Obama's Wars

[Noztradamus]

Terrorism isn't cowardly. By definition, terrorists fight against an overwhelmingly superior enemy. That's generally considered brave. Of course bravery is cheap if you live a ******** instead of luxerious Harlem (by comparisson), but still.
And fair fights are for losers. Anyone who wants to win fights sneaky. That's the whole point of all this expensive stealth technology.

~~~~~

May 27, 1942 , Reinhard Heydrich, deputy Reichsprotektor of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, was selectively targeted for asssination by two British trained Czech nationals.

Some people considered this terrorism. They subsequently killed 340 people from the village of Lidice and leveled the town, which was suspected of harbouring local partisans. As the German actions were not against "an overwhelmingly superior enemy". it wasn't terrorism, right?

But you're right. No military power in the world can ever protect you against enemies who hate you so much they want to lash out at you whatever the cost. There'll always be some a-symmetrical means for them to hurt you.

Best try to piss off a bit fewer people.

If only Heydrich (and Hitler) had considered that.

 

[egslim]

Terrorism is not defined by fighting against a superior enemy--it is defined by attacking non-combatants to create a fear of danger.

You're right, that's the definition. And from that definition it follows that terrorism is a method only resorted to by groups that fight against a superior enemy.

It's a method of weakness to attempt to create a fear of danger, if you lack the strength to do real damage.

As the German actions were not against "an overwhelmingly superior enemy". it wasn't terrorism, right?

No, it was standard counter-insurgency tactic. And according to wiki: The Allies instead stopped planning operations to assassinate top Nazis for fear of reprisals. So it was quite effective.

About 10 years later, Britain did the same in Kenya. While only 32 white settlers were killed by Mau Mau insurgents, Elkins reports that tens of thousands of Kenyans were slaughtered, perhaps up to 300,000. The British also interned the entire 1.5 million population of Kikuyu, the colony's largest ethnic group, in barbed-wire villages, forced-labour reserves where famine and disease ran rampant, and prison camps that Elkins describes as the Kenyan "Gulag."
Recently the Foreign Office has produced 300 boxes of files that elaborate and confirm the events.

The problem with effective counter-insurgency tactics is they're not so nice. Which is why if you want to consider yourself nice, it's better to not get involved fighting an insurgency.

If only Heydrich (and Hitler) had considered that.

One assasinated, one suicide. I daresay that's a good reason to not follow their example.

 

[gnome]

You're right, that's the definition. And from that definition it follows that terrorism is a method only resorted to by groups that fight against a superior enemy.

It's a method of weakness to attempt to create a fear of danger, if you lack the strength to do real damage.

What if you have the strength but do it anyway, does it cease to be terrorism?

Is it terrorism to attack civilians because you can, not because you imagine you have no other choice?

I think of a government that shoots protesters to shut them up. I consider that terrorism as well.

 

[egslim]

What if you have the strength but do it anyway, does it cease to be terrorism?

Is it terrorism to attack civilians because you can, not because you imagine you have no other choice?

I think of a government that shoots protesters to shut them up. I consider that terrorism as well.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of terrorism then. I consider terrorism to be limited to non-state actors.

The problem if you include nation-states is it expands the scope to become almost limitless and therefore loses meaning.

Take for example the Gulf-states where security forces have been ordered to shoot protestors. By your definition that's terrorism. The US is allied with those states, protects them and supplies weapons. By your definition the US then aids and abets terrorists.
What about the British attrocities in Kenya I linked? The British haven't denounced those in any way, they just ignore them. Does that make the British government a terrorist organization?
I could go on for a while, but I think the point is clear.