Terrorism or "Modern" war?

[Skewballzz 0]

What are your view of terrorism?

Is a a radical, slaughter of innocents, or the newest form of warfare?

I always think back to the the times of massed armies in lines with their flintlocks.  "Guerilla" forces then were viewed at "uncivilized men doin atrocious things".  Now thoses same type of troops are labeled "Special".   Anyone see what I am pointing out.

In no means to I want to start a debate if terrorism is justified or not.  I just want to know what everyone thinks of it, as a form of warfare or just a radical slaughter.

[ran 0]

New form of warfare for the poor hopeless manipulated masses.

[Milkman 1]

New form of warfare for the poor hopeless manipulated masses.

Amen to that.

[llauma 0]

People will use the best weapon they have. Slaughter of civilians isn't a new thing in war. It was one of the tactics in WW2 used by both sides.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I'd call it warfare, it's possibly the worst form of it, but any way an organised group (army/militia/terrorist organisation) kills their so-called enemies in a directly targeted way is warfare IMO.

However I think the lines between terrorism and insurgency are becoming blurred in the media, especially over Iraq. (Hope that aint steering too off-topic)

[Koolkid101 0]

It's the radical, slaughter of innocents, I mean if you look in Iraq, more Iraqi's have died than Americans because of the terrorists.

[ran 0]

Well, i think I should get a bit deeper in my statement (i have to admit it will be a bit hard, it's 1.44AM here).

Terrorism as generally described in most dictionnaries takes its roots back at the dawn of mankind, as soon as a form of authority and inequalities appeared on the surface of our Planet.

Of all times, we've seen waves of terrorism aimed at an authority, a cult or whatever that is of some kind of importance and a pillar of the society and ideals which are put in question by the doctrine which is at the origin of the said terrorism.

In the past few years we've seen some kind of mutation of the terrorism. From the actions of a group of individuals, we've progressively moved onto well organised and well financed worldwide networks. Terrorism in the past decades has been used as a tool of destabilisation and demoralisation (during the cold war for exemple .... Action Directe, Baader Meinhoff, Ira anyone ?) which without offering a direct confrontation between both sides, between both models of society, has put in doubt the adversary's way of living and thinking.

These phenomenons were somewhat localized to some geographical zones, but with the globalisation of the information leading to the globalisation of the economy, terrorism evoluted into some kind of international corporation in which all the cells, movements and such are linked in a way or another (by their ideals but also by the criminal networks financing them).

Terrorism became (or is becoming right now) the tool of leaders who use the ideals, fears and more genrally feelings of the masses to reach their personnal goals more than the ideals and dogmas which the ideal societyof those fighting for them would be based onto. It's exactly the same thing as the totalitarism present in the past century except that it's now hitting worldwide and with reasonnably less strenght than an open armed conflict.

In my opinion, terrorism is to be considered as a new kind of warfare or manifestations of war since it isn't completely baseless and its actors have certain interests to defend and opinions to voice.

The world reached some kind of Status Quo ten years ago, with only local ethnical conflicts remaining and the only way to fight is to create a new enemy and that's what spiritual leaders are for in terrorist organisations.

I think that Terrorism is the result of an opposition between "North and South" which can't result into an open armed conflict. That is why it takes the form of what we call terrorism.

I hope it was relatively clear and that there weren't too much mistakes hehe.

[IceFire 0]

NO.

Terrorism is completely NOT a part of modern warfare.

Terrorism is a way for angry fanatics to vent their frustration on the innocent.  It is meant to shock and get attention.

It doesn't lead to military victories.  It is like the Oklahoma City Bomber, he did it because he hated technology and was angry.

9/11 didn't gain the terrorists any strategic advantage, or do anything for them other than to kill Americans and vent their frustrations about their own inability to create peace in their own countries.

It is nothing more than mass murder and anyone who disagrees with that is either sick and should have the sense beaten into them, or are of questionable character and intentions(terrorist sympathisers) and should be watched by the government.

[ran 0]

9/11 didn't gain the terrorists any strategic advantage, or do anything for them other than to kill Americans and vent their frustrations about their own inability to create peace in their own countries.

Massive "sound and light" recruiting ad, making people on the side of the victims want to retaliate (and do so), rising even more concerns and arousing wicked and brainwahsed minds.

They didn't gain any strategic advantage, but hitted strategical targets and reached their goals, i.e. make American people as a whole doubt and fear.

Because it's like that, it's all about hatred and fear.

[redliner47 0]

but terrorism is modern warfare, not the act of terrorism but fighting terrorism. We probably will never see war on a large scale like WWII or WWI

[Frisbee 0]

It is nothing more than mass murder and anyone who disagrees with that is either sick and should have the sense beaten into them, or are of questionable character and intentions(terrorist sympathisers) and should be watched by the government.

What is warfare then?

Mass murder. It's not about honor, ethics or doing what is right, it is pure murder.

Killing civilians is ugly, very ugly, but it has been an integral part of warfare for god knows how long.

Terrorism is the "new" way, just look at how terrorist attacks and the coverage they get can sway the public.

If you disagree, look at the current trend in the US military.

Tanks and fighters? Being far less emphasised on. Instead of muscle power (tanks, heavy bombers, fighters, nukes etc) we've gone to a highly mobile, highly accurate force, delivering crippling blows with surgical precision. (accurate aircraft munitions, wheeled or tracked IFV's...)

We're not there yet, but it's going that way.

Having changed the way the biggest military in the world works, I'm very tempted to say it is changing today's warfare.

[EiZei 0]

New form of warfare for the poor hopeless manipulated masses.

I agree apart from that "New"-part.

[sputnik monroe 102]

So it's ok now to kill civilians? Or is this a double standard? I take it that it's only alright for them to indiscriminately kill innocents intentionally, but no one else is allowed.

If it's truly the new way of war, then is it perfectly acceptible for western nations to just carpet bomb cities off the face of the planet with the sole intention being simply to kill as many women and children as possible to make them scared?

If its now an accepted tactic for rogue groups of murderers to crash planes into peoples offices and kill them then it shouldn't be considered any different to carpet bomb their homes and offices right?

[EiZei 0]

So it's ok now to kill civilians? Or is this a double standard? I take it that it's only alright for them to indiscriminately kill innocents intentionally, but no one else is allowed.

Quote[/b] ]

In no means to I want to start a debate if terrorism is justified or not. I just want to know what everyone thinks of it, as a form of warfare or just a radical slaughter.

[llauma 0]

There are several kind of terrorism but alot of the terrorism in Iraq isn't random but hits on targets picked out of the same reason, they have some connection to the occupying army, Iraqies working for USA etc.

Those who uses terrorism as a warfare are fighting an enemy with superiour firepower so they will try anything radical cause they just can't fight an modern army with a few rpg's and AK's.

I don't accept any action that leads to the death of anyone, civilian or not, but I can understand why they do what they do.

[Longinius 1]

Terrorism has always been a part of war. The object is not only to kill soldiers but scare the enemy into surrendering. This has been done in different ways in different wars. But terrorism has always been a part of warfare, to some extent or other.

[Gollum1 0]

We probably will never see war on a large scale like WWII or WWI

Please. No peace in the world has ever been lasting. Ever. As the world's population increases only more people will die in bigger wars, right now we're just having a breather after being under the threat of nuclear annihilation and an all-out war between the East and West just 15 years ago. A few bombs here and there....we WILL see another large war and another and another as transportation is faster, resources become more scarce, populations increase...

Really it isn't worth discussing even, war is a fact of life.

[Skewballzz 0]

Terrorism has always been a part of war. The object is not only to kill soldiers but scare the enemy into surrendering. This has been done in different ways in different wars. But terrorism has always been a part of warfare, to some extent or other.

AGREE

What is the difference between an LBG or a pipebomb?

Besides coming from an aircraft, their purpose is virtually the same.

In my view, civilians are almost non-existant in this world. Everyone (Typed Everon first....must be playing too much OFP) is a citizen now, and must be prepared to take accountablity for their host country's actions.

There are no more battlefields, just "hot zones" where the probablility of death is higher. The world is now one big battlefield.

[mr burns 132]

We probably will never see war on a large scale like WWII or WWI

erm.. we probably don´t wanna see such war´s again

imo terrorism was always a usual thing, if in war or not .. but as the media was never as strong and manipulating as it is nowadays we may think that terrorism is now a new issue.

[Grizzlie 0]

What is the difference between an LBG or a pipebomb?

Besides coming from an aircraft, their purpose is virtually the same.

I'm afraid u r wrong. Plane can be shot down, "air alert" can be claimed to give a chance to run away or hide or u have a chance to avoid dangerous zone.

Did ppl in Madrid have ANY chance to avoid danger?

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Did ppl in Madrid have ANY chance to avoid danger?

No, of course not. But neither did the people of Nagasaki, or Dresden or countless of other locations.

Terrorism IS an ingridient in warfare.

[joltan 0]

In my view, civilians are almost non-existant in this world. Everyone (Typed Everon first....must be playing too much OFP) is a citizen now, and must be prepared to take accountablity for their host country's actions.

Are you trying to justify AQ's attacks on the WTC with this argument? Just curious...

[Skewballzz 0]

In my view, civilians are almost non-existant in this world.  Everyone (Typed Everon first....must be playing too much OFP) is a citizen now, and must be prepared to take accountablity for their host country's actions.

Are you trying to justify AQ's attacks on the WTC with this argument? Just curious...

Justify...partly

While I may not agree with AQ's actions, I do see their point.

As terrible as the outcome was, they did it, and got what they wanted to do done.

War is a terrible thing, and people WILL die. It is sad that so many people met their fate on that day, with no clue it was coming. But because they are US citizens does not place them higher on the list than another country's citizen. We have no doubt killed as many if not more in overseas affairs.

Pardon my french, but our Kharma came back and bit us in the ass. Just because you live in the US does not mean you are exempt from terrible things. We (as a country) have grown weak, and as many good things come from terrible things, 9/11 has shown us the truth in which the world works today.

I forgot who was talking about this, but they brought up a good point. Since Vietnam, our country's military actions have been for the most part victorious. We have come to assume that, due to our overpowering strength, that we will have few casualties. How sad is it that US citizens are outraged at the amount of US casualties, while when the war started and we swept through Iraq, they were for it.

I am just stating my point that many US citizens are for a "just" war when the other side is dieing, but against it when their side is dieing.

In my view, you must be ACCOUNTABLE for your actions. Be aware that the world is not a happy, flower-picking adventure, and that everyone is a "soldier". We may not all have guns and uniforms, but in essance we are fighting this war in our own backyards.

I assume people could fathom the old WWIII scenario of fighting a guerrilla campaign against some T80's in americas back yard, but now that war has no front lines, we must be aware that war is everywhere.

What is the difference between a soldier and a civilian?

a gun?

Not anymore

a uniform?

Not anymore

a commander?

Not anymore

Get my point? Soldiers in todays world wear no specific uniform, may carry no guns, and take orders from themselves and their own ideals.

Being a "civilian" myself, I wear no uniform, carry no gun (most of the time ) and take no orders from a commander. Yet, I am in a war, and must face this fact.

All in all, the point I am trying to get across after this long, uneventfull ramble is that everyone must be accountable for themselves, and not rely on their government to come save the day.

[sputnik monroe 102]

So would it be considered "just part of war" if the US was to behead all the Iraqi prisoners and gas towns full of civilians? After all, they are responsible for their country mens actions right?

[sputnik monroe 102]

I guess what I'm trying to say skrewballz is that it sounds hypocritical to me. It's all right for "terrorist" to do such things but not every one else.

If they crash a plane full of civilians into an office building kills thousands of them, well then " they are responsible for their countries actions". Yet if England for example was to drop a nuke on Mecca it would be considered a war crime and mass murder (which it would be).