Terrorism Ever Justified?

Quote: Gandler

U.S. soldiers did, but they were prosecuted for it, it was not sanctioned action. That is the difference between the U.S. and the NVA, The NVA used civilian deaths as a policy.

Good point.

OK then, how about the US policy to consider native Americans as enemies and seek to exterminate them and / or put them on reservations back in The Day?

Their only "crime" was that they got here first and The Powers That Be coveted their land.

Quote: missedhervee

Good point.

OK then, how about the US policy to consider native Americans as enemies and seek to exterminate them and / or put them on reservations back in The Day?

Their only "crime" was that they got here first and The Powers That Be coveted their land.

Every tribe that we took land from took it from another tribe by force. This does not make it right, but it was how things worked back then. Obviously unfortunate, and every "Indian War" was slightly different (as far as the course of action that led to it, moral justification, etc....) but speaking very broadly. This is also discussing things from the 1700s-1860s or so when America was far from perfect in many ways.


(great scene from Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee on this, -terrible movie by the way, do not recommend, this is literally the only scene that is great- )


The old, "How dare you steal my stolen land from me" (this actually also summarizes the middle east quite well in almost all cases.)

Quote: missedhervee

Terrorism is sometimes appropriate.

For example, during the reign of the Nazis: acts of defiance would have been deemed terrorism but through the myopic eye of history we'd now justify them, e.g. resisting the extermination of millions of peoples, or sabotaging the production of Nazi super weapons.

I have to say I am quite irritated by going off in these directions. Am I the only person here who doesn't instantly go "oh, it's all relative, if someone chops off a baby's head perhaps another person hates all the crying they do and says it's OK, so maybe it is" .... do you really think we have to buy into that?

"resisting the extermination of millions of peoples" ... terrorism? Really?
"sabotaging the production of Nazi super weapons" ... no, that would not be terrorism, stop it!

I really did not think it would be so damned hard to get a definition we could agree on

Quote: missedhervee

Didn't the US engage in terrorism during the Vietnam War?

The My Lai massacre comes to mind.

It was terrorism, frequently seen in that kind of war, but inexcusable

yet here again this need to set up moral equivalencies ... like this was not known till you brought it up

Quote: odiousgambit

I have to say I am quite irritated by going off in these directions. Am I the only person here who doesn't instantly go "oh, it's all relative, if someone chops off a baby's head perhaps another person hates all the crying they do and says it's OK, so maybe it is" .... do you really think we have to buy into that?

"resisting the extermination of millions of peoples" ... terrorism? Really?
"sabotaging the production of Nazi super weapons" ... no, that would not be terrorism, stop it!

I really did not think it would be so damned hard to get a definition we could agree on

Problem is, we haven't come up with a workable definition of "terrorism". Scholars have, mostly, But lawyers and politicians and governments haven't.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Problem is, we haven't come up with a workable definition of "terrorism". Scholars have, mostly, But lawyers and politicians and governments haven't.

It's imperfect, but as a start: "Aggressive attempts to smite a foe using techniques not permitted by the Rules of War of the Geneva Convention."

It requires humane treatment for all persons in enemy hands, without discrimination. It specifically prohibits murder, mutilation, torture, the taking of hostages, unfair trial, and cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment. It requires that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked be collected and cared for.

Quote: missedhervee

It's imperfect, but as a start: "Aggressive attempts to smite a foe using techniques not permitted by the Rules of War of the Geneva Convention."

It requires humane treatment for all persons in enemy hands, without discrimination. It specifically prohibits murder, mutilation, torture, the taking of hostages, unfair trial, and cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment. It requires that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked be collected and cared for.

Why would you expect one to follow the rules of war if they are not in a declared war? I also don't believe there should be any rules in a declared war. You do whatever you believe will benefit your side the most no matter what it is especially if you believe it could end the war sooner. Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved millions of lives.

OK, so we should nuke our adversaries or maybe use nerve gas?

Quote: missedhervee

OK, so we should nuke our adversaries or maybe use nerve gas?

I'm of the position that war, in and of itself, is already a crime against humanity and that one would think that our species would be better than war by now.

Evidently, we are not, but I would then say: If there must be war, then there are no war crimes.

Or, if there are, it would be like issuing a murderer a jaywalking ticket because he jaywalked on his way to commit the murder.

I'm of the mind that if you are going to engage in a war, then kill every single one of them and make it known that the same will happen to any who attempt to stand in your way.

Probably the nukes.

The thing is, the "Doomsday Clock" WILL ring some day, unless we "wise up."

tick ... tick ... tick ...