Is this state-sponsored terrorism?

#26
#26
hndog609 said:
If the Japanese had taken out Oppenheimer would it have been a terrorist act?
Click to expand...

It would be more an act of terrorism than a military action. I will state that any time a government targets an unarmed, enemy non-combatant that it is an illegitimate military action and more than likely the reason to do so is to coerce and/or intimidate.
 
#27
#27
therealUT said:
According to our government, these acts would be considered as terrorism:

that definition fits mine - intent to intimidate or coerce. If the assasinations are aimed at saying "stop your nukes or we'll keep killing your scientists" then I'd agree. If it's aimed at stopping Iran from having the capabilities to develop nukes then I'd disagree.


I see where you are coming from with your definition, VB; however, I also cannot see an assassination as something that is non-coercive. In assassinating an individual, one is coercing any individual who takes that persons place to act in a certain manner.
Click to expand...

possibly - why stop there? is any murder terrorism?

Was the attempted Reagan assasination terrorism? It seems if we mix these words and call all assasination terrorism then we lose real differences between motives/intent.
 
#28
#28
therealUT said:
It would be more an act of terrorism than a military action. I will state that any time a government targets an unarmed, enemy non-combatant that it is an illegitimate military action and more than likely the reason to do so is to coerce and/or intimidate.
Click to expand...

I don't buy it. Plots to take out Hitler were primarily aimed at coercion or intimidation?
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
assassination; not assasination - my apologies for my spelling error and I hope it did not terrorize anyone.
 
#31
#31
volinbham said:
I don't see it as terrorism - it is an assasination. Words have meaning and assasinations are not necessarily terrorism. Terrorism implies a particular intent - to terrorize. Assasination is aimed at removing a particular individual although assasination could be part of a terroristic plan.

No idea if we had any role.

Why is this a religious issue?
Click to expand...

Yes, intent is important. I'm not sure your average Iranian will be afraid of driving down the road because of this.

Assassination is illegal for any U.S. person so it couldn't be us...

In fact it may not have even been the Israelis. Post Soviet Union that part of the world is still very dangerous and there are a lot of people who don't want to see the Iranians go nuclear.

Could be Sunni on Shia crime for all we know.
 
#32
#32
Mostly agree with VBH here. If this were a widespread campaign to off normal citizens en masse I could see the terrorism angle. As it is, the targets are playing a strategic role in opposition to the aggressor's interests.
 
#33
#33
volinbham said:
possibly - why stop there? is any murder terrorism?

Was the attempted Reagan assasination terrorism? It seems if we mix these words and call all assasination terrorism then we lose real differences between motives/intent.
Click to expand...

I agree that intent and motive matter; for this reason, not all murder is terrorism. If your motive is to remove someone from a certain position that you know will be replaced and you want the replacement to act a certain way, then I would say that the act is terrorism.

The attempt on Reagan does not fit that model.

volinbham said:
I don't buy it. Plots to take out Hitler were primarily aimed at coercion or intimidation?
Click to expand...

Some of the attempts to take out Hitler should be considered terrorism because they were meant not only to get rid of Hitler but to coerce and intimidate his deputies to respond a certain way. Some attempts should not be because they thought that by killing Hitler and his deputies, who the would be assassins thought were the only drivers in the continued war effort, would put a complete end to the war without necessarily coercing nor intimidating those who would gain control of the country.
 
#34
#34
volinbham said:
So if Israel bombed Iran's nuke facilities would you consider that terrorism? Presumably, civilians would be killed or injured.
Click to expand...

I don't really know that the distinction matters. The act is what it is. That being said, I would probably consider targeting anything that is non-military to be an act of "terrorism".
 
#35
#35
rjd970 said:
Mostly agree with VBH here. If this were a widespread campaign to off normal citizens en masse I could see the terrorism angle. As it is, the targets are playing a strategic role in opposition to the aggressor's interests.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that's how radical Islam views the Twin Towers that went down (and especially the Pentagon)?
 
#36
#36
nbakerld said:
Don't you think that's how radical Islam views the Twin Towers that went down (and especially the Pentagon)?
Click to expand...

I could understand the argument that according to such a strict definition of terrorism, the WTC attack was definitely terrorism; however, under that strict definition there is no way one can argue that the attack on the Pentagon was terrorism (nor the attacks on the Marine Barracks in Beirut, the attacks against our military in Riyadh, the attacks against our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and the attack against the USS Cole as all of these can be considered strategic military targets if these scientists in Iran are considered strategic military targets).
 
#37
#37
nbakerld said:
Don't you think that's how radical Islam views the Twin Towers that went down (and especially the Pentagon)?
Click to expand...

To me, this really points out the difference.

9/11 was designed to intimidate and strike fear into Americans as a whole. Bin Laden knew he could not defeat the American government but with enough intimdiation he could influence the American people to put pressure on the US government.

Killing top nuclear scientists isn't going to result in the Iranian populace fearing further attacks and changing views. It's intended to directly derail the nuke program by destroying key assets of the program.
 
#39
#39
therealUT said:
I could understand the argument that according to such a strict definition of terrorism, the WTC attack was definitely terrorism; however, under that strict definition there is no way one can argue that the attack on the Pentagon was terrorism (nor the attacks on the Marine Barracks in Beirut, the attacks against our military in Riyadh, the attacks against our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and the attack against the USS Cole as all of these can be considered strategic military targets if these scientists in Iran are considered strategic military targets).
Click to expand...

Answered this in the prior post but:

None of the attacks you mentioned were intended to drastically destroy capabilities of the U.S. They were minor inconveniences relevant to U.S. capabilities.

Killing top Iranian nuke scientists can drastically impact Iranian nuke capabilities. Those scientists are strategic assets. It's not about getting Iran to rethink it's nuke strategy. It's about directly stopping the nuke strategy by key asset removal.
 
Last edited:
#40
#40
volinbham said:
To me, this really points out the difference.

9/11 was designed to intimidate and strike fear into Americans as a whole. Bin Laden knew he could not defeat the American government but with enough intimdiation he could influence the American people to put pressure on the US government.

Killing top nuclear scientists isn't going to result in the Iranian populace fearing further attacks and changing views. It's intended to directly derail the nuke program by destroying key assets of the program.
Click to expand...


See my earlier post. If blowing the guy up in dramatic fashion is designed to cause enough fear for the other scientists that they quit, then it probably meets the definition at some level.

But given that, if that was the case, then he was specifically targeted, then that is a characteristic not typically associated with terrorism.
 
#41
#41
lawgator1 said:
See my earlier post. If blowing the guy up in dramatic fashion is designed to cause enough fear for the other scientists that they quit, then it probably meets the definition at some level.

But given that, if that was the case, then he was specifically targeted, then that is a characteristic not typically associated with terrorism.
Click to expand...

Basically what I've been trying to say. From what's been posted I don't see intent evidence that the goal is intimidation. Since it's so targeted, I lean toward capabilities reduction as the goal.
 
#42
#42
I've pondered a bit and decided that I too fall into the "Assassination need not have any direct tie to terrorism." camp. More than anything I feel the assassination=terrorism camp assumes too much. If taking someone out (Iranian scientist or rival gang leader) serves an expedient and articulable purpose then that is that. (IMO) If this causes secondary issues to arise that weakens your enemy's resolve so much the better but that doesn't meet my criteria of terrorism.
 
#43
#43
Terrorism often has a political goal, with the targets being the influencing factor. UBL and Al Qaeda's intent was to bankrupt the U.S. so we couldn't fund expeditionary warfare and prevent them from eventually rebuilding the Islamic Caliphate.

Sometimes a campaign designed to build fear does the opposite--the bombing of Dresden was intended to coerce the munitions factory workers to quit, instead they ramped up production.

The 9/11 attacks steeled our national resolve--however, we are still going bankrupt. Which goes to show that you can never really predict the secondary and tertiary effects accurately.

Assassinating scientists may gain the world a delay in the production of Iranian nuclear capabilities but the risk is that the Imams will push all the harder to achieve their goals.
 
#44
#44
Seriously, why do you think that the assassination of a key developer of nuclear weapons, in a country which has publicly announced that they are only waiting to own one of these weapons so that they can use them on Israel and other enemies of Islam, is an act of terrorism. Personally, I think whoever is responsible for this was way later than they should have been.
 
#45
#45
Headed For Home said:
Seriously, why do you think that the assassination of a key developer of nuclear weapons, in a country which has publicly announced that they are only waiting to own one of these weapons so that they can use them on Israel and other enemies of Islam, is an act of terrorism. Personally, I think whoever is responsible for this was way later than they should have been.
Click to expand...

When did they publicly announce that? That would be the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of mankind. "Hey, we're years away from having effective nuclear weaponry, but once we do we are going to attack Israel (who already has nukes)." Talk about tipping your hand.
 
#46
#46
nbakerld said:
When did they publicly announce that? That would be the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of mankind. "Hey, we're years away from having effective nuclear weaponry, but once we do we are going to attack Israel (who already has nukes)." Talk about tipping your hand.
Click to expand...

never been a secret with that bunch
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
Answered this in the prior post but:

None of the attacks you mentioned were intended to drastically destroy capabilities of the U.S. They were minor inconveniences relevant to U.S. capabilities.

Killing top Iranian nuke scientists can drastically impact Iranian nuke capabilities. Those scientists are strategic assets. It's not about getting Iran to rethink it's nuke strategy. It's about directly stopping the nuke strategy by key asset removal.
Click to expand...

I guess the main issue I have with this point of view is that it relegates peoples with sub[par conventional military capability a realm in which they can only commit illegitimate actions of force. Since the US and its allies have such advanced capabilities (surveillance included), they can pinpoint one or two individuals and call it 'strategic' and non-intimidating to the masses. I understand that the use of the word 'terrorism' is ambiguous, as is finding out what exactly constitutes coercion or strategic objectives.

Also, if the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut worked strategically (the US moved out of Lebanon), then why are future like actions not deemed of strategic value with strategic objectives that can be met?

Radical Muslims view Western nations and Western cultures as threats to their way of life, just as many in the West view a nuclear Iran as a threat to our way of life. So, the Muslim terrorists do what they can to remove that threat and remove Western influence from their lives in the Middle East, and we all label it terrorism (which it is); yet, if the same thing happens in which the US does what it can to remove the threat to its way of life, it is not terrorism, even though this series of attacks has to cause terror in the lives of plenty of Iranian scientists and friends of scientists (there were two others in the car...collateral damage?).

Whatever you want to name it, what is happening in Iran appears to be state-sponsored illegitimate use of force against unarmed, non-enemy combatant, civilians.
 
#49
#49
therealUT said:
I guess the main issue I have with this point of view is that it relegates peoples with sub[par conventional military capability a realm in which they can only commit illegitimate actions of force. Since the US and its allies have such advanced capabilities (surveillance included), they can pinpoint one or two individuals and call it 'strategic' and non-intimidating to the masses. I understand that the use of the word 'terrorism' is ambiguous, as is finding out what exactly constitutes coercion or strategic objectives.

Also, if the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut worked strategically (the US moved out of Lebanon), then why are future like actions not deemed of strategic value with strategic objectives that can be met?

Radical Muslims view Western nations and Western cultures as threats to their way of life, just as many in the West view a nuclear Iran as a threat to our way of life. So, the Muslim terrorists do what they can to remove that threat and remove Western influence from their lives in the Middle East, and we all label it terrorism (which it is); yet, if the same thing happens in which the US does what it can to remove the threat to its way of life, it is not terrorism, even though this series of attacks has to cause terror in the lives of plenty of Iranian scientists and friends of scientists (there were two others in the car...collateral damage?).

Whatever you want to name it, what is happening in Iran appears to be state-sponsored illegitimate use of force against unarmed, non-enemy combatant, civilians.
Click to expand...

Well I can definitely agree with the last statement.

On the other, I'm not making a value statement eventhough I recognize that terrorism is a value-laden term. I'm making a plea for words having unique meanings :)
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
Well I can definitely agree with the last statement.

On the other, I'm not making a value statement eventhough I recognize that terrorism is a value-laden term. I'm making a plea for words having unique meanings :)
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top