Over on JBL, I saw a thread while browsing the off-topic lounge. The original Post asked something about how would you deal with terrorists in the real world. After the Marine in me calmed down and stopped thinking about a Terrorist massacre, I started formulating a response. But before I got too far, another poster stated :
" problem being. even our troops .. sometimes.. are terrorists... may not be their fault... but in some cases we arent the good guys..."
Now that REALLY set me off. After walking outside and calling on the almighty to comdenm him for all eternity, I thought it over and decided to respond educatedly and intellectually...and in my response, I found out a strange thing.....
BY DEFINITION, HE MAY HAVE BEEN RIGHT!
Bear with me, before you start condemning me, too!
I wrote what I thought was a wonderful response, only to finish it and see the thread was locked. So, bear with me and I will share my revelation on what I found out about the definition(s) of "Terrorism" and "Terrorist" ;
here was what I wrote;
[QUOTE=ender098]
Being a Marine, I have to say, I guess I have always followed
this definition of Terrorist from The Marine Corps Terrorism Awareness handbook;
a. Terrorism. Terrorism is the calculated (unlawful) use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear (by impressing upon the mind through frequent repetition or persistent urging); intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
I would say the fact that we don't try to Inculcate fear and we try to get away from
Illegal calculated use of violence to attain our ends makes us NOT terrorists. However do Service mambers step across the line? YES! The difference is, we punish them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
However, follow this link to wikipedia, and they give a more broad generalization of the terms "Terrorism" and "Terrorist". And as is said, if you sort through all the various definitions, the only constant is "violence and the threat of violence". Hmmm, well, by that definition, isn't any organization charged with enforcement a Terrorist? From the Police to the Ghestapo?
If that is the definition of Terrorist you are going by, that the Military uses "Violence or the Threat of Violence" to gain it's ends, then YES, we are terrorists. I have never see an Army go to war that has not intended to do violence if the need be.
I however like to think the ends justify the means. Unlike our enemies, we don't Purposely Kill civilians or our own people. And when one of us or a group of us does, they are punished severly, such as that group who killed the family so they could rape a 13 yo girl in Iraq. They will go to prison for the rest of their lives. Have you ever seen Al Queda punish it's members for going "over the Line"?
I think Terrorists (in the sense I label the Taliban and Al Queda and their ilk) target the populace and make them fear so they can achieve their means. WE however, try to restrict our operations to target only the bad guys. WE wear uniforms, so if our enemies want to kill us, we are easy to find. They kill indiscriminately and hide in the very people they terrorize.
It's just a matter of syntax. Before you say our troops are terrorists, state your definition of terrorism. If it's broad as wikipedias, I guess we do fit. But if you tell me I'm as bad as that trash that calls itself Al Queda, I say you move to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan and see what you're talking about first!
amen!
P.S. And speaking your mind just shows you still have freedom of speech and this "Terrorist" is doing his job properly! LOL!
No offense taken!
***Disclaimer, this post is not meant to be argumenative, but show both sides and how the person who said that sometimes our troops are terrorists could BE right depending on definition and Situation, and it is NOT a bad thing! However saying we are as bad as the Taliban or Al Queda (which he did NOT say) WOULD be uncalled for!******
[\QUOTE]
Sometimes anger can motivate us to educate ourselves!