Muslim Terrorists

[ilw]

there is some room for interpretation of the definition of terrorism, but IMO a critical point of it is that the attacks are directed against non-combatants. In the example given the Americans claim there was military significance, whether they were right on this occasion or whether attacks incidentally killed civilians doesn't really make any difference when trying to categorise them objectively. It all hinges on whether their aim was to target indiscriminately and so scare the populace into thinking that anyone is a target, or whether they were targeting combatants and people/property used/supporting these combatants.

[noname12]

meh... lol comes down to your point of view bro, like i said both sides claim it to be legit military targets, the "terrorists" consider US embasies in the mid east and such places to be propagating against there ideals, allowing CIA to get in, sponsoring rebels and so on, i mean try like me to look at it from there point of view and you'll see what i'm talking about, to them these are all legit targets, to palestine the Israeli's are all occupiers, according to basic military rules occupiers are fair game, some one steals a piece of your land you have the right to kick there ass, type of thing, America sees a camera thinks its a grenade launcher, bombs the hell out of reporters hotel room, shoots out a TV station... meh to them it fair game, to Iraqi's its terrorism, a malaysian bombs a night club killing civilians for no reason, he comes out says "its a tool that is used to destroy our way of life" bla bla... terrorism to us, legit target to others,
to alot of people we are the terrorists,
and to another majority we are the victims.
guess we wont know until we die

[ilw]

I would agree perhaps that bombing an embassy that is providing support is a valid target and wouldn't class that as terrorism, however, attacking a way of life or a civilian population (like the nightclub bombing) is unequivocally terrorism. I'm sure the geneva convention defines what are and are not legitimate targets, if u wish to argue whether the Geneva convention is valid or not please go ahead and make your case.

[noname12]

lol the convention is way over my head but like i said people have there own conventions VIEW DAMN IT VIEW lol i also step down a little and agree with some of what you say, so lets agree that there are obvious acts of terrorism which can be universally defined... and there are alot more that cannot...

[nikita69]

Originally posted by ilw@7 September 2003 - 08:36
In the example given the Americans claim there was military significance, whether they were right on this occasion or whether attacks incidentally killed civilians doesn't really make any difference when trying to categorise them objectively.

correct my interpretation if i misunderstood u w/this sentence.

categorization comes before innocent human life? figuring out their intention, comes before innocent human life?

[ilw]

I didn't say categorisation should come before human life, I don't even really understand what that means.
My meaning was that if civilians are not the target, but their deaths are unavoidable in pursuing military targets, then that is not the same as targeting civilians.

[noname12]

eh i agree with you there ilw.... funny thing is... same could be said for the other guys

[MagicNakor]

To quote an oft-used phrase: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[sabbath]

Thats why it is perfectly justifiable to say that someone who straps themself with bombs is a terrorist and someone who orders the bombing of a school (I'm assuming it has some military significance) is not a terrorist.

A country that attacked 4 other countries during the past 10 years should expect this kind of remarks.

Military acts are also governed by laws and treaties, so there are also war criminals, just like in real life we have regular criminals (terrorists etc).

It's not the way of life, or any of that bs. Come on guys and girls.

They take Serbia, they are in the Balcans, they take Iraq they are in the Middle East.

[ilw]

yep I completely agree with many of the comments u make and as u look around this section of the forum u see a lot of comments and perhaps antagonism is directed at America. However, America could go on a murderous conquering rampage throughout asia or europe, killing millions as they go; all completely unjustified and in breach of all treaties, however, that still wouldn't make them terrorists.