Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Well, then they are a terrorist state. Usually. Or more aptly, a 'rogue' state. I like that. Haha. Rogue from what? Rogue from doing what we think you should be doing.
|
No, read my responses to Ant. They'd be a state conducting state terror.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Well that's where I look at aims. Are you shooting soldiers to scare the soldiers, or are you shooting them because they are shooting you, or because they will shoot you tomorrow, or because they killed your family, or because they will kill another family or friendly soldiers? It can be revenge, it can be a genuine military goal, but if your aim is anything less than inspiring terror, I personally don't think it counts.
|
You are looking at individual's acts, not the overall goals of the terrorist group. By this definition there are no terrorists. Also I have distinguished that it is terrorism if the target is a noncombatant so engaging a soldier out on patrol would not be terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
They weren't trying to get the German government to recognise their rights, they were just trying to hamper the military as much as possible. If that involves killing soldiers, blowing up trains, whatever, then so be it. They didn't do it to scare anyone, so I don't see it as terrorism. Did they sometimes utilise terror tactics? Sure. As you pointed out, they killed collaborators. The people who did that were terrorists.
|
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Really, you are saying that ANY fighting is terrorism, since even shooting back at an enemy soldier is inducing terror in the now dead soldier's family back home, or the squad mates. If all fighting is terrorism then it sort of defeats the purpose of there being 'fighting' and 'terrorism'.
|
They have to be targeting noncombatants: off duty soldiers or civilians. They also have to be non state actors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Well I don't know what you mean by terrorism anymore. Anyway, I don't think that the success of such operations have anything to do with the morals of them. I do think that peaceful negotiating and "ethical" armed resistance has probably done better in the eyes of history than killing civilians.
|
I defined terrorism previously. Morality is ambiguous, as demonstrated by your use of "ethical" armed resistance. Is it ethical for you to kill my brother just because he's a soldier occupying your homeland? From my perspective, no. What morality has to do with sucess is when a effective tactic is found but it would normally be unjustifiable, such as suicide terrorism, there can be ways to morally justify it. The Russian civilians in the subways were Russian citizens. They pay taxes which finance the Russian military who are the enemy. They are part of the enemy. Killing them is like killing a soldier.
Right there you have the justification for killing innocent people. You just have to make them not innocent.