|
|
|
Cold Water and Brass Tacks
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:44 PM
Posts: 1,180,
Visits: 1,031
|
|
Wen Jian (7/18/2006)
Is kidnapping civilians in order to piss off their government and community terrorism?Just to 'piss them off'? No... not really... Which Civilians are we referring to here and which kidnapping?
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
Terrorism ~ "incorrect use of violence". If you agree on what "correct use of violence" is then you probably don't have any grounds for debate - so probably about as useful as talking in terms of the good/bad guys.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
Your terrorist/my freedom fighter and so forth...
Anyway, going back to newscoverage Apparently we missed a classic on Fox news (this is me paraphrasing from someone at work who saw it) of an interview with someone stuck in the midst of all this:
Interviewer: So mr. man, i hear you are trying to leave beruit...
Mr man: yes i am
Interviewer: and why is that?
Mr man: um....
Classic! definately a candide for "stupid question of the year"
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:39 PM
Posts: 245,
Visits: 1,269
|
|
Tart (7/18/2006)
Your terrorist/my freedom fighter and so forth...An over-exposed phrase that is often used in place of taking the time to think about it.The line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is both hard to define and usually subjective. I would say that a Freedom Fighter attacks the military, a terrorist attacks the civilian population to make people afraid. A line blurrs when the people in question attack civilians that they consider either culpable or to have committed 'crimes' against their cause. Short version? Freedom fighters pay attention to who they're killing... terrorists don't.
Dave 2 / Man in Blue
LT - Artfiel Macenion Duvall, Knight of Celestial
EOS - Weeping Boar, War Sayer of the Mystwalker Tribe Maelstrom - Tal Rufen, Quicksilver Trading Riftworld - Cpl Caplin San Angelo, 48th Assault Recon
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
That makes most countries in the world terrorists then. Glad we all agree...
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
An over-exposed phrase that is often used in place oftaking the time to think about it.
Yes - not quite what I was trying to say. Given that political debates will almost turn on what consitutes an appropriate excercise of violence, starting the debate labelling one side as wrong is a bit of a non-starter.
I would say that a Freedom Fighter attacks the military, a terrorist attacks the civilian population to make people afraid. A line blurrs when the people in question attack civilians that they consider either culpable or to have committed 'crimes' against their cause.
Fine - so long as civilians and military are completely separate (conceptually, physically and logistically). Works ok-ish so long as people wear uniform and fight with short ranged weapons in a big field away from civilians.
Short version? Freedom fighters pay attention to who they're killing... terrorists don't.
No - I think that's a technological/situational thing. If I have smart missiles, then I can target (or at least, intend to target) the Johnny Bad who I claim to be part of the opposing military. If I have a grenade, then my options are limited.
If 'terrorists' had the technological/situational opportunity to assassinate the enemy military (including the political framework - e.g. Kings/Minister of Defence) I reckon they'd take it. If you can't do that, then you'll go for the enemy targets that present themselves with the weapons you have to hand. A vague familiarity with war history seems to echo the point (could have dropped the atom bombs on Japanese military targets but the effect wouldn't have been nearly so impressively distinct from conventional bombing).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:39 PM
Posts: 245,
Visits: 1,269
|
|
Marios (7/18/2006)
Fine - so long as civilians and military are completely separate (conceptually, physically and logistically). Works ok-ish so long as people wear uniform and fight with short ranged weapons in a big field away from civilians. No - I think that's a technological/situational thing. If I have smart missiles, then I can target (or at least, intend to target) the Johnny Bad who I claim to be part of the opposing military. If I have a grenade, then my options are limited. That's why I said it was always subjective... especially when you like or dislike what one side stand for.- You can choose to throw the grenade at a truck full of soldiers... civilians might very well still get hurt, but you're trying to prove that the Baluchistani's can fight for their rights.
- Or, you could choose to throw the grenade into the middle of a marketplace... so that people will know what happens if their government ignores to the Baluchistani people's rights.
One of those was an attack on the military/military-industrial complex/government-enforcement-arm, the other was an attack on whoever happened to be there... I would say that the former was more morally justifiable the latter.
Dave 2 / Man in Blue
LT - Artfiel Macenion Duvall, Knight of Celestial
EOS - Weeping Boar, War Sayer of the Mystwalker Tribe Maelstrom - Tal Rufen, Quicksilver Trading Riftworld - Cpl Caplin San Angelo, 48th Assault Recon
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
I dunno. I think chucking grenades at soldiers purely because they are soldiers (this is assuming they aren't in the process of actual military manouvers) is going down the line of mistaking the authority for the people who have the authority vested in them.
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
|
| |