Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (2593)	8/3/2005 6:27:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541944

I don't consider attacks against military forces to be terrorism. I'd probably agree with you. But many people wouldn't. That's why I put the Cole attack, and the attack on the Pentagon in the "gray area" category, although in my opinion they are in a formal sense not examples of terrorism. Well actually the attack on the Pentagon might really be gray or even full out terrorism. It started with a hijacking of a civilian plane, and the civilians on the plane where killed by the attack. If you separate the plane and the building as two separate attacks rather then considering them as one thing than you have a terrorist act and asymmetrical surprise military attack. The Cole attack would be a better example of an attack that is often considered a terrorist attack but isn't one by the definitions we use. It was an attack on a warship with a bomb. It was a surprise attack, I would also consider it an unjustified and despicable attack, but that doesn't make it terrorism. Saying something is not an example of terrorism doesn't mean you can't condemn it or are somehow defending it. What about attacks on non-military government facilities? If Al Qaeda assassinated Bush would that be terrorism as you define it? He is the commander and chief. To get past that what about an Al Qaeda attack on an FCC meeting, or for that matter the Oklahoma city bombing. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (2593)	8/4/2005 7:40:10 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541944

I don't consider attacks against military forces to be terrorism. It's part of war to kill all the enemy soldiers you can. I would argue this depends very much on a formally defined 'war'. Take these three examples of IRA terrorism (as it was and generally would be defined): - mortar attacks on British barracks, in Belfast - nail bombs planted to kill a military band on parade - grenades thrown into pubs where off-duty soldiers are likely to be drinking (not necessarily in NI) In a declared war, all might be valid tactics. Carried out in a war declared and recognised by only one side, I'd argue otherwise. Bear in mind that - with only a few very public, very specific and very publicised exceptions - British troops in NI never actually waged war against any particular enemy, and barely used any of their military options. They went in as peacekeepers and certainly stuck closely to that role; to those who have argued otherwise, just think what casualties they could have inflicted if they had chosen, if waging war rather than peace had in fact been their aim... Of course, Bush has taken quite the opposite path. By terming it a war on terrorism Bush validates terrorist murders as wartime tactics to remove invaders and their allies. By then waging war with staggering disregard or even disdain for civilian casualties, indeed sometimes an apparent attitude that higher casualties might deter future attacks, he forfeits the moral high ground and makes it hard to argue convincingly that he is genuinely more interested in civilian welfare.