11-12-2002 02:06									#31
	Tired of ads?

quote: Your definiton also does not seem to meet the notion of a state being terrorist, again given that all states have equal authority, if not equal power, in the system.

The Taliban, for instance, was crushed under the authority of the US and the world community. States do not have equal authority in the system, and even if they did, coalitions of states would tip the balance.

	11-12-2002 02:12									#32
	Suffering from ads?

quote: The real trick is to separate "war" from "terrorism".

Good luck, because every war ever fought has been no different, really, than terrorism.

Even in "defensive wars", one side or the other is behaving aggressively, which seems to be terrorism to me.

As such, my definition of terrorism:

"Any hostile, aggressive, and/or unprovoked act against a person, NGO, and/or nation-state, conducted by a person, NGO, and/or nation-state."

	11-12-2002 02:14									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

It think you two should start collaborting instead of butting heads. I want $100, you guys can each split the rest.

	11-12-2002 02:16									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd As such, my definition of terrorism:

won't win you a thousand bucks.

	11-12-2002 02:19									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I know, but I still think it's valid - killing people should be considered bad, even if the state says that it's OK.

	11-12-2002 02:26									#36
	Suffering from ads?

Yes, killing people is bad. That's not the point of this excercise. (or rather, it is . . . )

	11-12-2002 02:29									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: It think you two should start collaborting instead of butting heads. I want $100, you guys can each split the rest.

I wouldn't mind getting a cut of the $1000, provided someone else goes to the trouble of writing the essay and sends it out.

	11-12-2002 02:32									#38
	Put an end to popups!

quote: I wouldn't mind getting a cut of the $1000, provided someone else goes to the trouble of writing the essay and sends it out.

I tend to be a fairly good writer. I'll write it up if we reach a consensus, provided I get at least a 10% cut for the trouble.

che,

quote: Yes, killing people is bad. That's not the point of this excercise.

Well, defining terrorism is the point, and I would define terrorism as killing or attacking people with no provocation, which I would also define as bad. To me, it doesn't matter if an individual or a state is doing it, it's essentially the same.

	11-12-2002 02:34									#39
	Got spare money?

I think something along this line could work:

Terrorist: An entity, sovereign or not, that engages in violence against a sovereign entity, NGO, or particular population to further either political or ideological goals. Terrorists act without expressed legal authorization from any recognized sovereign entity or multinational body that could grant such authorization, or they have authorization to take actions that the international community has clearly indicated are abhorent to any sane society. Terrorists do not adhere to internationally accepted conventions governing the use of force in combat. Terrorist will forsake legitimate military or governmental targets to attack symbolic, economic, or civilian targets that are easier to destroy. Terrorists try to inflict as much collateral damage as possible in each attack to generate as much publicity as possible. The overall strategy of a terrorist is to cause so much fear, confusion, or loss of confidence that its enemy must capitulate to their demands even when it is not at risk of a military defeat. Terrorists do not respect borders, and they will attack benign entities outside of the conflict to exert pressure to their stated or implied enemy.

	11-12-2002 02:39									#40
	Put an end to popups!

Okay, now let me throw out this little bone. Some US actions are illegal even in US law. Clinton, Reagan, Bush (both), and Ford could all be tried in the US for war crimes (not that it would ever happen). The fact that the US government breaks its own laws needs to be gotten around, somehow (I think Korn gets real close with his authorization).

	11-12-2002 02:41									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

korn, I think that is a good definition, but I think the language against waging war could be stronger (ie, I think the definition should reject the concept of a "just war" other than self defense).

	11-12-2002 02:43									#42
	Put an end to popups!

You just aren't trying to win, DF.

	11-12-2002 02:44									#43
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You just aren't trying to win, DF.

He apparently doesn't need the money.

	11-12-2002 02:45									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Well, then, for a "winning" definition, I think korn is closest so far.

	11-12-2002 02:52									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Okay, now let me throw out this little bone. Some US actions are illegal even in US law. Clinton, Reagan, Bush (both), and Ford could all be tried in the US for war crimes (not that it would ever happen). The fact that the US government breaks its own laws needs to be gotten around, somehow (I think Korn gets real close with his authorization).

Does law exist if it will never be enforced? Objectively, I wouldn't consider empty proclmations to be real law.

quote: I tend to be a fairly good writer. I'll write it up if we reach a consensus, provided I get at least a 10% cut for the trouble.

That's fine by me.

	11-12-2002 02:54									#46
	Inflate your Upload Space

Korn is close, I agree. DF has a point, though, about more clearly defining the idea of what is "just" in the minds of those terrorists.

quote: I would define terrorism as killing or attacking people with no provocation

I would like to point out that even terrorists believe that they have been provoked into their actions.

Overall, I think the definition should include a line stating that they are cowardly baby killers with no perceived moral values or statute by which their tactics take shape.

	11-12-2002 03:01									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Korn's def is pretty good though it defines a terrorist and not terrorism. Important because an individual or an organization might be able to carry out an act considered to be terrorism and not be a terrorist or terrorist organization.(?)

	11-12-2002 03:03									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

here are a couple of questions for you guys

can a war ever be legal?
has the united states ever engaged in an illegal war?
while we all accept that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, can their be legitimate freedom fighters?
would the mujahideen, or viet minh and viet cong be terrorists or freedom fighters and what is the best way to distinguish between them?
Was the Soviet invasion of a legitimate war?
Why wasn't Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a legitimate war?
Would a near term invasion of Iraq by the US be a legitimate war?
Was either the North Korean invasion of South Korea, or the invasion of South Vietnam by the north in 1975 a legitimate war?
Are the chechnyans legitimate freedom fighters or terrorists?
Would a Chinese invasion of Taiwan be a legitimate war?
How about if Taiwan declared its independence, then would China have a legitimate reason to declare war?

i think if we can get that sorted out then we should have a kick ass definition

	11-12-2002 03:09									#49
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: can a war ever be legal?

Only one in self defense.

quote: has the united states ever engaged in an illegal war?

Every war except for the Revolutionary War, the Barbary Pirates conflict, and possibly WW2.

quote: while we all accept that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, can their be legitimate freedom fighters?

Certainly, so long as they don't attack civilians.

quote: would the mujahideen, or viet minh and viet cong be terrorists or freedom fighters and what is the best way to distinguish between them?

If one attacks a civilian who has done nothing wrong, then regardless of the circumstances, one is a terrorist.

quote: Was the Soviet invasion of a legitimate war?

No.

quote: Why wasn't Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a legitimate war?

Kuwait did not attack Iraq, and any problems could have been solved through diplomacy. Oil disputes do not justify killing people.

quote: Would a near term invasion of Iraq by the US be a legitimate war?

Not unless Iraq attacked the US.

quote: Was either the North Korean invasion of South Korea, or the invasion of South Vietnam by the north in 1975 a legitimate war?

No, although these are not quite clear cut cases. North and South Vietnam and North and South Korea were all nations, but were divided under illegitimate circumstances.

quote: Are the chechnyans legitimate freedom fighters or terrorists?

If they are fighting the Russian military and Russian political system, when they can show it is violating their rights, they are freedom fighters. Otherwise, terrorists.

quote: Would a Chinese invasion of Taiwan be a legitimate war?

No, the will of the vast majority of the people of Taiwan is for independence from China.

quote: How about if Taiwan declared its independence, then would China have a legitimate reason to declare war?

Especially not then.

	11-12-2002 03:09									#50
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Eeeek!!!

	11-12-2002 03:16									#51
	Inflate your Upload Space

A war due to defense does not always justify the war. Also, I feel that there are warrented reasons to unleash an offensive attack, a.k.a. war, without first being attack yourself.

i.e. genocide

DF, you say that the US Revolution was not illegal. Why?

	11-12-2002 03:20									#52
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Because the colonists felt their rights were being violated by an unelected sovereign in England. Further, they did not go around killing civilians to further their cause - at least not that I'm aware.

It might have been illegal according to British law, but then again, that's entirely the point, isn't it?

quote: Also, I feel that there are warrented reasons to unleash an offensive attack, a.k.a. war, without first being attack yourself. i.e. genocide

I don't really agree that genocide can be an excuse to wage aggressive war against someone.

	11-12-2002 03:24									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Was the Soviet invasion of (aphganistan) a legitimate war?

yes. It's goal was to stabilize the regime there, and to prevent it from being overthrown. The regime there was as freely elected and represented the people (a Utilitarian principle) , as the groups that tried to overthrow it, and it's politics were much better in terms of utility than the government that followed. In terms of general utility for the entire humankind ( mixing utility and humanism in a way here, but that's is MY pov ) the intervention was certianly correct, but wasn't waged correctly, which resulted in general "negative utility".

	11-12-2002 03:24									#54
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I fail to see your reasoning, but then it is yours.

	11-12-2002 03:26									#55
	Suffering from ads?

quote: The regime there was as freely elected and represented the people (a Utilitarian principle) , as the groups that tried to overthrow it, and it's politics were much better in terms of utility than the government that followed. In terms of general utility for the entire humankind ( mixing utility and humanism in a way here, but that's is MY pov ) the intervention was certianly correct, but wasn't waged correctly, which resulted in general "negative utility".

If such a large number of people opposed the government, then obviously it didn't do a good job of representing the people, now did it?

Further, either way, that does not justify the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The motives of the Soviet invasion were not to ensure self-determination - if they cared about that, they would have withdrawn from Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia when it became obvious those countries did not want the Soviet-imposed governments. The motives of the Soviet Union were simply to ensure that a Soviet-friendly communist government stayed in power.

	11-12-2002 03:28									#56
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

An extremely effective threadjack of an interesting thread

	11-12-2002 03:33									#57
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: An extremely effective threadjack of an interesting thread

?

Seems relevant to me.

	11-12-2002 03:34									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I must say that I think that all this talk of sovereignty and legitimacy is utterly, utterly irrelevant when defining terrorism.

If one is talking about the morality of terrorism, then they could come into play.

	11-12-2002 03:35									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

ok so a preemptive war can be legal, but only if it protects your national sovereignty and doesn't threaten the national sovereignty of the state you are attacking

Like tell me if this is correct:

It would be legal for India to launch a preemtive conventional strike against against Pakistan as long as it followed all of the international conventions of waging war, if Pakistan was a clear threat to India's national sovereignty because of a build up of nuclear weapons for example. Yet if India decided to occupy Pakistan or change install a puppet government then India would have launched an illegitimate war of conquest.

	11-12-2002 03:39									#60
	Support Apolyton

I disagree that a preemptive war can ever be legal, but then again, I know that my opinion will never form the consensus