French Soldier stabbed in Paris, Survives

RabidAlpaca said:

Everybody is implying D-Day is a terrorist attack because it was an attack for a political purpose, and to instill fear in a certain group (the Nazis).

That is apparently the sole criteria for terrorism, so pretty much every act of violence in history is terrorism.



Every attack, of every kind, military, civilian, terrorist, all of them, have had "a planned result outside of the attack". That's the entire idea of attacks, to cause a result.

By this loan criteria of yours, EVERYTHING is terrorism. If I go shoot someone on the street, terrorism. Invasion of Iraq? Terrorism.


Bull****. No way does it take longer than 5 seconds to shoot someone who just cut your comrade. No self respecting soldier on the planet will start rendering first aid while the enemy is standing 2 feet from him.

There's no scenario where this is ok. They should be demoted for being worthless cowards.



It has to be a mass, indiscriminate attack against non-combatants in order to instill fear or cause a desired outcome.

For example: 9/11, Boston Marathon, Oklahoma City, etc.
Wrong examples: Punching someone in the face, stabbing someone, or committing crimes while muslim.

Click to expand...

Couple of things you are ignoring. Terrorist actions are undertaken by civilians or non uniformed combatants. The intent of a given attack is to cause terror in the populace, it doesnt have a tactical or territorial purpose. The purpose is terror, not just any result.

How about kidnapping a lone soldier, beheading him then televising it? How do you qualify that?

This attack following so closely on the heels of the other attack appears suspicious. Im not saying its terrorism yet. Im saying it could be.

OpportunityCost said:

Couple of things you are ignoring. Terrorist actions are undertaken by civilians or non uniformed combatants. The intent of a given attack is to cause terror in the populace, it doesnt have a tactical or territorial purpose. The purpose is terror, not just any result.

How about kidnapping a lone soldier, beheading him then televising it? How do you qualify that?

This attack following so closely on the heels of the other attack appears suspicious. Im not saying its terrorism yet. Im saying it could be.

Click to expand...

An act of war that employs psychological warfare.

If attacks on soldiers are to be considered terrorism, is the United States a terrorist country?

Are all war tactics that involve psychology terrorism?

It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. Kyoto had the advantage of being an important center for military industry, as well an intellectual center and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon.

Click to expand...

Target committee

Grand Mal said:

Much of the definition of terrorism lies inn the motive of the attack, no? When the IRA bombed a pub in London known to be a hangout for British soldiers, it was terrorism. When the IRA sniped a soldier on the street in Derry it was terrorism. When then IRA kneecapped a Belfast policeman it was terrorism. Makes no difference who the victims were, it was the intent that defines this particular crime.

Click to expand...

You could call it whatever you want, but the only reason a government official stretches the term terrorist is for political purposes. If the soldier were just killed on the street, like any of the other thousands of people who are killed in street violence daily around the world, no one would care. They label it terrorism so that the populace will be afraid, and they can jump in with extreme measures to fight this new "terrorist threat"

Only the first example you listed was really terrorism. The pub is a public target, and there were civilians inside. The others were highly discriminatory, directed attacks on military/government.

Nobody is saying these are good, they're horrible attrocities. But jumping to the word terrorism and everybody freaking out isn't really helping anything.

Infinite Chaos said:

Dr Chuckles beat me to the appropriate response.



Nobody has claimed this.



It's when it becomes a pattern across different countries that matters. It's when it's done in public - non warzones deliberately to affect ordinary noncombatants.

Click to expand...

Soldiers are combatants 24/7. You do not stop being a soldier when you come home from work. We attack civilians in non-warzones with drones. How would that not be terrorism by your definition?

Dr. Chuckles said:

Really? the choice seemed more strategic



Normandy

Click to expand...

LOL, WWII had nothing to do with politics, well done, Chuckles. I've come to expect nothing less from you.

RabidAlpaca said:

-- Soldiers are combatants 24/7. You do not stop being a soldier when you come home from work.

Click to expand...

Agreed however you also stated in response to my previous links of attacks and killings of soldiers (especially in the Cyprus case) that was murder. Why wasn't that "war" even if the soldier was in a nightclub?

RabidAlpaca said:

-- We attack civilians in non-warzones with drones. How would that not be terrorism by your definition?

Click to expand...

I'll admit it's a grey area, the UK does not use drones to attack civilians however.

Infinite Chaos said:

Agreed however you also stated in response to my previous links of attacks and killings of soldiers (especially in the Cyprus case) that was murder. Why wasn't that "war" even if the soldier was in a nightclub?



I'll admit it's a grey area, the UK does not use drones to attack civilians however.

Click to expand...

As I said before, in a civil court, it would probably most certainly be considered murder. In a macro-social view of it, however, an attack on a military target is an act of warfare, whether by a uniformed army, a separatist group, a militant group, or a radical individual.

I dont' remember what case you were talking about with the nightclub. If the attack was directed discriminately towards only soldiers, it's not terrorism. Attacking a night club where soldiers frequently hang would be, because there is an indiscriminate attack on civilians as well.

Would you call the rebels in Libya terrorists as well? After all, they're non-uniformed civilians who have banded together to fight the government and military.

L0neW0lf said:

An act of war that employs psychological warfare.

If attacks on soldiers are to be considered terrorism, is the United States a terrorist country?

Are all war tactics that involve psychology terrorism?


Target committee

Click to expand...

You missed the portions regarding uniformed combatants and civilians. War tactics conducted outside the edicts of the Geneva convention with the sole intent to terrorize the populace is more or less the exact definition of terrorism.

Its tactics, who makes the attack, and the intent of it. I have to wonder about the deliberately widest possible stance being taken by some....its almost excusing the use of terrorism against larger countries and armed forces.

RabidAlpaca said:

LOL, WWII had nothing to do with politics, well done, Chuckles. I've come to expect nothing less from you.

Click to expand...

You said D-day was political in nature and meant to instill fear in the Nazi. From the quote I provided, it seemed more about strategic interests: accessible landing points in france and an area to center operations in WE.

RabidAlpaca said:

You could call it whatever you want, but the only reason a government official stretches the term terrorist is for political purposes. If the soldier were just killed on the street, like any of the other thousands of people who are killed in street violence daily around the world, no one would care. They label it terrorism so that the populace will be afraid, and they can jump in with extreme measures to fight this new "terrorist threat"

Only the first example you listed was really terrorism. The pub is a public target, and there were civilians inside. The others were highly discriminatory, directed attacks on military/government.

Nobody is saying these are good, they're horrible attrocities. But jumping to the word terrorism and everybody freaking out isn't really helping anything.

Soldiers are combatants 24/7. You do not stop being a soldier when you come home from work. We attack civilians in non-warzones with drones. How would that not be terrorism by your definition?

LOL, WWII had nothing to do with politics, well done, Chuckles. I've come to expect nothing less from you.

Click to expand...

hold a moment...we attack non-uniformed combatants that plan and organize terrorist attacks. We dont indiscriminately attack civilians, thats one crappy generalization there.

RabidAlpaca said:

As I said before, in a civil court, it would probably most certainly be considered murder. In a macro-social view of it, however, an attack on a military target is an act of warfare, whether by a uniformed army, a separatist group, a militant group, or a radical individual.

I dont' remember what case you were talking about with the nightclub. If the attack was directed discriminately towards only soldiers, it's not terrorism. Attacking a night club where soldiers frequently hang would be, because there is an indiscriminate attack on civilians as well.

Would you call the rebels in Libya terrorists as well? After all, they're non-uniformed civilians who have banded together to fight the government and military.

Click to expand...

You're fudging here. I gave two examples in response to the claim about attacks on the military. They are back in the thread.

Statements -
1) soldiers are soldiers 24/7/265:
2) attacks on soldiers or military targets are not terrorism (so what are they?)
3) terrorism is only an attack on noncombatant civilians.
4) Soldiers are combatants 24/7

So, going back - a simple drunken attack on a soldier in a bar. The soldier is a combatant 24/7 - so, I ask again - is this war? If not why not? A lethal attack on a drunken combatant who by your definition is a combatant 24/7 has to be something.

For the record, I am prepared to accept an attack by another legal combatant as war, I also believe that a barbaric and illegal attack on a soldier for the purpose of causing fear is terrorism. The attackers in London were not legal combatants by any definition and it wasn't a random attack which just happened to have a soldier as focus. Dependent on further information, this may also be the case in Paris.

The perps in London were not guerillas or soldiers nor where they just drunks in a bar who argued with someone who just happened to be a soldier - they were terrorists.

RabidAlpaca said:

You could call it whatever you want, but the only reason a government official stretches the term terrorist is for political purposes. If the soldier were just killed on the street, like any of the other thousands of people who are killed in street violence daily around the world, no one would care. They label it terrorism so that the populace will be afraid, and they can jump in with extreme measures to fight this new "terrorist threat"

Click to expand...

"... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Hermann Goering
I agree with you to an extent but I'm going to insist that, for me, it's not so much the nature of the attack as the intent that defines the crime.

RabidAlpaca;1061856551Only the first example you listed was really terrorism. The pub is a public target said:

I was tempted to be flippant here but I guess, by my definition, we'd have to ask, is the intent to instill fear and intimidation in the population with the threat of random violence? If so, I'd have to say it's terrorism, no matter who the actual target is.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

I would call it "the indiscriminate use of violence against civilian noncombatants for the purposes of creating fear to coerce people towards some political objective."

Generally speaking I would exclude military targets from the definition of terrorism. In any recognized rules of warfare, it is "legitimate" to attack the enemy's troops. People brought up Ft. Hood and the USS Cole in this thread, I am not willing to call those acts terrorism because I would then be forced to call many US military personnel and intelligence agents terrorists for conducting normal operations of the war on terror.

As for this incident, we don't really know much other than "brown skinned guy stabbed a soldier." There isn't any actual evidence beyond that. People speculate that it may have been connected to the attack in London.

Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:

It has to be a mass, indiscriminate attack against non-combatants in order to instill fear or cause a desired outcome.

For example: 9/11, Boston Marathon, Oklahoma City, etc.
Wrong examples: Punching someone in the face, stabbing someone, or committing crimes while muslim.

Click to expand...

Without venturing into the 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter' debate, I do not feel the 'act' alone, is what signifies or solely constitutes terrorism or a terrorist. Is it not right that we label such individuals as terrorists, simply for the life and path they have chosen? One of the suspects is already attributed with travelling overseas to fight in the so called Jihadists war. Moreover, the 'act' of instilling fear in the populace does not necessarily have to be on the back of multiple fatalities or indiscriminate killing of civilians. The out-pouring of emotion from the British public over this latest atrocity is testament to the 'fear factor' running strong.

That we now have ten arrests, should point you towards an act of terroism if for no other reason than the planning aspect, let alone the act, involed

BBC News - Lee Rigby murder: Police make tenth arrest

Paul