Is the killing of these Marines in Iraq a terrorist act?

[John_Corrado]

@RedFury

Correct. But you should also remember the invasion itself was avoidable, and therefore so too were all of it’s casualtie…

And what invasion/war wasn’t avoidable? Certainly the U.S. could have stayed out of World War II, even after Pearl Harbor was bombed- just declared it not something we wanted to be involved with and stayed neutral. Stalin could have spontanteously disintegrated the Soviet Union and passed over to the Nazis whatever they wanted; Chamberlain could have decided that Poland wasn’t worth defending, and let Hitler run over Europe.

All war is avoidable. To decry certain casualties as ‘murderous’ simply because the war was ‘avoidable’ is foolish, as all war is avoidable. Was the bombing of Germany ‘murderous’ during World War II because industrial facilities (regardless of who lived near them or were currently working in them) were hit?

[What_Exit]

@John Corrado

And what invasion/war wasn’t avoidable? Certainly the U.S. could have stayed out of World War II, even after Pearl Harbor was bombed- just declared it not something we wanted to be involved with and stayed neutral. Stalin could have spontanteously disintegrated the Soviet Union and passed over to the Nazis whatever they wanted; Chamberlain could have decided that Poland wasn’t worth defending, and let Hitler run over Europe.

All war is avoidable. To decry certain casualties as ‘murderous’ simply because the war was ‘avoidable’ is foolish, as all war is avoidable. Was the bombing of Germany ‘murderous’ during World War II because industrial facilities (regardless of who lived near them or were currently working in them) were hit?

Hey, I’m on your side but a lot of people do feel what we did to Dresden was murderous. (Obviously Hiroshima has almost as many opponents as supporters even in this country)
I think our tactics in Iraq are relatively sound. The soldiers have itchy trigger fingers because all the attacks on them do come from ambush. The need more armor, more dogs, more whatever will let them do their job without being killed and minimize killing bystanders.

I think we went to war vs. Hussein for outright lies, but I favored the war to finally get Saddam out. Bush senior was a jerk for stopping the advance in first gulf war.

[John_Mace]

Not a terrorist action, for the same reason others have posted. Fighting armed soldiers is not terrorism. Deliberately killing civiians is terrorism.

I’ll let John C. and RF slug it out over the “equivalence” of civilian deaths. Clearly the two sides aren’t equivalent in a moral sense, but just how close they are on the morality scale depends on your feelings about the war. To say they are no different is to abondon all concepts of morality and is the same as saying that all actions are the same, everywhere.

[RedFury]

@John Mace

I’ll let John C. and RF slug it out over the “equivalence” of civilian deaths. Clearly the two sides aren’t equivalent in a moral sense, but just how close they are on the morality scale depends on your feelings about the war. To say they are no different is to abondon all concepts of morality and is the same as saying that all actions are the same, everywhere.

'fraid I’m going let John C shadow-box this one all on his own. I’ve said about all I have to say on this topic for this is about the third almost consecutive thread that I’ve written on same – and if anything else needed to be said, tagos’ expressed it beautifully in this post.

For those of you that still believe in your moral superiority, well, hell, as someone once said: “I imagine at least six different things that aren’t true…and that’s before breakfast.”

Enjoy.

[Frostillicus]

@John Corrado

And what invasion/war wasn’t avoidable? Certainly the U.S. could have stayed out of World War II, even after Pearl Harbor was bombed- just declared it not something we wanted to be involved with and stayed neutral. Stalin could have spontanteously disintegrated the Soviet Union and passed over to the Nazis whatever they wanted; Chamberlain could have decided that Poland wasn’t worth defending, and let Hitler run over Europe.

All war is avoidable. To decry certain casualties as ‘murderous’ simply because the war was ‘avoidable’ is foolish, as all war is avoidable. Was the bombing of Germany ‘murderous’ during World War II because industrial facilities (regardless of who lived near them or were currently working in them) were hit?

This is a really silly argument. It’s not just that this war was avoidable, it’s that George W. Bush and friends were chomping at the bit to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, and they weren’t about to let the UN, the CIA, or world opinion deter them from their goal. To compare our involvement in this war with our involvement in WWII and claim they were both equally avoidable is just ludicrous.

[furt]

@I Love Me

were the people who killed these Marines in Iraq terrorists? Why or why not? Show your work.

They may be “terrorists” insofar as they, or organizations they are a part of, committed terrorist acts at other times. But this was a legitimate guerilla attack.

[tagos]

@Neurotik

Well, yes, but I thought we were talking about tactics in general, not just in regards to this specific Iraq invasion.

No doubt, that’s why aerial bombardment in civilian areas is an impractical tactic in real life. It just turns the tide against you.

Possibly, but that’s only speculation. And, in any case, I doubt that’s the objective of most of the terrorists.

That’s just stupid. Under what possible definition is an invasion of a country terrorism, whether under false pretenses or not? Terrorism is a tactic. Attacking a country under false pretenses may or may not employ terrorism, but the simple act does not.

You seem to not actually be aware of the definition of terrorism. Please let me help you so you don’t continue to make a fool of yourself:
ter·ror·ism: violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

Indiscriminate use of firepower may well be immoral, I am not going to argue the contrary. But that does not make it terrorism

I’m sorry I’m not going to carry on a discussion in GD with someone who adopts this tone in case I stoop to your level.

[Neurotik]

@tagos

I’m sorry I’m not going to carry on a discussion in GD with someone who adopts this tone in case I stoop to your level.

Whatever.

[black_rabbit]

Nope. Not terrorist.

Since there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of debate about it, here are a couple of related questions, mostly hypothetical.

[ol]
[li]Are the attacks against the nascent Iraqi police forces terrorist acts?[/li][li]If Zarqawi set off a bomb in a crowded marketplace with the specific aim of killing a single soldier or police officer, and that bomb also killed a couple of dozen civilians in addition to its intended target, is it a terrorist act?[/li][li]By the same token, and with a nod to tagos, if we were to find out that OBL planned the 9/11 attacks specifically to take out the CIA office at the WTC, and saw the resulting civilian casualties as unavoidable collateral damage, would it be correct to consider 9/11 a terrorist act?[/li][li]Was the attack against the Pentagon a terrorist act?[/li][/ol]

My answers:

1. No. Police, as agents of an enemy government, are fair game.
   2-4) Yes. I consider any attack that will knowingly result in the garunteed deaths of civilians to be terrorist, no matter how justified the primary target is.

However, I feel the same way about the bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Dresden, and, more recently, Serbia.

If I were to take a more utilitarian view of collateral damage, I dunno. I don’t really see a way to reconcile the implicit contradictions.