How is it terrorism when they kill soldiers?

[Fixiwee]

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

Like I said I agree with you.
I have to admit though that I know nothing about what really happend.

Also my reference to the belgian soldiers in Rwanda being withdrawn backs up your argument.

[Fragony]

With Horetore on this one.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Killing a soldier doesn't make you a terrorist in itself, so its not an act of terrorism. But then, many of those carrying out such attacks will have links with terrorist organisations. Are they terrorists... maybe. But not because they killed a soldier.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Horetore:

Does this really boil down to frustration at the loss of a countryman in a conflict of which you don't feel he should be a part?


It's clear that attacking a military target, whether the attack is done by a regular combatant or not, does not of itself constitute terrorism. Sloppy word work by the media outfit in question.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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?

Briefly;

It is ok to target the military of another nation or group; not its civilians who are not participating in aggressive activities. Terrorism is when you attack the civilian population of a group intentionally, for the purposes of spreading fear; or destroying high profile targets like national monuments for the purposes of lowering morale. In my opinion.

Why is it sad when soldiers die? Because they don't stop being human beings when they are a soldier. And dying for their nation isn't their function; their function is to defend their nation from aggressors.

[Sarmatian]

I wouldn't call anyone who attack a soldier a terrorist. That person may or may not be a terrorist based on what his past activities, but attacking a soldier in itself isn't an act of terrorism. It's propaganda...

I remember a decade ago (it's been that long, what do you know), when nato bombed Serbia and Montenegro - few of nato (american) pilots were captured and suddenly nato was screaming about Geneva Convention and prisoners of war. What prisoners of war, what Geneva Convention? Nobody declared war on Serbia. Lawfully, those pilots were terrorist, I mean, what would you call armed force that attacks civilian targets without declaring war?

He was a soldier and he knew the risks - no matter how disgusting I find the regime in Afghanistan, Afghani still have right to defend themselves...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It can potentially be an act of terrorism, as explained above.

[Lemur]

It is ok to target the military of another nation or group; not its civilians who are not participating in aggressive activities. Terrorism is when you attack the civilian population of a group intentionally, for the purposes of spreading fear; or destroying high profile targets like national monuments for the purposes of lowering morale. In my opinion.

No, that's not your opinion, that's pretty much the textbook definition of terrorism.

[Askthepizzaguy]

No, that's not your opinion, that's pretty much the textbook definition of terrorism.

I've learned to qualify most statements I make as being "in my opinion" in the backroom so they don't come off as arrogant, and I don't have to give evidence or proof of everything I say. More out of laziness and clarity than anything else. More often than not in these backroom discussions, people challenge definitions of words; and many people have different interpretations of words, in spite of the existence of dictionaries.

To avoid quibbling over semantics and definition, I just toss an "in my opinion" after defining things.

[ajaxfetish]

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.

This definition has three necessary conditions, shown by the use of and just before number 3, instead of the word or. Being possibly interpreted as 1 or 2 is not enough; it must be demonstrated to be 1, 2, and 3 to count as terrorism by this definition. An attack aimed exclusively at soldiers, even if committed by a terrorist, is not in itself an act of terrorism. I agree with HoreTore: it was inaccurate and possibly deceptive use of language.

Ajax

[Askthepizzaguy]

This definition has three necessary conditions, shown by the use of and just before number 3, instead of the word or. Being possibly interpreted as 1 or 2 is not enough; it must be demonstrated to be 1, 2, and 3 to count as terrorism by this definition. An attack aimed exclusively at soldiers, even if committed by a terrorist, is not in itself an act of terrorism. I agree with HoreTore: it was inaccurate and possibly deceptive use of language.

Ajax

I agree that attacking soldiers is generally not terrorism. However, let us say that these soldiers are in their own nation not harming anyone, or keeping the peace between rival factions and not getting involved except to protect each from the other, or keeping free people safe from oppressive and violent regimes; these are legitimate and enlightened uses for soldiers. Those who attack such soldiers are cruel and oppressive in my opinion, if not terrorists. I'd go as far as to say they are terrorists, because those targets are not part of self-defense in my opinion.

However, peacekeeping and fighting terrorists is done by fallible human beings who make mistakes and kill the innocent at times, and therefore, armed resistance to such may or may not be terrorism. I say it depends on the circumstances.

[ajaxfetish]

I agree that attacking soldiers is generally not terrorism. However, let us say that these soldiers are in their own nation not harming anyone, or keeping the peace between rival factions and not getting involved except to protect each from the other, or keeping free people safe from oppressive and violent regimes; these are legitimate and enlightened uses for soldiers. Those who attack such soldiers are cruel and oppressive in my opinion, if not terrorists. I'd go as far as to say they are terrorists, because those targets are not part of self-defense in my opinion.

However, peacekeeping and fighting terrorists is done by fallible human beings who make mistakes and kill the innocent at times, and therefore, armed resistance to such may or may not be terrorism. I say it depends on the circumstances.

Well, I'm not about to say I think the wiki definition is perfect. I would agree with you that attacking soldiers in their home country could easily qualify as terrorism, depending on the circumstances. I do not think, however, that attacking foreign soldiers occupying your own nation qualifies.

Ajax

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I do not think, however, that attacking foreign soldiers occupying your own nation qualifies.

What if this is being done to sow terror among the civilian population?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well, I'm not about to say I think the wiki definition is perfect. I would agree with you that attacking soldiers in their home country could easily qualify as terrorism, depending on the circumstances. I do not think, however, that attacking foreign soldiers occupying your own nation qualifies.

Ajax

I think that there is room for disagreement and debate on the issue. Your views seem like a valid counter to my own.

[KarlXII]

It is my belief that if a combatant fires upon, or causes any intentional harm, to a civilian or civilian population, that combatant has committed terrorism. However, should he kill another soldier in combat, it is not.

As already stated, soldiers are human. They have girlfriends, wives, parents, cousins, daughters, sons, aunts and uncles like you and me. True, they are trained to fight, kill, and face the reality of being killed, however, they are deserving of the same mourning one would show a citizen killed in a war.

[HoreTore]

I have to admit though that I know nothing about what really happend.

Some guy with a car full of explosives drove into a military column. Bang.

Or they got blown up by a roadbomb. Last time I checked, they still hadn't decided which.

Does this really boil down to frustration at the loss of a countryman in a conflict of which you don't feel he should be a part?

Nope. As far as I'm concerned, people are dead when they sign the contract to go to war. If they come back, then woo-hoo, if not, well, it was to be expected.

[InsaneApache]

Nope. As far as I'm concerned, people are dead when they sign the contract to go to war. If they come back, then woo-hoo, if not, well, it was to be expected.

Shameful.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Nope. As far as I'm concerned, people are dead when they sign the contract to go to war. If they come back, then woo-hoo, if not, well, it was to be expected.

I really don't understand this, from any political viewpoint. One may not agree with the mission a soldier is given, but he has a mother who will grieve.

Even a pacifist values the human life of the military, if not their role.

Shameful is one description. Morally bankrupt is another. I admit to some degree of surprise.

[rory_20_uk]

Flashy stories sell papers. Terrorist is more emotive and topical. Few will be picking up the inaccuracy when a countryman gets shot a few thousand miles away trying to secure some teritory for a pipeline (well at least that's possible, the idea of peace is a joke!)

[Fragony]

Shameful is one description. Morally bankrupt is another. I admit to some degree of surprise.

Celebrating the death of a soldier would be shamefull, even for that I wouldn't use morally bankrupt. Not caring because you know what you are getting in to, perfectly valid opinion.

Just my

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Some guy with a car full of explosives drove into a military column. Bang.

Or they got blown up by a roadbomb. Last time I checked, they still hadn't decided which.



Nope. As far as I'm concerned, people are dead when they sign the contract to go to war. If they come back, then woo-hoo, if not, well, it was to be expected.

Are you like this in real life?

To be frank, the amount of hatred you seem to carry for so many divergant groups is disturbing.

Soldiers do a job which is very dangerous, most of the ones who see combat have night terrors, PTSD etc. My Grandfather cries every armistice day because he was the only one to survive his AA gun being hit.

So, why no compassion?

[HoreTore]

Are you like this in real life?

To be frank, the amount of hatred you seem to carry for so many divergant groups is disturbing.

Soldiers do a job which is very dangerous, most of the ones who see combat have night terrors, PTSD etc. My Grandfather cries every armistice day because he was the only one to survive his AA gun being hit.

So, why no compassion?

"Hatred" is the wrong term. "Uncaring" is a better one.

And I do differentiate between a defender and an invader, and one who had a choice and one who did not.

I really don't understand this, from any political viewpoint. One may not agree with the mission a soldier is given, but he has a mother who will grieve.

Even a pacifist values the human life of the military, if not their role.

Shameful is one description. Morally bankrupt is another. I admit to some degree of surprise.

So does every soldier. Including enemy soldiers. The thing is I should only care about "my own", right? I don't have to care about "the enemy"?

I'm sorry if it bothers you, but I refuse to care about German soldiers who lost their lives in WW2, Vietcong soldiers who lost their lives in the Vietnam war, NATO soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan or Taliban soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan.

Most people only care about one of those four. I don't see how I'm morally bankrupt or shameful because I don't care about any of them.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Let's try not to dogpile on top of HoreTore. We may not agree with his views, but I don't think he's said anything all that offensive here. In one sense, I agree with HoreTore; soldiers who sign up for a mission which involves being in someone else's lands, where they may be ordered to fire upon the enemy, are legitimate targets. There is always the option not to interfere in other countries; not that I agree with it all the time.

I think he's trying to express himself freely; which I do believe is a right many of these soldiers themselves would admit they are trying to preserve.

There is, and I believe, a legitimate alternative viewpoint of pacifism which regards soldiers fighting in war to be on the wrong path. Mohandas Gandhi was a person who believed in this; for example. And I don't think Gandhi was unpatriotic to his country, nor was he a shameful man. He was a saint in my opinion.

We should respect HoreTore's right to disagree with our viewpoint, in whole or in part, that there is a legitimate use for armed soldiers, if used correctly and within reason and with strict ethical and moral guidelines. But he can freely speak out against the use of violence, and while I may not agree with him completely, I sympathize with certain sentiments.

I don't agree with the way he's presenting his arguments, but I think it's possible for there to be more than one valid opinion on the use of force, where we may all peacefully and politely coexist with the alternative viewpoint without acting all offended. I've heard people say far worse and far less gracefully too, might I add.

[InsaneApache]

The Taliban arn't soldiers. They're students.

Oh and they did have a choice, they just chose wrong.

[Subotan]

What about the soldiers killed by the Real IRA outside their barracks in Northern Ireland a few weeks ago? Does that make the Real IRA guerillas or terrorists?

[InsaneApache]

Murderers.

[Askthepizzaguy]

What about the soldiers killed by the Real IRA outside their barracks in Northern Ireland a few weeks ago? Does that make the Real IRA guerillas or terrorists?

Were they attacking the soldiers of a group they are in a declared war with? Has their group attempted to resolve the matter peacefully, and if so, were their demands reasonable? Situations involving political entities can get very complicated. Also, judging the morality or worth of a group of people is much messier than judging each individual, as one should.

I am certain for example, there are members of the Taliban who are less extreme, believe in their cause, and side with extremists among them so they can have a better chance at achieving their goals. Not everyone inside an organization we're at war with is a soulless killing machine. I'm reminded of the United States civil war... I believe that one side held the moral high ground (or higher ground... neither was saintly) but that the side that did not was not comprised of wholly evil people. People need to stop looking at things in black and white terms, in my opinion. All of us contain within us a seed of evil and a seed of good; it's what grows from those two seeds which determines whether you're in the right or the wrong; whether you hold the moral high ground, the legitimacy of the use of force, and so on. People should be judged individually by their works, and groups should be judged also by their works.

I don't buy into the "us versus them" mentality. Some among the enemy are the enemy and will never make peace; others can be talked to. Nothing is solved by eradicating everyone who opposes you, because there will always be those who oppose you; and the more people you eradicate, the more people will oppose you. And then you're an enemy of all mankind.

[HoreTore]

And I don't think Gandhi was unpatriotic to his country

Are you calling me patriotic?

What about the soldiers killed by the Real IRA outside their barracks in Northern Ireland a few weeks ago? Does that make the Real IRA guerillas or terrorists?

Is a war declared?

[Subotan]

Murderers.

Yeah, obviously. I was playing devil's advocate. The IRA ("Real" or otherwise) are bastards.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Are you calling me patriotic?

Not calling you patriotic or unpatriotic; the point was you can be loyal to your peaceful convictions and not be some kind of evil subversive. Gandhi was hailed as the father of India, and I don't believe he fought anyone with violence. I admire that, even though I cannot follow his rigid brand of pacifism. I would take up arms and defend my country as long as I were within my borders, or there was a real, present danger from a military target which could be destroyed, and attempts at diplomacy have failed.

One does not necessarily have to be either a warmonger or a surrender-monkey; there is room in between. Lots of room in between. For people of many varying viewpoints, and I think most of us fall in the middle.