"[Bunch of junk, trying to draw distinction where none exists to make people feel better about killing each other.]"

I have to disagree with this. I do think there is a distinction. When talking doesn't work, violence happens. We can't control how violence is used against us, but we can control how we use it against other people. THAT is where the distinction matters. We have to justify to ourselves and, to some degree, the rest of the world that we are reacting appropriately.

I still don't agree with your definition, but I see that you have put a lot of thought into it.

Agree to disagree?

I see your point. I still see them as different, strategically, but I guess that's because I don't see the IRA as trying remove Britain as a country. Aside from their tactics, they are a classic freedom movement. Hamas, if I remember correctly, says that Israel has no right to exist as a country.

Fair enough. I'll do some research.

Sometimes it's hard to keep all the anti-Israel, anti-US, anti-Europe terrorists straight.

Hamas definitely HAS attacked our ally, Israel. They are strategically important to us, so I think my original opinion still has some validity. The IRA isn't a strategic threat to us, might be a better wording.

Perhaps I don't know enough about the IRA, but I don't remember them attacking the US or intentionally targeting US citizens. Am I missing something?

Good points. I would disagree and say that Iraq is part of the "War on Terror" even though I agree with your assessment of the combatants, in general. It gives us a place to work from in doing the things I'll mention further down.

I disagree with this statement:

"The issue with Al-Qaeda is that they are both a military organization and a terrorist organization. If the US wanted to punish the "Terrorists" responsible for 9/11, they should just arrest them whenever they have the chance or send a crack team of Special Forces to assassinate the leadership (CIA would've done it without blinking)."

There are two types of terrorism, home-grown and international. Home-grown terrorism (Timothy McVeigh, The Weathermen) are best dealt with by law enforcement. International terrorism is dealt with by cutting off its supports:

- safe locations in another country
- money
- diplomatic protection

Al-Queda is clearly terrorist and international in nature. While assassination would deal with part of the problem, it can't deal with the money or diplomatic protection. Law enforcement can make some headway against the money, but not the other two. In short, military action is necessary and justified. Hence the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In reading my previous post I have seen an inaccuracy. When I said:

"Innocents will die and our enemy is counting on that. They deliberately hide behind noncombatants for the purpose of causing civilian casualties."

...I was talking about THIS war, not the German soldiers of WWII. As far as I know, most individual German soldiers fought honorably in a dishonorable cause. I was not meaning to imply that they were morally the same as the terrorists we are fighting now.

No, my thoughts are well considered.

These were horrible actions, I agree with you on that, but the alternative was to allow the Nazis and Imperial Japan to win the war. Read about the rape of Nanking. Read about the Bataan Death March. Read about the atrocities the Nazis performed against Jews, the Romany, homosexuals. Imagine a world run by either of those empires. We did the right things, horrible as they were.

Please do not put quotes around something I didn't say. Please quote me directly if you wish to quote me at all. I understand what you were trying to do, but I don't like you changing, in any way, what I actually said.

The "we" I was talking about means the United States. We did what was necessary to stop a greater evil from taking over the entire world. LITERALLY! TAKING OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD.

"There are things called "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" and in a just world, they would apply to both the victor and the vanquished."

We don't live in a just world.

"you have rather sick and twisted morals"

I respect your opinions and only ask that you respect me in our discussions.

I understand your point of view and I respect it. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, however.

Labels like "terrorist" are mostly internal. We use them to classify the attacks against us and to determine our proper response. We also use them to defend ourselves in the court of public opinion after the fact.

The bin Ladens of the radical muslim world have clearly CHOSEN to enter into this conflict. While they can argue that they are in a fight for their survival, this is clearly not true. You are right that the form of the argument is the same, but the merit of their argument is lacking. In WWII armies of Nazis were destroying Europe. Show me that happening in the Middle East. Don't bother saying Iraq or Afghanistan, both are responses to the attacks of 9/11. (Yes, I know, Hussein, 9/11, no direct connection, etc... our invasion is still a response to 9/11)

With regards to the taking of innocent lives you said, "if I for one am forced to either take innocent lives or to die, then I will die". I agree with and support that statement. Unfortunately, that is not the choice that war forces on us. In most cases in war (and especially in WWII and in this war) the only choice is WHICH innocents will die. Innocents will die and our enemy is counting on that. They deliberately hide behind noncombatants for the purpose of causing civilian casualties. If we refuse to take action because innocents will be killed, our enemies win that engagement. Then more innocents die when they attack us, INTENTIONALLY TARGETING INNOCENTS. Given this choice, in WWII and now, we choose to fight, accepting that a shorter war kills fewer innocents.

I think what a lot of people are missing is that labels like "terrorist" are internal. No matter who attacks us, partisan, soldier, terrorist, we have the right to respond vigorously. The label is about how we choose to respond and how we present ourselves to the world.

Yes, the acts in WWII could be defined as "terrorism" in one sense, but since we had to win, we did what was necessary. In a fight for survival, all tactics are acceptable.

NOBODY CARES how the enemy classifies him until the fighting is over. Then, you are correct, the victors write the history books.

I don't think that will work.

- you're discussing motivations, hard to prove at best

- every attack in war is designed to "injure, maim, kill or destroy the target specifically for the intense emotional reaction that such an act would cause in anyone with a vested interest in the target." That's the strategic goal of war. To remove the enemy's will to fight.

- "not declared war against the actionee". Happens all the time, perfectly legitimate and not terrorism.

- "premeditated". Acts of war and acts of terrorism are often against "targets of opportunity". In other words, not premeditated.

The proper definition classifies terrorism as attacks against clearly civilian targets, usually for the shock value of such attacks. Bombing a school-bus? Terrorism. Bombing a house full of armed enemies, incidentally killing children in the house next door? Not terrorism.

"Unless the targeting in question is carried out by the government of a nation state, in which case it usually gets called "war" or "policing""

Not true. Attacks against civilian targets are terrorism. See my post above, but in a war on the scale of WWII the means of production become a legitimate target. Winning is the only criterion.

In a war on the scale of WWII, the "means of production" becomes a legitimate target.

Also, let's not forget that ALL attacks against "us" are bad. Whether they are by partisans, soldiers or terrorists. The people on the other side feel the same way. When we discuss "terrorism", we are discussing what methods we are justified in using to respond against our enemies, and what we will do with them as prisoners and when the war is over, not whether or not they are our enemies. When someone attacks us, we will kill them. Period. Saying that the attacks on the Pentagon, or the USS Cole or Ft. Hood were not terrorism does NOT mean that they were OK. It's a matter of sorting out our proper response. Without proper definitions, it becomes hard to talk intelligently about anything.

In WWII, we were in a fight for our survival. ANY methods taken were appropriate, because we had no choice but to win.

The fight we are in now is presently less of a threat, so our responses have to be tempered by our understanding of the enemy. Because this enemy has chosen terrorist attacks against civilian targets, our response can (and must) be different. So, yes, in this war against Al Qaida, we are not to the point where targeting civilians is a tactic that we will choose. It seems unlikely that these Phase 1 (if I remember my Mao properly) guerrilla tactics will ever lead us to bombing civilian centers indiscriminately. In WWII that was an acceptable and proper thing to do.

Awesome branch on this thread. So many people don't know the difference. "Terrorist" designation comes from tactics, from choice of targets, NOT from motivation. Your examples, merinquoid, point out where the line is fuzzy. Another example: PLO suicide bomber attacks against an Israeli military checkpoint? Not terrorism. PLO suicide bomber attacks against a school-bus full of children? Terrorism. PLO suicide bomber attacks against adult Israelis, all of whom might be armed and capable of defending themselves? Civilians, but civilians who view themselves as an extension of the military? Maybe terrorism, maybe not. Certainly an attack that the Israelis have a right to defend themselves against, but maybe not terrorism. (Thanks, jbcarpen, uberbah and merinquoid)