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?

[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.

[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.