-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:45 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Definition of terrorism(WAS The politicization of the Iraq War
I assume this is to me?
I thought I had already said, but maybe not clearly enough. Foreign
soldiers on your own soil are military targets, not terrorist targets.
I actually do NOT think attacks on US troops in Iraq are justified
since at this point they are merely trying to keep the peace afaik,
but this does not make these *terrorist* attacks. In the minds of the
people doing the attacking, they may well be defending their country.
The same applies to British troops in Northern Ireland. Unjustified,
but not *terrorist* either.
My own personal definition makes the distinction between civilian and
soldier. When the IRA started blowing up pubs because soldiers were
known to go to them, that was terrorism. When they were putting
package bombs on the Underground and killing random English, that was
terrorism. Kidnapping journalists and aid workers is terrorism. So is
beheading communications technicians.
The line gets fuzzier when you get to people like contractors that
drive military supply trucks and intelligence specialist contractors,
but I am still inclined to think that people who do not carry a gun
are not legitimate military targets.
Bombing a campsite frequented by Israeli families or killing
schoolchildren is beyond the pale and not only reprehensible but DUMB
and counterproductive.
Dana
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:27:41 -0500, Andy Ousterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Diana,
> If anything, I would think that we would understate civilian deaths. But
> the
> question still stands: At what point does a military attack become
> terrorist?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:05 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Definition of terrorism(WAS The politicization of the Iraq
> War
>
> do we know this for a fact? Not trying to start a flame here, but...
> isn't the consensus that our intelligence in this area really sucks?
>
> Dana
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:02:02 -0500, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I agree that the target of the violence is a huge factor in
determining
> > terrorism.
> >
> > I don't agree though, that you can make a clean break in the case of
> Iraq.
> > The groups that are attacking the US are the same groups that are
> killing
> > Iraqi civilians, beheading journalists, and blowing up police
stations.
> A
> > bomb that kills 10 Iraqi civilians, and 1 US soldier....is considered
> > "acceptable loss" by these groups.
> >
> > On a side note, it's kind of a shame that this Iraq mess seems to be
> > overshadowing some amazing developments in Afghanistan.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Marlon Moyer
> > To: CF-Community
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:51 AM
> > Subject: Re: Definition of terrorism(WAS The politicization of the
> Iraq
> > War
> >
> > I think the winner/loser slant is really what defines terrorism.
> > Afterall, George Washington and his army fighting for self defense,
> > their motive was purely political. They didn't stick to fighting
the
> > traditional/British way but chose to adopt Indian strategies. If we
> > accept Gruss's definition, we become a nation founded on terrorism.
> >
> > Regardless, I think that the parts of the insurgency that are
> > attacking only military targets and not civilians are not
terrorists.
> > The part that is attacking civilians would be considered terrorists
by
> > me.
> >
> > <snip>________________________________
> >
> >
> >________________________________
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
