Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

how to qualify

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • how to qualify

    hi,

    i wonder how to make the difference between a terrorist and a resistant.

    Anyway i disaprove any act of violence.

    if anyone has elements of answer

  • #2
    Elle est bizarre ta question...
    I had already seen this kinda question and generally,the guy had an agenda to push.
    That rug really tied the room together

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Nicoleon View Post
      hi,

      i wonder how to make the difference between a terrorist and a resistant.

      Anyway i disaprove any act of violence.

      if anyone has elements of answer
      It's not that difficult.

      A terrorist makes an illegal and illegitimate use of violence, or the threat of violence, in order to terrorise his target group and achieve his political objective directly by having that target group cave in and concede, out of fear.

      A resistant makes use of violence in order to achieve a tactical or strategic advantage in the course of a war. Usually the warfare he wages is unconventional, but that does not mean it is necessarily illegal or illegitimate (though it might be).

      Note some operations may have both a concrete and a morale effect. Killing an enemy officer in the rear areas may have a morale effect on the occupation troops (albeit not directly on the whole target group's morale, i.e. the morale of the enemy country), and it also has a practical, tactical military advantage.
      On the contrary, murdering a number of civilians in the streets of a country's capital has no military advantage, its sole purpose is to dishearten - terrorise - the whole target group (that country's population).

      The former is not terrorism, the latter is.
      Michele

      Comment


      • #4
        The way I have understood the difference, it comes down to point of view.

        Like the Russian vs. Turkish view of the Syrian kurds.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by HivMnd View Post
          The way I have understood the difference, it comes down to point of view.

          Like the Russian vs. Turkish view of the Syrian kurds.
          The factors mentioned in my previous post apply regardless of the point of view.
          Michele

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by HivMnd View Post
            The way I have understood the difference, it comes down to point of view.

            Like the Russian vs. Turkish view of the Syrian kurds.
            Intentions also matters. Terror is a tactic. The objective is to achieve some kind of assymetric over-response from the attacked, as a consequence of the terror induced.

            Then it's of course entirely possible to subvert language and the meaning of words for political reasons. Happens all the time. Might be drawn to such lenghts that words and concepts are even dropped entirely due to erosion from overuse and misappliance.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
              Intentions also matters.
              As mentioned.

              Terror is a tactic. The objective is to achieve some kind of assymetric over-response from the attacked, as a consequence of the terror induced.
              There may be more than one objective, but in any case it's strategy, not tactics. It's the quintessential strategy. You don't try to win by scoring a lot of local practical successes (aka tactical victories). You try to win by defeating the enemy's will to fight, directly at the strategic level.
              Michele

              Comment


              • #8
                The difference usually comes down to what side you are on.

                It is common for combatants to use terror tactics in wars. The targeting of civilian populations by all sides during the Second World War is a good example. The Allies justified their tactic based on the nature of the enemy they were fighting and that argument had considerable merit.
                "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                  The difference usually comes down to what side you are on.

                  It is common for combatants to use terror tactics in wars. The targeting of civilian populations by all sides during the Second World War is a good example.
                  The Allies justified their tactic based on the nature of the enemy they were fighting and that argument had considerable merit.
                  No. The Allies justified their bombing strategy because it was allowed by the laws of war then in force. It was a legitimate and legal use of force by legitimate combatants during a declared war.
                  Also note that the way in which the Allies bombed defended enemy and enemy-held cities during the war brought about significant material military advantages, not just a hoped-for decrease of the enemy's will to fight.

                  Your mistake is rather common, but not excusable for this reason.

                  Edit: I'll add that going from the initial question to the comparison between the 9/11 perps and the Allied bombing campaign of WWII in 8 posts must be a new record in this sort of threads.
                  Last edited by Michele; 21 Mar 16, 12:17.
                  Michele

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Michele View Post
                    No. The Allies justified their bombing strategy because it was allowed by the laws of war then in force. It was a legitimate and legal use of force by legitimate combatants during a declared war.
                    Also note that the way in which the Allies bombed defended enemy and enemy-held cities during the war brought about significant material military advantages, not just a hoped-for decrease of the enemy's will to fight.

                    Your mistake is rather common, but not excusable for this reason.
                    I do wish you wouldn't pepper your often knowledgeable posts with unjustified rudeness.
                    There is nothing inexcusable in this case as both justifications were used
                    "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." Harris, contains no legal justification but is very much in the line that E D Morel mentions in his post. Of course it was well known that it was legitimate under the Hague Convention to bombard a defended town or city -every one did - it is even mentioned in the German General Staff manual issued before WW1 and that was the legal justification used - Harris and others put forward what they saw as a moral justification.
                    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Michele View Post
                      No. The Allies justified their bombing strategy because it was allowed by the laws of war then in force. It was a legitimate and legal use of force by legitimate combatants during a declared war.
                      Also note that the way in which the Allies bombed defended enemy and enemy-held cities during the war brought about significant material military advantages, not just a hoped-for decrease of the enemy's will to fight.

                      Your mistake is rather common, but not excusable for this reason.

                      Edit: I'll add that going from the initial question to the comparison between the 9/11 perps and the Allied bombing campaign of WWII in 8 posts must be a new record in this sort of threads.
                      I drew no link between 9/11 and the Second World War. You did that.
                      If you think that something being legal and something being right are the same thing then you are very naive. It's a common mistake, not not excusable.
                      The use of terror tactics is often legal and sometimes justified. The thread does not ask for a legal definition of what differentiates the two, just what the difference is.
                      If you wish to redefine the discussion and limit it to a legal definition then feel free to attempt to do so.

                      Resistance can mean IED's and all that sort of thing but as long as the primary function is to attack military targets then it's not terrorism. So many of those killing American troops in Iraq were/are resistance fighters (even if I and others completely disagree with their aims). Those who plant bombs and blow themselves up with no military target but merely the aim of planting terror in the minds of the civilian population are terrorists. Therefore the IRA were terrorists when they blew up civilians in England and Northern Ireland but when they targeted British soldiers they were not. Again, I completely disagreed with their actions and aims and personally considered them a bunch of murdering scum but if we are looking for distinctions in this very nebulous and muddy area then that's about as close as one can get.
                      "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                      validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                      "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                        I drew no link between 9/11 and the Second World War. You did that.
                        Right. You just said that the Allied air operations of WWII were terrorism. No link whatsoever.

                        If you think that something being legal and something being right are the same thing then you are very naive. It's a common mistake, not not excusable.
                        The use of terror tactics is often legal and sometimes justified. The thread does not ask for a legal definition of what differentiates the two, just what the difference is.
                        If you wish to redefine the discussion and limit it to a legal definition then feel free to attempt to do so.
                        I will use the definition that I choose to, and that is the one I mentioned in my first post. It is, by the way, pretty close to the definition used by the US Department of State and by the FBI, as well as by Italian law enforcement agencies. If the part referring to the legality of the deeds committed is naive, then I'm in good company.
                        Michele

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Basically, a "resistant" will try to minimize "collateral damage"(CD) while a "terrorist" could carry less, might try to maximize the CD.

                          The classic example comes from an early 1960s movie; "The Great Escape"!

                          James Colburn's 'character' is seated in an open-air French cafe when the waiter tells him he has a "phone call". Colburn's character is a recent Aussie escapee from a German Luft-Prision and likely not to be getting calls in the heart of German occupied France.

                          As Colburn's character "takes the call", he sees the wait staff duck down behind the back-bar and follows suit ...
                          ... a sedan pulls up to the curb, we see the muzzle of an LMG pop out a window, a short blast, and the German officers seated in front of where Colburn had been are shot dead!

                          "Terrorists" likely would not have called the restaurant to warn of an attack, nor would workers at that restaurant have warned customer/citizen(Colburn's character) of the attack unless all were "Resistants/Parisians". "Terrorists" would not of cared if any 'innocents' were caught in the 'overkill' of their attack!

                          Not the best or easiest example, but the subject is rather "nuanced", and this is one of the better examples I can think of to display the distinctions. There are objective standards that can be applied that over-rule the usual subjective ones of the Liberal-leaning "PC" crowd.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                          “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Michele View Post
                            Right. You just said that the Allied air operations of WWII were terrorism. No link whatsoever.
                            While I'm glad that you acknowledge there is no link you are still not understanding my post. The main function of bombing civilian targets is to break their morale. That’s done by frightening the crap out of them by blowing them up. Ergo it’s a terror tactic. Is a terror tactic terrorism? I’ll leave such esoteric musings to the experts but once you target civilians, be that from a plane, a drone or using a car bomb, in order to further a military or political aim you are in the same boat.

                            Originally posted by Michele View Post
                            I will use the definition that I choose to, and that is the one I mentioned in my first post. It is, by the way, pretty close to the definition used by the US Department of State and by the FBI, as well as by Italian law enforcement agencies.
                            As I said in my first post, the definition of terrorism depends to a great degree on which side of it you stand.
                            "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                            validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                            "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                              Basically, a "resistant" will try to minimize "collateral damage"(CD) while a "terrorist" could carry less, might try to maximize the CD.

                              The classic example comes from an early 1960s movie; "The Great Escape"!

                              James Colburn's 'character' is seated in an open-air French cafe when the waiter tells him he has a "phone call". Colburn's character is a recent Aussie escapee from a German Luft-Prision and likely not to be getting calls in the heart of German occupied France.

                              As Colburn's character "takes the call", he sees the wait staff duck down behind the back-bar and follows suit ...
                              ... a sedan pulls up to the curb, we see the muzzle of an LMG pop out a window, a short blast, and the German officers seated in front of where Colburn had been are shot dead!

                              "Terrorists" likely would not have called the restaurant to warn of an attack, nor would workers at that restaurant have warned customer/citizen(Colburn's character) of the attack unless all were "Resistants/Parisians". "Terrorists" would not of cared if any 'innocents' were caught in the 'overkill' of their attack!

                              Not the best or easiest example, but the subject is rather "nuanced", and this is one of the better examples I can think of to display the distinctions. There are objective standards that can be applied that over-rule the usual subjective ones of the Liberal-leaning "PC" crowd.
                              So did the Allies phone ahead and tell the people in German and Japanese cities which houses they were going to bomb so they could clear out the civilian population? If so I missed that bit.
                              As I have said terror tactics are sometimes justified but it's a slippery slope and can often have the opposite effect both militarily and politically.
                              "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                              validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                              "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X