Moscow Metro suicide bombings

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by The Leader

The idea that there is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is illogical as they are both the same thing: non-state actors who use violence or the threat of violence against noncombatants to coerce individuals or governments into adopting change.

Actually, I personally see a difference. There would be no difference in these times, since anyone who is against the US/Russia/West is a terrorist, though.

You can fight a government without the use of terror tactics. Shooting soldiers, blowing up army supplies, stealing weapons etc. I see terrorism as doing something with the express aim of scaring people, with the terror the main aim, i.e bigger than the actual damage you cause. Partisans in WWII didn't cut telephone cables to scare the Germans into surrendering, they did it to cut lines of communication, still the Germans reffed to them as terrorists.

Blowing up a train and killing 14 civilians, however, has no military gain, but it causes people to be scared, supposedly so scared that they give up fighting you. Dropping an extremely large conventional weapon to 'shock and awe' the population into compliance has the same effect - a) it's a terror tactic and b) it rarely works.

The generalisation, 'Chechen rebels', are on both sides, since they fight conventionally against the remaining Russian forces in their state, and by using terror tactics both in Chechnya and in the rest of Russia.

Still, it seems that there is no such thing as a freedom fighter anymore. Officially. If you take up arms to defend yourself against the government then you are a terrorist, no matter your aims or actions.

[Ant10708]

The Leader is the exact kind of person I will never understand when it comes to issues of terrorism. How can you not tell the difference between people who blow themselves up on civilian subways and people who take up arms against the military and or goverment? It just seems very crazy to me that you see them as equal forms of resistance. The fact that some Chechens " fight conventionally against the remaining Russian forces in their state" kind of proves this point. Even if they are the same people doing both kinds of fighting, they just delegitimatize their cause when they resort to brutal attacks on innocent civilians. You aren't fighting for a legitmate cause any rational person could support when you send women out to blow themselves up killing people riding to or from work who have no way to control whats going on in the region where the fighting takes place.

Just because governments have taken to misusing the word doesn't mean that real terrorism doesn't exist.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Ant10708

The Leader is the exact kind of person I will never understand when it comes to issues of terrorism. How can you not tell the difference between people who blow themselves up on civilian subways and people who take up arms against the military and or goverment? It just seems very crazy to me that you see them as equal forms of resistance. The fact that some Chechens " fight conventionally against the remaining Russian forces in their state" kind of proves this point. Even if they are the same people doing both kinds of fighting, they just delegitimatize their cause when they resort to brutal attacks on innocent civilians. You aren't fighting for a legitmate cause any rational person could support when you send women out to blow themselves up killing people riding to or from work who have no way to control whats going on in the region where the fighting takes place.

Just because governments have taken to misusing the word doesn't mean that real terrorism doesn't exist.

I'm looking at it objectively. As Dimnos wrote, freedom fighters are terrorists who have won. Just because you see things from one perspective doesn't meant that it is the absolute truth. You are basically espousing all of the fallacies that are present in the media about terrorism. Someone is a terrorist if you don't agree with them or their actions. That doesn't make sense. What you are doing is attaching stigma to the term terrorism, just like the majority of people have.

I have no idea what that last bit you wrote was about, governments misusing the word terrorism? If anything they don't use it enough, namely when referring to terrorist groups that they support.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Actually, call me a cynic, but I think it's working perfectly for them. America and Russia.

They keep people scared, their attention focused on a never ending war, willing to look the other way or actively support the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security, and no patriot would dare ask questions about anything.

"Terrorists will be destroyed."

I would've also accepted "PUTIN SMASH!".

And since we're on the false flag terrorist logic train here, I would like to interject with the fact that the USA has been funding the Chechen Terrorist leader Ilyas Khamzatovich Akhmadov for years.

Read comments below

V

Grant Of Taxpayer-Funded U.S. Asylum For Chechen Terror Envoy Gave Obama Foreign Policy Guru Zbigniew Brzezinski “One Of The Happiest Days Of My Life”

http://tarpley.net/2008/02/03/obama-...hen-terrorism/

THE PLOT THICKENS!!!

[Ant10708]

Originally Posted by The Leader

I have no idea what that last bit you wrote was about, governments misusing the word terrorism? If anything they don't use it enough, namely when referring to terrorist groups that they support.

The Australian dude mentioned how govts now overuse the word terrorism to describe anyone who disagrees with them or opposes them. thats what i was referring to

[Ant10708]

What if someone has the sole aim of causing chaos? I'm not saying that is the case in the russian bombings but I am sure there have been plenty of people who live in these lawless areas and just enjoy killing and terrorizing locals. Would that be terrorism since the sole aim would be to cause chaos?

I just don't see how these people' tactics are not terrorism just because they might have a legitmate grievance. AND YES OUR GOVERNMENT HAS DONE WORSE LIKE DROP NUKES AND BLANKET BOMB GERMANY AND DONT FORGET THE NATIVE AMERICANS! but our past wrongs do not make current tactics being used to purposfully kill civlians right and its a pretty weak arguement that just because we have done worse that its an acceptable means of resistance to purposfully target civilians on public transportation. The "freedom fighters" in pakistan and iraq kidnap kids routinely or buy them from their parents and then brainwash them to become suicide bombers. Most suicide bombers have been heavily brainwashed into believing that what they are doing serves god or whatever. They have no clue about the legitmate grievances. maybe this doesnt apply to the women suicide bombers because they are probaly widows who had their husbands killed by the russians but id say the majority of suicide bombers are brainwashed pawns(alot of the time the detonator isnt even with the person wearing the vest because of the very likly chance of the person chickening out). they even believe that some of the 911 hijackers werent even aware they were going on a suicide mission because most people would rather not die. although some of the 911 hijackers were very educated and obviously not brainwashed pawns but I'd say most committing these types of acts are.
The fact that you even say suicide bombing is rational doesn't make sense to me. suicide is committed by irrational people(maybe not when done by old people or people with terminal diesease). its irrantional to not want to survive in my opinion.

interesting discussion none the less!

[Ant10708]

The Australian and I think alike apparently.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Ant10708

You aren't fighting for a legitmate cause any rational person could support when you send women out to blow themselves up killing people riding to or from work who have no way to control whats going on in the region where the fighting takes place.

I'm actually writing a paper on this aspect of terrorism right now.

And it is rational, most who support the causes are rational, the use of female suicide bombers is rational and the targeting of noncombatants is rational. It might not be moral, but the immorality of killing innocent people can easily be made moral.

Their cause is also legitimate: freedom from what they view as oppression. It may not be legitimate from where you stand, but in order to effectively combat terrorism (meaning come up with a solution or improvements) you cannot look at the terrorist's actions from your perspective alone. You have to recognize that there are legitimate grievances and if you wipe out one group of terrorists, another will likely develop because the original issues were not addressed.

I'd also like to point out that our military has done far worse things than the Chechen terrorists have, but the difference between that and terrorism is that the United States is a state actor. The term for this sort of action would be state terror, as opposed to terrorism. That's a bit of a digression but Zhukov mentioned something like this.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Actually, I personally see a difference. There would be no difference in these times, since anyone who is against the US/Russia/West is a terrorist, though.

Not if they're a state.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

You can fight a government without the use of terror tactics. Shooting soldiers, blowing up army supplies, stealing weapons etc.

How is shooting soldiers and blowing up military depots not inducing terror?

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I see terrorism as doing something with the express aim of scaring people, with the terror the main aim, i.e bigger than the actual damage you cause. Partisans in WWII didn't cut telephone cables to scare the Germans into surrendering, they did it to cut lines of communication, still the Germans reffed to them as terrorists.

Partisans in WWII didn't just tamper with communications, the killed off duty German soldiers and collaborators (noncombatants).

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Blowing up a train and killing 14 civilians, however, has no military gain, but it causes people to be scared, supposedly so scared that they give up fighting you. Dropping an extremely large conventional weapon to 'shock and awe' the population into compliance has the same effect - a) it's a terror tactic and b) it rarely works.

Here's the thing, it can have military gain. Terrorism has a almost 100 percent failure rate, historically, but suicide terrorism, especially sustained campaigns, has actually proven to be effective in some instances. The US, France, Israel, all have pulled military forces out of areas as a result of suicide campaigns.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

The generalisation, 'Chechen rebels', are on both sides, since they fight conventionally against the remaining Russian forces in their state, and by using terror tactics both in Chechnya and in the rest of Russia.

. . . Ok?

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Still, it seems that there is no such thing as a freedom fighter anymore. Officially. If you take up arms to defend yourself against the government then you are a terrorist, no matter your aims or actions.

There never was a freedom fighter, only terrorists. It's all rhetoric.

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by The Leader

Not if they're a state.

Well, then they are a terrorist state. Usually. Or more aptly, a 'rogue' state. I like that. Haha. Rogue from what? Rogue from doing what we think you should be doing.

How is shooting soldiers and blowing up military depots not inducing terror? Partisans in WWII didn't just tamper with communications, the killed off duty German soldiers and collaborators (noncombatants).

Well that's where I look at aims. Are you shooting soldiers to scare the soldiers, or are you shooting them because they are shooting you, or because they will shoot you tomorrow, or because they killed your family, or because they will kill another family or friendly soldiers? It can be revenge, it can be a genuine military goal, but if your aim is anything less than inspiring terror, I personally don't think it counts. When you are killing collaborators, then you might be crossing a line, sure. Maybe you are killing them so that they don't help the enemy anymore, but more likely you are killing them because you don't want anyone else to do it. You are scaring others out of doing it.

The partisan movement during WWII was huge. Tens of thousands of ex-red army and local militia men fighting the German invaders, they often received orders from STAVKA, and in near the end of the war the 4th Belorussian front comprised of partisan units against the front lines of the German army. They weren't trying to get the German government to recognise their rights, they were just trying to hamper the military as much as possible. If that involves killing soldiers, blowing up trains, whatever, then so be it. They didn't do it to scare anyone, so I don't see it as terrorism. Did they sometimes utilise terror tactics? Sure. As you pointed out, they killed collaborators. The people who did that were terrorists.

Really, you are saying that ANY fighting is terrorism, since even shooting back at an enemy soldier is inducing terror in the now dead soldier's family back home, or the squad mates. If all fighting is terrorism then it sort of defeats the purpose of there being 'fighting' and 'terrorism'.

Here's the thing, it can have military gain. Terrorism has a almost 100 percent failure rate, historically, but suicide terrorism, especially sustained campaigns, has actually proven to be effective in some instances. The US, France, Israel, all have pulled military forces out of areas as a result of suicide campaigns.

Well I don't know what you mean by terrorism anymore. Anyway, I don't think that the success of such operations have anything to do with the morals of them. I do think that peaceful negotiating and "ethical" armed resistance has probably done better in the eyes of history than killing civilians.

There never was a freedom fighter, only terrorists. It's all rhetoric.

True enough.


My point to you is that if you are not aiming to terrorise, and your actions don't cause terror, then are you a terrorist? I guess you could always argue that violence will always create terror SOMEWHERE, but that's a bit silly for me.

Let's say someone blows themselves up on a transit train and kills 10 people. Scares the shit out of the population, maybe even shakes the government. That's terrorism because you have used this violent tactic to strike fear into the hearts of mere men and mortals. On the other side of things, if someone blows themselves up on a troop train sending soldiers into your occupied homeland, well were you trying to scare people or are you trying to just kill enemy soldiers? Same methods, different outcomes and aims.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Well, then they are a terrorist state. Usually. Or more aptly, a 'rogue' state. I like that. Haha. Rogue from what? Rogue from doing what we think you should be doing.

No, read my responses to Ant. They'd be a state conducting state terror.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Well that's where I look at aims. Are you shooting soldiers to scare the soldiers, or are you shooting them because they are shooting you, or because they will shoot you tomorrow, or because they killed your family, or because they will kill another family or friendly soldiers? It can be revenge, it can be a genuine military goal, but if your aim is anything less than inspiring terror, I personally don't think it counts.

You are looking at individual's acts, not the overall goals of the terrorist group. By this definition there are no terrorists. Also I have distinguished that it is terrorism if the target is a noncombatant so engaging a soldier out on patrol would not be terrorism.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

They weren't trying to get the German government to recognise their rights, they were just trying to hamper the military as much as possible. If that involves killing soldiers, blowing up trains, whatever, then so be it. They didn't do it to scare anyone, so I don't see it as terrorism. Did they sometimes utilise terror tactics? Sure. As you pointed out, they killed collaborators. The people who did that were terrorists.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Really, you are saying that ANY fighting is terrorism, since even shooting back at an enemy soldier is inducing terror in the now dead soldier's family back home, or the squad mates. If all fighting is terrorism then it sort of defeats the purpose of there being 'fighting' and 'terrorism'.

They have to be targeting noncombatants: off duty soldiers or civilians. They also have to be non state actors.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Well I don't know what you mean by terrorism anymore. Anyway, I don't think that the success of such operations have anything to do with the morals of them. I do think that peaceful negotiating and "ethical" armed resistance has probably done better in the eyes of history than killing civilians.

I defined terrorism previously. Morality is ambiguous, as demonstrated by your use of "ethical" armed resistance. Is it ethical for you to kill my brother just because he's a soldier occupying your homeland? From my perspective, no. What morality has to do with sucess is when a effective tactic is found but it would normally be unjustifiable, such as suicide terrorism, there can be ways to morally justify it. The Russian civilians in the subways were Russian citizens. They pay taxes which finance the Russian military who are the enemy. They are part of the enemy. Killing them is like killing a soldier.

Right there you have the justification for killing innocent people. You just have to make them not innocent.

[Zhukov]

I guess we're getting down to definitions here. I define terrorism as an act that inflicts terror, with the goal of inflicting terror. You say it's individuals or non state (or unrecognised state) groups when they target non-combatants.

It's WWII. Let's say that there is an old Belorussian man that sends the German garrison a carton of milk every two days so that they can have healthy teeth and bones, simply because it's a nice thing to do. Let's say he has no family, friends or contacts. He is a hermit. The Germans don't know who sends the milk they just guzzle it like the filthy swine they are. The local partisans send out someone to kill him, because they want the Germans to have weak bones so that fighting on the front lines they will drop their guns and not kill so many sons of the motherland.

So the partisan kills the old man by clubbing him in the back of the head. He dies, and the Partisan buries him in his backyard. Nobody knows about the killing, nobody cares, but an operative of an unlawful group has killed a non combatant. Is that terrorism?


I say no, it's just murder.

You can't get bogged down with definitions when you are defining the actors rather than the act. Much more logical and precise to identify whether the act itself is terrorism, by looking at the aims and outcomes of the act.

You are looking at individual's acts, not the overall goals of the terrorist group.

True. Ok. You can be a terrorist if you are part of a group that commits terrorist acts (my definition). That is fair enough. In the examples I have put forward I never stated if said hypothetical person was part of a group though. If they are part of a terrorist group, then yes, they are a terrorist using at that point in time non-terrorist tactics. If they aren't part of a terrorist group, then they are not a terrorist, since they are not using terror tactics (my definition). My example of the partisan killing the old man, is the act an act of terror? Not in my defining of the word. Is the partisan a terrorist for that act? No. Is he a terrorist if he belongs to a group that regularly dips into the pool of terrorist tactics, knows about the use of these tactics and doesn't disagree with them? Yes.

The aim of both of those is to cause a withdrawal of military forces

Yes, but I was looking slightly less far into the future. Same future aim (no more soldiers in my country), same act (blowing yourself up), different .. uh, bit in the middle? The history of warfare is not always about killing the enemy soldiers until they are dead, it's usually about killing the enemy soldiers until they give up. Anyway, I think once you put on the uniform, swear the oath of allegiance and what not, then you are representing your nation, it's morals and values, and you are responsible for it. I think a soldier is a fair target for disagreement. All subjective of course to what you are disagreeing over. Am I babbling and not making sense? It's nearly 5am.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I guess we're getting down to definitions here. I define terrorism as an act that inflicts terror, with the goal of inflicting terror. You say it's individuals or non state (or unrecognised state) groups when they target non-combatants.

non-state actors who use violence or the threat of violence against noncombatants to coerce individuals or governments into adopting change.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

It's WWII. Let's say that there is an old Belorussian man that sends the German garrison a carton of milk every two days so that they can have healthy teeth and bones, simply because it's a nice thing to do. Let's say he has no family, friends or contacts. He is a hermit. The Germans don't know who sends the milk they just guzzle it like the filthy swine they are. The local partisans send out someone to kill him, because they want the Germans to have weak bones so that fighting on the front lines they will drop their guns and not kill so many sons of the motherland.

So the partisan kills the old man by clubbing him in the back of the head. He dies, and the Partisan buries him in his backyard. Nobody knows about the killing, nobody cares, but an operative of an unlawful group has killed a non combatant. Is that terrorism?


I say no, it's just murder.

Correct, they were not attempting to affect wider change. Their intent was to merely kill the dude supplying the milk, not to cause Nazi withdrawal or influence anyone.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

You can't get bogged down with definitions when you are defining the actors rather than the act. Much more logical and precise to identify whether the act itself is terrorism, by looking at the aims and outcomes of the act.

Whether or not someone or a group is a terrorist is defined by their actions or intent. Read my definition.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

If they are part of a terrorist group, then yes, they are a terrorist using at that point in time non-terrorist tactics. If they aren't part of a terrorist group, then they are not a terrorist, since they are not using terror tactics (my definition). My example of the partisan killing the old man, is the act an act of terror? Not in my defining of the word. Is the partisan a terrorist for that act? No. Is he a terrorist if he belongs to a group that regularly dips into the pool of terrorist tactics, knows about the use of these tactics and doesn't disagree with them? Yes.

An individual can use terror tactics. The underwear bomber was not sent out by Al Qaeda, he was not given that mission from them. Yes, he had ties to terrorist groups but he was acting of his own individual accord. Look at my definition for why I would count a individual such as he as a terrorist.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Yes, but I was looking slightly less far into the future. Same future aim (no more soldiers in my country), same act (blowing yourself up), different .. uh, bit in the middle? The history of warfare is not always about killing the enemy soldiers until they are dead, it's usually about killing the enemy soldiers until they give up. Anyway, I think once you put on the uniform, swear the oath of allegiance and what not, then you are representing your nation, it's morals and values, and you are responsible for it. I think a soldier is a fair target for disagreement. All subjective of course to what you are disagreeing over. Am I babbling and not making sense? It's nearly 5am.

See my definition. ;/ And you're making sense.

[Zhukov]

Not really much disagreement going on here, I think it's just that we've both got different definitions, I think yours is probably closer to what the official line is, but I like mine better. I lean towards every action being subjective at the time, rather than trying to fit it into pre defined categories, easy enough to say, maybe not easy enough to do. Especially when you are a government, and require a stance on such actions at all times.

What's your paper about?


Oh, and you said that the partisan killing the old man was both a terrorist and not a terrorist.

[Colonel Flagg]

Leader, Leader Leader. Time to grow up, stop being naïve already.

You obviously still can't come to grips with the basic truth that THE US IS A STATE WHICH SPONSORS TERRORISM. (see, I typed in ALL CAPS so it must be true) If you don't believe me, read the link posted a few short pages ago:

Originally Posted by Coolie

Grant Of Taxpayer-Funded U.S. Asylum For Chechen Terror Envoy Gave Obama Foreign Policy Guru Zbigniew Brzezinski “One Of The Happiest Days Of My Life”

http://tarpley.net/2008/02/03/obama-...hen-terrorism/

Keep listening to me, and eventually you will agree that I am right and you are wrong.

And don't listen to that Flagg person. He's an idiot.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg

You obviously still can't come to grips with the basic truth that THE US IS A STATE WHICH SPONSORS TERRORISM.

We actually have.

Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg

And don't listen to that Flagg person. He's an idiot.

I know right? Thinks that he knows everything ever just because he has some stupid science degree paper. That shit doesn't matter, this is the real world, not a classroom.

[Colonel Flagg]

Originally Posted by The Leader

I know right? Thinks that he knows everything ever just because he has some stupid science degree paper. That shit doesn't matter, this is the real world, not a classroom.

Damned right!

Youtube it.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Let's say someone blows themselves up on a transit train and kills 10 people. Scares the shit out of the population, maybe even shakes the government. That's terrorism because you have used this violent tactic to strike fear into the hearts of mere men and mortals. On the other side of things, if someone blows themselves up on a troop train sending soldiers into your occupied homeland, well were you trying to scare people or are you trying to just kill enemy soldiers? Same methods, different outcomes and aims.

The aim of both of those is to cause a withdrawal of military forces (If the two hypothetical attacks were parts of different conflicts then they shouldn't be compared like that).