Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Patriotism/Terrorism ...

31 replies to this topic
sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#31

Posted 01 May 2012 - 07:22 AM

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)
@1st point: Just because YOU have clearly defined terrorism doesn't make it correct.

...Yes it does, if the definition I use is one that's accepted internationally. Which it is.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)
You're operating on the premise that your definition of terrorism is the correct definition.

Because it is. Or, more accurately my definition focuses on two particular points that are present in just about every definition of terrorism whilst your definition doesn't seem to come from anywhere logical.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)
Anything that is not two regular armies going to war with each other can be classified as terrorism.

No, that's "irregular warfare". Insurgencies are not by their very nature terrorist. Nor are other violent non-state actors. The "terrorism" moniker is applied based on their tactical and operational behaviour. I'm afraid that your "terrorism" definition is based on popular misconceptions rather than on strategic reality or accurate technical use of the word.

Just because the word "terrorism" is extensively misused doesn't make this misuse correct.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)
If you fall into the category of enemy combatant, you can be classified as a terrorist, a pirate, a spy, whatever.

I'm sorry, but what on earth are you trying to say here? "Pirates" in the modern physical context are also very well defined- they are individuals and groups who undertake in the capture of commercial shipping for the purposes of ransom or profit. And a "spy" by definition is an agent of a government, not of a non-state actor.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)
@3rd point: You're saying that terrorists have no political intentions that drive them to do what they do? Only the tactics they use are considered as terrorism? Think about how ridiculous that argument sounds.

Not at all, which you'd actually realise if you properly read what I was saying. A terrorist does indeed need to have political intention that drives their actions, but what what characterises a terrorist over a freedom fighters is their tactical and operational behaviour as many other factors are shared. Hence why I made the claim that you can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter- because you can. Most terrorist organisations are solely political in their persuasion but there are other motivating factors. Most terrorist organisations also rely heavily on the use of crime; in fact, the line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is considerably less blurred than that between "terrorist" and "organised criminal gang". One only need look at FARC or the IRA to see this.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)
It goes back to your "clear" definition of the word terrorist which is incorrect.

Is it? care to "prove" to me that you definition, which appears to be borne of absolutely nothing other than your own whims, is right, and mine, borne of years of academic study in defence and security followed by years working in the industry is wrong? In fact, how about a third-party definition- how about Bruce Hoffman's well-regarded definition

QUOTE (Bruce Hoffman)
> ineluctably political in aims and motives
> violent or, equally important, threatens violence
> designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
> conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear > no uniform or identifying insignia) and
> perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

Wait, that's absolutely nothing like your definition.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)
@5th point: You're right, it's not the same. One lasted from December 24, 1979 February 15, 1989, and the other has lasted from 7 October 2001 present. The Mujahadeen were fighting the Soviets. Mujahadeen means "People who are doing Jihad" that's the literal translation. Here is the difference between then and now. Hang on I'm drawing a blank here....because there is none. Well, one, the name of the organization in which NATO is currently fighting is branded by a different name. Tell me how many victories NATO has against the Afghani Regular Army. Oh yeah, zero, because that's not who we're fighting. Conventional war is fighting the conventional of the country you've just invaded. If you're fighting an enemy combatant group such as "Al Qaeda", "The Taliban", or who ever, it can't be fought the same way you would square up against the Russians, or the Chinese, or some other power.

I find it deeply ironic that you go off chasing your tail with regard to defining terrorism, and then define Mujahideen as if it has any real relevance in the discussion. The current Afghan conflict is not being fought by a Mujahideen, it's being fought on two very distinct fronts- one by an organised, armed irregular force with direct external funding, training and technical assistance, and one by ordinary individuals along tribal, partisan or ethno-religious lines. The idea of a "Mujahideen" cannot really be applied in this case because of the lack of definition in the armed conflict between the two distinct kind of irregular combatant. And what's more, the actions of one group in particular (that is the organised quasi-military irregular fighting force with external assistance) extensively use terrorist tactics in their fight; they in fact share all 6 of Hoffman's six defining points for a terrorist organisation. Whereas the farmers who are fighting for an ill-defined purpose (I implore you to read "The Accidental Guerrilla- it explains the complexities of the Afghan fighting demographic far better than I ever could) share perhaps one or two. It cannot be a "peoples army" unless it's a group bound together by at least the same basic aims and ideals, and even that isn't true. Ergo, no Mujahideen.

I seriously recommend you do some actual research into the origins of the Taliban movement in both Afghanistan and Pakistan before you dismiss the Mujahideen and the Taliban Insurgency as one and the same. Because they really aren't and by pretending or claiming they are you damage the credibility of your entire argument.

QUOTE (LeftyGuns @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 06:37)
If it's outside the range of regular army operations and you're not sticking to the whole uniforms and clear markings but blending in with civilians when you fight, you can be classified as whatever the power you're up against wants to classify you as. Even though you think you're something else.

Not denying this, but it's the media which classified irregular combatants this way, not the military. As we all know well, the media has absolutely f*ck all understanding of the technical lexicon of any subject and therefore it's definition and the definitions of the individual it uses as sources cannot be trusted. I've already provided what is probably the most accepted definition of defining characteristics for a terrorist, so you can argue your misconceptions of semantics with Hoffman (and for that matter with the UN) rather than with me.

Toup
  • Toup

    Group: Cheesedicks

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2010

#32

Posted 01 May 2012 - 01:24 PM

Well, this is one of those subjects that you can't just talk about both sides because you will tend to talk about what you heard growing up, not knowing the entire story of course. The best you can do is talk about the information that's available to you, and, when you call a person a terrorist it's a little objective. These people are, well, brainwashed since birth, same for soldiers who go to war.

For me, patriotism is non-existent and it's just used for acts of "terrorism" and for war. As you said, this is just a big irony.

Hope I made myself clear.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users