Forgiving Terrorists

[Allison]

[magpie]

[Allison]

[sehoy]

[Genie]

[sehoy]

[warren_piece]

i must say that i think the article is a bit simplified. not wearing a uniform is not necessarily making one a terrorist...and i think that suggestion is rather unfair.
i think a better term would simply be assymetric or guerilla warfare...where one side is greatly outmatched by the other. in order to defeat the greater power, the lesser power must alter the typical mode or manner of combat in order to capitalize on the enemies weakness.
the german ss was the first combat unit to use standardized camoflauge. by using camo, they were, arguably, not wearing a uniform (as defined at the time). yet, today, camo is a standard uniform.
i think to call guerilla fighters terrorists is a bit of a cheapshot. certainly, the chaps who fought against the redcoats were guerilla fighters...but to label them terrorists is a bit false. and yet, they wore no uniform and fought in a typical assymetric style.
the word terrorist is already used to much...dont give it another use that is (yet again) false by further distorting the meaning of the word as already defined.

[sehoy]

Tangent said that terrorists are soldiers. I disagree. Terrorists are not soldiers.

The terrorists that we are fighting in Iraq are Baathist Iraqis and foreign fighters from Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc. The media calls them insurgents. The soldiers call them terrorists. What should we call them?

The terrorists that flew the planes into the towers are guerilla fighters because they are fighting assymetric warfare and are wearing camo, i.e. civilian clothing? No sir. I call them terrorists too.

What do you call the folks who took the Beslan school hostage and booby-trapped it? Guerrila fighters? Soldiers? I call them terrorists.

[warren_piece]

miss sehoy...i entirely agree with you. the chaps who flewded the planes into the wtc were terrorists. the blokes who bus'ed up the kids in beslan were terrorists. a terrorist is (according to the US military definition) someone who targets civilians for political, religious, or various other reasons. so, certainly, in those items you mentioned the individuals were terrorists. but it had nothing to do with uniforms or not. it had everything to do with who they were targeting. really, that is all that it had to do with...who they were targeting allowed them to be labled terrorists. nothing else - not their race, ethnicity, gender, or what they wore (or didnt wear [although i would be the first to amend the def. of terrorist to include nudity]).
a terrorist can be a soldier (using the common definition of soldier) although he is certainly degrading of the term 'soldier'. i dont like the possibility of calling him a soldier...but if a government tells its soldiers to attack civilians, than the soldier has also become a terrorist.
for centuries there has been debate over fairness of fighting techniques used during a war. 'hiding behind trees and running from a fight are not fair fighting methods. they should line up and fight like we always have in the past'. 'attacking a unit before they are prepared for the attack is unfair and unjust'. 'shooting a soldier in cold blood is not fair'. these are examples of arguments from the past. although some tactics certainly fall into the category of terrorism, i do not believe that 'not wearing a uniform' is grounds for using the term.
as far as what to call the individuals we are currently fighting in iraq (and afghanistan [the forgotten war]) some should be refered to as guerilla fighters...some should be refered to as terrorists...and some should be refered to as misguided and confused kids (evidence of the possible applicability of this last label can be seen in israel). but, sticking with the official usmilitary definition of terrorist i think the usmilitary has no grounds for calling an individual who does not target civilians a terrorist. in fairness and out of respect(?) for the utter despicability of the term, i think we should follow this line as well.

[sehoy]

[warren_piece]

missSehoy
thanks for the dialogue. i know that often (okay, all the dangtime) it seems like i'm just replying (aka - arguing) and not really listening. but i really do listen. and i really do begin to see the light (sometimes). i now much better understand where you are coming from, and wholeheartedly agree with everything in that last post (really, i do). so, thanks for the dialogue.

[sehoy]

[Larry W.]

[Karen]

[sehoy]