Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[Thorne]

but "terrorist" is not just a label: it has an actual meaning.

I agree. But one of the problems of civilization is trying to get people to agree on those meanings. While we in the West might view the act of flying planes into buildings to be terrorism, can we be sure that all other cultures see it the same way? My observations, cynical though they may be, shows that if they do it to us, it's terrorism, but if we do it to them, it's patriotism.

Maybe some of Gaddaffi's troops did believe that label fitted the rebels, just as some of the Taleban mistakenly believed the Northern Alliance were Christian rather than Muslim, but neither makes it true or changes the actual meaning of the word being misused.

No: it was direct destruction of enemy assets, rather than a psychological ploy.

It was the indiscriminate destruction of assets along with men, women and children, without consideration of who would be harmed. Industry or military assets were not the target. The entire city was the target. And there was a psychological component as well. It was believed by some that such destruction would provide the impetus for the German people to rise up against their government. Of course, it did just the opposite.

No, not to set anyone free - just to hurt their enemy.

Which is the point of any war, is it not? Each individual action is designed not to win the war, but to hurt the enemy. It's the total accumulation of such actions which determine who wins or loses. Along with the enemy's ability, and determination, to absorb such hurt while causing as much hurt to you as possible.

[js207]

I agree. But one of the problems of civilization is trying to get people to agree on those meanings. While we in the West might view the act of flying planes into buildings to be terrorism, can we be sure that all other cultures see it the same way? My observations, cynical though they may be, shows that if they do it to us, it's terrorism, but if we do it to them, it's patriotism.

It's not about "civilisation", but a simple matter of linguistics: 'terrorism' is an English word used to describe a particular type of act, the instillation of terror. It isn't a moral judgement, it's a particular tactic. One most of us in the West, excluding Martin Sheen, consider wrong, but that's another issue. If you were to ask anyone in Al Qaeda and get a candid response, they would agree it is indeed terrorism, they are a terrorist group - they just believe their terrorism is morally right and that terror is an appropriate tactic for them to use.

(I did feel from the outset that 'war on terror' was a stupid name, analogous to 'war on pincer movements' or 'war on vertical envelopment' - though of course the more accurate 'war on Islamic extremists' would be politically problematic and 'war on Al Qaeda' raises the obvious but awkward question of 'so why are you fighting the Taleban then'.)

It was the indiscriminate destruction of assets along with men, women and children, without consideration of who would be harmed. Industry or military assets were not the target. The entire city was the target. And there was a psychological component as well. It was believed by some that such destruction would provide the impetus for the German people to rise up against their government. Of course, it did just the opposite.

I've italicised the key bit there: yes, 'the entire city' was targeted, and legally the city as a whole was a valid target. A target was prohibited only if completely free from military value.

Which is the point of any war, is it not? Each individual action is designed not to win the war, but to hurt the enemy. It's the total accumulation of such actions which determine who wins or loses. Along with the enemy's ability, and determination, to absorb such hurt while causing as much hurt to you as possible.

It's a bit more selective than that: not 'hurt the enemy' but 'hurt the enemy's military' - more recently, trying much harder to minimise damage to non-military aspects.

[Thorne]

It's not about "civilisation", but a simple matter of linguistics: 'terrorism' is an English word used to describe a particular type of act, the instillation of terror.

Linguistically speaking, you are right. An act of terror can be a legitimate military tactic. But I maintain that a terrorist is a label which may be applied differently by the perpetrators of the act and its victims.

yes, 'the entire city' was targeted, and legally the city as a whole was a valid target. A target was prohibited only if completely free from military value.

I imagine the citizens of Dresden would question the legality. As would the citizens of London, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What about Nanking, then? Would the atrocities performed there be considered a "legal" act? They were, after all, supporting the enemy.

It's a bit more selective than that: not 'hurt the enemy' but 'hurt the enemy's military'

Exactly! It's doubtful that the bombing of Dresden, for example, did anything to "hurt" the German military. They were already hurt badly, and the actual area of the city destroyed had little or no military significance. It can be argued that it was, indeed, an act of terror. And I will agree that the acts perpetrated on 9/11/01 were acts of terror as well, by anyone's definition. My only point is that those who committed the acts, whether in New York or Germany, were considered patriots by their own people.

[js207]

Linguistically speaking, you are right. An act of terror can be a legitimate military tactic. But I maintain that a terrorist is a label which may be applied differently by the perpetrators of the act and its victims.

It may be misused, yes - as is true of most words.

I imagine the citizens of Dresden would question the legality. As would the citizens of London, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What about Nanking, then? Would the atrocities performed there be considered a "legal" act? They were, after all, supporting the enemy.

Nanking, no, because civilians were targeted - which is and was a war crime. In a nutshell, if I shoot at you, a civilian, or drop a bomb aimed at your house, it's illegal; if I shoot at the enemy soldier next to you, or drop a bomb on the barracks next door to your house, that's fine, even if you die as a result.

Exactly! It's doubtful that the bombing of Dresden, for example, did anything to "hurt" the German military. They were already hurt badly, and the actual area of the city destroyed had little or no military significance. It can be argued that it was, indeed, an act of terror. And I will agree that the acts perpetrated on 9/11/01 were acts of terror as well, by anyone's definition. My only point is that those who committed the acts, whether in New York or Germany, were considered patriots by their own people.

Conflating "little or no military significance" misses the point, since the law protects only the latter situation. The general consensus seems to be that they had little military significance, which makes the attacks lawful. (In 1963, a Japanese judicial review disagreed, but the ruling rested in part on a piece of international law which had been drafted but never actually signed or accepted.)

You're getting caught in false dichotomies here, too. Most of the 9/11 hijackers, along with bin Laden himself, are arguably considered traitors not patriots, being Saudi nationals (at least until they revoked OBL's citizenship) - a country which was, at the time, partly defended by the US military from the hostile country next door - and of course whether their actions were considered patriotic or not by their own supporters, it doesn't stop them also being terrorism. McVeigh's antigovernment actions probably have a better claim to the "patriot" label from his supporters than Al Qaeda's, considering that group doesn't even have a home country or common nationality, but certainly qualify as terrorism, don't they?

[Thorne]

Nanking, no, because civilians were targeted - which is and was a war crime. In a nutshell, if I shoot at you, a civilian, or drop a bomb aimed at your house, it's illegal; if I shoot at the enemy soldier next to you, or drop a bomb on the barracks next door to your house, that's fine, even if you die as a result.

The problem is that the Allies did NOT bomb military targets, specifically. They bombed the entire city! Indiscriminately. They weren't aiming at the barracks next door, they were aiming at everything. Hospitals, churches, stores, homes, everything. Regardless of military significance.

whether their actions were considered patriotic or not by their own supporters, it doesn't stop them also being terrorism.

No, it does not. I'm not denying that fact at all. Only that there ARE supporters who consider them to be patriots. That's the point of the statement made by denuseri: "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

And I make the same claim about those who orchestrated the fire-bombings of German cities, or Japanese cities, or the indiscriminate bombings of English cities, or the atomic bombings of Japanese cities. To some, the men who performed these acts are considered heroes and patriots. to others they are no different than terrorists. It's all a matter of your point of view.

[js207]

The problem is that the Allies did NOT bomb military targets, specifically. They bombed the entire city! Indiscriminately. They weren't aiming at the barracks next door, they were aiming at everything. Hospitals, churches, stores, homes, everything. Regardless of military significance.

Yes, as I said, 'the entire city' was a legitimate target. If Bomber Command had gone "hey, let's send the whole combined RAF-USAF strike force against Fritz's Bratwursts, that asshole short-changed me in 1935" it would be against the rules - but "let's destroy Dresden" was not, even though it happened to include said sausage vendor.

No, it does not. I'm not denying that fact at all. Only that there ARE supporters who consider them to be patriots. That's the point of the statement made by denuseri: "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

Being a "patriot" in someone's mind doesn't stop you being a terrorist - nor does it make you a "freedom fighter". Yes, of course they have supporters, that doesn't stop them being contemptible. I find Sheen's position as disgusting as that of the Palestinians and other Middle Easterners who cheered the 9/11 attacks, don't you? The equivalency denseri implies is false: a 'freedom fighter' is not just terrorist you agree with. When you plant a car bomb in a row of shops, then phone in a bomb warning giving the wrong location so people get evacuated towards it to maximise casualties, that is not "freedom fighting" or a war, it's terrorism - whoever the civilians may be, whatever side you're on, whatever your aim.

In short: Denuseri's statement is wrong - terrorism and "freedom fighter" are not a question of which side you are on, but what that entity does. What Al Qaeda and the IRA do is terrorism, whether you support them or not; dumping tea in the sea in Boston and fighting off enemy troops is not.

And I make the same claim about those who orchestrated the fire-bombings of German cities, or Japanese cities, or the indiscriminate bombings of English cities, or the atomic bombings of Japanese cities. To some, the men who performed these acts are considered heroes and patriots. to others they are no different than terrorists. It's all a matter of your point of view.

No - there were and are rules, agreed to by both sides. The Blitz was not "terrorism" nor a war crime, but a war fought by uniformed troops bound by those laws.

[Thorne]

Yes, as I said, 'the entire city' was a legitimate target. If Bomber Command had gone "hey, let's send the whole combined RAF-USAF strike force against Fritz's Bratwursts, that asshole short-changed me in 1935" it would be against the rules - but "let's destroy Dresden" was not, even though it happened to include said sausage vendor.

I disagree, obviously. If they had said, "Let's bomb Ernst's Explosive Emporium" and it just so happened that Fritz's Bratwurst factory was right next door, then Fritz is out of luck, certainly. But targeting the center of the city and ignoring the rail yards and factories on the outskirts? That's terrorism.

I find Sheen's position as disgusting as that of the Palestinians and other Middle Easterners who cheered the 9/11 attacks, don't you?

Of course I do! But I also sympathize with the Irish desire to free themselves from British domination. If they had limited their attacks to only military and political targets, and avoided targeting civilians directly, they would be considered "freedom fighters" rather than terrorists. Right?

terrorism and "freedom fighter" are not a question of which side you are on, but what that entity does. What Al Qaeda and the IRA do is terrorism, whether you support them or not; dumping tea in the sea in Boston and fighting off enemy troops is not.

Again, linguistically you are correct. But in the minds and hearts of the people affected, you're wrong. Dumping tea into Boston harbor was economic terrorism, if you happened to own that tea, or were dependent upon the tax revenues that tea would have brought in. If you're benefiting from the freedom that the act helped to bring about, though, it was an act of patriotism.

No - there were and are rules, agreed to by both sides.

Not always. I don't believe the Japanese, for example, signed the Geneva Convention. Nor did the USSR.

The Blitz was not "terrorism" nor a war crime, but a war fought by uniformed troops bound by those laws.

It may not have been a war crime, but it was most certainly terrorism. It was intended to weaken civilian resolve for carrying on the war, to put political pressure on the British government. The target was not military or industrial sites, but civilians and their homes. What difference whether the bomber was wearing a uniform or a business suit? The intentions, and the effects, are the same.