How is it terrorism when they kill soldiers?

[Fragony]

What if our country was invaded and some of your friends killed? Or maybe your family?

Then I would be mighty upset. As for frontpage news, it doesn't happen that often that one of our troops get killed, so it's news when they do. If it wouldn't be reported people would complain about information being denied to us.

[rajpoot]

I tried reading through, but since the pages are long, I'll stick with replying to the questions of the first post.......
The terrorists are soldiers, in a sense.....they do not belong to any 'official' army, but are usually the members of some terrorist group.....a better word for such soldiers would be 'militants'.....that's what we call them here anyway.
When a terrorist fights a proper soldier, it's just a skirmish, it's not actually terrorism. But more often than not, these skirmishes happen when these militants are trying to propagate terrorism.....when they attack civilians.....that now is a terrorist attack, and that is shameful.

And no soldiers don't fight to die. They fight to win. Death of some is an inevitable outcome, but it doesn't mean one get's cold and uncaring about it. Just because your family knows that you have some deadly disease and are going to die within a few months, does not mean they won't mourn you when you finally die.
Death of the terrorist fighting for the opposite side is something only a party neutral to both sides can worry about, but that does not mean that anyone is being unfair......to state an example, if the people would have had their say, the chap captured after Bombay attacks would've been lynched......yet, they're going through the legal procedures even for him......what does this say? That even though one we might hate someone, that does not necessarily prevent us from treating them justly.

[Husar]

Soldiers sign up not to die, but to fight, it is not right that they killed trying to protect the construction of vital infrastructure.

Well, guess what, that goes both ways.
The Taliban sign up to create the world that they believe god wants us to live in, they do not deserve to be killed because they are fighting for their core values. In fact, when a man fights to protect the values he believes in, isn't that most heroic and adorable? And they're the underdogs on top of it, yet make the whole world talk about them because they are so successful.

And no soldiers don't fight to die. They fight to win. Death of some is an inevitable outcome, but it doesn't mean one get's cold and uncaring about it.

The other soldiers fight to win as well and their families cry as well. So how exactly does that help me decide which side to support if I try to be objective?

[rajpoot]

Well, you support the side whose ideology you support ofcourse, unless you're neutral and want to help everyone like the Red Cross, then you help everyone and speak against war and for peace......

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, guess what, that goes both ways.
The Taliban sign up to create the world that they believe god wants us to live in, they do not deserve to be killed because they are fighting for their core values. In fact, when a man fights to protect the values he believes in, isn't that most heroic and adorable? And they're the underdogs on top of it, yet make the whole world talk about them because they are so successful.

I think the small fact they want to kill us is why we [or most of us] don't support them.

[Husar]

I think the small fact they want to kill us is why we [or most of us] don't support them.

They want to kill us because we're the devil's spawn, stand in the way concerning their goals and don't follow god's commands and make him angry. We want to kill them because they're the devil's spawn, stand in the way concerning our goals and because they aren't for secularism and make our philosophers angry.

[Incongruous]

They want to kill us because we're the devil's spawn, stand in the way concerning their goals and don't follow god's commands and make him angry. We want to kill them because they're the devil's spawn, stand in the way concerning our goals and because they aren't for secularism and make our philosophers angry.

Despite what you may believe, this is not a war of ideologies, we are not run by stupid university professors. I want to see the Taliban oblitorated because they are bad news for Afghanistan, not because they disagree with Thomas Paine

[Incongruous]

Well, guess what, that goes both ways.
The Taliban sign up to create the world that they believe god wants us to live in, they do not deserve to be killed because they are fighting for their core values. In fact, when a man fights to protect the values he believes in, isn't that most heroic and adorable? And they're the underdogs on top of it, yet make the whole world talk about them because they are so successful.

I can differentaite between the SS nutcase and the normal German soldier, the Taliban are the former, they care not for people, nor about the will of Allah, they care about brutalising a frightened peasant population into submission and imposing a brutal and violent regime on them and ruling them like feudal overlords. I am as disgusted by the invasion of Afghanistan as say, John Pilger, he really, really hates it. But I am not going to justify the Taliban by calling them freedom fighters, they fight for nothing but their own freedom to impose violence, brutality and opression.

Heroic? Car bombings, suicide bombings and the like are not heroic at all, just as high altitude bombings are not heroic, but rather acts of murder.

[LittleGrizzly]

Heroic? Car bombings, suicide bombings and the like are not heroic at all, just as high altitude bombings are not heroic, but rather acts of murder.

I would disagree somewhat, especially with the suicide bomber example...

A suicide bomber believes with the utmost belief he is doing the right thing (assuming he's not a smart person who is purely driven by revenge, or just for the express ticket to heaven) he is someone who is literally willing to blow themselves apart to hurt the enemy...

Whether they go for what we consider a legitimate target or not if you are willing to lose or risk your life to fight for what you believe in you are a hero!

the high altitude bombers not so much (though there is obvisouly risk) but maybe more so the regular troops on the ground ect.

There are hero's on all sides in my eyes, just because they are doing the wrong thing doesn't make them any less heroic...

[rajpoot]

I would disagree somewhat, especially with the suicide bomber example...

A suicide bomber believes with the utmost belief he is doing the right thing (assuming he's not a smart person who is purely driven by revenge, or just for the express ticket to heaven) he is someone who is literally willing to blow themselves apart to hurt the enemy...

The problem is, that they are willing to blow themselves apart to harm civilians. If you harm unarmed people is a war, then you are a coward.

If only causing terror is the definition of terrorism then any army that conducts an invasion is filled with terrorists, if it is only causing terror that is terrorism then can someone explain where shock and awe differs from terrorism ?

There is more then one point that differs armies from terrorists.
- Terrorist don't belong to any one nation.
- Unlike the army which tries to finish off the combatants to win a war terrorists explicitly try to kill the non combatants to create terror.

That is fighting face to face with armed men, even guerrilla warfare is not their chosen method. They will try to harm the helpless public to such and extent that the state finally gives in.

[LittleGrizzly]

The problem is, that they are willing to blow themselves apart to harm civilians. If you harm unarmed people is a war, then you are a coward.

Well the guy in HoreTore's example went for a group of soldiers, but in general whether yu are the most horrible person in the world you can still be brave. You could say in a way its cowardly to target civilians, i think of it as more shocking and wrong than cowardly. Basically under my definition if your willing to die for your cause thats pretty heroic, you can still be an absolutely horrible person with the most messed up morality but still heroic... maybe im thinking more or bravery than heroism..

To put it another way, if you believe the cause to be just and you put your life into that cause that is heroic... think of it in an example that suits your world view more (or most people im not sure on your world views) if back in ww2 we thought that people suicide bombing german civilians would help us win the war anyone who offered thier lives to help defeat the nazis in this way would be heroic... despite the fact thier doing some despicably wrong...

There is more then one point that differs armies from terrorists.
- Terrorist don't belong to any one nation.
- Unlike the army which tries to finish off the combatants to win a war terrorists explicitly try to kill the non combatants to create terror.

Someone seemed to make the implication earlier that he is a terrorist simply because he causes terror, i disagree with this definition as if we did use that definition it would include most armed forces (who have invaded foriegn country's) thus the definition of just causing terror must be wrong. This was my point, not that armys are terrorists, I pretty much agree with your definitions...

That is fighting face to face with armed men, even guerrilla warfare is not their chosen method. They will try to harm the helpless public to such and extent that the state finally gives in.

Well I think the idea, with Afghani terrorists in Afghanastan at least, is more to remove the foriegn invaing force, though there is an element of terrorising the locals too...