6 ms·
The definition of terrorism is controversial and political, so there isn't a hard answer. But I think a general distinction is the targeting of combatants vs c
by stetrain 2y ago
The definition of terrorism is controversial and political, so there isn't a hard answer.
But I think a general distinction is the targeting of combatants vs civilians.
There is a difference between infiltrating military or para-military organizations or operations and intentionally targeting mass casualties of civilians for attention.
- rtsil 2y agoI don't know about that. When Al Quaeda attacked the USS Cole, a purely military vessel without a single civilian casualty, the US administration and the entire US military called it an act of terrorrism.
- stetrain 2y agoSure. "The definition of terrorism is controversial and political." How governments, media, etc. use that word is often politically loaded and not based on some agreed objective definition.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- PepperdineG 2y agoAl Qaeda isn't a nation-state so by definition it falls into terrorism. It's like if Greenpeace sunk a military vessel because the sonar was killing sea life that would be terrorism. It would have some serious side effects if it was OK for private non-governmental actors being able to target militaries and be seen as legitimate in their actions.
- anigbrowl 2y agoBut by definition the founders of the USA were terrorists. And they knew it too, viz. Benjamin Franklin's famous line 'Gentlemen, we must all hang together or we shall most assuredly hang separately.' Preemptively invalidating all non-state actors is just a way for people with power to avoid challenges to it. Every single oppressive regime describes rebels as terrorists and employs circular arguments to assert its own legitimacy. Using this to dismiss military attacks on military targets is, frankly, bullshit.
- bamboozled 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- klingoff 2y agoWhy do you assume they had your sense of ethics? 10 was often considered the age of adulthood. Little men had no specific exception from work or war, or expectation of education outside specific classes. Being a regular troop was more often from 16, but plenty fought from 10 up or had other roles in battle.
- bamboozled 2y ago1) You need to start somewhere, 2) people don't realize how good we have it today and it's because of people like the founding fathers we can enjoy this reality, going back as far as plato and socrates. There is a reason why you choose to live in a democratic society, because it's the absolute best system we've ever had, and probably will for some time.
- tharkun__ 2y agoNot to detract from any of what you said but the "founders of democracy" i.e. the ancient Greeks had some (nowadays) pretty controversial ideas vis a vis what was considered OK and normal about things like child exploitation, slavery, sexual exploitation etc.
- za3faran 2y agoWho says "kill the infidels"?
- bamboozled 2y agohttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1726739588457156922.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1726739588457156922.html I think you're either trolling, really out of touch with reality, but here is an excerpt from the above: 2. We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted, a matter that doesn’t concern you because you separate between religion and state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power. In doing so, you desire to rob Allah of His right to be obeyed and you wish to usurp that right for yourselves. “Legislation is not but for Allah” (Yusuf 40). Your secular liberalism has led you to tolerate and even support “gay rights,” to allow alcohol, drugs, fornication, gambling, and usury to become widespread, and to encourage the people to mock those who denounce these filthy sins and vices. As such, we wage war against you to stop you from spreading your disbelief and debauchery – your secularism and nationalism, your perverted liberal values, your Christianity and atheism – and all the depravity and corruption they entail. You’ve made it your mission to “liberate” Muslim societies; we’ve made it our mission to fight off your influence and protect mankind from your misguided concepts and your deviant way of life. Is that enough for you? The part about "waging war against non believers caught my eye", how about you?
- jhanschoo 2y agoOf course, if we consider all actions by non-state combatants against state military actors to be terrorism, the US and Western Europe has frequently been a big sponsor of terrorism. A recent cause that many are sympathetic to of this nature that immediately comes to my mind are the Kurds in Syria during the Syrian civil war.
- aziaziazi 2y ago> Greenpeace sunk a military vessel Funny exemple knowing France sunk a Greenpeace vessel. That act has been called "state terrorism". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warri...
- bamboozled 2y ago[flagged]
- rowanseymour 2y agoHezbollah is the government in southern Lebanon so when you throw around "combatant" you're including a lot of civil servants, doctors, teachers etc.
- bawolff 2y agoWere those people targeted or only the hezbollah military wing? So far it seems like there isn't much specific info out there on this point.
- y-curious 2y agoNo info, yet. Still curious how they went from supply chain to the end targets. It's not like Hezbollah leaders met with a guy in a trenchcoat and were told "only hand this out to your top guys, these pagers/walkies are really good!"
- bawolff 2y agoIts not out of the realm of possibility something like that happened. In other countries, organized crime have been taken down using tactics somewhat like that (i.e. convince the person responsible for procurement in the gang to buy bulk cell phones from some black market dealer that was actually a cop and put listening devices in the phones)
- dralley 2y agoIn the same way that Los Zetas (and other cartels) are the unofficial government of parts of Mexico.
- lupusreal 2y ago> But I think a general distinction is the targeting of combatants vs civilians When Afghans took up arms against occupying American soldiers, they were routinely called terrorists in American press and media. When Muslims fight America or Israel, they are called terrorists. When the situation is reversed, that label isn't applied.
- stetrain 2y agoRight. "The definition of terrorism is controversial and political" Although I mostly recall the word "insurgent" being used for local fighters in those cases.
- gryzzly 2y agoYou should read up about the difference between Muslims and Islamists and how bad the Islamists are for Islamic communities themselves.
- lupusreal 2y agoLet me guess, the ones you term to be "Islamists" are those who fight America or Israel. Most of the Afghan fighters who took shots at American soldiers weren't motivated by some sort of boogieman religious extremism. They were simply shooting at armed foreigners who invaded their country. They weren't terrorists by any reasonable definition of the but were called so anyway because they happened to be Muslim and dared to defy America.
- gryzzly 2y agoI term Islamists the ones who claim themselves to be Islamists – Islamist Republic of Iran, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas. It shows you have no idea what are you talking about.
- gryzzly 2y agoand supporting the narrative pushed by the Islamists is harming the Muslims, resulting in Islamophobia. The fact you are mixing the two terms to simply "mark these who attack America" is actually really bad for the normal people affiliated with Islam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islamism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islamism
- numpad0 2y agoThe entire US is going to freak out if a platoon of KGB soldiers flew into US and killed hundreds of bad guys. How objectively bad the "victims" might have been isn't going to matter. You can't just walk across a recognized international border and do the "right" thing without a consent, regardless of how right or wrong it had been. That's an act of war, technically.
- stetrain 2y agoAs far as I know in this case both sides have already attacked each other via bombs, airstrikes, rockets, etc. I'm not really making a judgement on whether this was ethical or justified. There's just a distinction to be made from intentionally killing civilians for the purpose of causing terror versus targeting a group that you are in an open military hostility with. The second one, as you say, is basically just war. And war has historically also included civilian casualties. Flying a plane full of civilians into a building full of civilians, or detonating a bomb in a public square full of civilians, are pretty clear examples of what "terrorism" is. They aren't actions meant to directly attack the capability of an enemy to wage war against you. What governments and media choose to label "terrorism" or "terrorist groups" however is inherently political and not done following some agreed, objective definition.
- gryzzly 2y agothe operation targets operatives of a terrorist organization, not civilians. they use it as secure communication over mobile phones to not be easily locatable. is that lost on you, that it’s targeting the communication used by combatants?
- stetrain 2y agoI haven’t said anything that disagrees with that. Might want to re-read my comment above in this thread.
- yieldcrv 2y agoRight, that is the (weak) counterpoint from that region They’ve been at war for 50 years, like, officially the war declaration was never dropped. So recent missile volleys can’t be treated in isolation, despite that making sense