Just what IS terrorism?

Would you say that all actions, regardless of who commits them or who is targeted during a period when there is a declared state of war between recognized nation states would be excluded from terrorism?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay, let's step on further.Was the carpet bombing by the British initially of German cities an act of terrorism or of war?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you were a senior decision maker, say, Churchill, would you consider the infrastructure of the enemy as a legitimate target?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, before we can get an answer for that I fear I have to ask one more question.Is the civilian population that supports the war through manufacturing, agriculture, finance, communications, logistics or intellegence part of the infrastructure? Can a factory run without workers, trains carry goods without workers, armies be supplied without foodstuffs grown by workers?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hang in with me because I believe we may be making progress.Let's look at another example from WWII.What about the aerial bombing of Britain by Germany during WWII?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If the US had been in a state of war with another country, say the US was at war with Barbados, and the Barbados Air Force bombed the World Trade Center, would that have been terrorism or an act of war?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

During a declared state of war between Nation States, would you say that it is a legitimate tactic to try to diminish the other sides moral and commitment?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well let's look specifically at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you'll let me, a few more questions. Both cities are ports (or major cities surrounding and supporting ports). Both cities were major transportation and manufacturing areas.The cities are both key highway links on seperate islands in Japan and certainly military targets should an invasion be needed. Here is a good map of Japan as a referenceIn particular, look at the relief information on the map. Place yourself in the position of someone planning an invasion of the islands. Consider terrain, logistics, transportation and all of the factors that would be involved.Now, ask yourself how the bombings at Hirosima and Nagasaki are different than those of Tokyo, Osaka, Fukuoka or any of the others?We tend to place the former in a seperate category simply because only one bomb was used in each, but the actual damage to civilian lives was far greater in the bombing of Tokyo than either of the two.So, again, in declared state of war between nation states, wouold those bombings, like the carpet bombing of German cities, the German bombing of England, be ligitimate acts of war or terrorism?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think that may be one of the big differences in approach.How was the destruction different than if conventional weapons were used? How is an atomic bomb different than a conventional bomb? Please try to look at this through the eyes of someone making the decision in 1945, not through today's somewhat colored point of view.IMHO, the biggest difference was in the exposure that the US faced. Instead of sending 200 B-29s there were two. The US risked two plane crew and infrastructure instead of 200 plane crew and infrastructure, but other than that, what were the differences?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Can you explain that? I really don't understand what you're trying to say there. No. I never thought that they were acts of terrorism. There is no doubt in my mind that that attack was terrorism.Let me toss out a few things that can be objectively identified that might help with any definition.First, which organization carried out the attack at the King David Hotel?That organization was an official arm of which Nation State?At the time of the attack, a declared state of war was in effect between which Nation States?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The US would point to a number of UN resolutions and towards acts of Congress to say that a legal basis was laid.But in any case we are dealing with Nation States.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay.So when looking at the bombing of the King David Hotel,

• was not an act of a Nation State.
• was not carried out by an official arm of a Nation State.
• did not have the sanction of the governing structure of a Nation State.

Do we agree so far?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sure don't mean to but it is a slippery subject and hard to get hold of.So the difference between something like the bombings in Japan, Britain and Germany during WWII and the bombing at the King David Hotel is that the former were acts of a Nation State during war while the later was committed by a non-government.IMHO, acts of war can be very bad, they can even be crimes. There are even standards, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and established procedures (even if ineffective) to address such behaviour. But they are not terrorist acts. Regardless of the motive, if committed by a recognized government, it is not terrorism.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sure there is. One of the rights of a Nation State is self protection. It is legal to attack another nation that is about to attack you, even through preemptive attack.The issue is whether or not the US can make a case that the US was threatened by Iraq. This is not the thread to discuss that issue, but it is clear atleast that Nation States do have a legal right of self defense.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That issue comes up fairly often, for example over which is the real China. A Nation State comes about through internal organization and the consensus of other Nation States.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion