Just what IS terrorism?

The US would point to a number of UN resolutions and towards acts of Congress to say that a legal basis was laid.But in any case we are dealing with Nation States.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay.So when looking at the bombing of the King David Hotel,

• was not an act of a Nation State.
• was not carried out by an official arm of a Nation State.
• did not have the sanction of the governing structure of a Nation State.

Do we agree so far?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Bir Yassin

Invading the home islands. You may or may not be right that more civilians would have died, I don't know. But certainly we wouldn't have terrorized the entire world for generations.

Yes we agree, but you're starting to sound condescending. I'm assuming you don't mean to, but please get to your point.

---

Dog is my copilot.

Sure don't mean to but it is a slippery subject and hard to get hold of.So the difference between something like the bombings in Japan, Britain and Germany during WWII and the bombing at the King David Hotel is that the former were acts of a Nation State during war while the later was committed by a non-government.IMHO, acts of war can be very bad, they can even be crimes. There are even standards, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and established procedures (even if ineffective) to address such behaviour. But they are not terrorist acts. Regardless of the motive, if committed by a recognized government, it is not terrorism.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

The US would point to a number of UN resolutions and towards acts of Congress to say that a legal basis was laid

---

They would say that, but only as a propaganda exercise. The UN has made it abundantly clear that no prior resolution can be construed as an open-ended licence for war. There was no legal justification of the invasion of Iraq whatsoever.

quote:

---

IMHO, acts of war can be very bad, they can even be crimes. There are even standards, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and established procedures (even if ineffective) to address such behaviour. But they are not terrorist acts. Regardless of the motive, if committed by a recognized government, it is not terrorism.

---

So what defines terrorism is some notional recognition.... by who? By the UN, just because it happens to be able to fulfill that role now? What happens if country A recognises a state, andf country B refuses to recognise that state, what then?Your assesment is an adequate description of the hypocritical realpolitik of Imperialism, but it has no basis in either logic or morality. Furthermore, I cite that very point to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the nation state. Terrorism is a word the rich use to justify killing the poor. It is class war by another name.This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-17-2004 10:46 AM

Sure there is. One of the rights of a Nation State is self protection. It is legal to attack another nation that is about to attack you, even through preemptive attack.The issue is whether or not the US can make a case that the US was threatened by Iraq. This is not the thread to discuss that issue, but it is clear atleast that Nation States do have a legal right of self defense.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That issue comes up fairly often, for example over which is the real China. A Nation State comes about through internal organization and the consensus of other Nation States.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Sure there is. One of the rights of a Nation State is self protection. It is legal to attack another nation that is about to attack you, even through preemptive attack.

---

Only in the face of immediate and imminent danger. For example, a huge buildup of armoured divisions on your shared border. Not rumour.Please note that the US was NOT given permission to invade by the UN or anyone else. It was not facing imminent attack, and its own paranoia is not sufficient explanation. The US invasion of Iraq was quite clearly against international law, as Kofi Annan has made abundantly clear.

quote:

---

The issue is whether or not the US can make a case that the US was threatened by Iraq.

---

No that it NOT the issue. Even if Iraq had been demonstrated to have WMD, and it had been demonstrated to be concealing them, that would STILL have not constituted an imminent intent to launch a strike against the USA.

quote:

---

This is not the thread to discuss that issue, but it is clear atleast that Nation States do have a legal right of self defense.

---

Is that true? Because, we seem to insist that the people defending the nation-state of Iraq are "terrorists" or "insurgents", so clearly we DON'T bbeleiev in the right of self-defence at all.

quote:

---

That issue comes up fairly often, for example over which is the real China. A Nation State comes about through internal organization and the consensus of other Nation States.

---

So whats the answer then? You seem to have avoided giving it. I didn;t asjk how nation states come about - I asked whether the violence of a state whose status is in dispute qualifies as terrorism or not.If China does not recognise Taiwan, is China entitled to invade Taiwan and declare all the defenders illegal combatants as the US did in Afghanistan?

First, right now, the Nation State of Iraq does not exist. There is no Iraqi Government. If China invaded Taiwan that is exactly the legal position they would take. The indeterminate status of Taiwan is one of the great threats in the world today.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

First, right now, the Nation State of Iraq does not exist. There is no Iraqi Government.

---

I don't believe a sitting government is necessary before a state to exist - is it your view that the state of France disapeared during the Nazi occupation? Or, how about Spain when occupied by the Napoleonic French?Regardless, the US has acquired ALL the legal obligations of the Iraqi state, including the duty of care to its citizens. Iraqi's have, under the Geneva convention, the right to form citizens militias to resist occupation by a foreign power. They are in the right, the US is in the wrong, in every respect.

quote:

---

If China invaded Taiwan that is exactly the legal position they would take.

---

You're STILL avoiding the question. I didn't ask what position the Chinese state would take - I asked what your formula says IS the case. Is resistance by Taiwanese forces construed as terrorism in YOUR eyes because they are not recognised by China, yes or no?

That may well be what you believe, but without a government there can be no state. Actually, there were two French Governments, the recognized Vichy Government and the government in exile of De Gaulle. Good example. The existing royal family fled to France for protection. Afterall, they were the excuse used for the invasion which was actually aimed at Portugal. One of the first steps that Napoleon took was to have his brother declared King of Spain. Again, no government, no nation. Well, it doesn't much matter. I don't have anything to say about it. There is no yes or no answer to the China situation.In the past, the US recognized Taiwan as a state. That is not the case today. The US has adopted the One China Protocol but they have very carefully avoided defining what that means. The US has said that they would likely intervene if the Mainland tried to take the islands by force, but even there we have held our options open.Taiwan is an anomaly, a Nation State recognized purely for economic reasons while all nations make a pretense of its non-existence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion