Do "terrorists" have a right to honour their...

Post Reply New Topic

...war-dead?

I mean "terrorists" as in groups that are generally considered a terror organisation by the US or the international community. I don't see why not. Even though some of them have participated in attacks against civilians, not all of them do it, plus its not like the Allies during WW2 hasn't done "acts of terrorism". I mean acts such as the random bombing of German cities (no, they did not only target the miltary bases or weapons factories). Also, the A-bombs on Japan technically fits the definition of an "act of terrorism".

Define "terrorism" and "terrorist" please.

X2

I don't think people can really use that word anymore without at least a little clarification, no one really seems to know what it means. I tend to think of "terrorism" as the intentional targeting of civilians for non-military purposes, e.g. making a political "statement", where now it seems to be flung at any action that the flinger generally disapproves of. I believe I recently even heard a Union leader refer to Republican Congressmen as "terrorists" because they blocked a bill that would have made it easier for his union to pressure businesses or some such thing; the word has lost all connection to reality.

Regardless, I'm in the "Anyone can honor anyone they please to" camp, I don't like the idea of such a politicized label being given the legal weight to prevent people from mourning or honoring someone who may have mattered to them.

Agreed, and some Christians got really nasty toward me a few years ago when I said the bodies of some dead terrorists (Chechan, I think?) should be returned and *not* instead be buried in pigskin as an attempt to discourage their fellows.

I've been accused of being a terrorist before, by Wal-Fart management no less. What morons they are.

Well, there is no doubt that people have a right to remember them, I mean, terrorists are human beings too, regardless of how you define "terrorist".

What I mean is if its appropriate to view them as heroes. I'll give you an example. Israel considers Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. However, many (I don't know the percentage, but its many people) in Lebanon view Hezbollah as the only army who is able to defend Lebanon against Israel, thus Hezbollah are viewed as heroes that fight and defend their country.

As far as I'm concerned how the Lebanese think of Hezbollah is no one's business but the Lebanese. How other countries view the Lebanese might be influenced by their position, but that's geopolitics for you.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." - answers.com

The issue with unlawful equating to terrorism, if the above is a valid definition, in my opinion, is that, despite of that, destruction, terror and suffering takes place regardless, with the difference of justifying the act legally, thus avoiding or meant to avoid legal condemnation when it comes to terrorism.

In the case of the a-bomb in WWII, that would be considered mass murder and massacre, rather I think, (even though the act was related to intimidation and coercion) and, technically, a crime against humanity that was never taken into international court, given violations of the conventions at the time. (which I wonder the justification of that may lead to appeal to some sort of utilitarianism)

perception is reality

Not entirely. Subjective reality vs objective reality. Both are meaningful but despite your perceptions, having one apple and receiving another apple will give you two apples*.



*No action is taken with the original apple at the point of transaction and the original apple is still in pristine condition.

1. The U.S. and Japan were in a declared war.
2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not declared open cities by their governments. They housed military assets, so by the Geneva Conventions then in force they were legit targets.

A-Bombs were not then nor are they now outlawed by the Geneva Convention.

The attacks by the U.S. were are kosher under the (then) laws of warfare.

ruveyn

You are threating us with parakeets invading the world, so you must be a terrorist.

The rubber hits the road on this question when it comes to the ANC.

They were most assuredly a terrorist organization, albeit one whose aims many of us supported.

Now, no one is going to credibly suggest that the ANC's martyrs in the struggle against apartheid were not heroes, worthy of respect as such.

Which just lends credence to the aphorism, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

i was just saying simply that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... just as one man's sh!t is another man's stuff... as my statement would apply to what was being discussed.

It appears that the conventions were relevant in war times.


I'm not sure how justifiable is that within international law, given the Hague Convention. And the US warned Japan of "utter destruction", thus they very well knew the implications of droping the bombs, should they realise that with the results from tests prior the bombings.


The Hague Convention outlawed the bombardment of civilians, wether there was or not nuclear weapons at the time, it is reasonable to think the same principle should apply.

Last edited by greenblue on 01 Sep 2010, 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In reference to the bombing of German cities during WW2, I always find the following quote quite enlightening:

The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind - Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris.