Was the Attack on the USS Cole an act of terrorism?

[tnitsuj]

was the attack on the USS Cole an act of terrorism? insidered by the insurgenst thread.

 

[Spencer278]

I voted yes but it doesn't really mater our response should be the same either way.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

No, a military target is a legitimate target. It was an act of war we failed to respond to.

Edit: Actually, I forgot we did respond, but we should have gone to a war footing at that point.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
was the attack on the USS Cole an act of terrorism? insidered by the insurgenst thread.

What is "insidered"?. I guess "insurgenst"is a mis-spelling of insurgents?

 

[BDawg]

Yep, an attack on a military target is an act of war, not terrorism.

 

[kage69]

Seeing as how Al Qaeda isn't a sovreign country, and no state of war existed between us, the fact that the Cole is a military target is immaterial. Some putz living in a cave declaring war doesn't count. It's terrorism.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: BDawg
Yep, an attack on a military target is an act of war, not terrorism.

But was this attack on a military target intended to instill terror in civilians? You're really just arguing semantics, everyone will have their opinions based on nuances in this case.

Zephyr

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: kage69
Seeing as how Al Qaeda isn't a sovreign country, and no state of war existed between us, the fact that the Cole is a military target is immaterial. Some putz living in a cave declaring war doesn't count. It's terrorism.

The US declared war on the Barbary Pirates soon after independence. They weren't a sovreign nation. They were based in city states on the north coast of Africa, which weren't included in the declaration of war IIRC.

Zephyr

 

[kage69]

The US declared war on the Barbary Pirates soon after independence. They weren't a sovreign nation. They were based in city states on the north coast of Africa, which weren't included in the declaration of war IIRC.

Actually, that was more of a police action to curb rampant piracy, the declaration of war being necessary in order to procure enough firepower to deal with the problem. The Barbary Pirates were the de facto rulers of their territory, and certainly considered themselves as sovreign rulers - and that was good enough for Jefferson! They were not a slippery, ethereal global organization of terrorists like al Qaeda, which seems to hole up in no specific locality.

 

[Klixxer]

Everyone knows that it's all about where they are from, if they are from Europe they are Nazis (all european are Nazis), if they are from the ME they are terrorists and if they are from the US they are heroes.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: kage69
Seeing as how Al Qaeda isn't a sovreign country, and no state of war existed between us, the fact that the Cole is a military target is immaterial. Some putz living in a cave declaring war doesn't count. It's terrorism.

I concur. Well-said.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: kage69

Seeing as how Al Qaeda isn't a sovreign country, and no state of war existed between us, the fact that the Cole is a military target is immaterial. Some putz living in a cave declaring war doesn't count. It's terrorism.

I concur. Well-said.

So it's not about their actions, it's where they are from and how they live?

HOP once explained it to be people who are fighting a battle they know they can't win.

 

At the time of the USS Cole attack, the US was not at war, we had pissed some people, but not at war.
Are we at war now ? Congress has yet to declare, but I think we are.
The Cole was at dock in port, so I voted yes.

john

 

[ThePresence]

If I see a soldier walking down the street one day, and I kill him, am I a murderer or a terrorist?

 

[DealMonkey]

Seems like the definition of "terrorism" is transitory in nature around here. One day it's deliberately targeting civilians, the next day is attacks perpetrated by groups not countries.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
If I see a soldier walking down the street one day, and I kill him, am I a murderer or a terrorist?

To simplified. Who are you, where are you, who is the soldier?

 

[maddogchen]

man must be a slow day when everyone is arguing over a definition of a word.

My view: the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda which is a terrorist organization so its a terrorist attack. Doesn't matter what the target is.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ThePresence
If I see a soldier walking down the street one day, and I kill him, am I a murderer or a terrorist?

To simplified. Who are you, where are you, who is the soldier?

I'm a guy who hates the US. I'm in some foreign country when I see a US soldier.

EDIT: My original question was worded wrong. Terrorists and murderers are not mutally exclusive. Terrorists = murderers. It should read "am I a murderer or a legitimate fighter"?

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't much like the idea of killing other human beings, but killing murdering terrorists, well that's OK.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't much like the idea of killing other human beings, but killing murdering terrorists, well that's OK.

Absolutely, because by killing him you are preserving the lives of those he would kill in the future. Anyway, your point is wrong IMO, because even if it was considered an act of war, we would kill other human beings. That's what happens in a war. We aren't trying to classify them as terrorists to enable us to kill them without our conscience bothering us, because we would do that in a war too.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't much like the idea of killing other human beings, but killing murdering terrorists, well that's OK.

Well, I think all people who want to shoot people should be shot. Oops.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
man must be a slow day when everyone is arguing over a definition of a word.

My view: the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda which is a terrorist organization so its a terrorist attack. Doesn't matter what the target is.

Who get's to play this game? Label an organization a terrorist organization and all their actions are terrorist actions?

If the US admin doesn't label an organization a terrorist organization and that organization explicity target only civilians, are they not terrorists?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't much like the idea of killing other human beings, but killing murdering terrorists, well that's OK.

Well, I think all people who want to shoot people should be shot. Oops.

Nice Much like "Everything I saw is a lie: Am I lying?" [no Clinton playbook moves, either...I will not define "is"]

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen
man must be a slow day when everyone is arguing over a definition of a word.

My view: the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda which is a terrorist organization so its a terrorist attack. Doesn't matter what the target is.

Who get's to play this game? Label an organization a terrorist organization and all their actions are terrorist actions?

If the US admin doesn't label an organization a terrorist organization and that organization explicity target only civilians, are they not terrorists?

WTF are you talking about? everyone knows Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization so the attack on the Cole, which was what this guy is asking, was an act of terrorism. Stop drifting off subject.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: kage69
Seeing as how Al Qaeda isn't a sovreign country, and no state of war existed between us, the fact that the Cole is a military target is immaterial. Some putz living in a cave declaring war doesn't count. It's terrorism.

Can you explain the connection between being a sovereign state and war and terrorism? Are you suggesting that all non-state entities who are violent are terrorists? If you aren't, then you have not provided any reasons why it is terrorism.