Morality of terrorism

[bdv]

Private poll. My definition of terrorism: Attacking noncombatants with the objective of effecting major political change.

[Spider]

Private poll. My definition of terrorism: Attacking noncombatants with the objective of effecting major political change.

or religious reform ..........

[The Lone Bolt]

Funny I've been having this debate with a friend of mine recently. Here's the definition I offered him:

Terrorism is the intentional targeting of non-combatant civillians with violence, force, and/or intimidation for the purpose of creating fear in a targeted individual or population and as a result cause long-term changes in behavior and/or attitude in the target(s).


Thoughts?

[Spider]

Funny I've been having this debate with a friend of mine recently. Here's the definition I offered him:

Terrorism is the intentional targeting of non-combatant civillians with violence, force, and/or intimidation for the purpose of creating fear in a targeted individual or population and as a result cause long-term changes in behavior and/or attitude in the target(s).


Thoughts?

or after 5 years of marriage ......... take your pick ;D

[bendog]

Not to get into a pissing match, but one reason we have lost Iraq is that the Iraqi's have seen us using radar guided artillary and iron bombs urban areas in response to mortor attacks on our troops, and they, and we, know that this will result in non-combatant injury/death. So, the moral distinction presuposed by your definition not what you want it to be, and the definition is therefore flawed. Please note, I am neither supporting, nor criticizing, US military tactics on morality terms, but rather noting one reason they have not been effective in winning over the Iraqis.

[yavoon]

Not to get into a pissing match, but one reason we have lost Iraq is that the Iraqi's have seen us using radar guided artillary and iron bombs urban areas in response to mortor attacks on our troops, and they, and we, know that this will result in non-combatant injury/death. So, the moral distinction presuposed by your definition not what you want it to be, and the definition is therefore flawed. Please note, I am neither supporting, nor criticizing, US military tactics on morality terms, but rather noting one reason they have not been effective in winning over the Iraqis.

its called human shields. its very common, thanks for the long go around on to try to convince everyone that u somehow dont hate the american military.

[yavoon]

Not to get into a pissing match, but one reason we have lost Iraq is that the Iraqi's have seen us using radar guided artillary and iron bombs urban areas in response to mortor attacks on our troops, and they, and we, know that this will result in non-combatant injury/death. So, the moral distinction presuposed by your definition not what you want it to be, and the definition is therefore flawed. Please note, I am neither supporting, nor criticizing, US military tactics on morality terms, but rather noting one reason they have not been effective in winning over the Iraqis.

its called human shields, its very common. thanks for the long go around to try to convince everyone that u somehow dont hate the american military.

[defenseman]

Not to get into a pissing match, but one reason we have lost Iraq is that the Iraqi's have seen us using radar guided artillary and iron bombs urban areas in response to mortor attacks on our troops, and they, and we, know that this will result in non-combatant injury/death. So, the moral distinction presuposed by your definition not what you want it to be, and the definition is therefore flawed. Please note, I am neither supporting, nor criticizing, US military tactics on morality terms, but rather noting one reason they have not been effective in winning over the Iraqis.

By your take, we should never take up arms against anyone? Non combatant deaths? Sorry, not realistic. And, if we were NOT to wage war when necessary based on the presumption of non-combatant (innocent) lives lost, we would play right into the enemy's hands. Gee, wonder how the 3000 or so lost non-combatants at the WTC feel about that? Oops, sorry , we can't find that out, they are DEAD...dman

[The Lone Bolt]

Not to get into a pissing match, but one reason we have lost Iraq is that the Iraqi's have seen us using radar guided artillary and iron bombs urban areas in response to mortor attacks on our troops, and they, and we, know that this will result in non-combatant injury/death. So, the moral distinction presuposed by your definition not what you want it to be, and the definition is therefore flawed. Please note, I am neither supporting, nor criticizing, US military tactics on morality terms, but rather noting one reason they have not been effective in winning over the Iraqis.

Well certainly other violent acts can be considered "immoral" without being "terrorism". The reckless endangerment of non-combatant civillians is certainly immoral. The very name "terrorism" however suggests that it represents a philosophy or method:

The -ism suffix can be used to express the following concepts

* doctrine or philosophy (e.g. pacifism, olympism)
* theory developed by an individual (e.g. Marxism)
* political movement (e.g. feminism)
* artistic movement (e.g. cubism)
* action, process or practice (e.g. voyeurism)
* characteristic, quality or origin (e.g. heroism)
* state or condition (e.g. pauperism)
* excess or disease (e.g. botulism)
* prejudice or bias (e.g. racism)
* characteristic speech patterns (e.g. Yogiism, Bushism)
* religion or belief system (e.g. Mormonism)

Many isms are defined as an act or practice by some, while also being defined as the doctrine or philosophy behind the act or practice by others. Examples include activism, altruism, despotism, elitism, optimism, sexism and terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism

Therefore "terrorism" is more than just any act of violence or tragic loss of life. It is the specific and intentional application of terror as a tool or method to achieve a goal.

[Rohirrim]

Yes, the tactic of terrorism is morally inferior to other tactics. The difference with using smart bombs, laser guided weapons, etc. is intent. The intent is not to harm the innocent. As much as I'm opposed to these weapons systems, no one can argue that this is not an enormous paradigm shift away from WWII and even Vietnam, where huge swaths of population centers were carpet bombed. Still, the intent of the action now is only to attack combatants.

Terrorists specifically target non-combatants with the intent, not to acheive strategic or tactical goals, but to simply terrorize populations and sap the will to fight. I have yet to see it work on a broad front. Maybe in isolated instances. For one thing, every war must end in a political situation. Either the victor determines the outcome, or the warring parties wish to end hostilities and come to some kind of agreement that ends the fighting. Most parties would be unlikely to sit down at the table with terrorists who have been targeting civilians. I know there is no politician in the U.S. of any stripe who would sit at a table with Bin Laden.

So, the use of the tactic of terrorism is, in the end, suicidal across the board. Those you use it against will never come to a political agreement with you, because you have violated every norm of decency and are considered not much different from a rabid dog, and you can never hope to win, because the desperation of terrorist tactics means that you don't have the might to enforce your political will even if you were victorious. In other words, you couldn't hold the land. In the end, you become a hunted dog who can never hope to acheive your political aims and can never hope that the hunt for you will ever end, other than in your death.

[Rigs11]

yavoon, take a break. Why do you have to be such an ahole all the time?Terrorism is just a word. it depends on whose side you're on.to the iraqis the US is a terrorist state. they invaded their country and thousands of civilians have died because of it.Now before yavoon gets his panties in a bunch, i am not saying that the US tried to kill civilans. It's what war supporters like to simply dismiss as collateral damage.But the bottom line is they do die. I doubt the iraqis care either way,their family members are still dead, and their hate still grows.The word "terrorist" is slinged around by dubya about as much as Paris Hilton says "that's hot".Many of the terrorists that the military is fighting in iraq are iraqis who are uprising against US occupation. If someone invaded the US and you fought them would that make you a terrorist?I think a terrorist applies to someone who attempts gain or chagne through violence.. period. It doesn't always have to be political change.i think warhawks are terrorists.

[defenseman]

Private poll. My definition of terrorism: Attacking noncombatants with the objective of effecting major political change.

A bit flawed, but the intent is there...dman

[alkemical]

IMO - i could be a terrorist depending on whom would lay the charge, and in what context.

From where i sit - Terrorism is intent to kill civilians to create change, as a first resort.

Since i believe in trying to use non-violence (ala HD Throreau/Civil Disob) - i view any intentional act of violence as morally suspect.

[W*GS]

IMO - i could be a terrorist depending on whom would lay the charge, and in what context.

And calling the tail a leg makes a dog have five legs, eh?

Since i believe in trying to use non-violence (ala HD Throreau/Civil Disob) - i view any intentional act of violence as morally suspect.

"Any"?

[alkemical]

And calling the tail a leg makes a dog have five legs, eh?



"Any"?


A) By definition of the president, some in congress - many in the media - that since "I" do not support the gov't, and the military actions - i'm against the US. An enemy against "which we stand". According to the FBI - since i'd be considered a "defender" of the constitution - i'd also be a terrorist.

B) Unless it resorted to a last ditch effort of self defense - i consider ANY deliberate intentional use of violence, by first means of discourse - to be morally bankrupt.

[bendog]

By your take, we should never take up arms against anyone? Non combatant deaths? Sorry, not realistic. And, if we were NOT to wage war when necessary based on the presumption of non-combatant (innocent) lives lost, we would play right into the enemy's hands. Gee, wonder how the 3000 or so lost non-combatants at the WTC feel about that? Oops, sorry , we can't find that out, they are DEAD...dman

No not at all. But you're missing the point, which unfortunately doesn't surprise me. If you're discussing morality, you need to be viewing actions from the other side's view as well. First, 9-11 was condemned by muslims world wide, even muslims that are not friendly to the US. Islam, like Christianity, in the main does not prohibit violence in self-defense. BUT, both condemn violence towards innocents. 9-11 was beyond the pale of Islam because despite the WTC's being the center of global finance that bin laden finds offensive to Islam's interests, the PEOPLE working there were innocents. At the very least, they should first have been warned off.

The problem with the thread's comparison comes in Iraq. There never were womd to justify the invasion, and there was no operational ties to al queda, nor was Saddam giving safe haven as were the Taliban. Most Muslims view the US as a Christian/Jew occupying army in a muslim/kurd country. It's hard to argue with that, cause it's a fact. Legally we are. We ADMIT it.

So, from a Muslim's perspective, attacking US troops can be morally justifiable as necessary to protect Iraq from the neocons, specifically the asst sec of defense wolfowitz, who btw have openly said they wanted to invade for the GD oil.

The intent of the thread is to somehow hold the neocons as a higher moral being than those who:
"Terrorism is the intentional targeting of non-combatant civillians with violence, force, and/or intimidation for the purpose of creating fear in a targeted individual or population and as a result cause long-term changes in behavior and/or attitude in the target(s)."

Excuse me, but that's exactly WHAT THE **** BUSHii AND THE NEOCON ARE ABOUT.

ps, but note the guys who volunteered did so to a. protect the US and b. to further themselves. Neither motive is wrong. The fact is that they are misused ... and abused. Even if their motive in reupping is just to stick it out with their buds, I don't see how their moral complicity is really involved. It's not unlike Vietnam in that sense. I wanted to vote for Kerrey (NEB) even after it came to light that he killed villagers in a free fire zone. He was no more morally complicit that anyone who voted for LBJ or Nixon. **** happens. LBJ and McNamera hopefully are either burning in hell or remoseful to the point of wishing they were burning in hell.

[Bronco Bob]

No not at all. But you're missing the point, which unfortunately doesn't surprise me. If you're discussing morality, you need to be viewing actions from the other side's view as well. First, 9-11 was condemned by muslims world wide, even muslims that are not friendly to the US.

Even Iran condemned the 9/11 attack and offered to help oust the Taliban
from Afghanistan. Of course having Iran as an ally would go against the
neocon PNAC agenda so the offer was ignored.

[yavoon]

yavoon, take a break. Why do you have to be such an ahole all the time?Terrorism is just a word. it depends on whose side you're on.to the iraqis the US is a terrorist state. they invaded their country and thousands of civilians have died because of it.Now before yavoon gets his panties in a bunch, i am not saying that the US tried to kill civilans. It's what war supporters like to simply dismiss as collateral damage.But the bottom line is they do die. I doubt the iraqis care either way,their family members are still dead, and their hate still grows.The word "terrorist" is slinged around by dubya about as much as Paris Hilton says "that's hot".Many of the terrorists that the military is fighting in iraq are iraqis who are uprising against US occupation. If someone invaded the US and you fought them would that make you a terrorist?I think a terrorist applies to someone who attempts gain or chagne through violence.. period. It doesn't always have to be political change.i think warhawks are terrorists.

I'm unaware of any words which aren't words. perhaps u'd like to point some out?

[enjolras]

Even Iran condemned the 9/11 attack and offered to help oust the Taliban
from Afghanistan. Of course having Iran as an ally would go against the
neocon PNAC agenda so the offer was ignored.

Isn't this the same Iran that served as a conduit for the fleeing Taliban/Al-Qeada members from Afghanistan.

[Bronco Bob]

Isn't this the same Iran that served as a conduit for the fleeing Taliban/Al-Qeada members from Afghanistan.

I think you are thinking about Pakistan, where the Taliban and al_Quada
still have bases of operation that they use to carry out attacks on
US and other NATO forces in Afghanistan.