The difference between a warrior and a terrorist:

[riqster]

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/gun-week-day-one-how-to-tell-the-difference-between-a-terrorist-and-a-warrior/

Short and not at all sweet.

[redgreenandblue]

1. What if a warrior is ordered to behave like a terrorist?

[riqster]

4. Terrorist is as terrorist does.

Deliberately targeting innocent civilians (like the Blitz or Dresden during WWII, 9/11, the IRA bombing of Manchester, to name a few) is a terrorist act.

No war is a pretty affair, but I find it less morally troublesome if volunteer warriors are shooting at other volunteer warriors.

[Scootaloo]

2. "Authorized combat" - Authorized by whom?

That's the sticky part. In every single war ever waged, all sides involved generally regarded the others' cause as completely illegitimate.

[dembotoz]

3. so all revolutions start out as terrorists???

Osama had an organization
and he authorized attacks
therefore he was a warrior?????

[riqster]

5. I believe the post stipulated that warriors fight other warriors.

Not what OBL did on 9/11. Not even a little bit.

[dembotoz]

8. sooo twin towers terrorist, plane into pentagon warriors????

a number of police died in the twin tower perhaps the rest were collateral damage????

depends on who gets killed.
from our perspective drone strike warrior
on the ground--drone strike terrorist

[Recursion]

14. No, because of the passengers

However, I would call a Mujuhad who flew a plane containing himself into the Pentagon a warrior.

Same thing in Iraq: the people who shot at us while we were patrolling were partisans, not terrorists. The people who shot at Shi'ite civilians were terrorists.

[CBGLuthier]

6. when a warrior kills children it is sanctified by his government?

[riqster]

7. Not according to the blog post:

"Here’s the difference: if you are part of an organized military, engaged in authorized combat, fighting against others from an opposing military force, you are a warrior." (Bold text mine.) It specifies that warriors fight other warriors.



(OT, what sorts of instruments do you make? Electric, Acoustic or...?)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. That depends.

Soldiers are forbidden to shoot at hospitals, houses of worship, museums, etc. but if an enemy occupies a hospital -- for example -- for the purpose of using it as a fighting position then the hospital loses its protected status and any resulting civilian casualties are the responsibility of the force that used the hospital as a fighting position.

At least, that is my recollection of a conversation I had when I was still dating my husband and he was still in the Army.

[riqster]

11. Which would make those using civilians as human shields terrorists.

Just like someone flying planes into office buildings. Both cases involve the specific, targeted killing of civilians.

[DustyJoe]

12. ROE

Even in 1968 during the 5 month TET battles our forces fought under defined rules of engagement. Any patrolling around a populated area including small hamlets were on a "do not fire unless fired upon" restriction. Only the jungles and largely unpopulated areas were designated as free fire zones.

There was absolutely no standing or any orders to plant explosives at any sporting event specifically calculated to incur only civilian casualties. The term warrior is confusing, I never served with anyone on the combat field that considered themselves as warriors, just 'grunts' or soldiers.

[riqster]

13. Warrior was chosen to avoid

...the nomenclature inter-service arguments that seem to ensue if one says "soldier": you know, "sailor!" and so on,

The point of the post is: terrorists are not warriors.

[malthaussen]

10. He's wrong, you know.

"If you are part of an organized military, engaged in authorized combat, fighting against others from an opposing military force" then you are a soldier, not a warrior. (Yeah, that applies even if you're in the Navy or Marines)

-- Mal