Innocence Riots

I believe it's called a "strategic attack". I would question it as morally dubious in many cases but you are correct that it has precedent as an act of warfare rather than terrorism. OK. Then can 9/11 be described as a "strategic attack" on the US (specifically the finance industry) by an entity that is actually at war with the US? I was raised in London during the IRA bomb era. Do you think the UK was at war with the IRA back then? We had troops deployed in Northern Ireland and a lot of it is quite reminiscent of the occupier/"at war" distinction being made here.I'm interested in your use of the term "war" as it seems to legitimise things like 9/11 as acts of warfare rather than terrorism.........And I don't think that is a good idea.

OK. So you would classify 9/11 as a strategic attack between warring entities rather than a terrorist attack?I'm still interested in the use of the term "war" that is being applied here. It seems very inconsistent.

I don't think so either.Which is why I am baffled by CS's stance that we are currently at war. Who are we at war with exactly?

Right. And I think that is part of the problem. You say "the times they are a changin" without seeming to realise that large parts of the rest of the world have been tackling terrorism for decades without needing to redefine the term "war". As you have stated it you seem to think the US is at war with Al Qaeda but that they are not at war with you.You have, rather bizzarrely in my view, invented a 'one-way' form of war. The same sort of military advantage that the Nazis got by blitzing London in WW2....? If they don't have a military how you can be at war with them? By invoking a double standard. By claiming to be at war with some entity such that your "strategic attacks" result in "unfortunate" civilian deaths that are a an inevitable product of war but that their "strategic attacks" are simply acts of gross terrorism that have nothing to do with being at war.Like I say I think the whole "strategic attack" thing is morally dubious. But warring nations do undertake such things and it seems to be broadly accepted as legitimate in war.To claim that you are at war such that your attacks qualify as acts of war but those of your enemy don't is to invent one-sided war. It means you open yourself up to accusations of applying double standards and hypocrisy. Accusations which those rioting away in the Middle East are keen to point out......So how about we make a distinction between tackling terrorism and actually being at war?

So you at war with X but X is not at war with you?It is a one-way war......? Is that what you are saying?

Out of interest do you think the UK was at war with the IRA last century? Where do you see if the differences if there are any?

OK. Then in what sense are their "strategic attacks" also not acts of war rather than terrorism. Whichever way round you want to put it. Either way you seem to be making some sort of technical distinction such that what we (the US and it's allies) do is justified as an act of war whilst enemy attacks are automatically classed as unjustifiable acts of murderous terrorism.Surely you can see how this smacks of propogandaism.....?All I am asking for is some sort of consistency here.....

Despite the fact it involved British troops engaging in armed conflict in much the same they are doing as part of the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan?The use of the term "war" here seems to be increasingly self-serving. A way of definitionally justifying the actions of some as legitimate whilst condemning the acts of others by definitional-disqualification.

Note - I said legitimate. Not justified. According to your statements above acts of war and acts of murder are no more or less legitimate than each other.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Applying self serving definitions of which attacks constitute murder and which attacks constitute acts of war quite obviously does have a major propaganda effect.An effect so strong you seem to be blind to your own invocation of it...... Well I'm glad we cleared up the idea that the emotive use of self-serving definitions isn't at play here.

Oni gave a pretty good response so I'll be interested to see how you respond to that.But - Let me be clear - I'm not saying which actions are or aren't justified here. I'm simply objecting to what seems to be a case of legitimacy/condemnation by numbers (or more accurately by definitions). This is just a way of disengaging the brain from asking the difficult questions by asking who did it rather than examining what was done and the context in which said action was taken. Can you see how from their point of view the absence of a sovereign state or an officially recognised military isn't particularly important in distinguishing between acts of murderous terrorism and acts of warfare? I thought the whole rationale behind drone attacks was that members of Al Qaeda were enemy combatants rather than civilians. Another convenient double standard? As we have already discussed - As morally dubious as I think it is the strategic targeting of civilians and specific important industries is not without historical precedent between warring entities. It sought to gain the same sort of military advantage that the Nazi bombings of London in WW2 sought to gain.I don’t believe 9/11 was justified. Nor do I think present US activities are justified. But whatever conclusion you or I might come to about which activities are militarily justified and which aren’t there is no justification for imposing a raft of definitions that result in the rather ridiculous notion of a one-sided-war where only one side can ever be justified in it’s actions by definition. That is just self-serving-definitional-silliness.

Actually you have said a great deal about justification through a rather self-serving set of prior definitions. The end result of these definitions is the rather ridiculous notion of a one-sided-war where only one side can ever be justified in it’s actions - By definition. Self-serving-definitional-silliness that alleviates the need to question individual actions rather than just take sides. You may or may not have reached the right conclusion regarding whose actions should be condemned as unjustified and whose actions can be considered justified. But that isn’t the point.The point is that it is just lazy thinking to reach such conclusions by virtue of definitions rather than actually consider the rights and wrongs of individual actions. I think you are conflating that which is legal with that which is justified.

Yes you have.Read what you yourself have said.You have defined any act of warfare conducted by a non-state organisation as "unjustified".

Thus we see justification/condemnation by definition rather than consideration...You have proved my point for me...

A member of Al Qaeda and a US (or British if you prefer) bomber pilot meet in the desert.Both have been responsible for killing innocents on the opposite side. Both are, as far as they are concerned, "soldiers".Only one of them has a gun.A) If the member of Al Qaeda kills the pilot - By your definitions this is unjustifiable murder.B) If the pilot kills the member of Al Qaeda - By your definitions this is a justifiable act of warfare.