A soldier, a terrorist, an assassin - do they differ?

knnknn wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
4) Please explain why 9/11 is an "Act of war" and not an "Act of terrorism" if your arguments are valid.

I never made this claim.
No, but Bush has stated it. And he bombed a country to fight this war.

If your arguments are correct then 9/11 was terrorism, but Bush clearly stated that it's war: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=980404#980404

Then ask Bush to defend his statement, not me. I am not Bush's keeper and have no intentions of taking up the foolish task of defending his rhetoric.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Then ask Bush to defend his statement, not me. I am not Bush's keeper and have no intentions of taking up the foolish task of defending his rhetoric.

It's not only rhetoric, because a military answer followed.

Please also note that there are international laws that clearly define the measures that you can take against terrorism, and war is OF COURSE not part it. Otherwise you could bomb Germany, just because one of the terrosists was a German (just an example).

If 9/11 would have been terrorism then it would have been treated as an attack on some New Yorker buildings and some police/intelligence measures would follow. Obviously 9/11 was not terrorism. It was titled as "Act of war" and an "Attack on America". Al-Qaeda declared war, looks like war, is titled war, is flared back as war.

Which leads us back to the topic. Still a definition is missing that embraces the 9/11 pilots as soldiers in this war. What is the difference between soldiers, CIA assasins and terrorists?

0 Replies

Knnknn,

Just wanted to congratualte on the appropriateness of your icon.

0 Replies

Quote:

Just wanted to congratualte on the appropriateness of your icon.

Uff, another guy with the same comment and no argument.

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Then ask Bush to defend his statement, not me. I am not Bush's keeper and have no intentions of taking up the foolish task of defending his rhetoric.

It's not only rhetoric, because a military answer followed.

Please also note that there are international laws that clearly define the measures that you can take against terrorism, and war is OF COURSE not part it. Otherwise you could bomb Germany, just because one of the terrosists was a German (just an example).

If 9/11 would have been terrorism then it would have been treated as an attack on some New Yorker buildings and some police/intelligence measures would follow. Obviously 9/11 was not terrorism. It was titled as "Act of war" and an "Attack on America". Al-Qaeda declared war, looks like war, is titled war, is flared back as war.

Which leads us back to the topic. Still a definition is missing that embraces the 9/11 pilots as soldiers in this war. What is the difference between soldiers, CIA assasins and terrorists?

Knnknn, I disagree that military answer defines terrorism as war. You'll have to prove that it is something beyond opportunity for Bush to do what he damn-well pleased to do. You haven't proved anything except that your avatar is apt for your views, hon. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

Knnknn, I disagree that military answer defines terrorism as war.

It's not only the military. It's also the talk "Act of war".

And so far the only difference between "acts of wars" and "acts of terrorism" pointed out in this thread is the "inner structure/procedures" of the parties.

War parties are organized as countries (meeting in official buildings) and terrorist parties are organized in small NGO groups meeting in private homes.

If that's the difference I accept it, but it merely means that wars are basically terrorism and terrorists are basically underfunded war parties (= if they had money, they would bomb the White House directly).

Actually another difference came into my mind: Terrorists haven't won yet, while countries have (in past wars).

As you may know Yetsin did a terroristic coup (with tanks etc), threw Gorbatshew out and gained control. If he had lost he would have been a terrorist. But he won, became the official leader and is now one of the richest guys of earth.

In other words: If USAma bin Laden would succeed, bomb the White House, atom bomb the Pentagon, kill every soldier and every disobedient US-American then he would be the new country leader of the US. If he loses he's a terrorist. If he wins he is king.

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

Quote:
Knnknn, I disagree that military answer defines terrorism as war.

It's not only the military. It's also the talk "Act of war".

And so far the only difference between "acts of wars" and "acts of terrorism" pointed out in this thread is the "inner structure/procedures" of the parties.

War parties are organized as countries (meeting in official buildings) and terrorist parties are organized in small NGO groups meeting in private homes.

If that's the difference I accept it, but it merely means that wars are basically terrorism and terrorists are basically underfunded war parties (= if they had money, they would bomb the White House directly).

Actually another difference came into my mind: Terrorists haven't won yet, while countries have (in past wars).

As you may know Yetsin did a terroristic coup (with tanks etc), threw Gorbatshew out and gained control. If he had lost he would have been a terrorist. But he won, became the official leader and is now one of the richest guys of earth.

In other words: If USAma bin Laden would succeed, bomb the White House, atom bomb the Pentagon, kill every soldier and every disobedient US-American then he would be the new country leader of the US. If he loses he's a terrorist. If he wins he is king.

Ok, that's what you say, but can you prove that is so? Where are your sources? Without any source, you are only offering opinion... and what makes yours more right than mine or any other opinion opposing yours?

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

Where are your sources?

Sources for what?
Yeltsin did a coup and became a VIP. Nazis lost and got prosecuted.

The proof is human's history. The winner doesn't get prosecuted. The winner writes the "true history"

If terrorists win (hey, French mob against the government) they become the new leaders. If the government loses (Moussolini) they get prosecuted.

Where is the "opinion" about that?

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Then ask Bush to defend his statement, not me. I am not Bush's keeper and have no intentions of taking up the foolish task of defending his rhetoric.

It's not only rhetoric, because a military answer followed.

Your logic is flawed. This is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy.

Basic logic lesson:

Whether or not a military response followed the statement says nothing about the veracity of the statement.

Its subsequence is also not indicative of a causative link.

Nor is there anything to ensure that military actions only will exist in response to military action.

Quote:

Please also note that there are international laws that clearly define the measures that you can take against terrorism, and war is OF COURSE not part it..

Please note that this is a falsehood. And in addition to ignorance of US government functions you've now added ignorance of international law to your exhibition.

International law, as it relates to military action, is something I have a keen interest in, and I would love to see you try to support your claim.

Quote:

Otherwise you could bomb Germany, just because one of the terrosists was a German (just an example).

An example of precisely what law knnknn? Laughing

Quote:

If 9/11 would have been terrorism then it would have been treated as an attack on some New Yorker buildings and some police/intelligence measures would follow.

Ex teacher pendantry alert: If 9/11 were terrorism it would have been....

This is a false claim based on your earlier false claim about international law. This highlights the importance of you attempting to substantiate your claim as you are now basing subsequent claims on your false claim.

Quote:

Obviously 9/11 was not terrorism.

Perhaps, but you have yet to make a coherent case for that, much less a logically sound or even convincing one.

Quote:

It was titled as "Act of war" and an "Attack on America". Al-Qaeda declared war, looks like war, is titled war, is flared back as war.

knnknn, are you familiar with the concept of mutual exclusivity? If not please look it up.

Now assuming you are, what basis do you have for treating war and terrorism as mutually exclusive?

Quote:

Which leads us back to the topic. Still a definition is missing that embraces the 9/11 pilots as soldiers in this war. What is the difference between soldiers, CIA assasins and terrorists?

Neat trick (how incoherent, false and logically inconsistent ranting somehow brings us full circle to your initial claim).

One such difference, as I have already stated, is the socially granted authority of soldiers vs the self-declared authority of terrorists.

It's becoming apparent that you just want to repeat your claims knnknn, you don't seem able or willing to substantiate them.

Quote:

Uff, another guy with the same comment and no argument.

I agree with you here. Your avatar, and any quips on it, have no bearing on the arguments you used.

0 Replies

Quote:

One such difference, as I have already stated, is the socially granted authority of soldiers vs the self-declared authority of terrorists.

Yes I have accepted this already. However that makes the bombing of Hiroshima not "juster".

However I have still a problem with it, since war can be like terrorism in its end effects (= thousands of civilians dead on purpose). In other words: The definition does not define terrorism by its injustice. There could be a scenario where a great majority of the Arab world supports terrorists.

Quote:

Please note that this is a falsehood. And in addition to ignorance of US government functions you've now added ignorance of international law to your exhibition.

International law, as it relates to military action, is something I have a keen interest in, and I would love to see you try to support your claim.

"Military action" is not necessary "war". I talk about "war" you talk about "armed conflicts". AND STOP INSULTING ME in nearly every of your sentences.

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh77.htm

Quote:

If the perpetrators were state agents sent by their government to carry out these attacks, then calling this an "act of war" and holding that government responsible for the attacks would not be particularly remarkable. However, as it appears that the acts were committed by non-state actors, novel legal issues arise
...
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (if not the Pentagon) on September 11, 2001 pose the legal dilemma of how to respond proportionally when the initial attack was itself unreasonable, excessive, and against civilians. Nonetheless, the suggested policy of holding entire nations accountable for the acts of a few would not appear to be lawful since collective punishment would, by definition, entail the unnecessary suffering of innocent populations.

However I must admit that since even professors disagree on some issues (and attacks such as 9/11 are a new type of "action") we better not argue about that further. What it shows is, that war and terrorism definitions melt together more and more.

Quote:

what basis do you have for treating war and terrorism as mutually exclusive?

None, as I said: War+Terror melt together.

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

Quote:
One such difference, as I have already stated, is the socially granted authority of soldiers vs the self-declared authority of terrorists.

Yes I have accepted this already. However that makes the bombing of Hiroshima not "juster".

I have not, throughout the course of this exchange, ever claimed it makes it "juster".

I have merely disputed your claim that it was not different.

Quote:

However I have still a problem with it, since war can be like terrorism in its end effects (= thousands of civilians dead on purpose).

I can only hope that people "have a problem" with war.

Quote:

In other words: The definition does not define terrorism by its injustice. There could be a scenario where a great majority of the Arab world supports terrorists.

I have no idea what it is you attempted to say here.

Quote:

"Military action" is not necessary "war". I talk about "war" you talk about "armed conflicts".

This makes no difference, your legal claim is false no matter which of those terms are operative.

Feel free to attempt to substantiate your legal claim using any of those terms as the basis.

Quote:

AND STOP INSULTING ME in nearly every of your sentences.

I am not insulting you. I am demonstrating flaws in your arguments. I hold the arguments you have used herein in very low esteem because of their absurd, false and logically flawed nature.

If others holding your arguments in low esteem bothers you to the point that you can't differentiate between an opinion about an argument and an opinion about yourself, you might consider: a) making better arguments, b) avoiding debate, or even c) understanding that when your arguments are carped you have been presented with the opportunity to learn something.

In short, your sensitivity over how your arguments are treated should not be an impediment to them being called out for the absurdity that they are. This does not mean you are being insulted.

I mean no ill will towards you, but that can't translate into accepting your unacceptable arguments.

When you put up such BS, it should be called out as such. I can only hope that others will be so kind as to do so for me when I am wrong, as it is more important to learn than to salvage an ego.

Quote:

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh77.htm

This link does not support your legal claim in any way.

Quote:

However I must admit that since even professors disagree on some issues (and attacks such as 9/11 are a new type of "action") we better not argue about that further.

I'm fine with not arguing it, but will note that nothing there even attempts to substantiate your claim.

There is no mention whatsoever in international law about a proscription of warfare as a response to a terrorist attack.

Not a word. This isn't a matter of interpretation, what you claim exists and furthermore "clearly define(s)" what you claim exists simply does not exist at all.

Quote:

What it shows is, that war and terrorism definitions melt together more and more.

What what shows? The laws you imagined?

Quote:

Quote:
what basis do you have for treating war and terrorism as mutually exclusive?

None, as I said: War+Terror melt together.

You would do well to use more logically precise terms. There can be definitional overlap but as long as there are differentiating criteria they can't be called equal (i.e. "no difference").

If you want to move the goalposts to a more ambiguous "melt together" then make it clear as it redefines your position.