sadmanbarty
Well-known member
I agree that terrorism tends to denote acts by non-state actors or paramilitary organisations, but you agreed to use a definition that didn't specify that.
Nuclear strike against Iran due end of March
- Thread starter HMGovt’s Glorious Return!
- Start date
I agree that terrorism tends to denote acts by non-state actors or paramilitary organisations, but you agreed to use a definition that didn't specify that.
craner
Beast of Burden
Well, alright, but then Droid did sneak out the word 'unlawful' after the fact, just to make the defintion even more amorphous than it already was and therefore able to swallow up the Blitz. 'State terror' is a fanastic way to obfuscate the actions and culpability of not-state terror groups, a very useful conceptual tool for terrorists themselves.
But I think the distinction between state and non-state is obvious and useful - I was not describing the Iranian regime (or even the IRGC) as terrorist entities, but as state sponsors of terrorism. IRGC actions in Syria are acts of war.
But I think the distinction between state and non-state is obvious and useful - I was not describing the Iranian regime (or even the IRGC) as terrorist entities, but as state sponsors of terrorism. IRGC actions in Syria are acts of war.
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
He didn't need to, deliberately targeting civilians is inherently unlawful under international law.
droid
Well-known member
Creating an artificial moral distinction between the murder of civilians dependent on whether the murderer is flying an F16 or planting a car bomb is a very useful conceptual tool for propagandists, apologists for terror and the morally challenged.
Yes we know you do, but you seem unable to provide any moral justification for this distinction.
You could give snideness a rest y'know, it stinks of desperation. I didnt 'sneak' anything. Ive been completely upfront and transparent in my arguments and rationale here.
Yes we know you do, but you seem unable to provide any moral justification for this distinction.
You could give snideness a rest y'know, it stinks of desperation. I didnt 'sneak' anything. Ive been completely upfront and transparent in my arguments and rationale here.
droid
Well-known member
So fundamentally I guess Im saying that for a definition of 'terrorism' to be useful, it must be a moral, not a political definition.
So yes, the Germans, the Russians, the US, the Iranians, the Iraqis, and every other state can all commit acts of terror in the course of an armed conflict, and these acts may also be war crimes.
Acts of terror committed by non-state actors is 'non-state terrorism'.
I dont see how this can be seen as the least bit controversial.
So yes, the Germans, the Russians, the US, the Iranians, the Iraqis, and every other state can all commit acts of terror in the course of an armed conflict, and these acts may also be war crimes.
Acts of terror committed by non-state actors is 'non-state terrorism'.
I dont see how this can be seen as the least bit controversial.
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
Differentiation between terrorism and military actions or, to be more Droid friendly, non-state terrorism and state-terrorism is useful in terms of how you respond.
To respond to a non-state actor you would launch a criminal investigation or a counter-insurgency depending on the circumstances.
Responding to a military would require a declaration of war or the launch of an insurgency, depending on the circumstances.
To respond to a non-state actor you would launch a criminal investigation or a counter-insurgency depending on the circumstances.
Responding to a military would require a declaration of war or the launch of an insurgency, depending on the circumstances.
droid
Well-known member
The fact is that there is neither a theoretical or practical international consensus on the legal definition of terrorism. Historically it was generally used to describe action of governments against populations.
There are all sorts of shades of grey, but I dont believe that there is a 'fundamental qualitative difference' between the bombing of an apartment building in Gaza by Israel or rocket attacks on an apartment building in Ashkelon by Hamas. A car bomb in a market in Beirut or an artillery shell in a market in Grozny.
I understand why it useful to limit the description to non-state actors only. It demonises official enemies and lets governments commit the same (or worse) acts with relative impunity.
In this sense 'terrorism' becomes a meaningless designation in moral terms (as most people understand it), and becomes a tool of propaganda. Quite simply - terrorism is what they do.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
As an example of a situation where the distinction between state and non-state terror was not just a theoretical nicety: didn't the US government justify the indefinite detention-without-charge and general mistreatment of prisoners in Guantánamo on the basis that they were combatants, and therefore not entitled to the legal rights afforded to civilian prisoners, but also non-state combatants, and therefore not entitled to the rights afforded to POWs according to the Geneva Convention?
craner
Beast of Burden
On the contrary, it is the redefinition of terrorism on moral terms alone that transforms it into a propaganda tool. Israel is already treated like a moral pariah due to its destruction of Gaza, and the UN machinery is largely arranged against it. The actions are covered and targerted by international law, and terror statutes and acts are irrelevant to the case. Unless, of course, you want to conflate Hamas and Israel, but that is just a rhetorical, propaganda tactic.
droid
Well-known member
And rightly so. They have been ignoring the UN since 1948
Yes, they are covered by international law etc which is in most cases, only valid if the state concerned signs the treaty or when referred to by the UN.
But I'm all in favour of implementing an ICC for non-state terror. Terror groups must sign up for the court to have jurisdiction and ISIS & Al-Qaeda can be permanent members of the referring body.
BTW, Im not conflating Hamas and Israel. Israel is far more dangerous.
droid
Well-known member
lol. Yes, it's a completely ridiculous concept, that's my entire point.
Absolutely massive 30-years-style schismic war brewing between Saudi and allies (gulf states, Sudan just declared) and Iran and allies (Russia?). That should sort the oil price out.
Heh, Roger Boyes in the Times had a rough night
THE TIMES
Tuesday, February 16
How Syria could drag global powers into wider conflict
Published at 12:01AM, February 16 2016
The third world war could arrive without the understood rituals of ultimatums delivered and defied, . Instead, conflict might arrive incrementally as one power after another enters the fray to protect clients.
Northern Syria is approaching that moment. The battle for Aleppo will determine the survival of Assad. That is why such a high premium is being placed on control of the Azaz corridor, the strip of land that serves as a supply route from the Turkish frontier to eastern Aleppo, Syria’s second city.
There are four potential flashpoints.
1. Trigger-happy turkey
Ankara can see its policy in the Middle East collapsing. It hopes Azaz will be a base for Turkish-backed rebels to snatch back eastern Aleppo once Islamic State has been weakened by western airstrikes. If Azaz falls to the Kurds, however, they will be in a strong position to form a hostile state on the Turkish border. Preventing that is so important for the Turks that they may send in ground troops and risk a flare-up between Nato and Russian forces.
Will Nato troops follow Turkey on the ground? No. But if Russian jets stray into Turkish air space, provoking an aerial clash, Ankara could call on Nato for collective defence — and a big war edges closer.
2. Putin v Erdogan
Russia is concentrated on blocking Turkey. It has delivered weapons to 5,000 Kurdish fighters and its aircraft have attacked a convoy of rebel supplies crossing from Turkey into Syria.
If the Azaz corridor is closed, Russia will help Assad forces to block other Turkish border crossings. If this were to be followed by the ethnic cleansing by Russia and Syria of Turkmens, Turkish public opinion would demand action, even at the risk of confronting the Russians.
3. Putin’s gamble
It could be part of President Putin’s gameplan to provoke Turkey into military action against the Syrian Kurds. This would push the Kurds into joining the Russian alliance alongside Assad, Iran and Hezbollah. The West would be denied its only effective partner on the ground in the war against Isis and the balance of advantage would shift in Assad’s favour. This could prompt a change of heart in the West and nudge the US into sending ground forces. Turkey v Kurds becomes US v Russia.
4. Saudi Arabia v Iran
The wild card is the force of Saudi jets at Incirlik base in Turkey. It seems they are part of the assault on Raqqa rather than the looming battle for Aleppo. The entry of Riyadh, which is also talking about sending in troops, could be pivotal. It would not take much — the Russian downing of a Saudi jet and the Iranian seizure of the pilot — for two fronts to merge: Shia v Sunni, Russia v Nato. Then all bets are off.