Are the people fighting NATO in Afghanistan "Terrorists"?

[Harper_is_Bush]

My (Canadian) Foreign Affairs Minister (equal to your Secretary of State) said the following in response to the South Korea dealings to free hostages:

"The Canadian position on dealing with terrorists is well-known to all those with even a passing familiarity with the subject, we do not negotiate with terrorists for any reason."
http://www.thestar.com/Special/Afghanistan/article/252431

My question is this: are we being bull-shitted over who the enemy in Afghanistan is?

I realize that Bush started this thing about harboring terrorists = terrorism, but from my understanding of reports many of those fighting in Afghanistan now are tribal sects that just want foreigners out and only attack NATO troops. That's not terrorism, is it?

[jeff30997]

1. I agree a 100 %!

And since I'm a Canuckistanian too:I LOVE YOUR SIG!

[pwb]

2. Yes, anyone who is killed is a terrorist

[baldguy]

3. People who take non-combatant hostages can safely be called terrorists.

People who attack military forces who have invaded their country are called patriots.

The terms aren't mutually exclusive.

[Harper_is_Bush]

4. How are you able to "safely" claim that?

Are all people who've taken non-military personal hostage able to be classified as terrorists?

Why?

What is your general definition of a "terrorist", please?

thx

[baldguy]

6. People who commit crimes for the purpose of instilling fear in those who oppose them.

Some of them are running the US govt right now.

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. I'm sorry, but that is a nonsensical definition.

The term "terrorist" has no meaning anymore, unfortunately. It's degraded into a politicaly6 useful term, that's all.

[baldguy]

12. "Terrorist" is meaningless, because its overused and misused? Bullshit.

Just because the war criminals in Washington use it for anyone and everyone who questions their policies doesn't equate to it being meaningless for the rest of us living in the real world.

[Harper_is_Bush]

22. Ok fine, it has meaning. What I meant to say is it has LOST meaning

because it's been over-used and falsely used.

Better?

[cali]

11. I'll answer that:

Yes. Because fighting an occupying force is one thing, kidnapping and murdering unarmed civilians, is terrorism.

[Harper_is_Bush]

13. Why? n/t

[cali]

14. Why is it wrong to kidnap and murder civilians ?

Is it possible that you really don't know this?

[Harper_is_Bush]

16. Don't be silly. Why is it considered "terrorism".

Please don't play games with me.

[cali]

21. It strikes me that you're the one that isn't playing straight here

truly, it is so obvious that kidnapping and killing civilian is wrong, that it shouldn't need an explanation as to why it's wrong, just as invading countries that aren't a threat, shouldn't require an explanation as to why doing so is wrong. Some things really are self-evident: Raping a child,well, raping anyone, attacking countries pre-emptively, discriminating against someone because of their sexuality or skin color or gender, and the list goes on. It's NOT playing games to say that these actions are fucking wrong.

[Harper_is_Bush]

23. I've not said that kidnapping and killing of civilains is not wrong....

You're creating a false argument.

Your ENTIRE post is a false argument based upon your invented idea that I think kidnapping and civilian killings aren't wrong.

Shame on your dishonest a$$.

When you're able to discern between "wrong" and "terrorism" (ex. rape is "wrong", but it's not "terrorism"), then perhaps you can contribute.

[cali]

26. rape isn't terrorism?

Let me guess your gender? Male?

First of all, fuck your statement that I'm not arguing in good faith and that I'm being dishonest. I damned well am arguing honestly and in good faith. You asked why people who would kidnap civilians and murder them should be considered terrorists. I answered by saying their actions deserve that appellation.

Oh, and if you don't think rape can be terrorism, you don't think. Period.

[Harper_is_Bush]

32. No, rape is not terrorism.

A serial rapist is not a "terrorist".

Are we on the verge of calling all crimes "terrorism"?

[cali]

36. Bosnia, Post-war Berlin, The Sudan

and the list goes on and on. Rape is often an instrument of war and terror.

[Harper_is_Bush]

38. Rape is often an instrument of war, yes. Is rape "terrorism" though? No.

Can terrorists commit rape? Yes.

Are the folks in Afghanistan who raped the South Koreans "terrorists"? I see no evidence of that. It's a convenient political claim.

[cali]

43. Rape as an instrument of war is used to control and

terrorize. That makes it a form of terrorism. Kidnapping and murdering civilians is absolutely an act of terrorism, thus making those perpetrating such actions, terrorists. Find one credible source that refutes that.

[Boojatta]

5. Anyone can be called a patriot.

Would you say that if someone fought for the Khmer Rouge regime and against the Vietnamese military in Cambodia, then that person was a Cambodian patriot?

[baldguy]

8. Were people who fought for the Soviet Union against the Nazi invasion patriots?

Stalin killed many more people than Pol Pot.

[cali]

7. If he was, as you indicate, referring to those who

kidnapped the S. Korean group, murdering two of their number, and allegedly repeatedly raping some of the women, you're damn straight they're terrorists.

[Harper_is_Bush]

10. Why? n/t

[Boojatta]

18. I see three possibilities:

1. They are the top executive members of one organization that hopes to be the government at the conclusion of a civil war. However, if they are personally killing people in non-combat situations, then in addition to being in the executive branch, they also have a role in the judicial system of the government of the territory that they control. However, if they don't control territory, then it's not clear what they are.

2. They are receiving orders from an organization that hopes to be the government at the conclusion of a civil war. In this case, they could be soldiers.

3. They are freelance killers who have an ideological agenda.

[Harper_is_Bush]

20. You're not following this. WHY are they terrorists? n/t

[Boojatta]

25. What point did I miss?

I suppose a new category could be invented to describe them, but how much is known about them? Killing a civilian hostage is not combat. Of course, it's possible that they have more than one role and that among other things they are illegal combatants. However, as killers of a civilian hostage or two, what is the appropriate term to describe them?

[Harper_is_Bush]

31. It seems to be your logic that they are terrorists because you do not what else to call them..n/t

[Boojatta]

33. If the goal is to communicate with the general public, then one

chooses the most appropriate term from among terms that are not excessively technical.

For example, Wiles' achievement with respect to Fermat's Last Theorem was described simply as a "proof." The assumptions that he relied upon were not specified in news articles, not even by reference to the name of an axiomatic system. Those interested can find out for themselves. Needless to say, news articles did not mention different formal systems of logic or specify what system of logic Wiles used.

[Harper_is_Bush]

34. Put the text book away and tell me this: is every criminal a terrorist now?

Or consider....perhaps the "goal" is not just to "communicate" with the general public, but rather to manipulate them.

[Boojatta]

35. There are many criminals who are not terrorists.

What textbook did you think I was consulting?

[Harper_is_Bush]

40. And there are many combatants in Afghanistan who are not terrorists. That's the point. n/t

[Boojatta]

44. Since when is the killing of an unarmed civilian hostage an act of combat?

[Harper_is_Bush]

46. Since when is the killing of an unarmed civilian hostage an act of terrorism?

[Boojatta]

47. Maybe since 1988? See below.

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.

The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators.

Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought

(Schmid, 1988).

Source:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

[Harper_is_Bush]

48. So, if someone kidnaps a movie star's child and demands a ransome, and kills the kid

when the ransome doesn't arrive, that's terrorism?

That fits your "Schmid" description, and thus I disagree completely.

[Boojatta]

49. It sounds as though you consider "for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons"

to be too inclusive. How about if that were changed to "for political, religious, or philosophical reasons, but excluding those who are doing it purely for money unless they commit the act with the intention of using most of the money for some political, religious, or philosophical purposes"?

Would you completely disagree?

[TygrBright]

15. Anyone who fights NATO is a terrorist. Or an evil-doer. Or something really, really bad. Get it?

They're not WITH us, they're AGAINST us. So they're BAD. And we have to use BAD words to describe them. See?

Very simple.

Very, very simple.

Very, very, very simple.

By the simple, for the simple.

sourly,
Bright

[Harper_is_Bush]

17. The sarcasm is not helpful. n/t

[kcr]

19. You are not correct

The opposition in Afghanistan appears to consist largely of two groups, the Taliban and Al Queda. The Taliban are religious fanatics of the worse sort, the kind that impose their narrow, cultural preferences masquerading as religious commands by violence and death. They would quite literally shut away on half of the population, subjecting them to the complete control of their husbands or fathers. They would impose controls on every aspect of a persons private life. They are not just tribal sects who want the foreigners gone.

That does not mean they are terrorists, however. But a look at their tactics -- the kidnap of civilians for ransom, the deliberate target of civilians and civilian targets that have no military value, and the summary execution of "collaborators" are definitely terrorist tactics. Calling them terrorists certainly seems justified.

[Harper_is_Bush]

24. "The opposition in Afghanistan appears to consist largely of two groups, the Taliban and Al Queda."

On what do you base that?

[kcr]

27. Aside from reality and common sense?

The Taliban and Al queda take credit for these attacks; no other group does. Every press report, foreign or domestic on these kinds of issues points to either the Taliban or Al Quada. The Taliban were the undisputed military master of almost all of Afghanistan until 2001. We know that Al Quada members and much of the Taliban leadership and forces escaped destruction at Tora Bora; therefor, the Taliban are the force best positioned to be conducting these levels of operations (aside from the terrorist attacks, it appears that they have been able to carry out fairly sophisticated pieces of guerrilla warfare.). The attacks are not generally taking place in the territory of th the only other significant native Afghani military force, the warlords of the Northern Alliance. In fact, most of those forces are alligned, to one degree or another, with the Kabul government and/or NATO. The worst of the violence is taking place in the past stronghold of the Taliban.

The evidence is fairly overwhelming.

[sandnsea]

39. What about Northern Alliance

And other regional tribal groups. I think Afghanistan is pretty much the same mess it was when we went in. I don't think there's any way Republicans could have fixed anything because they don't believe in government and it takes bottom-up governance for any country to work. Hundreds of billions squandered. I don't know if we'll ever get out of this mess.

[spindoctor]

28. In Holland they are consistently referred to as Taliban

Because the Taliban is not actually an ethnic group or even a regional or religious representation, combined with the fact that they use terrorist tactics, I have no problem labeling them terrorists.

The problem is that its a rather meaningless term. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Of course the position on dealing with freedom fighters is not as well-known I guess.

[Boojatta]

29. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. "

Is that from the Ward Churchill school of thought: "one man's civilian employee at the WTC is another man's Reichsoldier"?

(Apparently "Reichsoldier" is not actually a word, but the idea is clear given that "Reichminister" is a word.)

[spindoctor]

30. It's a common phrase

I usually refer it to the militias fighting against the Brittish army. In the eyes of the Brittish our brave patriots were terrorists using tactics that were considered dishonorable and cowardish (meaning we wouldn't confront them in the open field).

We label Bin Laden a terrorist, large numbers in Africa and the Middle East label him a hero.

But I just had to run away from another thread seeking to redefine terrorism and it seems to become an increasingly popular brand. Stick it on anything bad.

[Boojatta]

45. A couple of questions

In the eyes of the British our brave patriots were terrorists using tactics that were considered dishonorable and cowardish (meaning we wouldn't confront them in the open field).

If we're trying to determine whether or not they were terrorists, then I don't see why it matters whether they were "patriots" or assassins who spent their entire lives in Vatican City before getting two days of local training. After all, we're talking about the choice of tactics, not the underlying motivation.

What does someone's status as a "patriot" tell us about his or her tactics?

Of course, if you agree that terrorism is dishonorable, then there is a conflict between the notion that they were honorable patriots and the notion that they used terrorist tactics. That might explain your words "were considered dishonorable", but what is the role of their "patriot" status in this discussion of terrorism?

[cali]

37. btw,

the Taliban, when in power in Afghanistan was all about instilling terror in the populace.

[Harper_is_Bush]

41. Ok. So what is your definition of terrorism? Who are "terrorists"?

Are they any group that "instills terror in a populace"?

Or is more than that required? Communists instilled terror. Sudanese militia instill terror. How far are we expanding this term?

thx

[cali]

42. There are state actors who practice terrorism and

non-state actors. My definition of terror is any entity that practices violence against civilian in order to influence or control the population. Yes, it's broad, but I don't differentiate between "lawful" actions that instill terror in a population, and "unlawful" actions.