British Soldier Beheaded on London Street.

[Lt. Fred]

Nor is this terrorism. Terrorism is the use of force against civilians to create fear in order to cause some political end. They murdered a soldier, not a civilian. That is not an act of terrorism. It's murder, not terrorism.

It would be easier to agree on what is terrorism if there was a consencus on what terrorism means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

The only reason there is no consensus on the definition of terrorism is the usefulness of a meaningless word with negative connotations. If all force with a political motive is terrorism, obviously the Iraq and Afghan Wars are terrorism. If you deliberately, cynically include only non-state actors (and why not just make it any violence by Muslims or Catholics and be honest about it?) why does it have a negative connotation? Non-state violence isn't necessarily evil, any more than state violence is necessarily good.

But if you have no definition at all, these concerns vanish. They're terrorists and we're not because we say so and stop supporting the terrorists.

In any case, most people agree that you have to be acting outside the normal rules of war to count as a terrorist, or you have to choose an illegitimate target. It is not against the laws of war to murder a soldier with an axe.

Nor is even the worst terrorism a serious threat. Even the worst terrorist attack in history killed few people and did little damage compared to basically ignored social phenomena like lack of medical care. Ironically, these much more serious problems have gone unfunded in the name of a (failed) attempt to reduce terrorism.

Does the fact that there are bigger threats mean we should ignore the smaller ones?

If car crashes kill more people than plane crashes does this mean we should remove all the laws and regulation concerning planes until we have fixed the problem with the cars?
[/quote]

It does, however, mean that we should slash the shit out of (working) programs dealing with actually serious problem to fund a (failed) attempt to reduce the laughably unserious one. While ripping up our criminal justice system. It also means we shouldn't have politicians orally defecate their pants on national television. Calm down. Terrorism isn't a threat. Don't worry. Worry about something that might hurt or kill you- like cancer or something.

[Lt. Fred]

Which law would that be? I don't think a machete is a prohibited weapon, and I don't know that there is any law against wiping out off-duty soldiery. If you're at war and in the army you're fair game, as far as the LOAC is concerned. Not the case with domestic law o'course, so this dude is in prison forever.

[Meshakhad]

I would argue that since the soldier in question was not on active duty - wasn't even deployed - that he was effectively a civilian.

[Askold]

I would argue that since the soldier in question was not on active duty - wasn't even deployed - that he was effectively a civilian.

The guy was unarmed, out of uniform and not deployed for combat. Might not make him a civilian but definitely a non-combatant.

[Lt. Fred]

I should be clear: I don't think he did the right thing, I just disagree with calling his brand of "the wrong thing" terrorism. It's murder.

[RavynousHunter]

Again, its about intent.  Look at why the murderer killed: did they do it for fun?  Pleasure?  Revenge? Or did they do it to terrify others into taking their side, or at the very least, not supporting their opposition?

The latter is terrorism.  It doesn't matter if they killed a baker, scholar, soldier, or a cab driver.  If the intent is to inflict terror on a large (community, at the very least) scale, then the act is terrorism.  ...This really isn't a difficult concept.

The Oklahoma City Bombing was a terrorist act.  The sarin attack on a Japanese subway that was perpetrated by Aum Shinrikyo was a terrorist act.  9/11 was a terrorist act.  Given the apparent motivations behind the murderers here, the act falls under the definition of terrorism.

[Shane for Wax]

Inb4 someone says that even a simple murder can scare a population so everything could be considered terrorism.

[Lt. Fred]

Again, its about intent.  Look at why the murderer killed: did they do it for fun?  Pleasure?  Revenge? Or did they do it to terrify others into taking their side, or at the very least, not supporting their opposition?

The latter is terrorism.  It doesn't matter if they killed a baker, scholar, soldier, or a cab driver.  If the intent is to inflict terror on a large (community, at the very least) scale, then the act is terrorism.  ...This really isn't a difficult concept.

The Oklahoma City Bombing was a terrorist act.  The sarin attack on a Japanese subway that was perpetrated by Aum Shinrikyo was a terrorist act.  9/11 was a terrorist act.  Given the apparent motivations behind the murderers here, the act falls under the definition of terrorism.

So is most military strategy based on surprise or shock; Desert Storm was explicitly this idea.

[Askold]

Again, its about intent.  Look at why the murderer killed: did they do it for fun?  Pleasure?  Revenge? Or did they do it to terrify others into taking their side, or at the very least, not supporting their opposition?

The latter is terrorism.  It doesn't matter if they killed a baker, scholar, soldier, or a cab driver.  If the intent is to inflict terror on a large (community, at the very least) scale, then the act is terrorism.  ...This really isn't a difficult concept.

The Oklahoma City Bombing was a terrorist act.  The sarin attack on a Japanese subway that was perpetrated by Aum Shinrikyo was a terrorist act.  9/11 was a terrorist act.  Given the apparent motivations behind the murderers here, the act falls under the definition of terrorism.

So is most military strategy based on surprise or shock; Desert Storm was explicitly this idea.

As far as I remember Desert storm wasn't an attack targeting civilians and non-combatants. There is a bloody big difference between killing a soldier who is in uniform and carrying a weapon on a combat zone and going after a guy who is gathering money for charity.

[Lt. Fred]

Again, its about intent.  Look at why the murderer killed: did they do it for fun?  Pleasure?  Revenge? Or did they do it to terrify others into taking their side, or at the very least, not supporting their opposition?

The latter is terrorism.  It doesn't matter if they killed a baker, scholar, soldier, or a cab driver.  If the intent is to inflict terror on a large (community, at the very least) scale, then the act is terrorism.  ...This really isn't a difficult concept.

The Oklahoma City Bombing was a terrorist act.  The sarin attack on a Japanese subway that was perpetrated by Aum Shinrikyo was a terrorist act.  9/11 was a terrorist act.  Given the apparent motivations behind the murderers here, the act falls under the definition of terrorism.

So is most military strategy based on surprise or shock; Desert Storm was explicitly this idea.

As far as I remember Desert storm wasn't an attack targeting civilians and non-combatants. There is a bloody big difference between killing a soldier who is in uniform and carrying a weapon on a combat zone and going after a guy who is gathering money for charity.

Desert Storm very much targeted sleeping soldiers, retreating soldiers, off-duty soldiers, ect. Clear terrorism, by your definition (which, mind, I think is wrong).

[m52nickerson]

Desert Storm very much targeted sleeping soldiers, retreating soldiers, off-duty soldiers, ect. Clear terrorism, by your definition (which, mind, I think is wrong).

Yes, soldiers...as in plural, with the intent of reducing the ability of the Iraqi army to fight back.  That is different than attacking a single soldier and than waiting to be taken into custody while making statement to a crowd of people.

[mellenORL]

Desert Storm was declared publicly by the United States to the entire fucking world, especially to Saddam Hussein, 24 hours before the attack commenced.

We do not "Pearl Harbor" against enemy nations, Fred. We walk all over them, and fuck up just about everything our ginormous military juggernaut touches....but we do not perform ninja stabs as the opening salvo.

[Canadian Mojo]

In all fairness, the opening strikes were made with stealthy weapons with an eye to blinding/crippling the enemy before going in for the kill. We just told them that the ninjas were coming to get them (which is more than fair).

[Lt. Fred]

Desert Storm very much targeted sleeping soldiers, retreating soldiers, off-duty soldiers, ect. Clear terrorism, by your definition (which, mind, I think is wrong).

Yes, soldiers...as in plural, with the intent of reducing the ability of the Iraqi army to fight back.  That is different than attacking a single soldier and than waiting to be taken into custody while making statement to a crowd of people.

Right. So, had this guy killed at least two soldiers, he'd no longer have been a terrorist? Or perhaps making statements is the sign of terrorism. Being arrested? I'm not sure what your point is here.

Desert Storm was declared publicly by the United States to the entire fucking world, especially to Saddam Hussein, 24 hours before the attack commenced.

We do not "Pearl Harbor" against enemy nations, Fred. We walk all over them, and fuck up just about everything our ginormous military juggernaut touches....but we do not perform ninja stabs as the opening salvo.

Again, I disagree that surprise alone characterises terrorism. Surprise characterises a lot of military operations, I don't see why there should be negative connotations attached to that.

We should not deliberately write a definition in order to exclude what we do while including what they do. That's dishonest.

[Art Vandelay]

Desert Storm very much targeted sleeping soldiers, retreating soldiers, off-duty soldiers, ect. Clear terrorism, by your definition (which, mind, I think is wrong).

Yes, soldiers...as in plural, with the intent of reducing the ability of the Iraqi army to fight back.  That is different than attacking a single soldier and than waiting to be taken into custody while making statement to a crowd of people.

Right. So, had this guy killed at least two soldiers, he'd no longer have been a terrorist? Or perhaps making statements is the sign of terrorism. Being arrested? I'm not sure what your point is here.

No, he's a terrorist not because he only killed one soldier, he's a terrorist because his intent was to scare the civilian populace into submission. If he were specifically targeting soldiers for the sake of damaging the British military and its ability to fight, that wouldn't be terrorism. However, because ultimate target audience was civilians, it's terrorism.

It's really not that hard a concept.

Oh, and derp. I accidentally a word or two.