View Single Post
  #24  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Zhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's army
Old Apr 1st, 2010, 12:56 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
Not if they're a state.
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.


Quote:
How is shooting soldiers and blowing up military depots not inducing terror? Partisans in WWII didn't just tamper with communications, the killed off duty German soldiers and collaborators (noncombatants).
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. When you are killing collaborators, then you might be crossing a line, sure. Maybe you are killing them so that they don't help the enemy anymore, but more likely you are killing them because you don't want anyone else to do it. You are scaring others out of doing it.

The partisan movement during WWII was huge. Tens of thousands of ex-red army and local militia men fighting the German invaders, they often received orders from STAVKA, and in near the end of the war the 4th Belorussian front comprised of partisan units against the front lines of the German army. 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.

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'.


Quote:
Here's the thing, it can have military gain. Terrorism has a almost 100 percent failure rate, historically, but suicide terrorism, especially sustained campaigns, has actually proven to be effective in some instances. The US, France, Israel, all have pulled military forces out of areas as a result of suicide campaigns.
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.

Quote:
There never was a freedom fighter, only terrorists. It's all rhetoric.
True enough.


My point to you is that if you are not aiming to terrorise, and your actions don't cause terror, then are you a terrorist? I guess you could always argue that violence will always create terror SOMEWHERE, but that's a bit silly for me.

Let's say someone blows themselves up on a transit train and kills 10 people. Scares the shit out of the population, maybe even shakes the government. That's terrorism because you have used this violent tactic to strike fear into the hearts of mere men and mortals. On the other side of things, if someone blows themselves up on a troop train sending soldiers into your occupied homeland, well were you trying to scare people or are you trying to just kill enemy soldiers? Same methods, different outcomes and aims.
__________________
Reply With Quote