Comment by PepperdineG 10 months ago
Al Qaeda isn't a nation-state so by definition it falls into terrorism. It's like if Greenpeace sunk a military vessel because the sonar was killing sea life that would be terrorism. It would have some serious side effects if it was OK for private non-governmental actors being able to target militaries and be seen as legitimate in their actions.
> Greenpeace sunk a military vessel
Funny exemple knowing France sunk a Greenpeace vessel. That act has been called "state terrorism".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warri...
But by definition the founders of the USA were terrorists. And they knew it too, viz. Benjamin Franklin's famous line 'Gentlemen, we must all hang together or we shall most assuredly hang separately.'
Preemptively invalidating all non-state actors is just a way for people with power to avoid challenges to it. Every single oppressive regime describes rebels as terrorists and employs circular arguments to assert its own legitimacy. Using this to dismiss military attacks on military targets is, frankly, bullshit.
What Franklin said was true though. If the US revolutionaries had failed, they would have been rightfully hung for treason by the British. If you're some private actor attacking military targets in some country, you'd be a terrorist. I'm no fan of Iran for example but if somebody was caught launching rockets at an IRGC base the Iranian government could legitimately treat them as terrorists/traitors no problem.
Eh - that depends on how you do it, right?
If everyone in your ‘private actor’ group wears uniforms, acts in the open (ie marches in formation, operates tanks instead of setting boobie traps, etc), and then attacks military operations directly it’s going to require an extreme amount of squinting to call that group terrorists.
Whoever is running it would probably get a pretty fair title of warlord. But they’re different.
At the same time, it a gov’t organization runs around bombing civilian targets in a campaign to scare everyone in their opponents country out of their mind, pretty hard to not call them terrorists.
> But by definition the founders of the USA were terrorists
I don’t remember reading any attacks on civilians in the revolutionary war. The civilians would have all been Americans, so it wouldn’t make sense.
The British regarded them as traitors, and would have hung them for treason and sedition.
Since 2009 Hezbollah's charter has been far more nationalist than religious (even endorsing democracy as the desirable form of polity). This isn't to say they're not influenced by their religious views, but nor do I think Islam has any monopoly on bad ideas. I am not a fan of monotheistic religions in general, as they all rest on the conceit that there is only One True Way to think about spiritual matters and such certitude is often used to excuse atrocities. More often, religious rhetoric is used as a common framework to organize participants in what is often a much more prosaic struggle over resources and geographic advantage.
Why do you assume they had your sense of ethics? 10 was often considered the age of adulthood. Little men had no specific exception from work or war, or expectation of education outside specific classes. Being a regular troop was more often from 16, but plenty fought from 10 up or had other roles in battle.
1) You need to start somewhere, 2) people don't realize how good we have it today and it's because of people like the founding fathers we can enjoy this reality, going back as far as plato and socrates.
There is a reason why you choose to live in a democratic society, because it's the absolute best system we've ever had, and probably will for some time.
Not to detract from any of what you said but the "founders of democracy" i.e. the ancient Greeks had some (nowadays) pretty controversial ideas vis a vis what was considered OK and normal about things like child exploitation, slavery, sexual exploitation etc.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1726739588457156922.html
I think you're either trolling, really out of touch with reality, but here is an excerpt from the above:
2. We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted, a matter that doesn’t concern you because you separate between religion and state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power. In doing so, you desire to rob Allah of His right to be obeyed and you wish to usurp that right for yourselves. “Legislation is not but for Allah” (Yusuf 40). Your secular liberalism has led you to tolerate and even support “gay rights,” to allow alcohol, drugs, fornication, gambling, and usury to become widespread, and to encourage the people to mock those who denounce these filthy sins and vices. As such, we wage war against you to stop you from spreading your disbelief and debauchery – your secularism and nationalism, your perverted liberal values, your Christianity and atheism – and all the depravity and corruption they entail. You’ve made it your mission to “liberate” Muslim societies; we’ve made it our mission to fight off your influence and protect mankind from your misguided concepts and your deviant way of life.
Is that enough for you? The part about "waging war against non believers caught my eye", how about you?
Of course, if we consider all actions by non-state combatants against state military actors to be terrorism, the US and Western Europe has frequently been a big sponsor of terrorism. A recent cause that many are sympathetic to of this nature that immediately comes to my mind are the Kurds in Syria during the Syrian civil war.