It's okay to kill terrorists

[IMJack]

They look funny, they pray differently, and they might want to kill us.

So it's okay for us to kill them.

[Ubik]

The thing is, "terrorism" is simply another name for warfare involving less well-armed people retaliating against stronger adversaries using non-traditional means of attack, e.g. bombings, guerilla tactics and such. The only difference is that those on our side are "partisans" or "revolutionaries," and those against us are "terrorists."

Ergo, "terrorism" is basically a meaningless term, and is used as a loaded instigator of emotional excitement.

[NiGHTMARE]

"Terrorist" is supposed to refer to anyone who fights (without the official backing of a government) using "terror tactics" such as targetting innocent civilians, but the U.S. has twisted it beyond all recognition following September 11th.

[Job]

NiGHTMARE's Title :
Terrorizing the community since '96

I guess it's ok to kill you. •° / Sorry.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Ubik said:

The thing is, "terrorism" is simply another name for warfare involving less well-armed people retaliating against stronger adversaries using non-traditional means of attack, e.g. bombings, guerilla tactics and such. The only difference is that those on our side are "partisans" or "revolutionaries," and those against us are "terrorists."

Ergo, "terrorism" is basically a meaningless term, and is used as a loaded instigator of emotional excitement.

IMO the difference between terrorists and partisans/revolutionaries/freedom fighters etc. is that they attack military targets (usually because they hate the country's rulers), whereas terrorists attack innocent civilians as well (usually because they hate everyone of a certain race, religion etc. not just the rulers)

[Ed]

Ultimate DooMer said:

IMO the difference between terrorists and partisans/revolutionaries/freedom fighters etc. is that they attack military targets (usually because they hate the country's rulers), whereas terrorists attack innocent civilians as well (usually because they hate everyone of a certain race, religion etc. not just the rulers)

^

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Lord FlatHead]

What the hell ? Who asked anyone for the definition of terrorism ?

[Grazza]

I'd say a definition of a "terrorist" is fairly relevant to any discussion of whether it is OK to kill terrorists.

[IMJack]

Apparently, the definition isn't that hard. If they work for you, they're "paramilitaries". Otherwise, they're "terrorists."

[NiGHTMARE]

IMJack: sorry, but that doesn't hold up. After all, since when were the Iraqi forces called terrorists?

[Ubik]

Ultimate DooMer said:

IMO the difference between terrorists and partisans/revolutionaries/freedom fighters etc. is that they attack military targets (usually because they hate the country's rulers), whereas terrorists attack innocent civilians as well (usually because they hate everyone of a certain race, religion etc. not just the rulers)

Except, just as often, the people we consider "revolutionaries" will attack innocent civilians as well; it's just not exposed in the media or by the government if they're "on our side." All history is written by the victors, don'cha know. I'm no big paranoid conspiracy theorist or anything, but that's just the way these things work today.

[darknation]

Ultimate DooMer said:

IMO the difference between terrorists and partisans/revolutionaries/freedom fighters etc. is that they attack military targets

like the pentagon you mean?

[NailGunner]

Though basic, here's the way the Marines catagorize "terrorists", as per one of the courses I've taken. (i.e. they made me take.) It's based on a book by Frederick Hacker, and provides a basic means of classification.

Crusaders Defined as ideologically inspired individuals or groups who desire prestige and power for a colloective goal or higher cause. Many of this type have extensive prison records, and often administer indoctrination and training to new prospects while still confined. In some instances mentally ill, Crusaders often see membership to their particular group as a means to engage in violent activity. Often, Crusaders have a pathological need for support and identification provided by group membership.

Criminals Criminals are mostly used to garnish terrorist operational funds. While not considered a "terrorist act", criminal fund-raising is essentail for financing terrorist activity. This class usually reverts to tactics of deception, diversion, theft, fraud, and extortion to achieve their aims.

Crazies The most difficult of the three to deal with. Many times impulsive and unpredictable, "crazies" are often capable of being compulsive and planning their actions in great detail. Some are delusional, seeing themselves as "agents of God", or even God themself. While the spectrum of this type of individual is broad, many are both persuasive and strong-minded.

Just thought this was interesting...

[jute]

they look funny and pray differently? FUCK YES LET'S KILL THEM.

[Sharessa]

NiGHTMARE said:

IMJack: sorry, but that doesn't hold up. After all, since when were the Iraqi forces called terrorists?

The Palastinian forces are called terrorists.

[myk]

NailGunner said:

Just thought this was interesting...

Yeah...

A) Seems like something taken out of an RPG rulebook.
B) Could be used to classify the US soldiers, businessmen and politicians involved in the Iraq campaign just as much as right-wing Islamic power groups.

[fodders]

Ultimate DooMer said:

IMO the difference between terrorists and partisans/revolutionaries/freedom fighters etc. is that they attack military targets (usually because they hate the country's rulers), whereas terrorists attack innocent civilians as well (usually because they hate everyone of a certain race, religion etc. not just the rulers)

So the bombing of the restaurant in Iraq to possibly kill the ruler, but guarranteed to kill many civilians is, while also being a war crime according to the Geneva Convention is also an act of terrorism?

[Fredrik]

The thin difference between terrorism and justified military force is that of which side those who listen to the propaganda belong to.

[sargebaldy]

fodders said:

So the bombing of the restaurant in Iraq to possibly kill the ruler, but guarranteed to kill many civilians is, while also being a war crime according to the Geneva Convention is also an act of terrorism?

heh, well the US used the fact the government plays a major role in military control as an excuse to get by that. i think that might be a good excuse but bush is hardly less of a military target himself, being after all, "the commander-in-chief", even if he doesn't involve himself directly with war strategy.

[NiGHTMARE]

the_Danarchist said:

The Palastinian forces are called terrorists.

Um, no they're not. Palestine civilians who take it either upon themselves or work for a terrorist organisation, to attack Israelis are called terrorists. Besides, even if the Palestinian forces did attack civilians, etc, they would still be terrorists because they don't serve an official government.

[Grazza]

You know, I always thought the defining characteristic of terrorists was meant to be (as the word suggests) that their principal aim was to induce terror. Thus, killing people and destroying property is not their primary goal, but rather a means by which to frighten others (kill one, scare a thousand, etc.).

Of course, this all becomes a bit blurred if you have terrorists seeking to inflict mass-casualty events (kill a million to frighten a trillion?) or if a major subsidiary aim of action against Iraq is to frighten other rogue states into behaving better.

[NiGHTMARE]

Personally I consider a terrorist to be someone who doesn't work for a recognised government (or at least there's no official proof that they do), who commits acts which would be construed as acts of war if they were working for a government.

However, according to the dictionary, a terrorist is anyone who employs terror as a political weapon... a description which definitely covers certain members of the U.S. government and military.

[mewse]

Grazza said:

You know, I always thought the defining characteristic of terrorists was meant to be (as the word suggests) that their principal aim was to induce terror.

yes. terrorists create terror.

by this guideline, terrorism has conquered the united states, because the united states population is terrified.

it remains to be seen what will happen before the people of the united states feel safe again. here's to hoping that all it takes is a couple more topplings of backwards foreign governments.

[Ubik]

Hell, ALL warfare is terrorism. Except in very rare and extreme cases, the goal of conflict isn't to completely annihilate the enemy, but to scare the shit out of him enough that he gives up.

[jute]

mewse said:

by this guideline, terrorism has conquered the united states, because the united states population is terrified.

i dunno. i'm in the u.s. and i feel alright. i kind of have a headache, i suppose, but i don't really feel terrified at all.

[myk]

mewse said:

it remains to be seen what will happen before the people of the united states feel safe again. here's to hoping that all it takes is a couple more topplings of backwards foreign governments.

I doubt it. A revolution of that magnitude is unlikely in the USA, presently.

[Johnatone]

everyone needs to watch 'swordfish' again.

[IMJack]

Grazza said:

You know, I always thought the defining characteristic of terrorists was meant to be (as the word suggests) that their principal aim was to induce terror. Thus, killing people and destroying property is not their primary goal, but rather a means by which to frighten others (kill one, scare a thousand, etc.).

Three words: "Shock and Awe".

Funny thing, in the first use of official terrorism that the U.S. admitted to, they've failed miserably. The Iraqi people aren't half as cowed as the American people are.

[jute]

IMJack said:

The Iraqi people aren't half as cowed as the American people are.

again, i don't understand. i'm an american and i feel pretty okay. in fact, i don't know anyone who i could really descibe as 'cowed' at all. or 'terrified'. maybe around here we just aren't true americans, but i honestly don't know what the hell you guys are talking about.