Terrorism under Clinton/GWB/Obama

[Buddhagirl]

I would classify it as pale in comparison to the intellective ass whipping Spider laid on Dolphantom. 

Nice 

I am rather enjoying this. ;-)

[Spider-Dan]

I prefer the following definitions.....

Targeting a military force by a uniformed force - war
Targeting of civilians by a non-uniformed force --- terrorism
Targeting of a military force by a non uniformed force - asymmetrical warfare
Targeting of civilians by a uniformed force - genocide.

[...]

Hiroshima, the German rocket attacks on London, Dresden and the firing on protestors at Kent State are all genocide.

I think the last definition is too vague.  Hiroshima, London, Dresden, and Kent State are not even remotely comparable (and I'm not talking about scale).

When you are at war, is it "genocide" to bomb your enemy's power plants, or telecommunications hubs, or oil refineries, or railroad stations... even when they are occupied exclusively by non-military citizens?  Of course not.  All of those things (among many, many others) are factors in your opponent's ability to make war.

If your nation is at a declared state of open war with another nation, you don't really have much room to complain about what they are bombing.  There are agreed-upon rules of war, and "only attack military equipment and personnel" is not one of them.  So Hiroshima, London, and Dresden should all be excluded.

Now, when you are talking about a uniformed force eliminating their own subjects (be they natural citizens or a conquered population in a foreign land), then the term genocide becomes more accurate.  Kent State, Rwanda, and Serbia would be better examples of this (though I think that might be overstating Kent State in terms of scale).

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

^^^ I would not a have a problem with limiting genocide to attack your own civilians and having a different term for attacking an enemies civilians.

My point was more that terrorism needs to be define by the conduct not using Dolphantom's flaky definitions which would exclude abortion clinic bombings because abortion doctors are evil. 

[bsmooth]

Both the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were specifically aimed at the civilian populations to try and inflict massive fear and demoralize support for the leaders to continue the war.
When you specifically firebomb a city that the majority of the city is wooden structures is hardly an attack against military infrastructure.
The same could be said about the London Blitz as the Germans changed from bombing the RAF and their airfields into submission to attacks against the heart of the largest metropolitan in England.
The difference between assymetrical/guerilla warfare and terrorist acts can be a very fine line that is not acurately addressed in the Geneva Conventions, which need a serious upgrade as warfare has changed a lot since 1947.

[Spider-Dan]

Both the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were specifically aimed at the civilian populations to try and inflict massive fear and demoralize support for the leaders to continue the war.
When you specifically firebomb a city that the majority of the city is wooden structures is hardly an attack against military infrastructure.
The same could be said about the London Blitz as the Germans changed from bombing the RAF and their airfields into submission to attacks against the heart of the largest metropolitan in England.

Again, when you are in a declared state of open war, I don't have a problem with this.  When you get right down to it, the Germans would have had every right to start bombing British farms into rubble.  The food that feeds the British citizenry is the same food that fills the stomachs of its soldiers.

And I also agree with the tactic of bombing cities to demoralize the population.  If you look at the history of the Civil War, one of the major strategic changes that General Sherman brought to his campaigns is the idea of making the South feel the war.  It's one thing to sit on your farm, read a bunch of newspapers that talk about how the Yanks are getting whipped at every turn, and insist that the South should fight for its independence, no matter the cost, while war is being waged hundreds of miles away.  It's quite another to see your fields on fire and your livestock slaughtered.  You quickly begin to understand exactly what being at war entails, and most people don't have the stomach for it.

Not coincidentally, I think this is why many of the chickenhawk politicians today are so quick to jump into foreign wars; it's not their brothers, sisters, sons, or daughters that are being sent off to die.  To them, it's just pieces being shuffled around on a gameboard.  This is why there was extreme isolationist sentiment after World War I; most of the population knew people that died in the Great War, and very few of them cared to repeat the experience.

[bsmooth]

Again, when you are in a declared state of open war, I don't have a problem with this.  When you get right down to it, the Germans would have had every right to start bombing British farms into rubble.  The food that feeds the British citizenry is the same food that fills the stomachs of its soldiers.

And I also agree with the tactic of bombing cities to demoralize the population.  If you look at the history of the Civil War, one of the major strategic changes that General Sherman brought to his campaigns is the idea of making the South feel the war.  It's one thing to sit on your farm, read a bunch of newspapers that talk about how the Yanks are getting whipped at every turn, and insist that the South should fight for its independence, no matter the cost, while war is being waged hundreds of miles away.  It's quite another to see your fields on fire and your livestock slaughtered.  You quickly begin to understand exactly what being at war entails, and most people don't have the stomach for it.

Not coincidentally, I think this is why many of the chickenhawk politicians today are so quick to jump into foreign wars; it's not their brothers, sisters, sons, or daughters that are being sent off to die.  To them, it's just pieces being shuffled around on a gameboard.  This is why there was extreme isolationist sentiment after World War I; most of the population knew people that died in the Great War, and very few of them cared to repeat the experience.

Just to be clear you are all for the deliberate targeting of civilians even though this is considered a war crime by all sides?

[Spider-Dan]

Please show me any treaty that forbids the attacking of non-military property in time of war.

I'm not talking about gunning down people in a subway station.  I'm talking about destroying subway stations; if there are people in the station, then they are unfortunate casualties.

To the best of my knowledge, in a time of war, any piece of property (save maybe a hospital?  not sure) is a legitimate target (or, more precisely, is not an illegitimate target) according to international law.  I am certainly open to correction.

[Phishfan]

^^^ I would not a have a problem with limiting genocide to attack your own civilians and having a different term for attacking an enemies civilians.

Here is the problem with that definition, Hitler's attempts to exterminate Jews wasn't just limited to Germany. If that wasn't genocide, I don't know what was.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Here is the problem with that definition, Hitler's attempts to exterminate Jews wasn't just limited to Germany. If that wasn't genocide, I don't know what was.

It would still be genocide.  Most of Polish Jews he killed were done after Poland was under German control (same deal with every other country), the Jews killed by a V2 rocket in London would fall outside the definition. 

[Sunstroke]

I'm really glad we're getting all this straightened out...I'd hate for there to be a corpse filing issue later because some of them were mislabeled.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'm really glad we're getting all this straightened out...I'd hate for there to be a corpse filing issue later because some of them were mislabeled.

While I understand your point and agree the loss of any human life is tragic. 

I do have a problem with people who claim that the CIA working covertly in Iraq is "okay" even though they are not in uniform, but the attack on the USS Cole was terrorism and no different than the attack on the world trade center.  The USS Cole is a WAR ship, the WTC was an office building.  It is not the same thing. 

[JVides]

While I understand your point and agree the loss of any human life is tragic. 

I do have a problem with people who claim that the CIA working covertly in Iraq is "okay" even though they are not in uniform, but the attack on the USS Cole was terrorism and no different than the attack on the world trade center.  The USS Cole is a WAR ship, the WTC was an office building.  It is not the same thing. 

As long as CIA agents working covertly in Iraq aren't planting bombs in mosques and restaurants, I have no problem.  Being clandestine is not being a terrorist.

As for your other point, I refer you back to my "guerrilla warfare and terrorism are the same act with a different name" statement.  It just depends on whose side you're on.  In the end, it's all labeling.  

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I will agree with you that acting clandestine is not being a terrorist, so long as the target is military.  If the target is military it is guerrilla warfare. (or asymmetrical warfare)

I disagree guerilla warfare and terrorism is the same thing.  The attack on the Cole was guerilla warfare, the attack on the WTC was terrorism. 

[JVides]

^^^From the perspective of most U.S. citizens (Westerners, really), the Cole was a terrorist attack.  This is why I say it's the same thing.  You call it this, I call it that.  Same act.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

^^^ other than the fact that the USS Cole was on our side, what is the difference between the Cole and the French resistance in WW2?

We like to label anything done by US forces as justifiable acts of war and anything done to US forces as terrorism.  That is just BS.  IIEDs aimed at soldiers or attacks on warships is not the same thing as blowing up an office building or a women's health clinic.