11-12-2002 03:41									#61
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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?

certainly. what makes you think the mujahedeen did a better job? after all, it's not like the pro-soviet regime didn't have supporters.

quote: 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 The motives of the Soviet invasion were not to ensure self-determination - if they cared about that, they would have withdrawn from Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia when it became obvious those countries did not want the Soviet-imposed governments.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.

I am not justifying their actions on the basis of self-determination, because it is only one of the values for which I am concerned. If there was an enormous group of people that would insist on living in caves in a primitive lifestyle of some sorts, and pass on that belief to their children, And I would see that that way of life has less utility than the general society type I am advocating, I'd consider going in with troops and changing their lifestyle moral, if the amount of "negative utility" by my forceful actions does not eclipse the benefits I bring to them. I am sure I forgot some reasoning, feel free to ask. ( have another discussion thread going )

	11-12-2002 03:44									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Only if India can prove that Pakistan was about to attack it. That is very difficult to do.

DF, that a large number of people took up arms against the Soviet occupation doesn't mean that the Soviets didn't do a good job in representing the utilitarian interests of the people there. The revolt against the government of Afganistan began because it granted women some rights. Clearical reactionaries found this offensive, and took up arms The US started funding it, the Soviets came in when invited, and then things started to go down hill. All in all, I would hae to say the reistence was illegitimate because it had as its goal the resubjugation of Afgani women first, and freedom from the USSR second.

	11-12-2002 03:44									#63
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

What y'all are missing is that laws are reflections of force, not morality, and therefore can be generalized as such. Anything someone can get away with is by defintion legal (at least in those cases).

	11-12-2002 03:46									#64
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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.

i think it does have relevence, simply because declaring war on a nation creates a context in which to judge violence, and if there is a legitimate reason to create that context it makes the actions understandable if not acceptable to all

for example in WW2 when the US was trying to target military and industrial targets, i think that this was legitimate, and although it was quite horrific, i do not think that it is terrorism, the fire bombing of dresden and tokyo, are debatable if they are terrorism or not, and the the bombings in bali certainly terrorism

i think the objects, the methods, and the legitimate authority of the groups carrying out the violence all come into play when distinguishing an act of terrorism from a legitimate act of war

	11-12-2002 03:48									#65
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Azazel,

quote: I am not justifying their actions on the basis of self-determination, because it is only one of the values for which I am concerned.

Then on what basis do you justify their actions?

che,

quote: All in all, I would hae to say the reistence was illegitimate because it had as its goal the resubjugation of Afgani women first, and freedom from the USSR second.

Very possibly, but that doesn't justify the Soviet intervention any more than it does US involvement.

	11-12-2002 03:49									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: for example in WW2 when the US was trying to target military and industrial targets, i think that this was legitimate,

Even though in many cases the industries were not necessarily owned by the Nazi government, and in every case, they employed a large number of innocent people, including slave labor? Not to mention the collateral damage that comes with the (relatively) primitive targeting of the time.

quote: and although it was quite horrific, i do not think that it is terrorism, the fire bombing of dresden and tokyo, are debatable if they are terrorism or not

Wait - the fire bombings DELIBERATELY targeted civilians. How is that not terrorism, using your own definition?

	11-12-2002 03:54									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

ok so what makes a legitimate freedom fighter?

*self determination
*doesn't target civilians
*doesn't target entities that do not have the political authority to end the occupation or agents thereof
*doesn't rely solely on violence and terror to achieve its goals
*if it does rely primarily on violence it engages in the discriminate use of force
*it doesn't engage in attrocities

anything else?

Last edited by korn469 on 11-12-2002 at 04:55

	11-12-2002 03:58									#68
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Wait - the fire bombings DELIBERATELY targeted civilians. How is that not terrorism, using your own definition?

one could argue that the civilians themselves represented a valid military and industrial target and that since no established conventions existed at the time to ban it this was legitimate form of warfare at the time

i personally think it was an atrocity, just like the use of atomic weapons

	11-12-2002 04:00									#69
	Inflate your Upload Space

It has become clear that there exists more definitions for terrorism and many are valid. Its kind of pointless to aggressively search for this one definition that white-washes US military actions, since it is not the only one that is a valid definition for terrorism.








||
\/

	11-12-2002 04:01									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: one could argue that the civilians represented a valid military and industrial target

Fine, then what made the Holocaust wrong, or the Rape of Nanking? The manner in which those things were done? Oh, but wait, burning someone to death hurts as bad as roasting them in an oven or impaling them on a bayonet, and probably not as much as gassing.

quote: and that since no established conventions existed at the time to ban it this was legitimate warfare at the time

Didn't the Geneva Convention protect civilians? Could be wrong, I'm no expert on that. But again, if this is the case, what was wrong with the Holocaust?

quote: anything else?

Off the top of my head, I think you nailed it.

I DO think there should be a point in there about "no ulterior motives" - ie, a legitimate freedom fighter doesn't try to overthrow one dictatorship so that he can form another, but you sorta covered that in the self determination line.

	11-12-2002 04:04									#71
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa Its kind of pointless to aggressively search for this one definition that white-washes US military actions, since it is not the only one that is a valid definition for terrorism.

But the one whih white-washes the US is the only one that gets you $1000.

	11-12-2002 04:05									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by korn469 ok so what makes a legitimate freedom fighter? *doesn't target entities that do not have the political authority to end the occupation

This makes the targetting of soldiers wrong, as they do not have the political authority to end the occupation.

	11-12-2002 04:07									#73
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by korn469 the fire bombing of dresden and tokyo, are debatable if they are terrorism or not, and the the bombings in bali certainly terrorism

They were intended to provoke terror in enemy populations. They are absolutely examples of terrorism.

	11-12-2002 04:07									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Then on what basis do you justify their actions?

I don't think you've read my entire post. The soviet regime was going to give them a much better life that was before that, and certainly after that, esp. for the female population of the country. Therefore, the invasion was just .

	11-12-2002 04:13									#75
	Got spare money?

quote: i think it does have relevence, simply because declaring war on a nation creates a context in which to judge violence, and if there is a legitimate reason to create that context it makes the actions understandable if not acceptable to all

Terrorism is a method of waging war, like trench warfare, guerilla warfare or unrestricted submarine warfare. It is not an 'illegitimate' alternative to war. Also, terrorism does not have to be understandable to be terrorism.

quote: for example in WW2 when the US was trying to target military and industrial targets, i think that this was legitimate, and although it was quite horrific, i do not think that it is terrorism, the fire bombing of dresden and tokyo, are debatable if they are terrorism or not, and the the bombings in bali certainly terrorism

Anything involving enemy planes dropping bombs is not terrorism, no matter who it targets. It's some sort of aerial bombardment doctrine. Strategic bombing in this case.

Anything involving vehicles covertly filled with explosives parked next to an enemy target is terrorism, regardless of whether the casualties are civilian or military.

	11-12-2002 04:16									#76
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Terrorism. Any action not popular with the American mass media that originates in oil-rich countries, or countries with geographical/poitical closeness to oil-rich countries.

Used in a sentence:
The middle east is a hotbed of terrorism. Except for Israel, of course!

	11-12-2002 04:20									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

che,

quote: This makes the targetting of soldiers wrong, as they do not have the political authority to end the occupation.

Then again, soldiers have control over their own actions - no one is absolutely forcing them to commit oppressive acts or violate someone's rights.

If they are shot while trying to rob someone, or get killed while trying to put down a free independence movement, that is their problem.

But, this does not mean I think that soldiers should be punished after the fact for following orders, if disobedience would have gotten them killed or thrown in prison.

Azazel,

quote: I don't think you've read my entire post. The soviet regime was going to give them a much better life that was before that, and certainly after that, esp. for the female population of the country. Therefore, the invasion was just .

By that argument, you can justify any war, on the basis that the people involved were better off after than before.

Sandman,

quote: Anything involving enemy planes dropping bombs is not terrorism, no matter who it targets. It's some sort of aerial bombardment doctrine. Strategic bombing in this case.

You are talking about the Douhet-Mitchell doctrine of strategic bombing as a means of winning wars, and yes, that is CERTAINLY terrorism. It creates terror within the civilian population as a means to an end - ie, civilian deaths are both intentional and encouraged.

	11-12-2002 04:22									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by korn469 can a war ever be legal? has the united states ever engaged in an illegal war?

Define legal in this context.

	11-12-2002 04:26									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd che, Then again, soldiers . . .

I'm just pointing out what is wrong with that particular definition. I think targetting soldiers is legitimate, even if I really think its a damn shame kids have to die occupiying someone else's country.

	11-12-2002 04:28									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: even if I really think its a damn shame kids have to die occupiying someone else's country.

Oh, I agree, it's a damn shame, which is why they should have the courage to stand up to their officers and governments when they are told to kill oppress or kill civilians.

	11-12-2002 04:31									#81
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: By that argument, you can justify any war, on the basis that the people involved were better off after than before.

how so? what was the justification of hitler's beginning of WWII?
why do you think that the war has caused more happiness, than sadness, and destruction?

	11-12-2002 04:33									#82
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: why do you think that the war has caused more happiness, than sadness, and destruction?

Because, as any other war, it was fought with the aim to improve the condition and/or power of the STATE at the expense of the INDIVIDUAL.

	11-12-2002 04:41									#83
	Suffering from ads?

quote: You are talking about the Douhet-Mitchell doctrine of strategic bombing as a means of winning wars, and yes, that is CERTAINLY terrorism. It creates terror within the civilian population as a means to an end - ie, civilian deaths are both intentional and encouraged.

All methods of warfare have the opportunity to create terror within the civilian population. Conversely, many 'terrorist' acts do nothing of the sort.
The civilian/military distinction is irrelevant to most terrorists, and pretty much to anyone in a serious war situation. Attacks on military targets, such as the USS Cole, and Israeli soldiers, are considered terrorism just as much as attacks on civilian targets.

Terrorism is covert operatives using bombs. Terrorism is the wrong word, but that's life.

	11-12-2002 04:42									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Because, as any other war, it was fought with the aim to improve the condition and/or power of the STATE at the expense of the INDIVIDUAL.

so that war DIDN'T improve the condition of the individual. I am saying that a military action that WILL improve the condition of inidividuals, is moral.

	11-12-2002 04:43									#85
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: All methods of warfare have the opportunity to create terror within the civilian population.

Then perhaps, as I suggest, all war is terrorism

quote: Attacks on military targets, such as the USS Cole, and Israeli soldiers, are considered terrorism just as much as attacks on civilian targets.

Doesn't make it correct terminology

	11-12-2002 04:45									#86
	Got spare money?

quote: so that war DIDN'T improve the condition of the individual.

Every war in which conscription was used, for example. Enslaving people and sending them to their death isn't an improvement

quote: I am saying that a military action that WILL improve the condition of inidividuals, is moral.

And I'm saying that not only does military action very rarely improve the condition of individual, but that that alone does not justify a war.

	11-12-2002 04:49									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Then perhaps, as I suggest, all war is terrorism

Please supply a new term for the use of covert operatives employing explosive devices (readymade or improvised) within a target society.

	11-12-2002 04:50									#88
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: And I'm saying that not only does military action very rarely improve the condition of individual, but that that alone does not justify a war.

So I guess our moral values are not alligned. And the sun will shine tomorrow.

say that only few people were hurt in the Soviet intervention. the regime would grant much more freedoms to women ( and therefore make them happy) , and would promote more education, and develop some industry ( more than anything that was in place before the pro-soviet regime, and CERTAINLY after )
the people will be happy, and their inconveniences during the military operations would be outweighed by the prospects of a more advanced form of society. In my view, therefore, the intervention would be moral.

	11-12-2002 04:51									#89
	Support Apolyton

quote: Please supply a new term for the use of covert operatives employing explosive devices (readymade or improvised) within a target society.

*shrug* First tell me if civilians are being targeted. Then tell me if this action is unprovoked.

Based on the answers, it could be either terrorism, or valid self defense/freedom fighting.

	11-12-2002 04:53									#90
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: the regime would grant much more freedoms to women ( and therefore make them happy)

First of all, I think you mean protect more freedoms, but that's beside the point

quote: In my view, therefore, the intervention would be moral.

But this doesn't address the fact that, prior to the intervention, the Mudjaheedin were not attacking the Soviet Union, and that the Soviet Union involved itself in a civil war. To me, the only valid war is one of self defense, and most assuredly Afghanistan was not about self defense (or even about promoting freedom and self determination - the Soviet Union was not into those notions).