How is it terrorism when they kill soldiers?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't believe that attacking the soldiers of the opposition is an act of terrorism, regardless of the official belligerent status of the attackers. So, though it may be a tad picky, Horetore is right to disagree with calling this a "terrorist attack," even though the paper would have been perfectly correct to refer to it as an attack on those soldiers by a terrorist group (since all accounts note their use of terror tactics in other situations).

If a would-be guerilla attacks the soldiers of one of the powers that be, they may be treated as opposing soldiers or as criminals depending on the specific choice of the power in question. Insurrection may be a "right" but the government can be expected to defend itself vigorously both using the military and the "law."

The Taliban support terrorism, have made terror attacks, and, when they functioned as the ruling regime of Afghanistan, they were brutally repressive and autocratic. One thing they were NOT, however, was supportive of the growth etc. of poppies and heroin. It is possible that they are tacitly accepting these practices now as an expediency in pursuing their war to return to power, but there is little support for them to be viewed as involved in drug trafficking.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't believe that attacking the soldiers of the opposition is an act of terrorism, regardless of the official belligerent status of the attackers. So, though it may be a tad picky, Horetore is right to call this a "terrorist attack"

Wait... did I miss something?

I thought HoreTore was arguing that this wasn't a terrorist attack, and based on your statement above, wouldn't you say the same thing?

I'm confused.

Occam's razor: I screwed up. Edited it above. SF

[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.

[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

[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...

[rajpoot]

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...

Right I get what you're trying to say, and I agree. To lay down ones life for ones beliefs is heroic, but targeting civilians is a separate issue. Even if you're sacrificing yourself for a cause you don't kill unarmed people. i don't think the allied soldiers had orders to kill all Germans on sight in WW2.
Far as targeting combatants is concerned it's ok, legitimate; Like in the example.

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...

Now, the idea is to remove the invaders, but how did it all begin? 9/11 was when these terrorists attacked unarmed people......
Now that they themselves are being invaded, ofcourse all they can do is fight off the invasion force. But does that mean that they'll sit back quietly if it is all called off? No, they'll attack again, and they won't attack an army base, they'll attack the civilians again.

[Tribesman]

Now, the idea is to remove the invaders, but how did it all begin? 9/11 was when these terrorists attacked unarmed people......

Sorry you lost me there , which terrorists attacked on 9/11 ?
were they Afghani?
were they Taliban?

[rajpoot]

They were Islamic extremists. What're you trying to set a particular name to them for anyway? You identify one group and ban them, they spring up under a different name.........

[LittleGrizzly]

I think what Tribesman is getting at is the terrorists weren't Afghani's, they were a bunch of Saudi's which are lead by a Saudi which was originally trained by the US... ohh and that is was Al Qaeda that lead the attacks rather than the taliban (afghani goverment pre invasion)

What Afghanastan did was to give Osama and friends a place to stay rather than being behind 9/11 themselves...

But does that mean that they'll sit back quietly if it is all called off? No, they'll attack again, and they won't attack an army base, they'll attack the civilians again.

and the other bit he was getting at is that Afghani's didn't participate in 9/11 attacks

I think your average dirt poor Afghani resistance fighter cares very little for world politics he probably just wants the USA of his land... some of the higher echelons of the ex Afghani goverment possibly... but pre 9/11 they even had talks with the US goverment about a possible pipeline... they weren't there ranting and raving about America like Iran is accused off...

I think your a little off just labeling them all as Islamic extremists... well ok they are all Islamic extremists but there are different groups that have different aims, not nessecarily all of which involves killing americans...

[rajpoot]

All right so, well if it's specifically the present day Afghan resistance fighter we're talking about, then yes, he didn't actually harm America or maybe anyone directly.....maybe he didn't even know that others in his country were sheltering people who did harm someone....and now he's simply fighting to run the soldiers out of his land.......right, he is not a terrorist, but you know, it's not always fair. His people harbored fugitives, and so others came to get them, now he got caught in the middle and had no choice but to fight back.....but we don't really know that the suicide bomber mentioned in the topic was a ill fated and oppressed resistance fighter or what.....

well ok they are all Islamic extremists but there are different groups that have different aims, not nessecarily all of which involves killing americans...

But almost all involve killing. Maybe not Americans, maybe Indians, or maybe Pakistanis......I might be wrong here, but I've see that one of the basic objectives of any extremist Islamic group is always killing something......or atleast that is what their acts condense down to in time. (Again I mean come down to killing civvies) maybe they don't actually want to kill people, maybe it becomes the only viable alternative for them, but that doesn't make it right.

[Incongruous]

I think it is disrespectful to past military heroes to connect them with men whom wear no uniform, conceal their weapon and give no chance for their enemies to respond to them. I would never call a Palestinian suicide bomber a hero, niether would many Palestinians, I can give them understanding and would not demonise them. But the Taliban are on a different level, there is no connection, one is opressed beyond human endurance, the other is a man whom wishes to see people ruled over by a brutal and murderous regime. A prime tosser.

This should not boil over into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of Afghanistan, most of us accept the mistakes of Bush and Co. when it comes to foreign policy.

[LittleGrizzly]

Yeah pretty much agree with your first paragraph... though i would say most suicide bombers are probably dirt poor and not the best educated...

I wasn't really arguing the reasons for the USA going into Afghanastan... I happened to support the invasion, but an invasion even if done for just reasons doesn't make those that resist terrorists... that was my point basically...

But almost all involve killing. Maybe not Americans, maybe Indians, or maybe Pakistanis......I might be wrong here, but I've see that one of the basic objectives of any extremist Islamic group is always killing something......or atleast that is what their acts condense down to in time. (Again I mean come down to killing civvies) maybe they don't actually want to kill people, maybe it becomes the only viable alternative for them, but that doesn't make it right.

I would slightly disagree with you there... im assuming we are talking about islamic fundamentalists killing through terrorism ?

If were just talking about killing in general i think you could probably rationalise about 95% (at least) of countrys in that category...

But Islamic fundamentalists in a few examples do not turn to terrorism...

a few examples...

The Saudi's, excluding Osama and his guys there are quite a few fundamentalists in charge and they are happy just to force religious law onto thier own people and try and spread thier radical version of Islam, though through that terrorism can go hand in hand a number of them are good friends with the americans...

Well and just generally the domestic fundamentalist Islamic movements, they are usually more concerned with enforcing strict religious law and maintaining womans modesty in thier own countrys..

[PershsNhpios]

I think the term, 'Terroist' needs to be readjusted.

You see, it did once mean quite what was posted on page 1.

But now, everything has changed. A 'Terroist' who engages in 'Terroism' is generally someone who passionately hates America and its chained allies, and who actively shows hostility to it, for example by speaking against 'Democracy' or by threatening 'Freedom'.

For this reason, I may readily be called a terroist.

You see, if naughty Mr. North Korea goes to war with Mr. South Korea, and Mr. South Korea calls on his people to fight for their birthright, those people are known as 'Resistance fighters' and 'lovers of Freedom', or 'patriots'.
But if Mr. USA takes complete control of Mr. South Korea, and this latter calls on his people to fight for their birthright,
those people are known as, 'neo-nazis', 'anarchists', 'haters of Freedom, 'gunmen', 'insurgents', 'bogey men', or 'terroists'.

[Fragony]

You see, if naughty Mr. North Korea goes to war with Mr. South Korea, and Mr. South Korea calls on his people to fight for their birthright, those people are known as 'Resistance fighters' and 'lovers of Freedom', or 'patriots'.

Crime-Fighters, Fire-Fighters, Freedom-Fighters, there is more logic in language then one would initially think.

If North-Korea goes to war with South Korea, there wouldn't be any South-Korea to speak of, completely shot to bits by North-Korean artillery.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Crime-Fighters, Fire-Fighters, Freedom-Fighters, there is more logic in language then one would initially think.

If North-Korea goes to war with South Korea, there wouldn't be any South-Korea to speak of, completely shot to bits by North-Korean artillery.

If you say so...

[Fragony]

If you say so...

Enough to destroy Seoul in an hour, didn't you know?

[LittleGrizzly]

Well I think South Korea would still be there... the land of south korea and alot of rubble...

Can North Korea actually take out most of the south or is it mainly Seoul ?