How is it terrorism when they kill soldiers?

[HoreTore]

Isn't it called "war" when one soldier kills another after war is declared?

You see, some norwegian soldier got shot in Afghanistan today. And, since we're a tiny nation, it's all over the news. And it has consistently been called a "terrorist attack", committed by "terrorists". So, as it turns out, when a soldier kills an enemy, he's a terrorist. I still don't know if a soldier is a terrorist before he kills someone though, whether it's being a soldier that makes you a terrorist, or if you only become one after your first kill. Anyone got an answer to that?



And another thing... Why are we so sad when soldiers die? I mean.... they went down there to die for their country, right? Shouldn't we be congratulating them on a job well done?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Isn't it called "war" when one soldier kills another after war is declared?

You see, some norwegian soldier got shot in Afghanistan today. And, since we're a tiny nation, it's all over the news. And it has consistently been called a "terrorist attack", committed by "terrorists". So, as it turns out, when a soldier kills an enemy, he's a terrorist. I still don't know if a soldier is a terrorist before he kills someone though, whether it's being a soldier that makes you a terrorist, or if you only become one after your first kill. Anyone got an answer to that?

I somewhat agree. But considering what those people were doing when not attacking soldiers, like enforcing the Taliban's laws, calling them terrorists isn't far off.

And another thing... Why are we so sad when soldiers die? I mean.... they went down there to die for their country, right? Shouldn't we be congratulating them on a job well done?

That's damn cold blooded.

They didn't go to die; they went to try and secure a better future for Afghanistan. We're sad because these people gave up their lives to better the lives of others.

CR

[Samurai Waki]

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

~Gen. George S. Patton

[HoreTore]

I somewhat agree. But considering what those people were doing when not attacking soldiers, like enforcing the Taliban's laws, calling them terrorists isn't far off.

Enforcing despotic laws is terrorism? I thought that was despotism... Isn't terrorism quite restricted to killing/scaring civilian populations?

That's damn cold blooded.

Many thanks

They didn't go to die

So all this talk about "dying for your country" is all a scam?

[Lemur]

Enforcing despotic laws is terrorism? I thought that was despotism... Isn't terrorism quite restricted to killing/scaring civilian populations?

I see the point you're making, and there's some truth in it. Two armed groups going at each other is difficult to classify as "terrorism." It might be what the U.S. military calls "asymmetrical warfare," though. The calling card of real terrorism is that the targets tend to be non-military, such as blowing up a vegetable market in Kirkuk.

So all this talk about "dying for your country" is all a scam?

No, not a scam; soldiers who fall in the line of duty really have died for their country. But that's never the goal, you see. You want to make the other guy die for his, as Patton put it.

[HoreTore]

I see the point you're making, and there's some truth in it. Two armed groups going at each other is difficult to classify as "terrorism." It might be what the U.S. military calls "asymmetrical warfare," though. The calling card of real terrorism is that the targets tend to be non-military, such as blowing up a vegetable market in Kirkuk.

In-deedeli-doodely. I mean, it's not too different from what the resistance movement did here during the war, the real difference is simply advances in warfare(excluding when targeting civilians, of course). Blowing up enemy soldiers, police stations, assassinating natives who work with occupiers, etc etc, it was all done here during the war, and I'm sorry, but I don't really feel like calling our resistance movement terrorists...

[InsaneApache]

I thought you had to join the army to become a soldier?

[HoreTore]

I thought you had to join the army to become a soldier?

So.... All guerillas are terrorists in your opinion? Why do we then have words like "resistance movement" and "guerillas"? Is it all part of the big liberal plot to make the church accept gays?

[InsaneApache]

Oh dear a strawman.

[Strike For The South]

I agree, targeting soldiers is not terrorism.

As for your thoughts on soldiering a certain Orwell quote comes to mind but I can't bring myself to be that cliche or elementary.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Blowing up enemy soldiers, police stations, assassinating natives who work with occupiers, etc etc, it was all done here during the war, and I'm sorry, but I don't really feel like calling our resistance movement terrorists...

Did they target civilians (say, by throwing acid at them)? The Taliban does things like that. Just because they killed some soldiers does not make them less of terrorists - they are still a terrorist group.

[HoreTore]

Did they target civilians (say, by throwing acid at them)? The Taliban does things like that. Just because they killed some soldiers does not make them less of terrorists - they are still a terrorist group.

As we say here in norway; now's the time to separate snot from mustaches(yess, that's a saying). In the news, they've said that the soldier died in a terrorist attack. Not "killed by a terrorist". The attack itself was terrorism. And I can't see how that can be true, as this was an attack targeted specifically at foreign soldiers, it was not targeted at civilians, nor was it random in any way.

[InsaneApache]

You're just arguing semantics.

[HoreTore]

You're just arguing semantics.

I'm annoyed, so yes.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

HoreTore, here is the definition I found on Wiki:

Terrorism is, most simply, policy intended to intimidate or cause terror. It is more commonly understood as an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants.

An attack by a combatant who is not part of the regular army attacking a force which is essentially trying to be a stabilizing force could be interpreted as 1 or 2.

[HoreTore]

An attack by a combatant who is not part of the regular army attacking a force which is essentially trying to be a stabilizing force could be interpreted as 1 or 2.

So.... The norwegian resistance movement were terrorists after all?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So.... The norwegian resistance movement were terrorists after all?

No. They were not striking fear into the local population, just into the occupying forces, correct?

[HoreTore]

No. They were not striking fear into the local population, just into the occupying forces, correct?

So.... The Taliban are trying to strike fear into the local population when they attack foreign soldiers to strike fear into foreign troops?

And yes, they were most certainly trying to scare norwegians from working with the nazi's.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So.... The Taliban are trying to strike fear into the local population when they attack foreign soldiers to strike fear into foreign troops?

The Taliban are trying to strike fear into the population of Afghanistan (where have you been?), and I think killing soldiers is only one part in that.

And yes, they were most certainly trying to scare norwegians from working with the nazi's.

Yes.

[HoreTore]

The Taliban are trying to strike fear into the population of Afghanistan (where have you been?), and I think killing soldiers is only one part in that.

Their ultimate goal now is to re-establish control of afghanistan and stabilize the country. Where have you been? They're not trying to terrorize the population just to terrorize them, they're doing it to ensure loyalty. But getting foreign occupiers out and bringing down the traitor(in their eyes) government is the most critical.

[Incongruous]

Their ultimate goal now is to re-establish control of afghanistan and stabilize the country. Where have you been? They're not trying to terrorize the population just to terrorize them, they're doing it to ensure loyalty. But getting foreign occupiers out and bringing down the traitor(in their eyes) government is the most critical.

Heil Osama!!!

But srsly, I would agree that teh Taliban do want to bring stability to the country, very admirable of them. But its the kind of stability they want to bring and the way in which they are doing it which I belive gives people justification in calling them terrorists, though tbh alot of the fighters are actually poor locals who have had enough of U.S backed warlords, so its a rather hit and miss kind of thing.

[HoreTore]

But srsly, I would agree that teh Taliban do want to bring stability to the country, very admirable of them. But its the kind of stability they want to bring and the way in which they are doing it which I belive gives people justification in calling them terrorists, though tbh alot of the fighters are actually poor locals who have had enough of U.S backed warlords, so its a rather hit and miss kind of thing.

I'm not arguing whether to call them terrorists or not. I'm arguing whether it's correct to call an attack on enemy soldiers a terrorist attack.

[Fixiwee]

The Taliban are trying to strike fear into the population of Afghanistan (where have you been?), and I think killing soldiers is only one part in that.

I see what your argument is but you put it a little bit too simple.
If I was an Afghan I would target soldiers because that's the best way to let the country pull out the troops.
Remember Rwanda genocide where they beat up 4(?) beglian soldiers to death and the public opinion shifted so terrible that the goverment pulled out its troops. Which destabilized the country even more and made the killing possible even more?
(The post is not soley reflecting on EMFM)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

They're not trying to terrorize the population just to terrorize them, they're doing it to ensure loyalty.

This sentence alone proved my point. The point is that they are doing it. It doesn't matter why - terrorism is a tactic, not an end.

If I was an Afghan I would target soldiers because that's the best way to let the country pull out the troops.

You are a Taliban fighter, not an ordinary Afghan.

[Incongruous]

I'm not arguing whether to call them terrorists or not. I'm arguing whether it's correct to call an attack on enemy soldiers a terrorist attack.

Well, if they are brutal insurgents who commit acts of terror in order to impose a brutal regime, then yes it would be a terrorist attack.

[Fixiwee]

You are a Taliban fighter, not an ordinary Afghan.

Don't be square. You know what I meant. ;)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Don't be square. You know what I meant. ;)

As has been said, the hypothetical you is still terrorizing the population.

[Fixiwee]

As has been said, the hypothetical you is still terrorizing the population.

Yes. That's terrorism by definition.

But the question that has been asked is if it can be called terrorism when a Taliban kills a regular soldier.
I see your point and I agree to it to the most extend, but I have to say it is a fair question.

[Tribesman]

As has been said, the hypothetical you is still terrorizing the population.

It isn't terrorising the population , its a shock and awe campaign .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But the question that has been asked is if it can be called terrorism when a Taliban kills a regular soldier.

Yes. It really depends why that soldier is being killed.

It isn't terrorising the population , its a shock and awe campaign .