-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Will terrorism some day be an accepted part of warfare?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mugs
Lifer
Is there much difference between intentionally killing non-combatants and using tactics that are directed at military targets but involve "acceptable" levels of civilian casualties?
Especially if the "acceptable" numbers are as high as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sure, we can justify them by saying the war would have dragged on and killed many more people if we hadn't bombed them. But couldn't terrorists use the same justification?
NuclearNed
Raconteur
I'm not sure what you mean by "What, Mi Lai?", so I'm probably missing your point. But otherwise I think your first statement is pretty naive. I'm sure people said similar things right before the Nazis exterminated millions of people.
NuclearNed
Raconteur
That's what I figured. Off to google I go!!!
EDIT: Ah, yes. Now I remember Mi Lai. Good point.
Skyclad1uhm1
Lifer
All the German cities that were bombed into the ground? That wasn't limited to military and industrial targets either (not that it was bad to kill Germans of course 😛 )
And the US has supported quite a lot of terrorist groups in South America when the government didn't agree with the political views of those in power in those countries. Regardless whether they had been chosen democratically or not.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
:beer:
This has been around ever since the widespread use of bombers became possible. Bomb the cities, and hope to demoralize the nation you're fighting - both sides used this in World War 2.
There's a pretty fine line between Covert Ops and terrorism, but I do have doubts that direct attacks on civilians will ever be accepted tactics, though that has certainly been an element of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
CptObvious
Platinum Member
To me, it's all semantics because terrorism is a political term. Any type of stealth/surprise attack is going to be viewed by the attacked side as an act of terrorism. It doesn't have to be a suicide bomber or anthrax in the mail. And it doesn't matter whether the target is military or not. We still view the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 as a terrorist attack.
K1052
Elite Member
Dresden is the most famous example. The city contained little war industry or significant military presence. IIRC, the justification used was that refugees would be driven onto the roads and impede the German army's movement.
I don?t think it was justifiable on the Allies part to go ahead with it and I won?t try to defend it.
Hitler made terrorism a legitimate tactic of his war on England and I'd have to say the US did the same to Germany and Japan. Guerilla warfare on the other hand, which is primarily surprise attacks, sabotage and harrassment, is and always has been a legitimate tactic, whether or not an opposing force has agreed with those tactics. IMO, you cannot "terrorize" an army, you can only terrorize citizens. Hitler did this in his indiscriminate bombing of England which was designed to apply pressure upon the government to capitulate or sue for peace. The same view could be held of the the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, whether or not that is the correct view. There were legitimate military targets for both of those cities but one gets the feeling that the bombings had more in mind than just those military targets. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was close but they actually chose a primarily military target, so I wouldn't think it qualifies; it was just a surprise attack mistakenly conceived to get the US to sue for peace with Japan.
The bombing of the train in Spain is a classic example of terrorism; an attack upon civilians designed to influence the decisions of the government. Such attacks should never become legitimate which is much of the reasoning behind the questions following the bombings of Dresden and fire bombings of Tokyo. You could say the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the ultimate terrorist attacks; people still debate this furiously today.
The bombing of the train in Spain is a classic example of terrorism; an attack upon civilians designed to influence the decisions of the government. Such attacks should never become legitimate which is much of the reasoning behind the questions following the bombings of Dresden and fire bombings of Tokyo. You could say the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the ultimate terrorist attacks; people still debate this furiously today.
I don't agree with this. Guerilla warfare is distictly different and has entirely separate goals from terrorism. Like I said in my previous post, you cannot terrorize an army, only civilians. The goals of terrorism are to apply pressure to the government. The goals of guerilla warfare are to harrass an army.
Examples:
A roadside bomb destroying vehicles of a military convoy is guerilla warfare and is designed to harrass the army.
The bombing of a luxury hotel killing civilians is terrorism and is designed to pressure a government through the killing of its citizens.
Skyclad1uhm1
Lifer
But then you could say that Al Qaida tried to use the WTC the same way as the Allies tried to use Dresden in WW II: To get the opposite side to pull back their forces (and for example to stop funding Israel). Terrorism is very much dependant on from which side you look at it. US funding Israel, attacking Iraq claiming there are WMDs, or threatening Iran without any proof is terrorism according to a lot of Muslim fundamentalists. Al Qaida is a terrorist organisation according most US citizens.
Vic
Elite Member
In warfare, who was in the right and who was committing the war crimes is always decided by whoever wins the war.
That's always the way it is. This came up in another recent thread: if the Founding Fathers would have lost the American Revolution, they would have hung as traitors to the British Crown. But instead they won, and are counted as heroes. Such is war.
That's always the way it is. This came up in another recent thread: if the Founding Fathers would have lost the American Revolution, they would have hung as traitors to the British Crown. But instead they won, and are counted as heroes. Such is war.
Dresden is a very debatable issue. Keep in mind that there were very legitimate military targets in Dresden. It doesn't compare to the WTC, in that the WTC was in no way a military target.
As for your other points, they don't really compare at all to terrorism. US funding of Israel is not in and of itself a terrorist act. The US invasion of Iraq is an act of war, not terrorism. Threats to Iran are just that, threats (you'll have to be specific as to what "threats" you are referring to), and looked upon as diplomacy, not terrorism.
Dresden contained important railway targets, more than 100 factories and over 50,000 workers engaged in, amongst other things, production of aircraft components, artillery and poison gas. In addition, the placement of anti-aircraft weaponry around the city made it a legitimate target.
I'm not saying that the bombings weren't over-zealous and did not have elements of terrorism in their planning, but it was not quite as simple as the bombing of a single railroad hub.
miketheidiot
Lifer
is that why its been practiced by ever country since the begining of civilization?
CptObvious
Platinum Member
I would agree with you but the term terrorism as it's used now is almost all-encompassing. Anyone affiliated with groups like al-Queda is considered a terrorist even if they don't target civilians. But in the dictionary-definition sense you are correct.
It's done all the time. We just don't label it terrorism because it's so overt and in the middle of war. And because we do it. In that case only when enemies do things is it called terrorism. Any act of using terror to coerce people is terrorism. It doesn't have to be civilian targets only. As long as the point of the attack is to instill terror in the enemy, that is all that matters. Killing people does not necessarily constitute terror. But if the aim of killing people is to make people afraid, then it is terrorism.
As far as I am concerned the entire japanese bombing campaign by the US in world war 2, and certainly the atomic bombs themselves, were acts of overt terrorism.
As far as I am concerned the entire japanese bombing campaign by the US in world war 2, and certainly the atomic bombs themselves, were acts of overt terrorism.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
