I would not describe a person who attacks military targets as a "terrorist". Military targets, by their nature, are legitimate targets in armed conflict.
This man may have been planning to attack civilian targets. If so, then he could be fairly referred to as a terrorist.
Here's another-
As has been so well pointed out a terrorist targets civilians. This man was going to target military installations. And my guess would be base headquarters or command posts which would have mostly military personnel or civilians in military functions.
You aren't a terrorist if you attack military targets? Can you believe that? So how would they define the IRA bomb attack on the Parachute Regiment's Aldershot barracks- legitimate military target I suppose. But wait, they killed an Army priest and five cleaning women. Does that cloud the issue any? Are they only 50% terrorist in this case- or do they consider anyone working with the military also a legitimate target? The IRA certainly did and would target builders who worked on police or Army barracks. What about when the IRA plants a bomb in Belfast to try and kill civilians? Or when they murder off-duty police men at their homes? Are they terrorists only then?
How about terrorist attacks on US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world- carried out by "fighters" who wear no uniform, blend into the civilian population and fight for no country and obey none of the rules of war. Under their definition they aren't terrorists- but these are the same people who the very next day could plant a bomb in a marketplace that murders civilians out shopping. Are they non-terrorists on the day they plant an IED aimed at soldiers (an indiscriminate weapon which can- and has- killed civilians in the process) and terrorists when they murder women and children? Is it really that much in flux? Are the civilians accidentally killed in an attack on an American patrol merely collateral damage?
I was really stunned to see not only one person state such an opinion but to also see others agree with it- and I'm guessing these were American citizens stating that American soldiers were a legitimate target for attack. An attack on American soil while in their base. So I'm assuming that to these people the Fort Dix plot wasn't terrorism at all but a legitimate act. I guess that explains a lot about how they see the war on terror.
4 comments:
A very confusing issue.
You see we define what a terrorist is. It is someone we want to be reviled and that the public will have no sympathy for.
When our military kills civilians while using our military might. that is unfortunate.
When they, who don't really have a military as we have defined it, kill miltary then we class that as terrorism.
Hey Ho. Such are the benefits of military might.
Well, where do YOU draw the line? In today's world, the Minutemen of 1775 firing upon the enemy soldiers would be called terrorists.
Whether you attack purely military or civilian targets isn't the question when it comes to defining a terrorist. Do YOU not consider Saudi (or from whatever country they happen to be from)jihadists terrorists when they snipe or blow up American soldiers serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are they not terrorists if Al Qaeda comes to America and only attacks military installations? How about if they begin an IRA-style campaign and begin to try and murder soldiers while they are at home or on their way to work? Say they plant bombs on the cars of soldiers while they're sleeping at home designed to blow up when the car is started next morning- are you really arguing that they aren't terrorists then because the soldier is a "legitimate target"? Does the same apply if AQ tries to murder politicians too- surely by extension Bush, as commander in chief, would be a legitimate target too under this definition? YOU don't think that AQ would be terrorists if they assassinated your President?
AQ and their disgusting ilk do not distinguish between military or civilian targets- in fact they have argued that it is legitimate for them to kill Muslim civilians- so long as they're trying to kill infidels at the same time. The IRA, to name another example, had no problem trying to kill military, police or civilians (or politicians for that matter).
Terrorists do not fight for any nation, they do not wear uniforms or obey the laws of war, they use tactics designed to inspire terror to obtain political goals.
I guess I draw the line at military targets, at least when said military is after the "terrorist". In other words, bin Laden and his ilk aren't terrorists when they attack us in Iraq; now they're enemy soldiers. Of course, they started this war, and whether they're terrorists or enemy soldiers, they are monsters of a most evil kind, and I say exterminate every last one of those sons a bitches!
Post a Comment