Obama wants to close GITMO and end the "War on Terror"

[Blackhawk2001]

Violent actions taken against military objectives can be categorized as legitimate acts of war, because the military targets are generally armed and equipped to fight back. Terrorists deliberate target civilian populations because they are more easily attacked and the emotional impact of civilian casualties is generally greater, which helps create conditions to advance their cause.

 

[Leo]

barry is going to end the war on terror simply by standing down and handing the criminals the keys to the country. Surrender is an end to war.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Playing with the definition of words to suit the purpose of the day is the oldest liberalist trick in the book.

I suspect badwolf.usmc and I approach the idea of "terrorism" based on our military experience and training. I have no idea what is your background or how it might inform your opinion of the definition of "terrorism," so I'll not dispute your definition - whatever it may be - but as far as I'm concerned, if Americans go into a village and murder everyone there, it's an act of terrorism just as much as if some jihadi shoots up a mall or bombs the Boston Marathon. But, by-and-large, we don't do those things, and we punish soldiers who DO do those things, when we find out about them.

Having said that, "collateral damage" - the deaths of supposed "innocent" civilians during military actions - happens whenever fighting takes place. I wouldn't characterize civilian deaths associated with the attack on an American military convy as "victims of terrorism," anymore than I would characterize the deaths of the family and friends of a terrorist target of a bomb or missile attack as "victims of terrorism."

 

[forgop]

Violent actions taken against military objectives can be categorized as legitimate acts of war, because the military targets are generally armed and equipped to fight back. Terrorists deliberate target civilian populations because they are more easily attacked and the emotional impact of civilian casualties is generally greater, which helps create conditions to advance their cause.

I guess whatever spin makes you feel better about it.

American terrorism in other counties < Islamic terrorism in our country, right?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I guess whatever spin makes you feel better about it.

American terrorism in other counties < Islamic terrorism in our country, right?

Either you aren't understanding me, or you're being deliberately obtuse. We aren't indiscriminately killing civilians in other countries; we are going after targets hiding amongst civilians. However you or the jihadis want to characterize that, it isn't terrorism.

 

[Stickfight]

I'll not dispute your definition

It isn't my definition, that isn't how words are defined. Two guys on an internet forum agreeing what something means because it suits their argument at the time, isn't how words are defined. Otherwise we are left to a world where "that depends on what the definition of is, is" rules the day. You'd like it that way, I wouldn't.

Everyone here appears to be connected to the internet and could, if they wanted to know the actual commonly definitions of terrorism instead of making up their own, could search for them.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

Playing with the definition of words to suit the purpose of the day is the oldest liberalist trick in the book.

Oh sting. But ironically enough you are the one who started the word definition wordplay, and somehow blamed it on me, while ignoring my logical question and attacking me personally. These actions seem to fit your above statement better than mine do.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It isn't my definition, that isn't how words are defined. Two guys on an internet forum agreeing what something means because it suits their argument at the time, isn't how words are defined. Otherwise we are left to a world where "that depends on what the definition of is, is" rules the day. You'd like it that way, I wouldn't.

Everyone here appears to be connected to the internet and could, if they wanted to know the actual commonly definitions of terrorism instead of making up their own, could search for them.

In my brief internet search, most of the headings I found said: 'difficult to define.' So I choose to use the definition which doesn't delegitimize the use of military force for the gaining of political objectives, as opposed to force which deliberately targets defenseless civilian targets to maximize fear and terror and distrust of the government to achieve political objectives. In other words: "legitimate" violence protects innocent populations as much as possible, while realizing that innocents are killed during fighting, while "terrorism" emphasizes violence against innocent civilians because of its emotional force multiplication and relative safety to the terrorists. However you want to justify it to yourself, if you deliberately target civilians in a conflict short of "total war," you're a terrorist.

 

[Stickfight]

Oh sting. But ironically enough you are the one who started the word definition wordplay, and somehow blamed it on me, while ignoring my logical question and attacking me personally. These actions seem to fit your above statement better than mine do.

So someone redefines a word on the fly to suit their argument, I take issue with it, and I'm the one who 'started it'? Flashbacks to the playground.

 

[Stickfight]

However you want to justify it to yourself, if you deliberately target civilians in a conflict short of "total war," you're a terrorist.

I'm not trying to justify anything, you are. You are trying to exempt US military killings of non-combatants from the definition of terrorism by claiming that the latter must deliberately target non-combatants. All I'm doing is pointing out that isn't a part of any commonly used definition of terrorism.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm not trying to justify anything, you are. You are trying to exempt US military killings of non-combatants from the definition of terrorism by claiming that the latter must deliberately target non-combatants. All I'm doing is pointing out that isn't a part of any commonly used definition of terrorism.

Sorry, I was using the "generic" you - as is my wont when I get going - rather than speaking to "Stickfight". Nevertheless, I'm differentiating rather carefully between "collateral damage" in the destruction of a legitimate military target and deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. While I'm certain that you can find a self-serving definition of "terrorism" that fits your needs, the definition of terrorism that I've described is, I'm pretty certain, the one that the military uses.

 

[Stickfight]

I'm don't have any terrorism-definition related needs, thanks. You are confusing me with you.

I don't need to leverage the emotional content of a word to know the difference between right and wrong. I know that repeatedly engaging in acts that kill civilians is wrong, whether that is the intended outcome or not. I go a step further than you in that not only do I not excuse terrorists who do it on purpose, I also do not excuse those who do it 'by accident' when they should well know from their past actions what is going to happen.

You are using a more modern self serving definition, no doubt.

 

[Mark 1911]

The man's a genius. Must be from hanging around with Joe Biden for 5 years.

 

[churchmouse]

You are just making that up. There is no commonly agreed to definition of terrorism, but none of the widely used ones requires deliberate targeting of civilians. In fact, many of them specifically include actions taken against government assets. (because, surprise, governments wrote them)

You just totally lost me. No one is making up the "Fact" that terrorists hit mainly soft targets. Yes, they hit the Navy ship, the Kohl (Sp) I think and the military base but in our country it is civilians at a marathon or at work in the towers.
Insurgents will ambush our troops and use IUD's against them but a pure terrorist strikes at civilians to spread.........wait for it.............."Terror"
You can not terrorize the military. They are in place to fight. Civilians on the other hand are not.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You just totally lost me. No one is making up the "Fact" that terrorists hit mainly soft targets. Yes, they hit the Navy ship, the Kohl (Sp) I think and the military base but in our country it is civilians at a marathon or at work in the towers.
Insurgents will ambush our troops and use IUD's against them but a pure terrorist strikes at civilians to spread.........wait for it.............."Terror"
You can not terrorize the military. They are in place to fight. Civilians on the other hand are not.

Ok, so Fort Hood shooter... not a terrorist?

 

[jwh20]

War on terror? Hardly! From the beginning it's been a war on FREEDOM! The terrorists remain undeterred and the freedoms of Americans are in the trash can daily.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Ok, so Fort Hood shooter... not a terrorist?

Nope, can't say that wasn't terrorism. "Soft targets" - they were in an area where they were forbidden to be armed on a Post where they were forbidden to be armed. Hasan knew he was safe in attacking them. Terrorist act.

 

[rambone]

Nope, can't say that wasn't terrorism. "Soft targets" - they were in an area where they were forbidden to be armed on a Post where they were forbidden to be armed. Hasan knew he was safe in attacking them. Terrorist act.

Is every mass shooter a terrorist? Columbine? Luby's Cafe? Virginia Tech? Charles Whitman?

 

[steveh_131]

Is every mass shooter a terrorist? Columbine? Luby's Cafe? Virginia Tech? Charles Whitman?

Ruby Ridge?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Is every mass shooter a terrorist? Columbine? Luby's Cafe? Virginia Tech? Charles Whitman?

No, sometimes it seems the shooter has no particular ideology or cause he is promoting. Without the political component, I don't think any of these can be labeled "terrorism."

Lest anyone misunderstand me, what is generally understood by folks on the street as "terrorism," is when some people are killing other people to force a political or ideological outcome. This could broadly be interpreted - as some here do - as any military action taken against another entity. However, insofar as violence for political ends violates the Laws of War, that is more narrowly considered "unlawful warfare" and when it's primarily against civilian noncombatants, it fits the commonly-understood definition of "terrorism."