Define a terrorist.

[LeMask]

- I asked for your view-point on the bombing of Belgrade. If you are unaware of the Balkan situation of the late 20th century, then ignore the question.

For your info., my question was based not upon what happened in the bombing of Belgrade, but that the bombing of Belgrade happened ; that was what I was looking for from you.

I'm sorry for not giving you an answer. But my knowledge of the situation is pretty poor.
I dont know much about Asia's history. And in some part of Africa.

My knowledge is much better when it comes to Middle East, and Western Europe, America, and North Africa.

I have a hard time making a difference between Serbs and Croats... I cant even tell you if they were at war or if it was another faction. I know that there was a war back then and that the US under clinton intervened in the area, I know about the massacres... But who did that and who stopped them... Anyway... The situation isnt clear in my mind.

But I do think that bombing civilian areas is criminal. Because you are bound to hit non-fighting personnel... And I grew up in a world where "nobody can afford innocent blood on his hand" was the word of order.

My father would throw me in a prison himself if I harmed someone who was innocent. Being his son wouldnt protect me at all...

 

[SHERMAN]

There are no black and white rules to this situations. If you bomb a house in a residential area and kill the head of a terror group that kills houndreds of people...Than it is worth colleteral damage to civilians.

 

[Topmaul]

There is no question that it was a military operation. They attacked a military unit, they were wearing uniform, and they declared their intentions to do it. The fact that it was uncalled for is somthing else.



On the contrary, the first people who should discuss how to use force in an honorable way are soldiers. Civilians can chat all day long and not understand a thing about military operations in civilian areas.

Of course I was not serious with that comment.

 

[major liability]

There are no black and white rules to this situations. If you bomb a house in a residential area and kill the head of a terror group that kills houndreds of people...Than it is worth colleteral damage to civilians.

But how many civilians will join said terrorists' cause when their family members are flattened in their homes? Collateral damage always carries a greater price than just the senseless deaths.

 

[LeMask]

Major liability, you are absolutely right... But it's not just the people who lost family members in the attack who would join.

You can even think about it at the world's scale. There is people who dont like to see civilians wasted all over the world...

But the question is would you ignore collateral damage if it was your own people?

And we all know that terrorists dont have that much trouble recruiting... I hear about the Taliban loosing soldiers everyday... But yet... They are still there.

I think that victories are all about image nowadays.

As long as a country like USA have the image of an invading force fighting for its interests... There will be people ready to fight against it.

France was once a colonial empire. And in its colonies there was people ready to die to fight her.

 

[major liability]

Personally, I think the idea of winning hearts and minds is flawed at the core. Anyone with a shred of pride would never be caught dead collaborating with a foreign invader, even one that says it wants to help you. Even with the best intentions, an invasion is going to leave hundreds of thousands dead as a result, destroy a lot of infrastructure, and directly affect your daily life in a BIG way. The previous regime would have to be downright evil and incredibly oppressive to the average Joe for any of its former subjects to switch sides to the foreigners who have caused so much misery in their country.

 

[A Can of Man]

And you realize that this is why terrorist love hanging out in residential areas. They do it deliberately to give us no other choice but to open up fighting in these areas. Then they break out the cameras or allow the press to show up and take videos (which they normally would never allow at any other time).
It reminds me of something that happened in the Korean War.
Communist guerillas would open fire while taking cover behind a crowd of refugees because they knew Americans would be reluctant to open fire. Eventually enough was enough. If the civilians don't want to be shot in the cross fire, they have a responsibility to make sure that these people are not able to use them as shields.
The funny thing is, there's been anti-American sentiment about this in the near past about how they opened up on the crowds but there hasn't been a drop of criticism against the guerillas for deliberately using the civilians for cover.
Hypocracy.
You got innocent people there?
We got innocent people here.

You want to win hearts and minds? People usually back the side they think are going to win. Think about that.

 

[LeMask]

Well Redneck, the terrorists have less options than the professional soldiers they are facing.

If they are hiding behind civilians, you move out. And you will catch them another day before they find civilians to hide behind.

It's not a game. You dont get points for killing terrorists but by keeping civilians safe.

You have to keep in mind the real objectives... It's not a game.

And you cant say "I was forced to kill these civilians." You just had to give up on killing the enemy in that situation.

This is why we dont send the military in hostage situations. We send special units from the police Etc...

The day they will send tanks with kids attached to their armor against you... In that situation... Maybe... But as long as the option of giving up is there, you have to use it.

 

[A Can of Man]

You're right, it's not a game. That's why when it's necessary, their human shields will go with them.
Actually in hostage situations, many of the special operations people are military. You fail to realize that a great deal of military expenditure actually goes to equipment and technology that is designed to reduce civilian casualties. Or else, there really would be little use for the JDAM or a guided 2.75 rocket.
No LeMask, you can't give up because they just stand civilians somewhere or else that will be how they work 100% of the time and we might as well just pack it up and hand it over to them every time. Enjoy your French wine while you can, it's illegal under Sharia Law. And you know they kill civilians without even batting an eyelid.

 

[LeMask]

I make a difference between the military and the police. I know that there is units like the SAS who are like special forces in the military...

But when there is robbers in a bank we dont call for the Marines. It's up to the SWAT to intervene. You see what I mean.

And I dont think that the terrorists can always manage to find civilians to hide behind. There is always the option of calling off the attack.

This is problem with terrorists, you cant use your offensive power against them at its full capacity. The military are trying to solve this problem by upgrading their weapons in accuracy...

You cant just go anywhere you want blasting... There is people who live there. And since when being an hostage is a crime?
Killing the hostages isnt a solution.

And what's with the wine? you have something against french wine? or is the french you hate?

And I've been around mate. I dont fear the Sharia laws...

and thanks for the info. They kill civilians without even batting an eyelid... I hope you are not like them.

 

[SHERMAN]

Listen LeMask, there are some areas where its simply impossible to get to the bad guys without risking the population. Gaza, the Lebanese south, both very good exanples. And let me tell you the population isent as stupid as you think they know that they are hurting becaues the terrorists are hiding behind them.

 

[BritinBritain]

In what respect would the bombing of innocent civilians from the air differ from this, to take an example Harris's campaign to bomb the will out of German civilians?

Right or wrong, the bombing of German cities tied up thousands of valuable fighting men and much needed equipment including fighter aircraft away from the front lines to protect those cities, as did the Dambusters raid result in men and equipment being sent to the area to protect the dams from further air attack. Terrorism is another thing altogether.

 

[A Can of Man]

No LeMask I don't have anything against French wine or the French (usually). Don't fear Shariah law? Well I'm sure you're perfectly happy with being stoned to death if you fall out of line.
LeMask, you know how SWAT even came about? Initially such high stakes operations were mounted by the military. SAS, Delta Force, GIGN are all military and they have all taken part in such "SWAT" operations in their own countries and in friendly countries with limited hostage rescue experience.
Let me put it this way, if the Communist forces were successfully able to use human shields every single time do you think there would be a free South Korea? There wouldn't. Because that would be the jinx, civilian "refugees" would follow Communist formations everywhere and fighting them would an absolute impossibility.
Or for that matter, World War II would have been lost had targeting of civilians been completely ruled out.
LeMask, THINK.
The real bad guys are the ones who use civilians for cover.

 

[Aaren]

WHAT IS TERRORISM ?

Terrorism can be defined as "the deliberate creation of fear to bring out political change." (dictionary.com) All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence. These violent acts are usually committed by nongovernmental groups or individuals who are either part of or officially serving in the military, law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies, or other governmental agencies of an established nation. Terrorists attempt not only to create panic but also to weaken confidence in the government and the political leadership of the target country. Terrorism therefore is designed to have psychological effects that reach farther beyond the impact on the immediate victims of an attack. Terrorists mean to frighten and therefore scare a wider crowd, such as a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country and its political control, or the entire international community. Terrorist groups are generally small and have few members, limited firepower, and other resources. For this reason they rely on intense bloody and destructive acts of hit-and-run violence to attract attention totheir group and their cause. Through the media they are able to create a larger voice for themselves and create hostilities among people.
--------------------
Aaren


Search Engine Optimization

 

[wolfen]

Well...
A terrorist in it's modern meaning as I see it:
A person intentionaly commiting acts of violence against civilians and civilian targets(of non-stratigic nature) in order to further a political or ideological agenda.

This includes diffrent militias wearing uniform, its not the cloths that make the terrorist its the actions.

Hey Redneck read this, SHERMAN's definition is WAY better than mine was