Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What is Terrorism?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by klaz
    Where is this stated?

    A small series of documents known as the Geneva Conventions.

    What is slightly misleading in this case is the interpretation.

    First of all, spies are not - by definition - combatants. Their purpose is not to be involved in combat.

    Secondly, using spies is not "in breach" of the Geneva Convention. A spy being involved in direct combat would be in breach, AFAIK, as all combatants are required to meet certain qualifying criteria such as insignia's or uniforms being present to clearly identify them.

    Also, a captured spy is not entitled to any protection under the Geneva Convention for Prisoners of War, because he or she does not meet the necessary qualification criteria.

    Finally - I would argue that no party involved in a military action (such as Spec Ops, Saboteurs or Spies) are terrorists unless they are carrying out actions specifically intended to have the primary effect of inflicting terror on the populace at large.

    jc


  • Options
    #33
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Originally posted by dahamsta
    The IRA routinely targetted military bases, does that mean they're not terrorists?
    I'd say that while they're targetting military bases they're acting as secessionists using military means rather than being terrorists. Given that they usually went the route of shooting unarmed people they still fall under the terrorist category. I still wouldn't agree with either tactic or action but I'd see a difference from my own POV.
    I reckon the definition of a terrorist is what a terrorist defines it as.
    I'd agree with that. None of them seem to want to be called terrorists though.


  • Options
    #34
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,411 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Originally posted by klaz
    Where is this stated? War is an ever evolving concept. The tactics involved are constantly changing, and war doesn't have to include those wearing uniforms. The allied partisans of WW2 didn't have any distinguishing feature, and yet that was an acceptable form of resistance.
    But many of those captured ended up being executed. After the D-Day landings and especially in the Paris revolt in 1944, most of the French partisans started wearing uniforms and / or military helmets. I'm not sure about any others.


Advertisement