Originally posted by Liberator
Okay, since you asked in the spirit of gaining knowledge.
I define International Terrorism as violent actions of a small(compared to the populations they target), nationally-unaffiliated group against generallized, civilian targets designed to affect social or political change in a nation they dislike for whatever reason. This includes such groups as Al Queda and Hamas. There are also Western groups, but the only one that springs to mind is the IRA.
I should add, now that I think of National powers, such as the United States of America or Great Britain cannot engage in Terrorism. Nations can engage in Guerilla Warfare(spec ops, black ops, ect), which can be misconstrued as Terrorism by the uninformed or anti-* outside observer.
OK, thanks for answering. alright, so first things first.
Private military mercs, from the likes of Titan, CACI and Blackwater, currently operating in Iraq, make up the third largest force, beside the US and the UK. They are nationally unaffiliated, small (compared to 25 millions Iraqis), and entered Iraq with the intention of affecting political change, namely the ousting of Saddam and the Baath Party. They have killed civilians, that much is documented, whether or not this was their intention is impossible to prove. They contiue to operate in the interest of political change, to prevent a theocracy from being established in Iraq (think al-Sadr).
_______________________
Now, second, and more importantly, do you acknowledge the existence of a phenomenon known as State Sponsored Terrorism? If you agree with Dubya, then such a thing certainly exists, and is being perpetrated by the likes of Syria, Iran, and formerly Afghanistan and Iraq (though Iraq was not in fact, but it was Dubya's assertion).
Now, if such a phenomenon exists, how would you define it?
_____________________________
Third, do you believe that "Spec Ops warfare" is morally superior to traditional terrorism, even if the exact same acts are commited by both groups. Whether or not both groups have in the past commited identical acts is another question. Assuming that they have, would one group be "better" morally than the other, and if so, why?
______
Kaz: drop it. it pertains in no way whatsoever to the current discussion. If you want, please go ahead and make a seperate thread about it. Thanks.