So is there a difference between terrorists and an invading army? I thought there was but you seem to be indicating that the invading Christians of Europe were not so much an army, but terrorists.

The fact there was a necessity should probably tell you that their intent was not actually to "stop terror" - in fact it sounds like they used that as a scapegoat excuse for slaughtering fuck tons of people in the name of God.

Necessity for MULTIPLE crusades***

The invading Christians that killed everyone and destroyed everything in their wake were absolutely terrorists, Jerkface.

I feel kind of bad calling you that. You don't deserve it. I love you, and I hope you have a great day.

Brainbomb, I appreciate that you have to make the point that I was making yourself because the logical flow chart always has to end with something you said, but that's the point that I was making.

Thanks bo_sox! Sorry my name makes it super uncomfortable to address me. I regret it most deeply. Anyway, I hope you have (had?) a great day too!

I think the argument is getting down to semantics (which are usually boring, imo) but I like to think of terrorists as separate and different from invading armies. Now, I haven't looked up the *formal* definition of "terrorist" (what fun is that?) but from what I've gathered of years of exposure to the word, it seems to mean some sort of "home-grown" malcontent who wishes to strike fear into the hearts of ordinary people and keep them from using public transportation or generally appearing in public. So, under my definition here, the Crusaders are more like a generic invading army, right? (There is no doubt they inspired, and aimed to inspire, fear in their enemies).

I literally dont see how thats different than any other opinioned person in this forum.

A generic invading army wouldn't have torched and pillaged anything and everything in their way. They left from France and killed a few thousand Jews in Germany on their way to the Middle East because hey, why not? Jews aren't Christians, right? Let's just slaughter them. They burned the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to the ground with as many people inside as they could fit. They obliterated Muslim villages, killed thousands of Muslim people, and generally took their pent up sexual frustration, or whatever the hell makes you march all the way across a continent simply to cut a bunch of jugulars and leave, on civilians. I don't give a damn about the difference between present-day standards of war versus those in 1095 and onward; they were terrorists.

Though if you want to call them genocidal instead, I'm up for that too. Semantics, you know.

Oh man, don't get me started on genocide. I doubt their rage was racially motivated.... that's a 20th century phenomenon. So is a terrorist just someone who commits war crimes? That's fair enough but then pretty much every invading army falls into that category. So maybe a better question is what armies have NOT committed crimes? The allies in WW2 (Soviets excepted)? Who else? I'm genuinely curious.

You doubt it was ... racially ... motivated? Well, no. I agree with you. But the entire point of the Crusades was genocide. They didn't even shy away from saying it.

Armies that haven't committed war crimes? Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea_Defence_Force

Sorry, I should have said *invading* armies.

I don't know that I can - most invading armies are doing some pretty unspeakable things, things that I can't force myself to approve of no matter how patriotic and rednecky I try to be. But I can name quite a few invading armies that didn't kill thousands of people on the way to the place they were invading just for fun, or burn hundreds of people alive, or basically leave an entire empire smoldering in the name of a god that they had clearly never met or spoken with.

To pivot from this I had hoped someone might reiterate FARC and their voluntary demilitarization, the demilitarization of the IRA, and compare that to other famous rebel groups that have disbanded - and what factors led to those.

If we can ascertain a common theme it stands to reason that by removing Saddam for example we created ISIS. Theres not much dispute these are radicalized people driven by hatred of foreign invasions 100's of thousands of bombs dropped on them

From their perspective what we did was far worse than the crusades. Like why wouldnt they fight for their fallen family members?

Agreeing to recognize the Caliphates territorial boundaries if they agree to stop endorsing acts of terror carried about by disaffected people. At this point bombs wont beat ISIS, Iran and Russia clearly dont plan to invest in endorsing or ending them, Syria cant even stop butchering its own people long enough to bother with them and really how powerful is ISIS in anything other than its perceived danger to the world. Theyre pretty simple when yoi think about it. People struggle more with how to beat a simple enemy than they do with a state led terror faction like Hezbollah or the Israeli assassin squads.

@brainbomb, I never heard of Israel's assassination unit labeled terrorists before. Don't they only go for people that have murdered Israelis?

Do they?

Pretty much. They were big on hitting the terrorists who did the Munich Olympics thing in 1972(?). More recently, they hit bomb makers from Hamas -- people like that.

The FARC campaign of violence* ended with a negotiated settlement
The IRA campaign of violence ended with a negotiated settlement
The PLO campaign of violence ended with a negotiated settlement
The ANC campaign of violence ended with a negotiated settlement

Any counter examples? Terrorist campaigns that have ended through military action alone?

*campaign of violence is the most neutral term I can think of.

@ Jerkface: "So maybe a better question is what armies have NOT committed crimes? The allies in WW2 (Soviets excepted)?"

There are numerous example of allied forces in WW2 - not just the Soviets by any means - committing war crimes. Some examples that may be of interest:

The Laconia massacre - US bombers attacked a German submarine engaged in rescuing shipwrecked civilians including women and children - causing many civilian casualties.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident)

Canicatti slaughter - The massacre of Italian civilians by US forces during the invasion of Sicily.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canicatt%C3%AC_massacre)

Biscari massacre - US soldiers murdered over 70 unarmed Italian prisoners of war.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscari_massacre)

The widespread rape of French and German female civilians by US soldiers.
(Which you can read about in: Lilly, Robert J. (2007). Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe During World War II.)

There is also evidence of British troops carrying out a significant number of rapes of Japanese women during the occupation of Japan, I believe (couldn't quickly find a source but I'm sure I have read this.

These are just a few examples - there will be more.

Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

Those are atrocities of war. Not exactly terrorism.

Ah - I see the context now. Nvn

but what countries haven't committed war crimes when invading countries? do we have any out there?

all women are worthless

"all women are worthless"
People who think that are worthless

@Yanik, did anyone mention the Rape of Nanking. That's an example of war crimes when invading.

Holy shit what the fuck.

Is this guy being serious?

You mean Wildcat? He only registered this afternoon so it is probably someone trying to wind us up. Worked on me.

@WildcatSir19

please piss off

@Hauta

i mean where there were NO war crimes. the inverse there's a deluge of examples for