Definition of terrorism

[Giff]

Hiroshima bombings where if not a form of state terrorism atleast more or less a warcrime.

[leo-rcc]

The way you are using your definition you could declare ALL war to be terrorism and probably throw in the police and the law courts as well.

Courts and police and armies do not use fear in their standard methodology but can and do use it from time to time. Why do you assume I think it is not the case?

Preference has nothing to do with it. You change definitions of terrorism because you seem to think that because something helped save lives for one side it suddenly is no longer to be regarded as a terrorist method. It isn't.

And you are using the definition of terror in an inconsistent fashion.

Show me how and where I have done that.

No I did, these were questions to you. Because you said if it is done in a war it is not an act of terrorism, and Dresden and Guernica certainly were an act of terrorism. Terrorism is a methodology, not an ideology. The outcome of a terrorist attack no matter how large the scale does not alter the fact that it is a terrorist attack.

You used them to Giff and I'm not interested in debating them (I don't even know what the second is).

Kyu

So don't debate the events, but address the point I made after them.

[Kyuuketsuki]

The way you are using your definition you could declare ALL war to be terrorism and probably throw in the police and the law courts as well.

Courts and police and armies do not use fear in their standard methodology but can and do use it from time to time. Why do you assume I think it is not the case?

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

Preference has nothing to do with it. You change definitions of terrorism because you seem to think that because something helped save lives for one side it suddenly is no longer to be regarded as a terrorist method. It isn't.

And you are using the definition of terror in an inconsistent fashion.

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.

You used them to Giff and I'm not interested in debating them (I don't even know what the second is).

So don't debate the events, but address the point I made after them.

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. 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 do not believe military actions typically fall into the category of terror (regardless of whether they cause fear) when the primary aim is the destruction of incapacitating of a military target or when that action [potentially] has positive significant military consequences.

Kyu

[Giff]

do not believe military actions typically fall into the category of terror (regardless of whether they cause fear) when the primary aim is the destruction of incapacitating of a military target or when that action [potentially] has positive significant military consequences

It not always have to do with incpacitating a militray target. Like Dresden did I just bomb the city as a revenge and wanted to kill germans.

Hirosihima wasn't a military target. It was just wanted to scare japan to surrender, which they could have without killing civilians.

Also avodining civilans causualties should be more then word. As I said % have the number of civilian causualties increased rapidly since WWII.

Peace can't be enforced. Good examples of that is Gandhis method.

[Kyuuketsuki]

do not believe military actions typically fall into the category of terror (regardless of whether they cause fear) when the primary aim is the destruction of incapacitating of a military target or when that action [potentially] has positive significant military consequences

Hirosihima wasn't a military target. It was just wanted to scare japan to surrender, which they could have without killing civilians.

I agree BUT I think it was acceptable because of the balancing risk to US soldiesr. 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.

Also avodining civilans causualties should be more then word. As I said % have the number of civilian causualties increased rapidly since WWII.

Should be perhaps, rarely is.

Peace can't be enforced. Good examples of that is Gandhis method.

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

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

The way you are using your definition you could declare ALL war to be terrorism and probably throw in the police and the law courts as well.

Courts and police and armies do not use fear in their standard methodology but can and do use it from time to time. Why do you assume I think it is not the case?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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 believe that the US wanted the 2 bombs as a test case as well. I don't even think the bombings were wrong in themselves, as they did save a lot of suffering on both sides (A land war between Japan and the US would be a battle until there were no Japanese left). But I still maintain they were acts of terrorism.

[Giff]

I agree BUT I think it was acceptable because of the balancing risk to US soldiesr. 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.

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.

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.

[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

[Giff]

Do yourself have family or kids Kyu?

Would say that it's quite a reasonible that they had to die if a another countries military decided to bomb your city with a atomic bomb?

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.

So torture and civilan causualties is okay for you? and a slow painful death which is caused by the atmoic bomb(for those who doesnt die by the impact)?

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.

Would you reason that way if any of your own fmaily or friends where the victims?

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)!

Here in sweden do we have nearly no military and police is not allowed to use force. We function as a country decpite that. Also a goverment that rule with force will never last, just look at nazi germany or the Svoiet union. Force can never control people in the long run.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Giff,

I am not even going to argue this with you making it personal ... it's fucking stupid! Of course it would not be alright as far as I'm concerned, it's never alright to lose someone or to die yourself but life's a bitch and shit happens! Whether or not people want to live, their relatives live and whether they would be upset at the loss is not the issue, it's a numbers game pure and simple.

TBBH I think asking those questions the way you did doesn't serve to further the debate and if you do it again I am backing out.

[MEGAPHONE] IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS ME OUT OF THIS OR ANY OTHER CONVERSATION FEEL FREE TO BRING MY FAMILY INTO IT AND I'M DONE! SURE WAY TO AN EASY VICTORY![/MEGAPHONE]

I will deal with the other non-personal ones.

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)!

Here in sweden do we have nearly no military and police is not allowed to use force. We function as a country decpite that. Also a goverment that rule with force will never last, just look at nazi germany or the Svoiet union. Force can never control people in the long run.

Restraining someone (as the police of ANY country have to is still use of force) and Sweden apparently has a higher ratio of armed personnel (about 3.3%) to civilian than the UK (< 1%) and I would absolutely, most certainly say that we have a very capable set of armed forces. I'm not saying a government rules with forces nor likening them to a dictatorship (I'm not specifically anti-dictatorships anyway just the wrong type ... oh people will love that) I'm saying that EVERY government, even if it governs with the consent of the people and changes democratically every x years, still uses force, people get punished by the legal system (being locked up, being restrained in any way is still force it's simply force applied for the greater good) and armed forces are still under political control. And what is one key role of any elected government? To protect its electorate from all enemies foreign and domestic ... in other words those forces potentially can be used against its own people.

Kyu