|
MizPiz posted:What term do you think best describes when a state actors do the same thing? War, war crime, crime against humanity, if used against their own populace then oppression. Depends on the context. I have trouble applying the term terrorism to direct state actions as I believe we already have plenty of descriptions which apply appropriately to most situations and that have weight in international law and norms which simply don't apply to "terrorism". This however, does not in itself clear up the waters entirely. Where it does become interesting is where we draw the line between state and non-state actors. In the case of ISIS, has the group established itself enough as a governing entity where is could be labelled as a state? If so, are these still terrorists that would fall under the broader scope of the war on terror or are we declaring a separate war on a rogue and brutal pariah state? How do we define and handle these situations where organizations of terror begin to develop into regimes? These are important questions as I believe over the next few decades we'll see more incidents such as the one in Iraq and Syria where extremist elements establish themselves in areas of particular vulnerability. Are we going to start using "terrorism" as a card to intervene in all these areas? How many quagmires like Iraq will we face? And if, god forbid, these quasi-states manage to hold on to power and become governing bodies indisputably: how do we react to that?
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:And if, god forbid, these quasi-states manage to hold on to power and become governing bodies indisputably: how do we react to that? the obvious cool person joke is to say "Israel" but it's not like we're not absolutely fine with pretending Azerbaijan doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
As long as every state (or non-state political actor, really) can wash their hands of their "illegitimate" past while defending its beneficiaries as "legitimate," the concept is completely worthless. It means that if they want to do something "illegitimate" now and not have it be contested, all they really have to do is succeed and then wait long enough. Maybe that's trite and Machiavellian, but there isn't really any moral high ground to be found in something that is so without consequence, so easily laundered, and so rooted in whatever the status quo is. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Using violence to create fear in order to advance a political agenda is morally unacceptable irregardless of anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
vapoursquid posted:Using violence to create fear in order to advance a political agenda is morally unacceptable irregardless of anything else. Fear in whom? Is it all right for resistance fighters to create fear among occupying military forces in order to achieve the political objective of independence?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
vapoursquid posted:Using violence to create fear in order to advance a political agenda is morally unacceptable irregardless of anything else. Outside of AQ and ISIL I can't think of anyone really doing this, fear is a byproduct of unpredictable violence against the state. It is necessary. If your goal is fear just to make everyone suffer because you want them to suffer, your point is valid. If you want people to be afraid so they create a different zeitgeist, are you totally ok with saying any hypothetical we can draw where any utilitarian can say "well this obviously is the better outcome than not doing it" is morally unacceptable? That's kinda poo poo. The ends can justify any means. They just have to be better ends than we're used to that excuse being thrown around in. Man loving absolutism is utterly ridiculous. If you genuinely hold anything as an absolute it's ridiculously easy to confront situations where you are the one inflicting suffering with ad absurdium.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
How is ISIS different than any other third world guerrila paramilitary, other tham scale of victories and atrocities? They'd be at home in Africa or Nicaragua, none of this is new at all other than how hilariously broken even by third world standards the states of the Middle East, which is mostly our own doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:How is ISIS different than any other third world guerrila paramilitary Most paramilitaries don't use their worst atrocities as PR material to recruit Europeans. I really think in this context that this is a serious distinction, but will freely admit my knowledge of various African paramilitaries is spotty outside of what I've been able to talk to people about. So if the PR thing is also normal then you're right, scale. The aims of 9/11 were to cause instability, upheaval or a genuine worsening of America's political situation, no? They worked pretty well. You compare this to domestic terrorists who use it as a tool to raise attention to their own cause as opposed to outright attacking a government by making their situation difficult through killing citizens. I've seen wankers on facebook argue that Mandela was a terrorist and thus bad because he attacked apartheid indirectly. This is the sort of absolutism people have to avoid, there is a line, and it is always contextual, but when a peoples rights have been stripped they have a right to fight if politics and diplomacy cease to be options outright.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Lots of third world communist/gurrila paramilitary leaders had liberal European educations, and it was fashionable among upper class educated liberals in the west to support people like Guevera, Mandela, even Mao. Mandela is somewhat of an exception because he was fairly separate from the rest of the communist anti-apartheid movement, but it's still a fine example. Malcom X and MLKJ voiced support for Castro and the Viet Cong. I don't think there were as many Europeans actually going to the warzone as mercenaries, but ideologically speaking there are stong parallels. Look at German left wing student movements cooperating with and sending aid to Palestinian terrorists, including Black September. From wikipedia quote:Cooley writes that many of the cells in Europe and around the world were made up of Palestinians and other Arabs who had lived in their countries of residence as students, teachers, businessmen, and diplomats for many years. Operating without a central leadership (see Leaderless resistance), it was a "true collegial direction".[4] The cell structure and the need-to-know operational philosophy protected the operatives by ensuring that the apprehension or surveillance of one cell would not affect the others. The structure offered plausible deniability to the Fatah leadership, which was careful to distance itself from Black September operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_Organization#Structure_of_the_group Malcom X and MLKJ I think are good examples because they're illustrative of the kind of historical whitewashing liberals do to make everyone a nice liberal retroactively. Because of this, when something new like ISIS comes around, they have no perspective on how this has happened before, because the good guys always were going to inevitably win and no real conflict ever existed before this, and they completely panic. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Fear in whom? Is it all right for resistance fighters to create fear among occupying military forces in order to achieve the political objective of independence? I don't believe that's necessarily wrong no. I should have mentioned that. Spangly A posted:Outside of AQ and ISIL I can't think of anyone really doing this, fear is a byproduct of unpredictable violence against the state. It is necessary. The intimidation of civilian populations is extremely widespread in war. I don't believe that ends justify means. The targeting of noncombatants in war is absolutely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
There can never be peace in Europe. You see, it goes back to Louis the Pious. He had three sons: Lothar, Ludwig and Charles and, wise father that he was, he split his kingdom into three parts. But each of the sons wanted the entire empire for their own. That split what once was one peaceful country into three warring sects. Of course, in what was left of their respective kingdoms, well, they divided between their sons, each of whom wanted the whole. So it all fell apart into a long, drawn out mess of tribal warfare. People killing people for who knows why for so long. That conflict didn't really end until all sides had slapped each other silly until the Anglo-American and Russian Empires basically conquered the whole lot and created a totally new political alignment. But even that conflict was along the old Ludwig/Charles border more than anything, so was it really a "realignment" or was it just another rehash of the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
vapoursquid posted:
I'm actually a bit on the fence about the targeting of noncombatants. A region's desire for violent conflict isn't lessened as much when only combatants are killed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
karees posted:I'm actually a bit on the fence about the targeting of noncombatants. A region's desire for violent conflict isn't lessened as much when only combatants are killed. 9/11 status: justified.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:There can never be peace in Europe. You see, it goes back to Louis the Pious. He had three sons: Lothar, Ludwig and Charles and, wise father that he was, he split his kingdom into three parts. But each of the sons wanted the entire empire for their own. That split what once was one peaceful country into three warring sects. Of course, in what was left of their respective kingdoms, well, they divided between their sons, each of whom wanted the whole. So it all fell apart into a long, drawn out mess of tribal warfare. People killing people for who knows why for so long. Only the Carolingians? What short memories! http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/11/hoisted-from-the-archives-let-us-give-thanks-wacht-am-rhein-department.html: quote:... Let us give thanks that the most brutal and blood-soaked border in the world is quiet--a border inhabited on both sides by those bloodthirsty peoples who have been numbers one and two in terms of the most effective killers of foreigners for centuries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:9/11 status: justified. yo I'm pretty sure AQ felt it was justified for a while and what we're disagreeing about here is our interpretation of "the ends" it's just occurred to me that this argument is utterly impossible to solve because it hinges on everyone agreeing on certain things. Some people believe in absolute morality, some don't, and the justifications for both are personal and would require everyone to write entire thesis. I will never accept there are hard rules to reality so I'd like to apologise for essentially timewasting; but it's been interesting essentially just for watching people describe and rationalise their personal ethics (not sarcasm, genuinely). e; essentially I found nothing to disagree with in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUtW6KIdtxE Spangly A fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
Pshhh, show me a modern border that can be described that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Lots of third world communist/gurrila paramilitary leaders had liberal European educations, and it was fashionable among upper class educated liberals in the west to support people like Guevera, Mandela, even Mao. Mandela is somewhat of an exception because he was fairly separate from the rest of the communist anti-apartheid movement, but it's still a fine example. Malcom X and MLKJ voiced support for Castro and the Viet Cong. I don't think there were as many Europeans actually going to the warzone as mercenaries, but ideologically speaking there are stong parallels. Look at German left wing student movements cooperating with and sending aid to Palestinian terrorists, including Black September. I feel like I'm going to regret saying anything at all in this thread, but it looks like your argument is really that not all terrorism is created equal. I've heard it frequently said that Mandela was almost less of a terrorist than a saboteur, in that he specifically waited until late in the night to blow up factories when people would not be around. Similarly, Malcolm X and MLKJ were not exactly beheading people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Are we talking about terrorism as a somewhat well-defined concept or terrorism as the word is actually used here? Because these are two very different things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
If we're going with the first definition of terrorism (violence performed to intimidate or coerce a civilian population) then I can agree that it's morally wrong. I don't see why actions performed by a state should be excluded from this definition though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:If we're going with the first definition of terrorism (violence performed to intimidate or coerce a civilian population) then I can agree that it's morally wrong. I don't see why actions performed by a state should be excluded from this definition though. Well Mandela's sabotaging was certainly violence even if it didn't physically hurt people. And it certainly was trying to coerce the whites of south africa to treat blacks as equals. How morally wrong was that? Just to be clear, I'm trying to find out if this is just definition-chasing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The last 600 years have been crucial to state development in the Middle East. The next 600 will prove themselves just as critical. Mate I don't know if you've noticed but our planet doesn't seem to be showing any signs of being able to sustain a human population for 600 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
I guess I should have also specified that the violence has to be targeted at civilians to qualify. I think the fact that he specifically targeted government assets and the nature of the apartheid South African government justified Mandela's actions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Isn't terrorism a function of asymmetrical warfare? Outside of just normal behaviour during conquest and war? Which looks pretty similar to terrorism to me. So is it just bad when they do it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
But guys, what if we are all terrorists a little bit? Can we then really say that ISIS is evil? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Mate I don't know if you've noticed but our planet doesn't seem to be showing any signs of being able to sustain a human population for 600 years. Sure it can! 99.9% of humanity could die tomorrow, and we'd still have a population equivalent to the late Iron Age. And despite the very real and dire warnings by scientists of resource depletion, climate change and pollution, humanity doesn't really have the capacity to turn the planet completely lifeless, like Mars or Venus. No, history will continue on - people will just fight in the acid rain over mounds of used diapers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 19:21
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:terrorism as a somewhat well-defined concept Does this exist? I've seen attempts at definitions but the only reasonable ones I've seen pretty much make everyone a terrorist. Terrorism is as much of a dog whistle as welfare queen is these days. People using violence to work towards a goal that you don't agree with? Terrorists.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:Well Mandela's sabotaging was certainly violence even if it didn't physically hurt people. And it certainly was trying to coerce the whites of south africa to treat blacks as equals. How morally wrong was that? My point was that it's not a new thing at all for westerners to support third world terrorists, even westerners with otherwise just and good causes. This is in response to people talking about ISIS like nothing of the sort has ever been seen before
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Intentional targeting of civilians is both immoral and a war crime regardless of who does it. Callous disregard of likely civilian casualties is also immoral and likely a war crime. It's not difficult. Attacking a military or police target isn't terrorism. Nor is property damage terrorism in my opinion, mostly because it's so petty it hardly compares with violent murder of civilians. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 23:43
|
|
Sucrose posted:Callous disregard of likely civilian casualties is also immoral and likely a war crime. So then why language such as "likely" if it's not difficult? People love to just throw their hands up and say "well if it's targeting civilians" but that just completely handwaves away the complexities of using force to achieve goals. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
I'd be surprised to learn that there has ever been an armed conflict ever where civilian populations were not the target of intentional violence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 01:14
|
|
