Osama is Dead

Remove all ads!

Why would you want to do that?

I still don't get it. You're saying that since many civilains would defend themselves against attacks from foreign invaders, there is no such thing as a non-enemy combatant?

The distinction seems really easy to me here: 9/11 was a targeted attack against civilians designed to terrorize. I'm not aware of any targeted civilian attacks in Afghanistan on the part of the US.

 

Because I'm ex British forces, Ive met US marines.

exactly, Im sure plenty of those killed in afghanistan were not aligned with the taliban, they were simply defending their home, but to the US they are the enemy.

One mans terrorist is another mans hero, this is guerilla warfare, you cannot fight an enemy which is superior to you in every way with conventional means, I dont think 9/11 would be a date in the calenders if they had attacked a US millitary base.

 

You mean like "Pearl Harbor". It is also remembered...

 

its remembered because it was a tragedy to the US, if a small group of insurgents attacked a US base and got mown down by high calibur automatic weapons.... dont think its going to have the same impact.

 

So?

Well then if there is no such thing as an non-enemy combatant, why would you mourn the loss of civilians in Afghanistan? They were enemy combatants.

You seem to have four topics rolled into one sentence there.

What does that mean? Is it somehow significant in the context of 9/11 being a targeted civilian attack?

Just stating a thing doesn't prove any points. Does that justify attacks against civilians overall?

So terrorism is a legitimate option in your view?

Well the pentagon was also targeted, which could be seen as a military institution. I don't get your point anyway ... what does that mean?

e.g. ...

Winters are harsh in Afghanistan, there have been many casualties, but flyover surveillance is technically advanced, so women should be considered equal.

 

I havent met a marine who didnt want to kill something.

I havent mourned their loss.

how? the sentence quite clearly states that it they had attacked a millitary target they wouldnt have stood a chance.

Guerilla warfare is terrorism to the people on the recieving end, to the people on the other side, they are fighting a war the only way they can.

I spent time the Ivory Coast, the British assisted the legitimate forces in training against these kind of guerilla attacks, yes 'terrorism' as you put it is a legitimate option, all is fair in war, the only thing that matters is that you win.

technically, the plane was targeted, this wasnt a bunch of extremists running up to the pentagon with guns.

it means that a bunch of extremists charging headlong into the defences of a millitary base wouldnt stand a chance, their only chance to fight a war in the US is to target the population, the IRA did exactly the same thing.

 

So what? We are speaking within a specific context. What was the title of the thread again? Bin Laden was a terrorist regarding not only the opinion of the US, but in his own opinion in that he wanted to kill as many American civilians as he could. He was not acting for any government or state, but for himself and the organization he created.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/osama-bin-laden-s-attack-plans-25205792

It depends upon what you mean by "warfare."

There is a distinction between real war and terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

He wanted to attack and kill Americans. It's not really all that difficult to understand that Americans wanted to defend themselves and their country. It's beyond foolish to believe that we should do otherwise. I agree with BoV: What exactly is your point?

 

yes, to further his holy war.

first of all, why should I give a crap what this hoffman guy thinks? you cant define the intent of an organisation into your understanding of their actions, as far as al qaeda are concerned they are fighting a holy war against the west, their tactics are the only possible means to victory, that is guerilla warfare.

Al Qaeda were alot more powerful in their hay day, they were instrumental in the defence afghanistan against the ruskies, they may have been closer to a government afghanistan has ever had then what they have today.

add that Britain and America use mercenary groups all the time, so, we are terrorist states?

havent said anything against it, Ive been drawn into this thread by disagreeing with T2's earlier post, and he wasnt even the one who commented on it.

how many times do I have to say it? my point is that civillian casualties dont matter as they are legitmate targets in war.

 

If want to believe that, but many believe this is more about policitics than a "holy war." It's funny how the "holy" are quick to kill people who have nothing to do with the "Cause." As many have pointed out time and agian, there were muslims within the twin towers, whom Bin Laden murdered in the name of "Islam." Holy wars are good covers for what is often nothing more than political, or often personal objectives, achived through "unholy" means.

Because we are attempting to agree upon a definition of "terrorism" and it is a good starting point. War is declared between nation states, not criminal organizations. Unless you also wish to consider the mafia and gangsters as "freedom fighters" as well. Nevertheless, if you bothered to read the link it helps to craft a definition that many can agree upon. That you don't agree is really your problem. There are always a few who wish to make up their own definitions when those agreed upon won't work for their personal views of reality.

Edit: And how many Muslims have they killed in Pakistan, Kenya, Afghanistan, etc? A holy war that targets and kills thousands of devout mulsims? . It reminds me of how some belived that the religious wars in Europe were really about "religion."

I just saw this:

The "holy war" goes on....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43065572/ns/slatecom/

 

You looked like you had your hands full without me joining in....

 

All we are saying, is give peace a chance.

 

Yeah, the porn stash will be a bitter pill for all OBL worshippers . Apart from that, am I the only one who finds definitions of terrorism that specifically exclude state actors a bit annoying? The way I see it, if you consciously use terror to achieve social, economic, or other goals, you engage in terrorism. To cut and smudge the definition just so "good" causes aren't included smacks of revisionism and hypocricy.

@ Harbourboy - peace has to sell to be given a chance. War, unfortunately, sells quite well among the people powerful enough to make the decisions, or rich enough to hang out with them.

 

That one always cracks me up....

 

Sorry to go back several posts, but this question was directed towards me.

I don't blame al Qauda for the actions of Blackwater, but they really weren't coalition troops. I'm trying to hink of what other war crimes you might be referring to. Abu Graib? No, I don't blame al Qaeda for that. So perhaps I should revise my previous statement to read "most" instead of "all".

 

No, it is not only annoying but frustrating. But it is important to draw a further distinction between terrorism carried out by an organization or individuals, and state terrorism, or state sponsored terrorism. I agree that populations have a degree of control over governments that engage in terrorism, and can overturn a government that is engaging in terrorism, or sponsoring terrorism against a foreign population, or even its own population. A government can even declare real war on a nation that is engaging in terrorism.

That's one of the reasons I singled out Blackwater and mercenary groups, because I believe they carry out "terror" for the US government, particularly in Iraq. Any group that is not under control of the Rule of Law can act as a state sponsored terrorist organization and can be used against a population, even parts of its own population or government.

 

by that definition, civil war and rebellion cannot exist, it is simply terrorism.

instead of looking for a definition for terrorism, look for a definition of war:

(wiki)

I think that is a very good description of what is happening at the moment.

the US are very familiar with this concept, they are called 'friendly casualties'

answer me this: if this was truly about politics, what could al qaeda possibly be attempting to achieve, I see no solid pattern, other then to simply kill those who do not agree with their religious views.

 

Causing a split between the Sunni countries that were at the time aligned with the US and becoming "legitimate" powerholder and possibly grey cardinal of the politics in Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region. IIRC Osama offered the aid of the mujahideen during the conflict that grew into the first Gulf war, but the offer was rebuffed, and Saudi Arabia offered westerners (mostly or fully Americans, iirc) bases on its soil.

Basically, I expect he wanted Al-Quida to become a more powerful, influential and active version of what some analysts believe the Muslim brotherhood isbecoming in Egypt, on top of removing Western influence over most Muslim countries. This it most likely intended to do by inflaming public opinion against westerners, and showing itself to be a champion of Islam against the infidels, thus gaining a wide base of support, both moral and material.

 

From the Minimanual of the Urgan Guerrilla:

The urban guerrilla is a person who fights the military dictatorship with weapons, using unconventional methods. A revolutionary and an ardent patriot, he is a fighter for his country's liberation, a friend of the people and of freedom. The area in which the urban guerrilla operates is in the large Brazilian cities. There are also criminals or outlaws who work in the big cities. Many times, actions by criminals are taken to be actions by urban guerrillas.

The urban guerrilla, however, differs radically from the criminal. The criminal benefits personally from his actions, and attacks indiscrimminately without distinguishing between the exploiters and the exploited, which is why there are so many ordinary people among his victims. The urban guerrilla follows a political goal, and only attacks the government, the big businesses and the foreign imperialists.

Another element just as harmful to the guerrillas as the criminal, and also operating in the urban area, is the counterrevolutionary, who creates confusion, robs banks, throws bombs, kidnaps, assassinates, and commits the worst crimes imaginable against urban guerrillas, revolutionary priests, students, and citizens who oppose tyranny and seek liberty.

The urban guerrilla is an implacable enemy of the regime, and systematically inflicts damage on the authorities and on the people who dominate the country and exercise power. The primary task of the urban guerrilla is to distract, to wear down, to demoralize the military regime and its repressive forces, and also to attack and destroy the wealth and property of the foreign managers and the Brazilian upper class.

The urban guerrilla is not afraid to dismantle and destroy the present Brazilian economic, political and social system, for his aim is to aid the rural guerrillas and to help in the creation of a totally new and revolutionary social and political structure, with the armed population in power. ​

Bolding mine. I think Carlos Marighella captured the essence of both terrorism and rebellion. The minimanual is an interesting read.

 

From your own link:

The American Civil War, for instance, was between two governments [the South established its own working government using the established state governments], and even the English Civil War was between Parliament and the Crown. As I mentioned previously, context is important. You seem to be all over the place with this one, taking definitions in and out of context when it suits your own perspective [whatever that is, since now we are suddenly looking for what defines a civil war!].

The so called "War on Terror" is an excellent example of moving progandist definitions around and in and out of context, creating a confused picture of what constitutes real war, with citizens asking, "How do we know when we have won the war?" It's a perfectly sensible question, but one that evades a clear answer, because the definition of what the War on Terror actually is keeps changing. This is more than just an abstraction, but it has real, concrete legal meaning.

For instance, are prisoners taken in the War on Terror enemy combatants? The typical prisoners of war, covered by legal conventions? Are they terrorsts [criminals]? Where and what kinds of courts should we place them on trial? What are their rights? We've spent years as a country debating these real, concrete issues, because the definition keeps changing to suit not only the War's objectives, but political ends as well. That's why the Obama administration did not want to use the "war on terror" any longer, but wanted to focus on the REAL war in Afghanistan. It makes sense if you stop and think about it.

I guess the answer to my question about the Mafia and gangsters must be that in your mind it really is real war, [the meaningless] war on drugs, since it involves two organized groups that shoot at each other. Should the Mafia now be prisoners of war, rather than criminals? Are they terrorists? You may want to consider crafting a definition within a specific context to explain your ponts, if for nothing more than clarity's sake.

 

Well there are quite a few but none of them in too large of a scale. For example some years ago a few Polish soldiers were convicted in Poland for war crimes when they shelled a wedding party in Afghanistan in an apparent act of revenge.

And then there's stuff like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOB_Ramrod_kill_team