Just what IS terrorism?

jar asks:

quote:

---

Is the civilian population that supports the war through manufacturing, agriculture, finance, communications, logistics or intellegence part of the infrastructure?

---

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question of motive. In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I'm not so sure our motive was to destroy infrastructure. That could have been done with other weaponry.And so now we're right back to the question I asked before: was the primary motive to destroy infrastructure or to kill civilians? I think it was the latter and thus I think these were acts of terror, though as I said before they must be considered in the context of the war.This is why I think we need a better definition of terrorism, but I'm not sure that one is possible.

---

Dog is my copilot.

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

jar asks:

quote:

---

What about the aerial bombing of Britain by Germany during WWII?

---

I see, it could be a question of deeper motive (although I suspect you're trying to get a subjective answer from me). In this case, I think we have a combination of motives and thus we've hit on a gray area.Earlier, you asked about the people who work in the factories that make up the infrastructure. I suppose it's possible to look upon such people as legitimate targets and not civilians, so we might draw the distinction there. If the primary motive was to destroy infrastructure and inhibit the enemy's capacity to make war by destroying factories and killing factory workers, then it could be argued that the act was not one of terrorism but simply of war.Then again, in the case of Germany's air raids on Britain, weren't some of the targets purely civilian and/or cultural? Those cases would be regarded as terrorism, imo.Did Britain's raids on Germany ever target purely civilian / cultural sites? I can't remember for certain but somehow I feel that you probably do.

---

Dog is my copilot.

I think that terrorist acts are an inherant part of any all out war. The goal of a war is to defeat your enemy. Part of that is to destroy the support for the war making activity, be it real infrastructure support (ie war supply factories and their civilian workers) or moral support (the civilian population in general).Also, I think the methods of war can certainly extend beyond military actions. What may be good old fashioned capitalistic compitition to one side may rightfully be viewed as economic warfare by the other.Might the economic sanctions that were imposed on Iraq be viewed as acts of economic war, and/or acts of economic terrorism?Moose{Of course, edited to change ID from the default admin mode - Moose}This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 11-14-2004 02:50 AM

If they are, then the World Trade Center would have been considered a valid military target.

So the fact that he was a blatant terrorist should be forgiven because after he got his concessions by being a terrorist... and was then set into a position of legal power... he then demanded everyone else play fair and worked for peace, so that he could enjoy the position he was in and the concessions he got through terrorism?Meanwhile everyone that lost and so had to resort to the same sort of terrorism, even while trying to negotiate peacefully, remain terrorists?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You may find this discussion both interesting and relevant. Although never completed, many of the issues that have been raised in this thread were covered - in some depth . Enjoy.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-14-2004 09:02 AM

well it worked for gerry adams.

holmes writes:

quote:

---

So the fact that he was a blatant terrorist should be forgiven because after he got his concessions by being a terrorist... and was then set into a position of legal power... he then demanded everyone else play fair and worked for peace, so that he could enjoy the position he was in and the concessions he got through terrorism?

---

No, I'm simply saying we should take into account what happened later when assessing the man's life (or anyone's life, for that matter). I didn't say that the assessment should lead us to the conclusion that Begin was a saint. I'm trying to keep a narrow focus and I didn't want to get into precisely what that assessment would be. Some of the things I've said in this thread could be used to paint Truman as a terrorist, but I don't think it would be fair to assess Truman's life based solely on what he did with a-bombs.This is precisely why I'm trying to come up with an objective definition of terrorism. There are plenty of subjective assessments around and they all depend on someone's point of view. I'm trying to get beyond point of view, but as I said earlier it might not be possible.

---

Dog is my copilot.

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

You seem to have missed my point. The only reason why he changed his ways when he was older is that he got his way through terrorism.Almost everyone changes once they get what they want. It's like saying a mob boss that stopped his murder spree once he got to the top, should be assessed for those later works that did not require bumping off his rivals.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

jar asks:

quote:

---

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?

---

In principle, yes. If it involves killing or harming civilians for the sake of killing or harming civilians then, even in wartime, no.In the earlier thread that was recently closed but linked from this thread (in two places) the following definition for terrorism was offered: That seems more specific than my definition and may work better, but even here we're stuck with situations, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that we'd like to logically separate from acts like 9/11, but I'm not sure we can separate them.

---

Dog is my copilot.

I do see your point and I agree with it, holmes. However, I further see that it was a mistake to confuse the issue by getting into the question of who is and who is not a terrorist. I'd rather stick to the question of what is and what is not terrorism. I should think that would be easier to assess objectively, though I'm still wondering whether even that is possible. The question seems murkier than ever now that I've gone through the earlier thread linked by Quetzal and Moose.

---

Dog is my copilot.

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