Are terrorist following the rules reguarding war and prisoners? Civilians?

Question

Mordent, actually, targeting civilians makes you a terrorist, not your interrogation techniques.

Answer 1

Some do some do not.
And there's the definition problem again.
Those who try to terrorize occupators only,
and not injure any civilians, are just fighters, still
called terrorists, because they don't wear tinsel.
On the other side, even weasels may be real
terrorists for the car driver with bitten hoses.

Answer 2

I'm going to get many thumbs down for this, but yes, some terrorists actually do follow the rules, at least in part. If you look at many of the civil and anti colonial wars of the 20th century, the insurgent or terrorist group often sought legitimacy with the rest of the world in order to win support. To do this, many at least partly held themselves by the Geneva conventions. That's not to say that all did, or that there weren't massacres and torture, more often than not there was. But if you look at Algeria, Sri lanka, Ireland, Hamas, the PLO, Hizballah, and dozens of other wars and terrorist groups, many did at least make the attempt to appear as if they respected international law. The IRA, Basque separatists, and other terror groups even sometimes put out apologies when civilians were killed in their attacks.

This is not to say they were the good guys by any stretch. I am just answering your question in good faith.

==Edit==
I have to correct you: targeting civilians doesn't make you a terrorist. Targeting civilians is perfectly acceptable in war if they are engaged in support of the war effort, and/or if they are collateral damage to a legitimate target. Committing violence or threat of violence (against people or property) in order to effect significant social or political change through fear is the definition of terrorism. That is the federal definition in a nutshell.

Answer 3

No.

But then if you trying to make this into a "they don't follow the rules so it's ok to torture them" then if you don't follow the rules either then you're a terrorist too.

If targetting civilians makes you a terrorist then the US and the entirity of the allied nations are terrorists. The US routinely bombed civilians in WWII and Vietnam, and planned to annihilate as many Soviet civilians as possible in the cold war. That is a very poor description of what a terrorist is.

Answer 4

Usually No and one of th reasons why is because what was done to them usually falls under the same level of inhumanity and that is why they seek to apply to the perpetrators what was applied to them. Take Iran for example, in 1953 our government overthrew their democratic government and installed the brute dictatorship of the Shah which ruled ruthlessly with the help and aid of the American government. The Shah had a police/intelligence force called the Savak which was designed by CIA and Mossad which mercilessy tortured and killed anyone who oppose the dictatorship and the American hold on Iran. Interesting enough the Savak earned the label of being the most torturous police force in the world. If an Iranian comes out after us for what our government did to them then it some sense he is using terror to respond back to the terror that was unleashed on them by our government. But if it was on a government level whereas both nations were at war and there were prisoners caputured I'm sure they will at least follow the laws of the Geneva Convention. (? Question on Bush's adherence to the Geneva Conv.)

Answer 5

Republicans are anti american this is that easy. I bear in mind democrats and independents starting to be a member of with Bush after 9/eleven to combat terror. they'd have surely savaged him and had him impeached in the event that they chosen to as a results of fact the info became there. he no longer in basic terms did no longer act in time yet he disregarded protection briefs that stated in basic OBL desperate TO STRIKE. They failed persistently. they even led to the debt ceiling fall down and the wall highway fall down. they'd as nicely led to the deaths of 3000 human beings and countless others in iraq and to suited all of it off iraq and iran are actually allies. that should in no way had befell had saddam nevertheless been in ability. and that i examine their inner memo to coping with Obama and it reported that they'd desire to "combat him on each and every little thing," they theory this became a solid theory for the duration of the worst economic disaster interior the background of the country which they led to. they're un american.

Answer 6

Of course not! As the Queen in Alice in Wonderland said, "Off with their heads!'
Thats not in the rules, baby.
And according to the terrorist there are no civilians. "Kill, Kill, Kill. Regardless of who or what you are.
Thats why you give it to the terrorist tit for tat. Its all they understand or appreciate. Anything else and you are perceived as weak. You want to win the terrorist war, go in no holds bar and sock it to them any way you can. Otherwise you lose. Just look at Iraq.

Answer 7

Back slid'n all the way up the hill G Bush?
"History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake," Bush said. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_o...


If I am not mistaken, Bin Laden is not a threat to the US. So why on earth would G Bush use him like this?


Just goes to show how much this man is a lier!

Somebody prove me wrong please, come on cons rep, answer the question...

Did he just not lie to the world? To his country? To his fellow man?

Yes or No?

If War Denial is dangerous, then Bin Laden must be a threat! It would be nice if this so called man made up his mind for the better of our troops!

Sorry Bas;lkj;

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApTO.2oRecZ_GY0sB6b3LATQ7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20071101150937AAd7Fuc

I posted a question on yahoo Q/A form and figured this would be some great ammo vs G Bush.


Sending it to you if you want to use it, feel free.

Answer 8

Nope, that's why they get the term terrorists.

Answer 9

Ummmm NO. if you call following the rules cutting people's heads off with a knife then yes.

Answer 10

No. That's one reason why they're called terrorists.