I keep seeing this notion tossed around in other threads:
“America is no better than Al Quaeda because their military bombed/killed civilians.”
“Israel is no better than Hammas et al. because their military bombed/killed civilians.”
"Russia is no better than the Chechnya Rebels…
you should the point by now.
So there’s the debate: is there a difference between a military killing civilians through collateral damage, and a terrorist group killing civilians intentionally?
I’ve been told before when posing this question that what I see as “military actions” is a very new and very Western belief not shared around the world, is that true?
of course there is. This is another example of the “open-mind fallacy” (probably the ultimate example of it) I was talking about in the suicide bomber solution thread. Note that the open-mind fallacy is quite new; only appeared about a decade ago. Prior to that most people had enough common sense to avoid it.
what’s the difference?
terrorism = intentional targeting of civilians
collateral damage = accidental, unintended deaths of civilians
Now, of course, when you have a group whose “military actions” are expressly the intentional killing of civilians, then you have a problem, but it doesn’t mean the two terms are equal … morally or in any other way.
That’s just spin. When they attack soldiers they’re not terrorosts - they’re guerillas. That still doesn’t make them legit, though.
You see, it’s all about uniforms. Soldiers wear uniforms, terrorists (and guerillas) do not. That may sound trite to you, but it’s not. You see, camo patterns nonwhistanding, the purpose of a uniform is to draw fire. A soldier says: “don’t shoot at the civilians - shoot at me”. A terrorist/guerilla says: “don’t shoot at me - shoot at the civilians”. Soldiers stand in front of those they’re supposed to be protecting; terorists/guerillas stand behind them.
Soldiers take group responsibility for their actions. Assholes who fight in civilian clothing dump that resonsibility on their community.
It is noce to live in such a simple, black and white, world. the purpose of camouflage is to draw fire, eh? Only regular armed forces are legit, eh? I do not remember the State of Israel being created by “legit” armed forces in nice uniforms. What I remember looks more like terrorism by your definition.
The fact is that trying to simplify things by labeling them just does not work. Your terrorist is the next guy’s freedom fighter. The USA continues to use weapons which many countries around the world consider unacceptable because of their indiscriminate killings. Land mines and cluster bombs come to mind. Many iraqis would say the USA is the biggest terroirst of them all.
These things are a matter of grade and a matter of point of view. There are no absolutes. Nobody is so guilty he does not have some justification. Nobody is so clean he does not bear some guilt.
Sailor, do you have any idea how radical I was being by saying that civilian (because what is a guerilla but a civilian with a gun) attacks on soldiers were semi-legitimate? Especially when I am, occasionally, a soldier myself? It seems as though you are more interested in disagreeing with me than I am in disagreeing with you.
All that I’m saying is that it’s a matter of responsibility. When a soldier commits an atrocity, his entire army is responsible, as is the government that sent him, as is the population that elected the government. That’s the essence of civilization - group responsibility. Ben Gurion never shook off responsibility for the actions of hi militia; neither did George Washington and the Continental Congress,
Let’s put this another way: Terrorists have a distinct advantage over a regular army. If soldiers kill terrorists, or someone on the terrorists side, the terrorist has the right to kill any soldier he can find - anyone who looks like a soldier - because hey, they all work together. And soldiers are pretty easy to find, what with the uniforms and all.
On the other hand, if a terrorist kills a soldier, or someone on the soldier’s side, what can the army do? It can’t just shoot someone who looks like the terrorist, because he looks like a civilian, and killing civilians is wrong. So the army can either do the wrong thing - punish the entire civilian population in order to stop the terrorists - or they can lose. No army has the right to lose. Losing a war is a war crime.
So that’s the problem with guerillas and terrorists. By their very exsitance, they cause pain and suffering to their own people. Now, at times this may be justified. I believe that the Palestinians have been justified in many of their actions (not that I care much - I’m not fighting because I thing that I’m right and they’re wrong). And guerilla warfare is perfectly legitimate if the enemy is attacking civilians anyway. Still, there’s a problem here that you should be aware of.
Thats just my opinion. I don’t think that armies can commit terrorist acts. The can commit atrocities and war crimes, which are just as bad. But they’re not the same thing.
If more people could fully understand that, we would not be so quick to go to war.
I don’t excuse 9-11 anymore than I do our dropping the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians.
For some reason, many Americans have come to believe that we are immune to propaganda and that we are always the good guys. We fight only for righteous causes.
Even when the lies become blatant, many American’s excuse their leaders from accountibility and continue to believe that we are serving the cause of freedom.
I realize that there are shades of gray that I am not addressing.
"Your terrorist is the next guy’s freedom fighter. "
This is the best possible example of the open-mind fallacy I had been talking about on some other threads. It’s a cute quote but it’s complete and utter bullshit. Everything is not relative regarding classification of actions.
How many of you have ever dropped a few coins into a collection for the IRA?
I’ve heard so many American opinions on war - some condemnatory and some downright “bloodlusty”. Many think Bush was right to wage war on Saddam - hot on the heels of “9-11” I think Saddam should be taken out, yes. I hear the voices of the Iraqi people living in London and how their families suffered at his hand (whole families killed) and then wonder how those who have dropped their coins into the terrorist collection boxes can justify doing just that? Do explain please…
Well, I think that’s the proof of the statement which Kalt rubbished (one man’s terrorist, etc). Funnily enough in recent months the letters page of An Phoblacht has been full of diatribes from Irish-Americans angry about Sinn Féin’s opposition to the war in Iraq. The difference, in Irish republican eyes, is that the IRA’s war was an anti-imperialist one.
I think you’re overestimating the number of Americans who ever donated to the IRA, in any event.
Um, no, this is statement of fact which can be true or false. I say it is true and obvious. Palestinian suicide bombers are considered terrorists by some and heroes by pthers. You may not like it, but that is the way it is and denying it only puts you in error which is not a good position to find solutions to anything.
The whole point of the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” statement is to imply that terrorism is relative. It’s not. Maybe one man’s freedom fighter is a terrorist. That doesn’t justify the terrorism because some idiot thinks he’s fighting for freedom. Blowing up civilians is mutually exclusive from fighting for freedom.
It’s the “I have such an open mind that I’m able to see this from their point of view” thing… just switch the parties around and presume that the situation still holds true. That’s the open-mind fallacy.
Maybe easy to see, but not necessarily easy to get at. I suspect that most terrorists would prefer to attack the enemy army as opposed to its civilians, but tend to be hopelessly outmatched. Not to defend terrorism, but don’t you think it’s more likely a means of last resort as opposed to a deliberate choice to attack civilians over attacking soldiers?
Yes, but I imagine it’s a lot easier to moralize when you are on the side with the powerful army and nuclear weapons. If a 250-pound man attacks a schoolgirl, and she kicks him in the balls, does he have the right to complain that she fought dirty?
How about if some schoolgirl goes and finds some random guy on the football team and kicks him in the balls? That’s great that those terrorists have a cause they feel is nobel but that doesn’t change the fact that they are targeting innocent people who probably have nothing to do with their stupid cause and want nothing more than to go about their daily business.
Hey…I guess if it’s ok to kill innocent people on order to further a cause then guess I’m ok with our government doing whatever is necessary to protect our way of life. Works both ways.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by blowero *
**Maybe easy to see, but not necessarily easy to get at. I suspect that most terrorists would prefer to attack the enemy army as opposed to its civilians, but tend to be hopelessly outmatched. Not to defend terrorism, but don’t you think it’s more likely a means of last resort as opposed to a deliberate choice to attack civilians over attacking soldiers?
**
[quote]
Actually, I don’t, and I have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise. I believe terrorists attack civilians because it’s easier - that they’d rather kill 10 civilians than kill 4 soldiers. What’s imortant to them is the killing itself, not who they kill.
**
First of all, while might may not make right, neither does weakness. That 250 lb. guy may have a damn good reason to attack the little brat. Second, if she’s fighting dirty, than he has a right to fight dirty as well - and he can probably fight much dirtier than she can. Once the rules go out the window, they go out the window for everyone.
>> Once the rules go out the window, they go out the window for everyone
No, Not at all. I will never support my or any country comitting terrorism or crimes of war just because the other guys did it. Never. Ever. That is the difference between us and them.
blowero-------
“Maybe easy to see, but not necessarily easy to get at. I suspect that most terrorists would prefer to attack the enemy army as opposed to its civilians, but tend to be hopelessly outmatched. Not to defend terrorism, but don’t you think it’s more likely a means of last resort as opposed to a deliberate choice to attack civilians over attacking soldiers?”
By definition,terrorism is specifically aimed at the civilian population.