Good job, B-Line. You're partly right. They were going after military targets.
The other part of it is that they were uniform-wearing members of their country's military.

So to sum up:

Military v. miltary is not terrorism, so no "suicide bombing"

Civilian v. civilian = terrorism

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Ummmm...last time I checked, the word "suicide" has nothing to do with terrorism. A suicide bombing is one in which the bomber is killed in the explosion.

Here is an official definition from the encyclopedia:

A suicide attack is an attack in which the attacker (attacker being either an individual or a group) intends to kill others and intends to die in the process of doing so (see suicide).



As far as your definition requiring them to be uniform-wearing members of their country's military, you are basically discounting all types of insurgencies and rebel movements. Are you of the opinion that all types of insurgents and rebels are "terrorists"? After all, none of them wear uniforms.

And define "country". What if you have a situation like a civil war? For example, was the Confederacy considered a "country"? Their military wore uniforms.

In the case of Afghanistan in 2001, the Taliban soldiers wore uniforms while the Northern Alliance (which we backed) did not. Was Afghanistan a "country"? And if so, who were their official military during this war in November-December 2001?

If Al-Queda wore uniforms and attacked only US military targets in Iraq, would you still consider them terrorists?

Was David Ben Gurion's army during Israel's Independence War terrorists? They did not wear uniforms nor were they an army of a country (Israel was not a country at that time and was part of a British colony called Palestine)??

I get the feeling here (and whenever we have such discussions) that you have already decided in your mind who the "terrorists" are and you will change and alter your definition as need be in order to define those specific groups who you think are terrorists while not implicating groups who you think are not terrorists.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

No. That is if Al-Queda actually had a formalized and recognized political structure. (BTW, I don't consider HAMAS a terrorist organization...figure that one out )

Now...onto the ranting

Terrorists, IMO, are any group of people devoid of political representation in a formal structure of command who's tactics are, for the majority, directed at civilian populations.

For instance Kamikaze pilots and proposed Selbstopfer by the Nazis were "suicide" or "self sacrifice" missions aimed at military infrastructure, not civilian populations in general. While carpet bombing missions during WWII did focus on civilian areas, these were not the bulk of the campaigns waged during the war. Where as, in case of terrorists, the population in general is the target.

During the civil war in the United States, there was a formalized government for the confederacy, and had the confederacy won the formalized government would have assumed power.

Calvin says:

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sorry Eric, but your bait smells funny. I don't think I'll bite.

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

Here's a twist for you. Was the USS Cole a military target? If so, then why was the Cole bombing called a "terrorist" act?

Regarding Iraq, if you look at most of the attacks going on over there, 99% of them are targetting military or "security" personel or related targets. Of course most of these targets are in populated areas and civilians are usually killed in these attacks. But if your target is of a military nature and civilians are killed in the process, is that considered a terrorist attack? I have a feeling that if it were American soldiers who were doing the attacking, these civilian deaths would be called "collateral damage".

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

I have major objections to your 99% statistic, IMO that was pulled out of ye ol arse.

You have missed or ignored some points, one was a formalized political structure the other was formal troops attacking military targets. The Cole attack was done by goons in a boat, not in uniform, roaming around a harbor and in fact over 16 serviceman on the Cole, who were there to prevent harbor attacks, noticed the terrorists but thought they were simply civilians in the water. That is the key point in what is terrorist and what isn't.

You are throwing up a lot of gray area. If the boat that hit the Cole had been flying (for instance) a HAMAS flag and all men were dressed in black coming at the Cole, it would have surely been fired on. Instance like the Cole happen because US serviceman, no matter what the media says, attempt to protect civilians first and kill the enemy second.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yes indeed.

That was the idea. "Terrorism" is an ideology, not a group of people. And yes, there is a lot of grey area there. It's not all black and white.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...