06-03-2004 20:06									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins Interesting point. The difference is, of course discrimination of target. The US has a specific target, and the Libyans, any people of a particular culture would do, since the goal was terror, not a particular person.

Actually, it's easier for the U.S. to discriminate. It has more ways to deliver death than libya.

	06-03-2004 20:09									#32
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Verto Only if you want to call the Civil Rights movement a terroristic one.

That's part of the question. Could the civil rights movement that caused loss of revenue be considered a terrorist act. I mean what terrorizes a capitalist more than loss of Capital?

	06-03-2004 20:13									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus Actually, it's easier for the U.S. to discriminate. It has more ways to deliver death than libya.

If the Libyans can't discriminate, then they shouldn't be employing the attack in the first place. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians are, very definably, terroristic.

	06-03-2004 20:14									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove So you would classify the Nazi party as freedom fighters? IIRC that was exactly what they claimed to be. Would you actually put the Nazis and America's revolutionary leaders in the same category?

what's the difference. Part of the reasoniung by hand the American revolution was the desire to expand westward which caused the genocide of many indian cultures vs the nazi determination to rid the world of one culture in particular.

	06-03-2004 20:15									#35
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus That's part of the question. Could the civil rights movement that caused loss of revenue be considered a terrorist act. I mean what terrorizes a capitalist more than loss of Capital?

There are property laws, and thus this was mere lawlessness at first, although it morphed into open warfare.

	06-03-2004 20:16									#36
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins If the Libyans can't discriminate, then they shouldn't be employing the attack in the first place. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians are, very definably, terroristic.

So dresden and Hiroshima are terrorist actions by the Allies in WWII. By allies I mean U.S. and Britain.

	06-03-2004 20:18									#37
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Ethnic cleansing by a state != terrorism.

They have different goals. The goal of terrorism is an attempt at some form of policy change. The goal of ethnic cleansing is utter elimination of an ethnic group in the entire society.

	06-03-2004 20:21									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus So dresden and Hiroshima are terrorist actions by the Allies in WWII. By allies I mean U.S. and Britain.

Open, uniform warfare between two nation states is classified as warfare, not terrorist action. The size or type of weaponry involved isn't relevant.

	06-03-2004 20:24									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The goal of ethnic cleansing is not to terrorize at all but to cleanse. It seems more likely that assasinations and bombing(strategic or otherwise) can be used to terrorize.

	06-03-2004 20:26									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus The goal of ethnic cleansing is not to terrorize at all but to cleanse. It seems more likely that assasinations and bombing(strategic or otherwise) can be used to terrorize.

If done by individuals in an indescriminate fashion, absolutely. If done by regular troops, while under the articles of war, between two states, absolutely not.

	06-03-2004 20:26									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins The Civil Rights movement used largely non-violent means. MLK jr. always preached non-violent action. I agree that the Boston Tea Party wasn't terrorism, but I disagree with the analogy.

quote: The Boston Tea party and boycotting for example.

That was the premise for the analogy.

	06-03-2004 20:28									#42
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins If done by individuals in an indescriminate fashion, absolutely. If done by regular troops, while under the articles of war, between two states, absolutely not.

I don't understand what you're saying.

	06-03-2004 20:28									#43
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The Boston Tea Party included violent destruction of property (and ultimately morphed into warfare)... something which MLK jr wouldn't have advocated. Thats why I wouldn't group the two.

I agree that the Birmingham boycott was non-violent.

	06-03-2004 20:29									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove How do you come up with the classification of the American "Founding Fathers" as terrorists? With the exception of certain fringe groups they eschewed violence against civilians and by and large attempted to conduct their struggle according to the rules of warfare of their age.

This is the problem with applying a modern definition of terrorism to groups like the American Revolutionaries. In the 1700s, the practice of specifically targeting British officers was considered unacceptable("terroristic"). However, in modern warfare snipers were commonly used against high profile persons and officers.

	06-03-2004 20:29									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus I don't understand what you're saying.

Strategic bombing, or tactical bombing by regular armed forces, on another nation state, is not considered terrorism. It's considered an act of war.

	06-03-2004 20:32									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

One could argue that terrorism is one method of waging war, and not mutually exclusive.

	06-03-2004 20:33									#47
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Verto One could argue that terrorism is one method of waging war.

Individuals or unrecognised groups of individuals can't wage war. War is reserved for autonomous states.

EDIT... to clarify:

quote: 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR

	06-03-2004 20:35									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins Strategic bombing, or tactical bombing by regular armed forces, on another nation state, is not considered terrorism. It's considered an act of war.

The U.S. has bombed Libya, Iraq, and the Sudan without a declaration of war.

	06-03-2004 20:36									#49
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Is terrorism reserved for unrecognized groups of individuals?

The demoralization of a city's civilian and military populace was a primary purpose for many bombing runs during World War II. Certainly this was a method of warfare employed by both sides, but it can also be considered terrorism.

	06-03-2004 20:37									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus The U.S. has bombed Libya, Iraq, and the Sudan without a declaration of war.

War is usually declared. Thats a general convention, not a prerequiste though.

	06-03-2004 20:38									#51
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Verto Is terrorism reserved for unrecognized groups of individuals? The demoralization of a city's civilian and military populace was a primary purpose for many bombing runs during World War II. Certainly this was a method of warfare employed by both sides, but it can also be considered terrorism.

The bombing was part of an open declared state of war between two nations, and is thus covered by the definition of war.

	06-03-2004 20:38									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins Individuals or unrecognised groups of individuals can't wage war. War is reserved for autonomous states. EDIT... to clarify: quote: 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR

Maybe that's the old definition. President Bush has declared a war on Terrorism. I can't find it on the map. I'm not sure who the leaders are I thik Saddam Hussein but I'm not sure what his terrorist activity has been.

	06-03-2004 20:40									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins The bombing was part of an open declared state of war between two nations, and is thus covered by the definition of war.

I am not debating that.

	06-03-2004 20:40									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus Maybe that's the old definition. President Bush has declared a war on Terrorism. I can't find it on the map. I'm not sure who the leaders are I thik Saddam Hussein but I'm not sure what his terrorist activity has been.

President Bush said "Freeance Peeance" in a speech. I wouldn't listen to what he says in terms of a discussion of definitive terminology.

	06-03-2004 20:42									#55
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Verto I am not debating that.

I'd say what you mentioned was an act of war designed to evoke demoralization... not definitively terrorism, because it was specifically an act of war.

	06-03-2004 20:48									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus what's the difference. Part of the reasoniung by hand the American revolution was the desire to expand westward which caused the genocide of many indian cultures vs the nazi determination to rid the world of one culture in particular.

Massachusetts did not even have a border with territories reserved for the Indians, yet it was in Massachusetts that the revolution began, so I don't see what your point is. While it's true that many American colonists wanted the lands beyond the Alleghanies opened for colonization it's obvious that this wasn't the primary reason.
On the other hand you have to consider that after the French and Indian War the British stripped the defenses of the old frontier line along the Alleghany mountains allowing incursions of Native American tribes west of the old line into what had been colonial territory before the war. There were numerous instances of settlements east of the demarcation line being attacked after the war, yet the British response was to prohibit those colonists from defending themselves. The middle colonies (Pennsylvannia, Virginia, and Maryland) were motivated by the desire to defend themselves.

	06-03-2004 20:51									#57
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins I'd say what you mentioned was an act of war designed to evoke demoralization... not definitively terrorism, because it was specifically an act of war.

Just because it was an act of war does not exclude it from also being terrorism, even if it was an action authorized by a government.

	06-03-2004 20:51									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

So MrBaggins,
You're saying that the Firebombing of Dresden and nuking Hiroshima are not Terrorist acts but 9/11, blowing up and hijacking airplanes is. I personally would be more terrorized by Dresden than 9/11. Defining terror as to cause fear. The purpose of Dreseden and hiroshima was to break the spirit and resolve of the Axis to conduct war. I believe Al queda saw the Pentagon, whithouse, and wtc as centers of western power and thius military targets as well as hoping to break the spirit of the west to continue what they see as a cultural/religous war. I believe President Bush sees it the same way. anyway this would make 9/11 not a terrorist act but would include Hiroshima as a terrorist act. The past defintion of a state has included land as a prerequisite but members of organizations classified as terrorist or hate groups normally have more allegiance to the organization than to the land they reside in.

	06-03-2004 20:55									#59
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Verto Just because it was an act of war does not exclude it from also being terrorism, even if it was an action authorized by a government.

You might say that, but if there is a clearer and more direct definition, then thats the definition you should typically used.

An act of war is an act of war.

	06-03-2004 20:57									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Means not goal.

Yup. Anyone who says that sustained and indiscriminate violence against civilians (not military or government targets), is ok, pretty much doesn't deserve to succeed at whatever goal they are working towards.

Let's take the case of ETA. There are Basque separatists that totally reject their violent actions (several of which have hurt Basques too) and participate in protests against them, even if they might share what, superficially, are similar goals (with the added difference, of course, that ETA would do everything in its power to forcefully implant quite a different type of government, in any future Basque state, including resorting to even more terrorism....)