Is "terrorism" a valid war tactic?

[JohnB]

I've been thinking it's kinda baked for a couple days now, for what it's worth.

I'm afraid I must agree. It would seem that Budullewraagh and I are at an impass on definitions. With his agreement, may I suggest we "agree to disagree" and move on? (And should I get to New York, the first round is on me. )

 

On the other thing. Thanks for the input, it has helped clear up a few things in my own "Theory of Morality".

[Denis Joe]

I feel that act of war are terroristic. War is really the suspension of civil life. On the one hand it is tragic that war, inevitably means the death of people. But surely it is the aim of the war that is important. Can war be justified? Is all war, or acts of terrorism, wrong?

 

I find it difficult to answer in the affirmative. Some wars or acts of terrorism have meant the destruction of the few for the greater good. I think of the American war of independence; the French Revolution the Russian Revolution and the anti colonialist wars.

 

War is not something that we can measure by moral standards alone the reason or aim of a war or an act of terrorism is how we should be creating our judgement.

 

9/11 cannot be compared to the horrific use on the Japanese of the A bomb. However much I find that aspect of history to be horrific at least it could be justified, an explanation for it could be given. The destruction of 9/11 goes beyound anything we have experienced before. The people that carried it out did not have an aim beyound narrow (reactionary) anti-westernism. It was purely nihalistic. There were no aims aside from some moronic belief in martyrdom. It is true that individuals 'took thier own lifes' in the past. One need think of the Irish hunger strikers who were making a poiunt about British domination of that country.

 

I am not convinced that we can be comparative about these things especially if we ignore the causes.

[Pangloss]

All acts of war are terroristic?

 

So, setting aside civiliam bombings for the moment, are you saying that the allies were wrong to go to war in WW2?

 

Not attacking, just asking for clarification. I disagree with your position if the answer to my question is "no" (and I opposed the war in Iraq, btw), but I respect your opinion on it.

[vrus]

I'd like to draw attention to Russia, about whom i am doing a depth study for my IGCSE History... (the first half of the 20th century)

 

We were going through Nicholas II's life and the three groups that wanted change, namely the Socialist revolutionaries, socialist democrats and the liberals.

The Sr wanted to employ terrorism to knock the tsar off. Obviously they became illegal. But it is worth mentioning that the tsar himself almost always resorted to violence and terrorism to put down problems. Isn't it funny how when the government uses terrorism, it is not 'terrorism', but when anyone else does the same, it is ?...

 

I would say terrorism is a valid tactic in war if and only when the enemy employs cruel, ruthless and inhuman tactics themself. It must not be used to begin with. Let me provide an example again. It has been confirmed that pakistan has terrorist camps in Pakistan occupied kashmir. They are training individuals blinded by patriotism and relegion in terrorising and sending them 'over the top' to Indian administered kashmir. Despite evidence, pakistan denies the existence of these camps. As an impartisl viewer, i feel this catastrophe in action is not given nearly enough attention that is required. What do you all think should be the next course of action ? I'm not trying to make this an India-pakistan debating thread , but i feel this relates with the topic.

 

As an impartial viewer to this situation, i would reinforce what i have said before and say that India should take similar action and counter terrorism with the same. Thanks for hearing me out !

[Douglas]

If terrorism is defined as a roadside bomb that blows up a school bus, or strapping a bomb on a child to be detonated in a crowded restaurant, then ask yourself if you'd like to live under a regime that employed these tactics.

 

On the other hand, guerrilla warfare is acceptable...as I define it.

[john5746]

If terrorism is defined as a roadside bomb that blows up a school bus' date=' or strapping a bomb on a child to be detonated in a crowded restaurant, then ask yourself if you'd like to live under a regime that employed these tactics.

 

On the other hand, guerrilla warfare is acceptable...as I define it.[/quote']

 

Oh no, we can't have that.

 

But, we can drop a bomb from a plane that will wipe out hundred's of school buses, thousands of children, their parents and grandparents.

[Pangloss]

Or we can drop a bomb that hits its target and saves hundreds of busses, thousands of children, their parents and grandparents, whom the terrorists would otherwise kill just because beating their heads on the wall doesn't get them what they want.

 

I thought you wanted to go after "root causes", John? Doesn't that mean helping the terrorists understand what it means to get along, and how not always getting your way can sometimes be a good thing?

[john5746]

Or we can drop a bomb that hits its target and saves hundreds of busses' date=' thousands of children, their parents and grandparents, whom the terrorists would otherwise kill just because beating their heads on the wall doesn't get them what they want.

 

I thought you wanted to go after "root causes", John? Doesn't that mean helping the terrorists understand what it means to get along, and how not always getting your way can sometimes be a good thing?[/quote']

 

I don't have a problem with how we are fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan today. I was speaking historically. I think bombs generally are not going to be the weapon of choice to fight terrorists though. Bombing a city block or even a building for a few terrorists seems excessive to me.

 

If we want to say, all means necessary, then we can't complain about the tactics of the other side, IMO. We can claim their intent is wrong, not the tactics.

[Pangloss]

Well put.