Terrorism has no proper definition (outside of almost meaninglessly vague terms like 'use of terror to achieve goals',) and hence I don't think you can say terrorism is restricted to non-soldiers, nstf or even say that it must not be sanctioned by a government or that it can't be 'legal' (scare quotes because there's no universal definition on what is or is not legal in warfare.)
As an aside I bet I can get you to acknowledge that 'soldier' itself is a really, really vague term.
Anyhow, perhaps arguing over what is or is not terrorism would better be done in it's own thread.
Actually both terrorism and soldier are well defined.
Terrorism: violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
Soldier (privileged combatant):
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2. Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (This part relates to POWs)
4. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Freedom fighter's are usually trying to overthrow government and set up their own. Terrorists are generally just trying to obtain specific political goals or destabilize.
Overthrowing the government and setting up their own isn't a specific political goal and isn't destabilizing?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Further devil's advocating, and this is closer to the actual topic of the thread: what's the difference between terrorists (under your definition: random jackass who picks up a weapon and acts out for his or a group of jackasses' goals) and a freedom fighter? Perspective?
For a more specific request: what's the difference (recall, legally) between the Taliban today and the Northern Alliance in September/October of 2001? Because if it's purely about ideology, we have a problem with terrorism being a nebulous word that is used to gain popular support for whatever policy the government likes.
The second half of this made of fail from a logical perspective. You're asking me to agree with, or define our governments actions. I don't agree with them, nor do I fine them logical. So I honestly can't answer that one, sorryD:
As for the first, it's a sticky line. Is the person sawing off heads in advocation of Sharia law a terrorist, I'd say so. He's trying to terrorize the civilian population for a goal.
Is the person who bombs a Hummer because he see's his country as being invaded a terrorist, I'd say no, that falls into freedom fighter.
In the first case though there is no "get your Sharia on" organization in Iraq, for good reasons. In the second case though he could you know, join the army. If he did and is now fighting he'd be classified as a rogue military actor and there are rules to deal with that, if he was not you'd call him a freedom fighter (laughable term IMHO) and he's not governed by any sort of code or rules, so thus shouldn't be afforded when and if captured, the rights of a soldier.
Freedom fighter's are usually trying to overthrow government and set up their own. Terrorists are generally just trying to obtain specific political goals or destabilize.
Edit: I'd argue that the Taliban who are trying to retake Afghanistan are closer to rebels/freedom fighters than terrorists. Though their close ties with Al Qaeda has made them indistinguishable
Well yeah, the Taliban are not terrorists, they are a quasi militia force. Not the same thing, they use terror tactics, but in this instance given their status and region it would constitute a war crime.
My point is mostly that the whole area is murky. I'm also mostly playing devil's advocate, but I do have a serious problem with broader definitions of terror.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I view 'terrorism' in the post-9/11 world as any act of pre-meditated violence by a non-state actor/group that is committed on political grounds (versus personal grounds like love/hate, money, etc). That seems to be a good definition but I'm sure there is something I'm overlooking. Anyone?
How about torture and some other terror-inspiring acts by committed by child soldiers of the Khmer Rouge?
The Khmer Rouge (aka Communist Party of Kampuchea) was the ruling party in Cambodia. So the acts were all official, and certainly political (though terrorism doesn't have to be restricted to political goals.) The children soldiers were official soldiers.
MyDcmbr, no, it really isn't well defined at all. The definition you posted is one of those 'uselessly vague' ones (just like the one I did!) You can tell it is, because you can reductio ad absurdum the definition into calling thousands upon thousands of acts terrorism.
Ditto with soldier. Is a child soldier a soldier? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask. What are the customs and laws of what? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask.
edit: I really do think an argument about definition of terrorism should be in a new thread. If anyone wants to post one, I'll be happy to join in.
I view 'terrorism' in the post-9/11 world as any act of pre-meditated violence by a non-state actor/group that is committed on political grounds (versus personal grounds like love/hate, money, etc). That seems to be a good definition but I'm sure there is something I'm overlooking. Anyone?
How about torture and some other terror-inspiring acts by committed by child soldiers of the Khmer Rouge?
The Khmer Rouge (aka Communist Party of Kampuchea) was the ruling party in Cambodia. So the acts were all official, and certainly political (though terrorism doesn't have to be restricted to political goals.) The children soldiers were official soldiers.
MyDcmbr, no, it really isn't well defined at all. The definition you posted is one of those 'uselessly vague' ones (just like the one I did!) You can tell it is, because you can reductio ad absurdum the definition into calling thousands upon thousands of acts terrorism.
Ditto with soldier. Is a child soldier a soldier? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask. What are the customs and laws of what? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask.
edit: I really do think an argument about definition of terrorism should be in a new thread. If anyone wants to post one, I'll be happy to join in.
Torture by an uniformed soldier is a war crime, recruitment of children IIRC is also a war crime.
Ditto with soldier. Is a child soldier a soldier? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask. What are the customs and laws of what? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask.
According to the Geneva Conventions and the recognized Rules of War a Child Soldier is not a Privileged Combatant (Soldier) period.
EDIT: Cambodia signed the Geneva Conventions in 1958.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
I view 'terrorism' in the post-9/11 world as any act of pre-meditated violence by a non-state actor/group that is committed on political grounds (versus personal grounds like love/hate, money, etc). That seems to be a good definition but I'm sure there is something I'm overlooking. Anyone?
How about torture and some other terror-inspiring acts by committed by child soldiers of the Khmer Rouge?
The Khmer Rouge (aka Communist Party of Kampuchea) was the ruling party in Cambodia. So the acts were all official, and certainly political (though terrorism doesn't have to be restricted to political goals.) The children soldiers were official soldiers.
MyDcmbr, no, it really isn't well defined at all. The definition you posted is one of those 'uselessly vague' ones (just like the one I did!) You can tell it is, because you can reductio ad absurdum the definition into calling thousands upon thousands of acts terrorism.
Ditto with soldier. Is a child soldier a soldier? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask. What are the customs and laws of what? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask.
edit: I really do think an argument about definition of terrorism should be in a new thread. If anyone wants to post one, I'll be happy to join in.
Torture by an uniformed soldier is a war crime, recruitment of children IIRC is also a war crime.
And a war crime can't also be terrorism because why?
Child recruitment isn't a war crime as long as you follow some rules --depending on just who's rules you want to follow, that is. By which I mean, UN is OK with child soldiers aged 15+ who don't directly engage in combat and aren't forcibly recruited. At least last time I checked on it.
Are you OK with 15 year old soldiers, nstf? Or would you say those don't jive with your definition of soldier? .
Ditto with soldier. Is a child soldier a soldier? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask. What are the customs and laws of what? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask.
According to the Geneva Conventions and the recognized Rules of War a Child Soldier is not a Privileged Combatant (Soldier) period.
Not everyone has ratified the Geneva Conventions. The US is behind on them. The Geneva Conventions the US hasn't ratified don't apply to the US. So if a state hasn't ratified the Geneva Conventions, what they say about child soldiers really doesn't mean much.
EDIT: Cambodia signed the Geneva Conventions in 1958.
Excellent, so: to you, a child soldier is or is not a soldier purely based on the Geneva Conventions, yes?
Boy, that almost seems like an awfully vague and meaningless way of defining whether or not someone is a soldier when you see them!
I view 'terrorism' in the post-9/11 world as any act of pre-meditated violence by a non-state actor/group that is committed on political grounds (versus personal grounds like love/hate, money, etc). That seems to be a good definition but I'm sure there is something I'm overlooking. Anyone?
How about torture and some other terror-inspiring acts by committed by child soldiers of the Khmer Rouge?
The Khmer Rouge (aka Communist Party of Kampuchea) was the ruling party in Cambodia. So the acts were all official, and certainly political (though terrorism doesn't have to be restricted to political goals.) The children soldiers were official soldiers.
MyDcmbr, no, it really isn't well defined at all. The definition you posted is one of those 'uselessly vague' ones (just like the one I did!) You can tell it is, because you can reductio ad absurdum the definition into calling thousands upon thousands of acts terrorism.
Ditto with soldier. Is a child soldier a soldier? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask. What are the customs and laws of what? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask.
edit: I really do think an argument about definition of terrorism should be in a new thread. If anyone wants to post one, I'll be happy to join in.
Torture by an uniformed soldier is a war crime, recruitment of children IIRC is also a war crime.
And a war crime can't also be terrorism because why?
Child recruitment isn't a war crime as long as you follow some rules --depending on just who's rules you want to follow, that is. By which I mean, UN is OK with child soldiers aged 15+ who don't directly engage in combat and aren't forcibly recruited. At least last time I checked on it.
Are you OK with 15 year old soldiers, nstf? Or would you say those don't jive with your definition of soldier? .
Murder and manslaughter aren't the same things either. I didn't create legal rules, I just have to deal with them.
As for a 15 year old soldier, not ok with it. But an enemy is an enemy and wouldn't fault someone for shooting them.
Ditto with soldier. Is a child soldier a soldier? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask. What are the customs and laws of what? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask.
According to the Geneva Conventions and the recognized Rules of War a Child Soldier is not a Privileged Combatant (Soldier) period.
Not everyone has ratified the Geneva Conventions. The US is behind on them. The Geneva Conventions the US hasn't ratified don't apply to the US. So if a state hasn't ratified the Geneva Conventions, what they say about child soldiers really doesn't mean much.
The US has ratified all the conventions. They have signed but not ratified Protocols 1 and 2. The Protocols are simply updates to the original Conventions, which still hold.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Excellent, so: to you, a child soldier is or is not a soldier purely based on the Geneva Conventions, yes?
Boy, that almost seems like an awfully vague and meaningless way of defining whether or not someone is a soldier when you see them!
The difference if they are a soldier or not is not so important if they are openly carrying a firearm and acting in an aggressive manner. You always treat them as a privileged combatant until you know for certain that they are not.
I don't see how it is vague or meaningless. Seems pretty clear to me and easily determines how the child should be treated if he was to be captured.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Ditto with soldier. Is a child soldier a soldier? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask. What are the customs and laws of what? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask.
According to the Geneva Conventions and the recognized Rules of War a Child Soldier is not a Privileged Combatant (Soldier) period.
Not everyone has ratified the Geneva Conventions. The US is behind on them. The Geneva Conventions the US hasn't ratified don't apply to the US. So if a state hasn't ratified the Geneva Conventions, what they say about child soldiers really doesn't mean much.
The US has ratified all the conventions. They have signed but not ratified Protocols 1 and 2. The Protocols are simply updates to the original Conventions, which still hold.
That's what I meant when I said 'behind on the conventions.' Sorry for the confusion, though.
edit:
I don't see how it is vague or meaningless. Seems pretty clear to me and easily determines how the child should be treated if he was to be captured.
Erm, the reason it's important is because (by some definitions proposed for terrorism) terrorism is something committed by a non-state actor. So if the child soldier being state or non-state hinges on something as simple as ratification of a convention, it means that in two otherwise identical circumstances, the same act would be terrorism or would not be terrorism. Based on a signature. Of someone probably entirely uninvolved. That, to me, makes it a bad definition.
Whether some military actions can be categorized as terrorism or not, United States is a known state sponsor of actual terrorism, and has over the years done it more and in greater capacity then the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that's just counting the acts that can be called terrorism (not talking about coups, assassinations, etc.).
It's not a good VS evil battle. U.S. treats it's own citizens better then Iran but that doesn't excuse it's terrible conduct everywhere else. Iran may be more loud and crude in it's similar actions, but it's still taking baby steps compared to say, the CIA. And United States has a large number of citizens sympathetic and openly supportive to these acts.
Hamas showing some stupid Mickey Mouse jihad cartoon doesn't change any of these facts, or makes Muslims more inclined to support terrorism (well, maybe terrorism as United States defines it). U.S. is just smarter about it.
Whether some military actions can be categorized as terrorism or not, United States is a known state sponsor of actual terrorism, and has over the years done it more and in greater capacity then the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that's just counting the acts that can be called terrorism (not talking about coups, assassinations, etc.).
That is true. And if we are seriously honest, actually todays terror problems are US homegrown.
Whether some military actions can be categorized as terrorism or not, United States is a known state sponsor of actual terrorism, and has over the years done it more and in greater capacity then the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that's just counting the acts that can be called terrorism (not talking about coups, assassinations, etc.).
That is true. And if we are seriously honest, actually todays terror problems are US homegrown.
Which is largely a function of their being you know, a massive ocean between us and the people who want to attack us. We have that luxury.
Whether some military actions can be categorized as terrorism or not, United States is a known state sponsor of actual terrorism, and has over the years done it more and in greater capacity then the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that's just counting the acts that can be called terrorism (not talking about coups, assassinations, etc.).
That is true. And if we are seriously honest, actually todays terror problems are US homegrown.
Which is largely a function of their being you know, a massive ocean between us and the people who want to attack us. We have that luxury.
The question arises who attacked whom.
Sometimes an ocean is not enough.
ACSIS on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Freedom fighter's are usually trying to overthrow government and set up their own. Terrorists are generally just trying to obtain specific political goals or destabilize.
Edit: I'd argue that the Taliban who are trying to retake Afghanistan are closer to rebels/freedom fighters than terrorists. Though their close ties with Al Qaeda has made them indistinguishable
Freedom fighters are generally . . . you know . . . fighting for freedom.
Blowing up people in the name of restricting personal liberty hardly qualifies.
Freedom fighter's are usually trying to overthrow government and set up their own. Terrorists are generally just trying to obtain specific political goals or destabilize.
Edit: I'd argue that the Taliban who are trying to retake Afghanistan are closer to rebels/freedom fighters than terrorists. Though their close ties with Al Qaeda has made them indistinguishable
Freedom fighters are generally . . . you know . . . fighting for freedom.
Blowing up people in the name of restricting personal liberty hardly qualifies.
I'm sure they believe if they don't preserve tradition, their country would be worse off with all the Western influences creeping inside their borders.
emnmnme on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Freedom fighter's are usually trying to overthrow government and set up their own. Terrorists are generally just trying to obtain specific political goals or destabilize.
Edit: I'd argue that the Taliban who are trying to retake Afghanistan are closer to rebels/freedom fighters than terrorists. Though their close ties with Al Qaeda has made them indistinguishable
Freedom fighters are generally . . . you know . . . fighting for freedom.
Blowing up people in the name of restricting personal liberty hardly qualifies.
I'm sure they believe if they don't preserve tradition, their country would be worse off with all the Western influences creeping inside their borders.
Oh, I'm sure, I just take issue with the nomenclature. I think "freedom fighter" should be a term reserved for someone actually promoting freedom, not just fighting to preserve some perverse idea of their culture.
Any secessionist group, of which there are plenty, would seem to do.
Well, not secessionism alone. The CSA, for example seceded to preserve the complete opposite of freedom.
The Taleban are more of an insurgency then a terrorist group though. The old regime and so on.
Yeah no. The Taliban are an actual military, all be it a fucked up and rather messed up one. And even we define them as such. It is an organized force with leaders, they aren't terrorists (no matter how much the right might want to claim they are). They are soldiers and we treat them as such.
The iffy issue that how can you tell the difference? In a nation armed to the teeth with no official uniform who do you know is who? I mean, I can tell by looking at someone even with no uniform who is a soldier or not, and in action our soldiers are easy to see, the Taliban vs your average Afghani, not so much.
Make no mistake, a Taliban under a unit commander operating as an armed combatant is a soldier, and is entitled to a soldiers rights and governed by a soldiers laws. A random dude that picks up a gun and takes pot shots is not. The real issue is how do you know who is who? It's not like our military where its really easy to see who is a valid combatant. Hell you can probably tell the service, and rank, at a good range.
With our "enemys" it's not so clear cut. And it's hell on those who have to make the call. I can't ask you all to understand it, but I can ask you to think about for a second.
A random dude who picks up a gun and takes shots at armed soldiers is in my book an armed combatant. Which means that if he shoots you, you know...you can shoot back at him.
The reality is that "freedom fighters" is really just a piece of jingoism. It doesn't mean anything and trying to come up with an official definition of what a "freedom fighter" is will just lead to a semantic mess. History written by the victors and so on.
The problem with 'official' or 'lawful' or whatever combatants vs. their less legitimate counterparts isn't really what happens to them on the battlefield, where the simple right of self defense allows soldiers to respond proportionally to threats. The problem is what we do with them once they're captured.
The problem in afghanistan's specific case is that a lot of the people we are supposedly there to protect and provide with freedom and so on don't really like us very much, or at least like us less or are less afraid of us than they are of our actual enemies.
It is a popular shibboleth in the U.S. that giving "freedom" to afghanistan will result in a wonderful western(ish) society where things like q'uran burnings are frowned upon but ultimately tolerated as expression. But even if afghanistan were to have perfectly fair and correct elections tomorrrow, that probably isn't the governing charter they'd end up with.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
A random dude who picks up a gun and takes shots at armed soldiers is in my book an armed combatant. Which means that if he shoots you, you know...you can shoot back at him.
And you can. However said random dude isn't following the rules and laws of war, and you can't expect him to do so. As such he isn't granted the rights of soldier, since he isn't governed by those laws nor does have an authority to be held by.
If a soldier shot him dead, no issue. Even if in cold blood with no feeling of threat. He's not a privalidged combatant, and thus isn't given certain trusts and right via the rules of war. But he sure as fuck was a threat and thus can be legally killed.
This may seem odd to you. But there is a reason that through history, and despite how nasty the conflict gets, uniformed soldiers, tend to treat each other with the utmost respect and are rather nice. Because they are governed by a certain code and they do tend to obey it. If you grab a gun outside of these rules you're given the fate of a rabid dog.
In all honesty your better off being grabbed by a soldier than a freedom fighter. This should be obvious.
nstf on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It is a popular shibboleth in the U.S. that giving "freedom" to afghanistan will result in a wonderful western(ish) society where things like q'uran burnings are frowned upon but ultimately tolerated as expression. But even if afghanistan were to have perfectly fair and correct elections tomorrrow, that probably isn't the governing charter they'd end up with.
Yes, isn't that basically happened with Hamas in Palestine?
The people there democratically elected a party whose charter explicitly calls for religious genocide. It's hard fix something that broken.
It is a popular shibboleth in the U.S. that giving "freedom" to afghanistan will result in a wonderful western(ish) society where things like q'uran burnings are frowned upon but ultimately tolerated as expression. But even if afghanistan were to have perfectly fair and correct elections tomorrrow, that probably isn't the governing charter they'd end up with.
Yes, isn't that basically happened with Hamas in Palestine?
The people there democratically elected a party whose charter explicitly calls for religious genocide. It's hard fix something that broken.
Hamas is bad enough as they are, you don't have to lie to make them seem worse.
And West has democratically elected worse people then Hamas. In a lot less desperate situations then the Palestinians face.
A random dude who picks up a gun and takes shots at armed soldiers is in my book an armed combatant. Which means that if he shoots you, you know...you can shoot back at him.
And you can. However said random dude isn't following the rules and laws of war, and you can't expect him to do so. As such he isn't granted the rights of soldier, since he isn't governed by those laws nor does have an authority to be held by.
If a soldier shot him dead, no issue. Even if in cold blood with no feeling of threat. He's not a privalidged combatant, and thus isn't given certain trusts and right via the rules of war. But he sure as fuck was a threat and thus can be legally killed.
This may seem odd to you. But there is a reason that through history, and despite how nasty the conflict gets, uniformed soldiers, tend to treat each other with the utmost respect and are rather nice. Because they are governed by a certain code and they do tend to obey it. If you grab a gun outside of these rules you're given the fate of a rabid dog.
In all honesty your better off being grabbed by a soldier than a freedom fighter. This should be obvious.
Human rights treaties apply to every person and Geneva Conventions have parts that decree the treatment of other people then soldiers as well. United States is signatory to many of these treaties and thus should abide by them. So should one of these people be captured, be they terrorists or whatever, they still have rights, even if it isn't the same rights as you would give to an uniformed combatant.
I view 'terrorism' in the post-9/11 world as any act of pre-meditated violence by a non-state actor/group that is committed on political grounds (versus personal grounds like love/hate, money, etc). That seems to be a good definition but I'm sure there is something I'm overlooking. Anyone?
I'm not sure why states should be exempt. For example the rainbow warrior bombing fits the definition for me - getting a group to act how you want by the use of terror, and it was carried out by the French intelligence services.
I view 'terrorism' in the post-9/11 world as any act of pre-meditated violence by a non-state actor/group that is committed on political grounds (versus personal grounds like love/hate, money, etc). That seems to be a good definition but I'm sure there is something I'm overlooking. Anyone?
I'm not sure why states should be exempt. For example the rainbow warrior bombing fits the definition for me - getting a group to act how you want by the use of terror, and it was carried out by the French intelligence services.
There's no reason states should be exempt. If a state is involved then it would be state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism, which are subsets of terrorism.
The reality is that "freedom fighters" is really just a piece of jingoism. It doesn't mean anything and trying to come up with an official definition of what a "freedom fighter" is will just lead to a semantic mess. History written by the victors and so on.
This was essentially my point, because you can replace "freedom fighter" with "terrorist" depending on perspective, in a lot of cases.
Which is why I tend to support "mass murdering assholes."
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Whether some military actions can be categorized as terrorism or not, United States is a known state sponsor of actual terrorism, and has over the years done it more and in greater capacity then the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that's just counting the acts that can be called terrorism (not talking about coups, assassinations, etc.).
It's not a good VS evil battle. U.S. treats it's own citizens better then Iran but that doesn't excuse it's terrible conduct everywhere else. Iran may be more loud and crude in it's similar actions, but it's still taking baby steps compared to say, the CIA. And United States has a large number of citizens sympathetic and openly supportive to these acts.
Hmm.
That really does need definition. By the same argument, both the US, Iran, Iraq and the Taliban have been accused (and / or admitted) of torture. Because they are all generally accepted to have actually tortured people, they are therefore all as bad as each other, right?
Except there's a spectrum of what is considered 'torture'. On one end is hooding naked prisoners and taking pictures of them. In the middle is cutting off parts of their body or stoning them. And at the other end is using people as human testing for chemical and biological weapons. Are they all really the same? How about the number, intent, and state acceptance of such torture? Were the RUF in Sierra Leone, who intentionally hacked off the hands of 1/4 of the population to stop them voting, really the same as the US Army hierarchy who contained some rogue soldiers who took humiliating photos of prisoners?
Yes, torture as a concept is an ethical absolute bad. But there are degrees of what is considered torture, and not all of them are equal: they are not absolute. I'm fairly sure that everyone here would rather be hooded and pointed at than used for mustard gas testing. Therefore throwing countries into the same bag because they condoned or conducted 'torture' or 'terrorism' is false logic, and pretty ignorant of the important details which make up reality.
It is a popular shibboleth in the U.S. that giving "freedom" to afghanistan will result in a wonderful western(ish) society where things like q'uran burnings are frowned upon but ultimately tolerated as expression. But even if afghanistan were to have perfectly fair and correct elections tomorrrow, that probably isn't the governing charter they'd end up with.
Yes, isn't that basically happened with Hamas in Palestine?
The people there democratically elected a party whose charter explicitly calls for religious genocide. It's hard fix something that broken.
Hamas is bad enough as they are, you don't have to lie to make them seem worse.
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
Whether some military actions can be categorized as terrorism or not, United States is a known state sponsor of actual terrorism, and has over the years done it more and in greater capacity then the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that's just counting the acts that can be called terrorism (not talking about coups, assassinations, etc.).
It's not a good VS evil battle. U.S. treats it's own citizens better then Iran but that doesn't excuse it's terrible conduct everywhere else. Iran may be more loud and crude in it's similar actions, but it's still taking baby steps compared to say, the CIA. And United States has a large number of citizens sympathetic and openly supportive to these acts.
Hmm.
That really does need definition. By the same argument, both the US, Iran, Iraq and the Taliban have been accused (and / or admitted) of torture. Because they are all generally accepted to have actually tortured people, they are therefore all as bad as each other, right?
Except there's a spectrum of what is considered 'torture'. On one end is hooding naked prisoners and taking pictures of them. In the middle is cutting off parts of their body or stoning them. And at the other end is using people as human testing for chemical and biological weapons. Are they all really the same? How about the number, intent, and state acceptance of such torture? Were the RUF in Sierra Leone, who intentionally hacked off the hands of 1/4 of the population to stop them voting, really the same as the US Army hierarchy who contained some rogue soldiers who took humiliating photos of prisoners?
Yes, torture as a concept is an ethical absolute bad. But there are degrees of what is considered torture, and not all of them are equal: they are not absolute. I'm fairly sure that everyone here would rather be hooded and pointed at than used for mustard gas testing. Therefore throwing countries into the same bag because they condoned or conducted 'torture' or 'terrorism' is false logic, and pretty ignorant of the important details which make up reality.
If only torture was America's only sin, huh?
What about when you directly finance, ally yourself with, and militarily support the regimes that perform sort of worse torture you are describing? What if you perform assassinations, military actions and coups to purposefully create the sort of conditions where such regimes thrive?
It is a popular shibboleth in the U.S. that giving "freedom" to afghanistan will result in a wonderful western(ish) society where things like q'uran burnings are frowned upon but ultimately tolerated as expression. But even if afghanistan were to have perfectly fair and correct elections tomorrrow, that probably isn't the governing charter they'd end up with.
Yes, isn't that basically happened with Hamas in Palestine?
The people there democratically elected a party whose charter explicitly calls for religious genocide. It's hard fix something that broken.
Hamas is bad enough as they are, you don't have to lie to make them seem worse.
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
Destroying Israel isn't genocide. "Israel" in most Hamas/Iran context refers to the ideal of Zionism and a Jewish State. "Jihad" doesn't mean genocide. The last one is a religious quote that most versions don't even include, and it only refers to the conflict inside the Holy Land anyway. There is no actual "all Jews must die" quote inside the charter as an official policy.
It's an anti-semitic document, obviously. It's very clearly an anti-Zionist document. It's not the same thing as a call for genocide. It does call for destruction of Israel and Zionism, but Hamas has met with Jewish sects like Neturei Karta and it's leaders at least attempt differentiate between Zionists and Jews.
Hamas is awful enough without having to twist their documents to make them look like Hitler.
Posts
Actually both terrorism and soldier are well defined.
Terrorism: violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
Soldier (privileged combatant):
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2. Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (This part relates to POWs)
4. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Overthrowing the government and setting up their own isn't a specific political goal and isn't destabilizing?
The second half of this made of fail from a logical perspective. You're asking me to agree with, or define our governments actions. I don't agree with them, nor do I fine them logical. So I honestly can't answer that one, sorryD:
As for the first, it's a sticky line. Is the person sawing off heads in advocation of Sharia law a terrorist, I'd say so. He's trying to terrorize the civilian population for a goal.
Is the person who bombs a Hummer because he see's his country as being invaded a terrorist, I'd say no, that falls into freedom fighter.
In the first case though there is no "get your Sharia on" organization in Iraq, for good reasons. In the second case though he could you know, join the army. If he did and is now fighting he'd be classified as a rogue military actor and there are rules to deal with that, if he was not you'd call him a freedom fighter (laughable term IMHO) and he's not governed by any sort of code or rules, so thus shouldn't be afforded when and if captured, the rights of a soldier.
Probably not the answer you wanted.
Well yeah, the Taliban are not terrorists, they are a quasi militia force. Not the same thing, they use terror tactics, but in this instance given their status and region it would constitute a war crime.
How about torture and some other terror-inspiring acts by committed by child soldiers of the Khmer Rouge?
The Khmer Rouge (aka Communist Party of Kampuchea) was the ruling party in Cambodia. So the acts were all official, and certainly political (though terrorism doesn't have to be restricted to political goals.) The children soldiers were official soldiers.
MyDcmbr, no, it really isn't well defined at all. The definition you posted is one of those 'uselessly vague' ones (just like the one I did!) You can tell it is, because you can reductio ad absurdum the definition into calling thousands upon thousands of acts terrorism.
Ditto with soldier. Is a child soldier a soldier? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask. What are the customs and laws of what? Guess what! Totally depends on who you ask.
edit: I really do think an argument about definition of terrorism should be in a new thread. If anyone wants to post one, I'll be happy to join in.
Torture by an uniformed soldier is a war crime, recruitment of children IIRC is also a war crime.
According to the Geneva Conventions and the recognized Rules of War a Child Soldier is not a Privileged Combatant (Soldier) period.
EDIT: Cambodia signed the Geneva Conventions in 1958.
And a war crime can't also be terrorism because why?
Child recruitment isn't a war crime as long as you follow some rules --depending on just who's rules you want to follow, that is. By which I mean, UN is OK with child soldiers aged 15+ who don't directly engage in combat and aren't forcibly recruited. At least last time I checked on it.
Are you OK with 15 year old soldiers, nstf? Or would you say those don't jive with your definition of soldier?
Not everyone has ratified the Geneva Conventions. The US is behind on them. The Geneva Conventions the US hasn't ratified don't apply to the US. So if a state hasn't ratified the Geneva Conventions, what they say about child soldiers really doesn't mean much.
Excellent, so: to you, a child soldier is or is not a soldier purely based on the Geneva Conventions, yes?
Boy, that almost seems like an awfully vague and meaningless way of defining whether or not someone is a soldier when you see them!
Murder and manslaughter aren't the same things either. I didn't create legal rules, I just have to deal with them.
As for a 15 year old soldier, not ok with it. But an enemy is an enemy and wouldn't fault someone for shooting them.
The US has ratified all the conventions. They have signed but not ratified Protocols 1 and 2. The Protocols are simply updates to the original Conventions, which still hold.
The difference if they are a soldier or not is not so important if they are openly carrying a firearm and acting in an aggressive manner. You always treat them as a privileged combatant until you know for certain that they are not.
I don't see how it is vague or meaningless. Seems pretty clear to me and easily determines how the child should be treated if he was to be captured.
That's what I meant when I said 'behind on the conventions.' Sorry for the confusion, though.
edit:
Erm, the reason it's important is because (by some definitions proposed for terrorism) terrorism is something committed by a non-state actor. So if the child soldier being state or non-state hinges on something as simple as ratification of a convention, it means that in two otherwise identical circumstances, the same act would be terrorism or would not be terrorism. Based on a signature. Of someone probably entirely uninvolved. That, to me, makes it a bad definition.
It's not a good VS evil battle. U.S. treats it's own citizens better then Iran but that doesn't excuse it's terrible conduct everywhere else. Iran may be more loud and crude in it's similar actions, but it's still taking baby steps compared to say, the CIA. And United States has a large number of citizens sympathetic and openly supportive to these acts.
Hamas showing some stupid Mickey Mouse jihad cartoon doesn't change any of these facts, or makes Muslims more inclined to support terrorism (well, maybe terrorism as United States defines it). U.S. is just smarter about it.
That is true. And if we are seriously honest, actually todays terror problems are US homegrown.
Which is largely a function of their being you know, a massive ocean between us and the people who want to attack us. We have that luxury.
Sometimes an ocean is not enough.
Freedom fighters are generally . . . you know . . . fighting for freedom.
Blowing up people in the name of restricting personal liberty hardly qualifies.
I'm sure they believe if they don't preserve tradition, their country would be worse off with all the Western influences creeping inside their borders.
Oh, I'm sure, I just take issue with the nomenclature. I think "freedom fighter" should be a term reserved for someone actually promoting freedom, not just fighting to preserve some perverse idea of their culture.
I mean, are klansmen freedom fighters, too?
Well, not secessionism alone. The CSA, for example seceded to preserve the complete opposite of freedom.
The Taleban are more of an insurgency then a terrorist group though. The old regime and so on.
Yeah no. The Taliban are an actual military, all be it a fucked up and rather messed up one. And even we define them as such. It is an organized force with leaders, they aren't terrorists (no matter how much the right might want to claim they are). They are soldiers and we treat them as such.
The iffy issue that how can you tell the difference? In a nation armed to the teeth with no official uniform who do you know is who? I mean, I can tell by looking at someone even with no uniform who is a soldier or not, and in action our soldiers are easy to see, the Taliban vs your average Afghani, not so much.
Make no mistake, a Taliban under a unit commander operating as an armed combatant is a soldier, and is entitled to a soldiers rights and governed by a soldiers laws. A random dude that picks up a gun and takes pot shots is not. The real issue is how do you know who is who? It's not like our military where its really easy to see who is a valid combatant. Hell you can probably tell the service, and rank, at a good range.
With our "enemys" it's not so clear cut. And it's hell on those who have to make the call. I can't ask you all to understand it, but I can ask you to think about for a second.
The problem with 'official' or 'lawful' or whatever combatants vs. their less legitimate counterparts isn't really what happens to them on the battlefield, where the simple right of self defense allows soldiers to respond proportionally to threats. The problem is what we do with them once they're captured.
The problem in afghanistan's specific case is that a lot of the people we are supposedly there to protect and provide with freedom and so on don't really like us very much, or at least like us less or are less afraid of us than they are of our actual enemies.
It is a popular shibboleth in the U.S. that giving "freedom" to afghanistan will result in a wonderful western(ish) society where things like q'uran burnings are frowned upon but ultimately tolerated as expression. But even if afghanistan were to have perfectly fair and correct elections tomorrrow, that probably isn't the governing charter they'd end up with.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
And you can. However said random dude isn't following the rules and laws of war, and you can't expect him to do so. As such he isn't granted the rights of soldier, since he isn't governed by those laws nor does have an authority to be held by.
If a soldier shot him dead, no issue. Even if in cold blood with no feeling of threat. He's not a privalidged combatant, and thus isn't given certain trusts and right via the rules of war. But he sure as fuck was a threat and thus can be legally killed.
This may seem odd to you. But there is a reason that through history, and despite how nasty the conflict gets, uniformed soldiers, tend to treat each other with the utmost respect and are rather nice. Because they are governed by a certain code and they do tend to obey it. If you grab a gun outside of these rules you're given the fate of a rabid dog.
In all honesty your better off being grabbed by a soldier than a freedom fighter. This should be obvious.
Yes, isn't that basically happened with Hamas in Palestine?
The people there democratically elected a party whose charter explicitly calls for religious genocide. It's hard fix something that broken.
Hamas is bad enough as they are, you don't have to lie to make them seem worse.
And West has democratically elected worse people then Hamas. In a lot less desperate situations then the Palestinians face.
Human rights treaties apply to every person and Geneva Conventions have parts that decree the treatment of other people then soldiers as well. United States is signatory to many of these treaties and thus should abide by them. So should one of these people be captured, be they terrorists or whatever, they still have rights, even if it isn't the same rights as you would give to an uniformed combatant.
I'm not sure why states should be exempt. For example the rainbow warrior bombing fits the definition for me - getting a group to act how you want by the use of terror, and it was carried out by the French intelligence services.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
There's no reason states should be exempt. If a state is involved then it would be state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism, which are subsets of terrorism.
This was essentially my point, because you can replace "freedom fighter" with "terrorist" depending on perspective, in a lot of cases.
Which is why I tend to support "mass murdering assholes."
Hmm.
That really does need definition. By the same argument, both the US, Iran, Iraq and the Taliban have been accused (and / or admitted) of torture. Because they are all generally accepted to have actually tortured people, they are therefore all as bad as each other, right?
Except there's a spectrum of what is considered 'torture'. On one end is hooding naked prisoners and taking pictures of them. In the middle is cutting off parts of their body or stoning them. And at the other end is using people as human testing for chemical and biological weapons. Are they all really the same? How about the number, intent, and state acceptance of such torture? Were the RUF in Sierra Leone, who intentionally hacked off the hands of 1/4 of the population to stop them voting, really the same as the US Army hierarchy who contained some rogue soldiers who took humiliating photos of prisoners?
Yes, torture as a concept is an ethical absolute bad. But there are degrees of what is considered torture, and not all of them are equal: they are not absolute. I'm fairly sure that everyone here would rather be hooded and pointed at than used for mustard gas testing. Therefore throwing countries into the same bag because they condoned or conducted 'torture' or 'terrorism' is false logic, and pretty ignorant of the important details which make up reality.
Man, please.
If only torture was America's only sin, huh?
What about when you directly finance, ally yourself with, and militarily support the regimes that perform sort of worse torture you are describing? What if you perform assassinations, military actions and coups to purposefully create the sort of conditions where such regimes thrive?
What does that make you then?
Destroying Israel isn't genocide. "Israel" in most Hamas/Iran context refers to the ideal of Zionism and a Jewish State. "Jihad" doesn't mean genocide. The last one is a religious quote that most versions don't even include, and it only refers to the conflict inside the Holy Land anyway. There is no actual "all Jews must die" quote inside the charter as an official policy.
It's an anti-semitic document, obviously. It's very clearly an anti-Zionist document. It's not the same thing as a call for genocide. It does call for destruction of Israel and Zionism, but Hamas has met with Jewish sects like Neturei Karta and it's leaders at least attempt differentiate between Zionists and Jews.
Hamas is awful enough without having to twist their documents to make them look like Hitler.