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

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: kage69

I was not trying to suggest that. But if I had been, "well then you're just wrong" would not have been a very helpful response.

I'm concerned with the topic, not helping you.

So were the various resistance groups under nazi occupation in europe be terrorists?

You're trying to detract again, but I'll humor you. I don't think you can be a terrorist if you are fighting on behalf of a government in exile while still in your own country. Keep in mind many of the resistance fighters in Europe during WWII were civilians, politicians, and soldiers fighting to oust the invading Hun. Do I need to draw you picture on how different that is from a fundamental zealot who travels outside his country to attack a non-invading entity all because of ideological reasons?

Moreover, the American revolutionaries had a state that at first was not internationally recognized. Were they terrorists?

Yes, I guess they would have been, at least at first. After being recognized by France and Prussia, the pursuit of expelling those not born on our shores no doubt aided their image to the international community, that being a transformation from 'terrorists' or 'insurrectionsists' to legitimate freedom fighters. But then there's the whole goverment thing. How many terrorist organizations have you heard of that have gone and made their own constitution, formed their own army, and elected their own leaders?

"Yes, I guess [American revolutionaries] would have been [terrorists], at least at first."
Fair enough. This is an unusual position-- but there's nothing wrong with that.

("You're trying to detract again, but I'll humor you."
If by detract you mean 'show you that your position on the topic is incorrect' than you are correct. The topic asks if the USS Cole attack was an act of terrorism. You said it is because of X. If I say X is wrong, that is germane to the topic.)

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Michael
Infohawk -



Michael

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Klixxer
However, it is the same reason i do not believe the Iraqis fighting an occupying force are terrorists, because their actions are attacks on military targets within their own country. Their actions are not different from those of the resistance movements in Europe during WWII, would you say that those were terrorist actions?

If it will be shown that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and fighting the US, would you still think that it's not terrorism?

Only if they are Iraqis.

Foreign troops belonging to Al Quaida are not fighting for their country, not fighting an occupying force and are only there to fight Americans.

Does that make france a terrorst state because they help the American's in the revolutionary war mainly to fight with the english?

 

[GoPackGo]

It was an act of war and Clinton should have let loose the dogs of war against these people.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
It was an act of war and Clinton should have let loose the dogs of war against these people.

...after the bombings in Africa, Saudi, NY, or Qatar? Perhaps Bill was preoccupied and waiting for the 5th and final attack?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

It was an act of war and Clinton should have let loose the dogs of war against these people.

...after the bombings in Africa, Saudi, NY, or Qatar? Perhaps Bill was preoccupied and waiting for the 5th and final attack?

I don't know but I do know that I have less trouble figuring out what I should have done in the past than I do figuring out what to do right now.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

It was an act of war and Clinton should have let loose the dogs of war against these people.

...after the bombings in Africa, Saudi, NY, or Qatar? Perhaps Bill was preoccupied and waiting for the 5th and final attack?

ah, so who should have they attacked? remember, at the time of the cole, they didn't know who was responsible. not until bush came until office that intelligence pinned in on al queda. what did bush do with this new found information? did he go for justice for the sailors of the cole? no.... he took vacations, and pushed his tax cut. "it wasn't a priority"

not that it would have mattered. clinton firing missles at osama = repubs going wild of monica. clinton mons stating that osama bin laden should be "apprehended with all lethal force" = interpreted as somehow confusing to cia good lord.

 

[biostud]

I think that terrorist attacks are used to scare people, into changing their opinions.

There's different ways to view this. Al-queda is definately a terrorist organization, but some of their attacks have had a more "freedom" fighter character. If their politics are to remove the "Evil Global American Tyranny", they would say they are trying to liberate the world. When attacking military they use the same kind of resistance methods as freedom fighters during WWII. If you're fighting a war (the war against terrorism) then these targets are somewhat legit, they use sneak/guerilla attacks.
It's not a military attack since they don't wear uniform, and I think that if any government/organisation send persons without military signs/uniforms they should not be treatet as soldiers, but as civilians even though they're trained for combat.

So I wouldn't call it a terrorist attack since it was an attack on a military target, but it wasn't a military operation since it was not a part of an army attacking.

If it hadn't been a suicide attack but an attack with an anti-ship missile with exactly same results, would we think different of how to describe it? Maybe it's the suicide part that scare us, that people will blow them self up for their beliefs, and in that way it terrorize us?