Definition of terrorism

[Kyuuketsuki]

Fair enough but if that is the case then you presumably would accept that all governments work on the basis of terror?

No not on their basis but it is in their repertoire. Like I stated before terror is a methodology that can be implemented, regardless if it is right or wrong to do so.

And I disagree with that definition or at least your application of it.

See my previous comment ... quite possibly it isn't inconsistency but branding everything a government does as terror (or even potentially so) makes terrorism defined in that way a pretty fucking useless definition.

Show me where I have stated that everything a government does is terrorism. That is not what I have said.

Granted you never said it and I missed out "implicitly" but to my mind that is the implication of your view.

I don't agree for reasons already made ... just because you've given answers doesn't mean I accept them as right or that I believe they invalidate mine.

No, but you have made claims about my positions though you haven't pointed to a single post of mine to substantiate the assertion that I use terrorism in an inconsistent fashion.

As I say above I think it is implicit in the way your are defining/applying your definition.

I am not a [non-violent] pacifist, I believe humans are an inherently violent species and that peace needs to be enforced (yes I am aware that sounds like contradiction) and that nv-pacifism can only exist because somebody else is willing to stand the watch and provide them the luxury of doing so.

I am not a pacifist either, what does that have to do with this topic?

Nothing except that I think the kind of views being advanced here are similar and perhaps derive from that kind of view ... my opinion.

I do not believe military actions typically fall into the category of terror (regardless of whether they cause fear)

It is not that they cause fear, but they use the fear to achieve their goals. That is the crux of terrorism. Scale, effectiveness, justification, all irrelevant to the definition.

I don't accept that ... the primary goal of military action is to remove an enemies ability to fight, I accept that has a fear component (a collateral effect) but it is not a specific aim.

when the primary aim is the destruction of incapacitating of a military target or when that action [potentially] has positive significant military consequences.

That is exactly what terrorists attacks try to achieve as well. So where is the distinction?

No it isn't ... they specifically hit soft civilian targets with the sole aim of causing widespread fear and panic and attempting to force a government to surrender to the population's hysteria. That is the difference.

Kyu

---

I agree BUT I think it was acceptable because of the balancing risk to US soldiers. IF the truth be known I think the two cities were a test ... the US army wasn't engaged in terror as such and yes US lives were saved but what they really wanted to know was what effect a nuclear strike would have on a real target. I can't justify that but it is my opinion but I still don't accept it was terrorism.

Then acctually the debate can be whether or not a military action were civilan suffer, which often is the case, is a sort of dircet or indirect terrorism. However it's a sort war crime and crime towards human rights. Also the atomic bomb is highly unethical and imoral.

I don't believe in rights and I do not accept that an atomic bomb is any more or less ethical than a conventional weapon.

Should be perhaps, rarely is.

Exactly that's why I think they should acctually try not to bomb civilians. It doesn't mather if there might be rebel in the city. Also a war against someone who practising guerilla warfare can never been won.

I disagree ... if the enemy sites a missile battery in a populated area then, whilst care should be taken to harm as few civilians as possible, that battery MUST be taken out and if there is collateral damage then there is. Even though I don't really support the war & occupation in Iraq I was quite impressed with some of the smart targeted weapons and their ability to take out targets with minimal collateral damage.

He didn't enforce it he just pissed the British off.

I didn't say he enforced. That what I said peace can't be created with violence. A great example of making peace wihtout viloence or making a peaceful protest is Gandhis method. That's an excellent form of achieving a goal, which this case independence. Which India never you have achivied if the tried it with violence and military force.

I think Gandhi's method was a very good one though he wasn't a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination and like I said earlier the only reason people can be pacifist is because someone else carries the responsibility to allow them the freedom to do so, someone else stands the watch so I'm afraid violence (or threat of force) is exactly what guarantees the peace. Even the police and law courts are a form of force (implicit or potential violence) and they control public behaviour and assure people of their "rights". Governments of course, couldn't govern without the courts, the police and the armed forces to back them up if required.

It's ALL about force (potential violence)!

Kyu