Resistance, guerilla warfare and terrorism

[Admiral Yi]

Actually Masjid Nahwaz's definition of Terrorism (takes one to know one) is almost identical to mine. He defines it as a war crime carried out by a non-soldier.

Interesting.

[Viking]

Actually Masjid Nahwaz's definition of Terrorism (takes one to know one) is almost identical to mine. He defines it as a war crime carried out by a non-soldier.

Interesting.

Note my definition includes both war crimes and acts of war carried out by non-soldiers.

While in general I really don't like the guy and disgree with him on too many things what he did do is as an islamist realize that the means taint the ends in addition to amnesty fighting for his rights realized that his ends weren't that hot either.

Theologically he is in the same place a Tariq Ramadan in basically agreeing that the koran says to kill the infidels but asserting that it is just stupid to actually do it.

[grumbler]

3 - I take the crux of your point is that I should do as I did and not do something I didn't do.

Exactly.  You could work on conciseness, too, but that's optional.

Actually Masjid Nahwaz's definition of Terrorism (takes one to know one) is almost identical to mine. He defines it as a war crime carried out by a non-soldier.

That's fine if you want to restrict terrorism to wars, but I don't think that that is a very useful restriction (nor do i think it is very useful to consider all war crimes committed by civilians to be terrorism, since terrorism is all about motives).

According to you and Nahwaz, if a Japanese fisherman out in Tokyo Bay in 1945 clubs a surrendering downed American airman in a raft with the fisherman's oar, because that fisherman just had his family killed by the raid the American was in, that is an act of terrorism.  It is a war crime (failure to accept surrender) and committed by a civilian (a fisherman).  You'll find that a hard sell, I think.

But, so long as you make clear you are using terrorism in a unique fashion, you can make that argument, however unconvincing it is.

[Viking]

3 - I take the crux of your point is that I should do as I did and not do something I didn't do.

Exactly.  You could work on conciseness, too, but that's optional.

How about you work on your spelling and I'll work on my consciousness.

Actually Masjid Nahwaz's definition of Terrorism (takes one to know one) is almost identical to mine. He defines it as a war crime carried out by a non-soldier.

That's fine if you want to restrict terrorism to wars, but I don't think that that is a very useful restriction (nor do i think it is very useful to consider all war crimes committed by civilians to be terrorism, since terrorism is all about motives).

According to you and Nahwaz, if a Japanese fisherman out in Tokyo Bay in 1945 clubs a surrendering downed American airman in a raft with the fisherman's oar, because that fisherman just had his family killed by the raid the American was in, that is an act of terrorism.  It is a war crime (failure to accept surrender) and committed by a civilian (a fisherman).  You'll find that a hard sell, I think.

But, so long as you make clear you are using terrorism in a unique fashion, you can make that argument, however unconvincing it is.

It's just plain murder in the fisherman's case. Random civilians are not empowered to accept surrenders. You need to surrender to somebody in the chain of command or a belligerent.

Any rationalist type definition of anything from first principles will have exceptions. In the case of my definition almost every act considered to be a terrorist by the vast majority of relevant commentators not affiliated with one of the sides affected.

[dps]

I know the norwegian resistance best of all. Outside of the communists (evil murdering stalin loving traitors imho) the four great events of resistance
<snip>
- sinking of the ferry transporting heavy water to the nazi bomb project killing a good deal of people

That's one of the most famous partisan/guerilla operations ever.

In iraq the resistance doesn't play by any form of rules and expediency is the only rule. Thats what happens when you get your morality from a book.

Just out of curiosity, form where exactly do you think WWII-era Norwegians got their morality?

[Josquius]

Just out of curiosity, form where exactly do you think WWII-era Norwegians got their morality?

mitt først bok av moraler

[Viking]

I know the norwegian resistance best of all. Outside of the communists (evil murdering stalin loving traitors imho) the four great events of resistance
<snip>
- sinking of the ferry transporting heavy water to the nazi bomb project killing a good deal of people

That's one of the most famous partisan/guerilla operations ever.

In iraq the resistance doesn't play by any form of rules and expediency is the only rule. Thats what happens when you get your morality from a book.

Just out of curiosity, form where exactly do you think WWII-era Norwegians got their morality?

To avoid a Dawkins Hi-Jack, I'll just answer that question and if you want more details you can start an "Where do atheists get their morals from?" thread to deal with that.

On second thought I'll start one myself....

[grumbler]

Exactly.  You could work on conciseness, too, but that's optional.

How about you work on your spelling and I'll work on my consciousness.

  How about you just read what is written, and not assume that words you don't know are just mis-spelled?

It's just plain murder in the fisherman's case. Random civilians are not empowered to accept surrenders. You need to surrender to somebody in the chain of command or a belligerent.

It's terrorism, by your definition.  Of course, your definition is flawed, so that doesn't much matter, but there you are.

Any rationalist type definition of anything from first principles will have exceptions. In the case of my definition almost every act considered to be a terrorist by the vast majority of relevant commentators not affiliated with one of the sides affected.

A definition that doesn't clearly distinguish between elements that are part of the class being defined and elements that are not is pretty useless.  And your definition is certainly not from "first principals." 

According to your definition, Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist.

[Valmy]

The French Resistance is an example of a resistance movement that wasn't so indiscriminate, sure (but then again the size of the French Resistance is likely vastly over-stated).

Really?  People act like it was a pretty minor thing.  Who is over-stating it?  Charles de Gaulle?

[Darth Wagtaros]

3 - I take the crux of your point is that I should do as I did and not do something I didn't do.

Exactly.  You could work on conciseness, too, but that's optional.

Actually Masjid Nahwaz's definition of Terrorism (takes one to know one) is almost identical to mine. He defines it as a war crime carried out by a non-soldier.

That's fine if you want to restrict terrorism to wars, but I don't think that that is a very useful restriction (nor do i think it is very useful to consider all war crimes committed by civilians to be terrorism, since terrorism is all about motives).

According to you and Nahwaz, if a Japanese fisherman out in Tokyo Bay in 1945 clubs a surrendering downed American airman in a raft with the fisherman's oar, because that fisherman just had his family killed by the raid the American was in, that is an act of terrorism.  It is a war crime (failure to accept surrender) and committed by a civilian (a fisherman).  You'll find that a hard sell, I think.

But, so long as you make clear you are using terrorism in a unique fashion, you can make that argument, however unconvincing it is.

Is it actually a war crime if Japan was not signatory to the Geneva Convention?

[Sheilbh]

In the aftermath of the Iraq war, I got a different impression.  Sure the Iraqi insurgents would attack US soldiers (typically ineffectively), but they seemed to do the most damage murdering and terrorizing the civilian population.  Civilians who had no choice in what they were doing, who were simply stuck between the US forces and the insurgents.

Iraq was a civil war.  The US just happened to be there, presiding over it and an occasional target.  The civilians were the targets being cleansed from their neighbourhoods or propaganda of the deed style attacks - such as the bombing of al-Askari Mosque.

[grumbler]

Is it actually a war crime if Japan was not signatory to the Geneva Convention?

Yes.

[Razgovory]

In the aftermath of the Iraq war, I got a different impression.  Sure the Iraqi insurgents would attack US soldiers (typically ineffectively), but they seemed to do the most damage murdering and terrorizing the civilian population.  Civilians who had no choice in what they were doing, who were simply stuck between the US forces and the insurgents.

Iraq was a civil war.  The US just happened to be there, presiding over it and an occasional target.  The civilians were the targets being cleansed from their neighbourhoods or propaganda of the deed style attacks - such as the bombing of al-Askari Mosque.

This doesn't preculde that that there was also a resistance movement.  Take Yugoslavia for example in WWII.

[Sheilbh]

Or Greece. You're right, I just mean it's wrong I'm this case to view civilians as inadvertent victims of a resistance movement. They were often the target in a civil war in a collapsing state.

[Razgovory]

I'm not seeing them as inadvertent casualties, but a primary objective.