terrorism.

PS. Yet again, I demand that someone answer my challenge for an ironclad definition of terrorism which I can't turn around on you. I think you all know deep down that you can't, and that terrorism is simply a word that you redefine when it gets in your way.

[Darth Wong]

So when did this go from Saudis flying jets into buildings to Palestinians? IIRC, the original comparison was the WTC and the Hiroshima attack.

Apparently I'm not the only one who knows how to throw red herrings out
to change a debate

Except that the original subject was the definition of terrorism. You are taking an example used to illustrate the point and acting as though the example was the point. Classic bullshit tactic, Shep. Care to grow up one of these days and argue like a man?

[Howedar]

Funny how the bullshit rationalizations come out: "we were just trying to terrorize the government by killing a hundred thousand civilians, we weren't terrorizing the populace!"

Are you going to simply mock the other position, or are you going to present a rebuttle?

That was it. A huge number of civilians killed, despite an earlier definition that any action with primary intent to kill civilians or cause terror was terrorism. As I said, the definition of terrorism is revised whenever you realize that it can be turned against you; this says VOLUMES.

I never actually stated my definition of terrorism, I was only discussing a particular point. I personally believe that terrorism is action with the intent to terrorize. If this kills 3x as many military as civilian, its still terrorism if the target was the terrorizing of the populace.

[Howedar]

And on that note, I should clarify my Death Star analogy. Assume that the purpose of the destruction of the DS was to destroy the military target it comprised, not the few civilians inside.

[MKSheppard]

Classic bullshit tactic, Shep. Care to grow up one of these days and argue like a man?

I don't need to. Particularly when our enemies chose to kill innocent civilians
in the most horrific ways possible, airplane crashes, suicide bombings, sniper shootings instead of fighting like a man and doing guerilla war on the specific
occupying troops?

I have a modicum of respect for the EYE-RAKIS who take potshots at our
troops instead of packing car bombs outside mosques of people they don't
agree with and setting off a few hundred pounds of Semtex.

[HemlockGrey]

Correct. Both attacks were designed primarily in order to kill large numbers of civilians for greater goals. You simply claim that there is a such thing as terrorism for the right reasons, and that this somehow negates the fact that it's terrorism.

I never claimed that it negated the fact that it was terrorism, but the fact remains that the intended ends of Hiroshima were far more magnanimous than the intended ends of WTC.

[Darth Wong]

I personally believe that terrorism is action with the intent to terrorize. If this kills 3x as many military as civilian, its still terrorism if the target was the terrorizing of the populace.

Then any tactic primarily designed to spread fear through the populace is terrorism? This brings us back to Kynes' "shock and awe" argument.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Obviously, we need to destroy their forces; this goes without saying. If we wish to lower ourselves to their level, we could also attempt to destroy any civilian sources of their income.

One of the problems, obviously, is that this is quite possibly the easiest thing for us to do. The U.S. is much better suited to fight conventional military campaigns on a large scale that would annihilate the economic resources of the Arab World than it is to contain and destroy guerrillas who are attack civilian targets on their own.

[MKSheppard]

Apparently some people have difficulty differentating between Guerilla Warfare and Terrorism.

Guerilla warfare is a low intensity conflict aimed primarily at enemy troops,
while Terrorism is low intensity conflict aimed primarily at civilians who have
done nothing at all.

[Darth Wong]

Classic bullshit tactic, Shep. Care to grow up one of these days and argue like a man?

I don't need to. Particularly when our enemies chose to kill innocent civilians in the most horrific ways possible, airplane crashes, suicide bombings, sniper shootings instead of fighting like a man and doing guerilla war on the specific occupying troops?

Two points:

1) Your "enemy" in this case is an opponent in a debate. You are not arguing with Osama Bin-Laden; you are arguing with me, and Bin-Laden's tactics are no excuse for using sophistry in a debate.

2) How are airplane crashes or suicide bombings any more "horrific" than carpet bombing? How are sniper shootings terroristic, when all conventional militaries employ snipers? Are you saying that Rob Wilson is not "fighting like a man?" How is guerilla war terrorism, when the US has routinely trained insurgents in other countries to do precisely that on their behalf?

I have a modicum of respect for the EYE-RAKIS who take potshots at our troops instead of packing car bombs outside mosques of people they don't agree with and setting off a few hundred pounds of Semtex.

What they do is more manly, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't come up with an ironclad definition of terrorism which can't be turned against you in some way.

[Darth Wong]

Apparently some people have difficulty differentating between Guerilla Warfare and Terrorism.

Guerilla warfare is a low intensity conflict aimed primarily at enemy troops,
while Terrorism is low intensity conflict aimed primarily at civilians who have
done nothing at all.

ie- "infrastructure". This has long been a staple of military strategy.

[J]

PS. Yet again, I demand that someone answer my challenge for an ironclad definition of terrorism which I can't turn around on you. I think you all know deep down that you can't, and that terrorism is simply a word that you redefine when it gets in your way.

Bingo, terrorism is just a catchword for any form of unconventional warfare that's carried out which the Geneva conventions and major world powers don't approve of. That's pretty much all it comes down to, if enough people don't approve of it, it's terrorism, otherwise it's a bold strike against the enemy.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Then any tactic primarily designed to spread fear through the populace is terrorism? This brings us back to Kynes' "shock and awe" argument.

I believe "shock and awe" was directed against the Iraqi military, and was intended to cause large portions of it to defect. The fact that the Iraqis continued to fight, with large-scale desertion from units, but with those units at least in part holding their ground, was in general considered to be the sign of its failure. Essentially, when I first heard of the plan, I likened it to the equivlant of a massive artillery barrage before sending troops "over the top" in the First World War, except, instead of being tactical, being strategic, a barrage on the level of a whole nation before the invasion.

And just like one of those preparatory barrages, it was relatively ineffective, which is hardly surprising. People have been overestimating the effect that such attacks would have for a long time, at the least since Pickett thought his artillery would drive the Union troops off Cemetary Ridge.

[Iceberg]

Then any tactic primarily designed to spread fear through the populace is terrorism? This brings us back to Kynes' "shock and awe" argument.

I believe "shock and awe" was directed against the Iraqi military, and was intended to cause large portions of it to defect. The fact that the Iraqis continued to fight, with large-scale desertion from units, but with those units at least in part holding their ground, was in general considered to be the sign of its failure. Essentially, when I first heard of the plan, I likened it to the equivlant of a massive artillery barrage before sending troops "over the top" in the First World War, except, instead of being tactical, being strategic, a barrage on the level of a whole nation before the invasion.

And just like one of those preparatory barrages, it was relatively ineffective, which is hardly surprising. People have been overestimating the effect that such attacks would have for a long time, at the least since Pickett thought his artillery would drive the Union troops off Cemetary Ridge.

I'd say at least since somebody had the idea of catapulting large rocks into a town to try to get its defenders to surrender.