Ethical Terrorists?

[Megashrap]

In which case they would attack governments, rather than 'noncombatants,' wouldn't they? And then that would be warfare, not terrorism.

It possibly could have have been much easier to fire a missle or use other types of ordinance than highjack a plane and drive it into a building occupied by "non-combatants" btw.  And yes it would still be terrorism, if it were a missle or via other means, the goal they were carrying out was achieved.  Doesen't matter if they used method (a). or method (b). So why shouldn't this be concidered as warfare?

[Dante]

I'm thinking an aeroplane does much more damage than any missile that can be smuggled into a convenient launch position. And if they had better weapons, do you really think they'd spend all their time attacking civilians? What good is that going to do? Better weapons = harder targets = attacking government openly = warfare. It's only terrorism when directed at civilians.

A strike on the White House by say, al Quaeda, would technically not be terrorism since its occupants are in fact plotting to kill or harm most of that group.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether a missile or an aeroplane is used, as you seem to have misunderstood. It's the target that matters. Here's a quick guide:

Attack civilians with missile = terrorism.

Attack civilians with aeroplane = terrorism.

Attack hostile government/army with missile = warfare.

Attack hostile government/army with aeroplane = warfare, but also terrorism if civilians killed.

[GUNWOUNDS]

they didnt just attack civilians.... they also flew a plane into our PENTAGON (military structure).

[Dante]

Your point? So there were acts of war. This does nothing to disprove the fact that there can be such thing as an ethical terrorist.

[Edric O]

In general, terrorists are unethical by definition. After all, "terrorist" is supposed to mean "unethical warrior". An ethical terrorist isn't a terrorist - he's a legitimate warrior, or a "freedom fighter".

Of course, the line between "terrorists" and "legitimate warriors" is quite blurry. In theory, a terrorist is a fighter who deliberately targets civilians, while a legitimate warrior does not deliberately target civilians. However, by that definition, a lot of American and Western military commanders are terrorists, because the deliberate targetting of civilians is (or at least was, until very recently) pretty commonplace. Is the bombing of civilian targets morally superior to flying suicide planes into the same kind of civilian targets?

[Edric O]

If only the U.S.had public executions, instead of the way it is carried out now, I believe it would definitely improve morality in society.

I'd rather not have the same kind of morality as in the Dark Ages, thank you very much.

[Anathema]

The most accurate, yet broad and vague, definition of terrorism I have heard is "to rule by fear". You instill fear in the minds of your enemies to achieve your political goals. The rebels that fight US troops in Iraq are not terrorists by definition.

[Megashrap]

I'd rather not have the same kind of morality as in the Dark Ages, thank you very much.

No, I didn't mean feed the publics need for a daily execution and daily

bleed fest, but rather the ones that have been given death sentances for horendous crimes.  Just carried out to a much broader scope of the public instead of 10 or 12 in a closed off room.  An example would be the caning in Singapore.  It wasen't an execution, but I guarantee you any person close to his age around the world learned one thing and learned it well, Don't go to singapore and spray paint or damage someone elses car or property.  Same thing can be applied to executions.  How could you not learn anything from a clear example of what can happen if you choose to do so?

[Dante]

As I recall from my history class, the days of public executions did nothing to dissuade people from crime. It was just seen as another method of punishment.

In general, terrorists are unethical by definition. After all, "terrorist" is supposed to mean "unethical warrior". An ethical terrorist isn't a terrorist - he's a legitimate warrior, or a "freedom fighter".

If you say so. I think that the winners write the history, and thus the terrorists who won become the freedom fighters, the ethical ones. Same thing, different names...

[Caid Ivik]

I'd rather not have the same kind of morality as in the Dark Ages, thank you very much.

Dark ages must be now then?

[Ninja_Sher]

Dark ages must be now then?

Well at the rates things are going it is not far