[Zarax]

When money and politic meets the children are always abominations.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
For example, the guys who attacked the USS Cole are almost always reffered to as terrorists. Even groups like FARC are often branded that. It's very dangerous, because it threatens to completely politicize the language, which is exactly the sort of thing that best serves to limit the scope of discourse.

Hell, even protestors and journalists are being called terrorist with increasing regularity, albiet only in some circles..

 IIRC FARC are normally referred to as rebels / guerillas in the UK media anyways, although I believe there's accusations of their involvement in a couple of bombings (market bombing and bombing of a club in Bogota) as well as kidnappings.

If you look at the ruling itself; it's essentially the same logic which means - for example - the various resistence groups in Nazi-occupied europe are not themselves considered terrorists.

I think the US in particular has switched to define any attack on their military or occupational assets - specifically in Afghanistan and primarily Iraq - as terrorism.  However, what this ruling would indicate (if aplied) would be that only attacks aimed at civillians would be considered terrorism; the suicide bombing of the mess tent in Mosul would, for example, be considered as legitimate resistance (which IMO is a fair enough conclusion), as would the various roadside bombs and I think attacks - perhaps even the kidnappings and executions - on the Iraqi army (i.e. comparable to attack upon the Vichy government in WW2 France).  Bear in mind that the legitimacy of an occupation is dependent upon the eye of the beholder with regards to this; for some or all insurgents the idea of the US invading and taking control of Iraq will entice exactly the same reactions as those of the resistance in countries invaded by the Nazis.

[Flipside]

Terrorism is a tactic, not an army. Terrorists are people who use Terror to compel action in other people. Someone who lives next door can be a Terrorist, however, someone who shoots a enemy soldier in a Warzone is a combatant, not a Terrorist.

If the current definition were true, the every bridge destroyed, every ammunition dump sabotaged in Germany during WWII using covert ops, was Terrorism and the allied troops were Terrorists.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by aldo_14


 IIRC FARC are normally referred to as rebels / guerillas in the UK media anyways, although I believe there's accusations of their involvement in a couple of bombings (market bombing and bombing of a club in Bogota) as well as kidnappings.

If you look at the ruling itself; it's essentially the same logic which means - for example - the various resistence groups in Nazi-occupied europe are not themselves considered terrorists.

I think the US in particular has switched to define any attack on their military or occupational assets - specifically in Afghanistan and primarily Iraq - as terrorism.  However, what this ruling would indicate (if aplied) would be that only attacks aimed at civillians would be considered terrorism; the suicide bombing of the mess tent in Mosul would, for example, be considered as legitimate resistance (which IMO is a fair enough conclusion), as would the various roadside bombs and I think attacks - perhaps even the kidnappings and executions - on the Iraqi army (i.e. comparable to attack upon the Vichy government in WW2 France).  Bear in mind that the legitimacy of an occupation is dependent upon the eye of the beholder with regards to this; for some or all insurgents the idea of the US invading and taking control of Iraq will entice exactly the same reactions as those of the resistance in countries invaded by the Nazis.

As well it should.

The definition of the term occupation is very simple, meaning foreign troops stationed on sovereign soil. Now the legitimacy of that occupation depends on many factors, like whether they were invited by the government, and whether that government represented the will of the people at the time of the invitation; how much of the populace wants the troops there; their level of agression, control over internal matters and a whole slew of other things.

For example, if the UN sends troops into Sudan, that would still be an occupation, but a far more legitimate one than the US in Iraq, or the Russian one in Chechnya or the UN/EU in Bosnia.

edit: Depending on where you look, narco-terrorists being applied to FARC is not uncommon, at least in my experience, though to their credit most media outlets have avoided that particular pitfall.