Terrorism or "Modern" war?

[BoweryBaker 0]

after reading the topic i asked myself is what situation terrorism or modern war because it really depends on the situation. I am guessing what you mean is, is terrorism just modern warfare. No is my answer.

terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

warfare: Military service; military life; contest carried on by enemies; hostilities; war.

I think this topic helps further blur the line. its not hard to tell the difference between a terrorist attack and a war.

[Gadger 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.

Yep totally agree with that, unconventional war has been waged just as long as conventional.

[denoir 0]

First of all we have to recognize that morality, perceptions of right and wrong etc are not absolutes in nature, but human values.

Beyond that you have the individual and group relative perceptions. i.e you kill enenmy civilians = shit happens, enemy kills your civilians = bloody murderous bastards!

There are a few things that can be traced as generic human values. Mind set is one of them. In an absolute majority of cultures/law systems premeditated murder is considered worse than accidental killing.

You could for instance compare the WTC attacks and the Iraq war. There were far more civilians killed in Iraq than in the 911 attacks. So why is the former treated with less outrage than the other?

[*] Premeditation. The attack on the WTC was designed to kill as many civilians as possible. The Iraqi casualties on the other hand were for the most part a secondary effect.

[*] They were Americans. Westerners, people we can identify with. As opposed to Arabs who are different and far away. There is a component of racism there of course but also the simple fact that you care more what happens near you than in what happens far away from you.

One shouldn't underestimate the cultural aspect and empathy to those that are similar to us. 800,000 pepople systematically get killed in Rwanda in less than 100 days and the world leaders don't want to label it 'genocide' because an intervention would be an inconvenience. 3,000 Americans get killed and the world is turned upside down.

This is just a first, static analysis of proportions. Is hitting a person with your car on purpose worse than hitting 100 people accidentally?

When we involve dynamics, it becomes even more fuzzy. You have to deal with predictions of the future. Did the Iraq war save more people than it immideately killed. Did the WTC attacks? How much is the value of a human now compared to the value of potentially saving a human life 10 years from now? etc

The overall point being, there are no absolutes, only very local specific current opinions and values. Hence also the separation between "terrorism" and "warfare" is from any absolute moral point of view impossible to determine.

[Skewballzz 0]

ditto denoir

[TheRedBaron 0]

There is a fine line between terrorism and regular warfare while I understand that in war civilians are killed, civilians are not the main target. Terrorist target mainly civilian to cause terror, and I do not consider targeting civilians warefare.  tried to keep it short and simple

[sputnik monroe 102]

Why is it when American civilians are killed it's acceptible and considered part of war but not when Iraqi civilians are?

Trust me If any western nations purposely started targeting and killing civilians they would catch holy hell for it. Why is it considered acceptible for the other side to do it though?

[TheRedBaron 0]

It's BS,but its because we are a super power and thats how it goes. They need us but they hate us

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Trust me If any western nations purposely started targeting and killing civilians they would catch holy hell for it. Why is it considered acceptible for the other side to do it though?

Who said that it is?

[denoir 0]

They need us but they hate us

I have never needed you nor hated you - and that goes for my country. You need to get off that ego trip of yours, the world does not revlove around you.

Anyway, nobody said that it was acceptable killing any civilians, Iraqi or American. On the contrary, there is a tremendous bias for feeling sory for US civilians over Arab civilians. What was the world reaction over the WTC attacks (3,000 dead). What was the world reaction over the Iraqi civilian casualties of the invasion (10,000++ dead, very conservative estimate)?

[Skewballzz 0]

Anyway, nobody said that it was acceptable killing any civilians, Iraqi or American. On the contrary, there is a tremendous bias for feeling sory for US civilians over Arab civilians. What was the world reaction over the WTC attacks (3,000 dead). What was the world reaction over the Iraqi civilian casualties of the invasion (10,000++ dead,  very conservative estimate)?

Because we did it in the self interest of protecting ourselves, so therfor it is alright.....haha what a bunch of hooey.

Didnt the "terrorists" attack the WTC in the interest of protecting themselves? The best defense if of course a good offense...

As much as I don't like the fact that my country got attacked, we deal it out like that to other countries all the time. Thats why u dont hear me bitching about "being patriotic and saving my country".

My concern is my home, and when I got 5 enemy soldiers walking on it, I WILL shoot. But I will not go to their land and insitigate a further confilict.

You stay on ur side of the line, I'll stay on mine.

[shinRaiden 0]

It is obviously quite natural to be concerned more about 'your' casulties than 'their' casulties. Having said that, a little background.

On 9/11(9/12 local time), I was in a remote area of west-central Japan. We got a phone call that America had been attacked, stuff had blown up, and that was all the caller knew. The post office was next door, and was running the tape of the towers coming down. We asked when the airports would re-open. Nobody knew. I didn't know that the airports had re-opened, or that I would even have a means of coming home, or what the conditions were, until the slow boat mail came in some 2 months later.

There was an 'Extra' paper printed that day, and a few pictures in the main paper the next day, but by a week or two later, it was off the Japanese news radar. If you recall, there was a plane crash due to mechanical failure shortly after 9/11 in NYC. A man approached me on the street and said <Gee, that's too bad, you guys got hit again> I wanted to retort back <Wait a sec, don't you get it? It's just like...> Then I thought <wait, you don't see Pearl Harbor the same way we do, do you?>

One significant difference that we tend to overlook is that the world outside of the Middle East acknowledges the neutrality of 'civilians'. That is not commonly accepted by the terrorists. Palestinian terrorists have routinely cited the fact of mandatory Israeli military service as justification their allegation that their victims are in fact combatants. The rationalization given for killing children is that they will inevitablly follow in their parents' footsteps, so better speed them on to hell.

As we saw in the case of Nick Berg and Paul Johnson, even being sympathetic or agreeable is not enough. The most radical fringe elements view other people in three ways: brothers, apostate muslim infidels, and foriegn crusaders or idolators. There is no middle ground for them. No diplomatic immunity, no independent journalistic security, if you are not fighting alongside them, you are their active enemy, and therefore an 'enemy combatant'.

[Skewballzz 0]

It is obviously quite natural to be concerned more about 'your' casulties than 'their' casulties. Having said that, a little background.

On 9/11(9/12 local time), I was in a remote area of west-central Japan. We got a phone call that America had been attacked, stuff had blown up, and that was all the caller knew. The post office was next door, and was running the tape of the towers coming down. We asked when the airports would re-open. Nobody knew. I didn't know that the airports had re-opened, or that I would even have a means of coming home, or what the conditions were, until the slow boat mail came in some 2 months later.

There was an 'Extra' paper printed that day, and a few pictures in the main paper the next day, but by a week or two later, it was off the Japanese news radar. If you recall, there was a plane crash due to mechanical failure shortly after 9/11 in NYC. A man approached me on the street and said <Gee, that's too bad, you guys got hit again> I wanted to retort back <Wait a sec, don't you get it? It's just like...> Then I thought <wait, you don't see Pearl Harbor the same way we do, do you?>

One significant difference that we tend to overlook is that the world outside of the Middle East acknowledges the neutrality of 'civilians'. That is not commonly accepted by the terrorists. Palestinian terrorists have routinely cited the fact of mandatory Israeli military service as justification their allegation that their victims are in fact combatants. The rationalization given for killing children is that they will inevitablly follow in their parents' footsteps, so better speed them on to hell.

As we saw in the case of Nick Berg and Paul Johnson, even being sympathetic or agreeable is not enough. The most radical fringe elements view other people in three ways: brothers, apostate muslim infidels, and foriegn crusaders or idolators. There is no middle ground for them. No diplomatic immunity, no independent journalistic security, if you are not fighting alongside them, you are their active enemy, and therefore an 'enemy combatant'.

good point shinRaiden. You brought up a good point that "terrorist" have no such word <civilian> in their vocabulary. That fact alone should prove that point that no one is exampt from this.

If you are being shot at intentionally from a soldier from another country, would you sit there and say, "Im a civilian, dont shoot me!" even if that is the truth in your head? The fact that you are another soldiers enemy makes you a soldier, like it or not. So you dont have a gun and have done nothing to offend them? OK, just sit there and die. Thats what differentiates cattle from humans. Cattle can be driven to death with the thought in their head, its ok, Im just a cow, while humans have the privilage to think, no, I am human, and will not let this person do as they wish with me.

Would you rather die doing nothing becuase u didnt deserve to get into this fight? Or would u face the fact you are someones target and die fighting? Ask this, and be 100% honest with yourself....now do your actions and belief follow your answer?

[shinRaiden 0]

Quote[/b] ]Thats what differentiates cattle from humans.

What ever did give you such a quaint notion? Many cultures today still conciously or subconciously do not make that significant distinction. Heck, radically environmentalists here in the US put cows above humans, because of bovine victimization and deliberate human floricide and faunacide. I can see my neighbor's rodeo cattle out my window. They are some of the most schizophrenic bi-polar psychotic critters alive.

Quote[/b] ]You stay on ur side of the line, I'll stay on mine.

And who determines the line? Is it Vienna in 1683? Is it Grenada in 1492? The Crusades starting in 1095? The pre-May 1948 line, the post-may 1948 line? the pre-1967 line or the post 1967 line? The pre-1973 line or the post 1973 line? The security fence line, or property lines approved by the pre-1967 Jordanian ministry of Palestinian Affairs?

When you can make a reliable method of drawing mutually agreed upon lines in the sand with working DMZ's, let me know. The only one that has come close is the Sinai Peninsula, and that has lots of tunnels under the border at Rafah.

[Skewballzz 0]

And who determines the line? Is it Vienna in 1683? Is it Grenada in 1492? The Crusades starting in 1095? The pre-May 1948 line, the post-may 1948 line? the pre-1967 line or the post 1967 line? The pre-1973 line or the post 1973 line? The security fence line, or property lines approved by the pre-1967 Jordanian ministry of Palestinian Affairs?

When you can make a reliable method of drawing mutually agreed  upon lines in the sand with working DMZ's, let me know. The only one that has come close is the Sinai Peninsula, and that has lots of tunnels under the border at Rafah.

My property line....

"This is my house, my yard, and my driveway...dont stand on it please"

We could all start there?

[Skewballzz 0]

ps: if you wanted to push it we could take charge of the sidewalk and strech of road next to our houses?

[shinRaiden 0]

Not even funny. Over here we have stuff like Homeowners' Associations, Neighborhood covenants, abusive county usage of emminent domain for seizure without compensation of property, growth management restrictions limiting rezoning and subdividing - topped by environmental setbacks carving the heart out of large property tracts.

Notice nobody has gone and shot the sheriff in our county over this though. Rather, it has been bottled up in the courts for the last twenty years, so the county has had to adminstratively create new orders, which fortunately have even less legal founding.

When my parents bought their property about 15 years ago, there was in the deed an attached easement for the east 30 feet of each of the parcels to the south. This was noted on several deeds held by all the parties going back some 70+ years to the first subdividing from the original section plat.

However, the neighbor a few parcels south had had a friend do an informal (and inaccurate survey) when he purchased his piece ~30 years ago, and laid a gravel road on the 30 feet from his presumption of the property line. As it was adjacent to an overgrown ditch and seldom used, nothing was corrected at the time. When we purchased our property, we attempted to have the full easement cleared to allow for sufficent width for emergency vehicles, utilities, and 2-way traffic, in light of the granted 30 foot easement.

The neighbor to the east, a krumedgeonly old geezer of dubious raport, decided to exercise his right to his property at that same time, and planted a railroad tie as a post on his property corner. Ironically at the same time, a contractor on our house suffered a collapsed lung and the volunteer firemen said that they would refuse service to our lane until the easement was corrected.

We ended up taking this whole mess to court. The old geezer was of the opinion (and still posts signs to the effect) that "Trespassors will be shot, survivors will be violated". The judge actually ruled against us and the geezer, saying that the 'historical' road took precedence over the 'legal' road, despite sworn testimony from the defendants stating that they had only seen one cattle truck in 10 years ever use that road.

[Skewballzz 0]

30 ft for all of that hassle... sounds like a b***h. But what does that have to do with staying on your side of the line?

[jotte 0]

The face of war of today have slipped back to much more resemble the way it looked in the middle ages upto early 18th century then the period there after up untill the end of the cold war.

[shinRaiden 0]

My long-winded point was that just because some 'silly' paper says the line goes 'there' doesn't mean that the courts will uphold it, or that it won't go unchallenged.

Tying this back to the terrorism subject, the argument is constantly made in globalist terms that borders and lines are old-fashioned notions, and developments in Europe seem to be showing how ideal implementations could be done.

The problem is that people in other parts of the world still insist on historical boundries, and that the stability of those lines is often called into question.

For example, Israel is considering digging an expansive trench at the Rafah border to intercept under-border weapons smuggling tunnels. Theoretically, the border is only a mathematical vector between points defined on a treaty, and the width needed for the trench will come from condemned property.

As we've seen in the Security fence debate, there are 'virtual' borders and 'real' borders. People that are having their land seized claim an 'unlawful' operating border at the edge of the fence width, while demanding return of the full property to the 'real' border.

With the environmental setbacks here, in some cases folks are restricted from as much as half their property. But they still have to pay property taxes on the assesed value of the entire property without the setbacks.

[shinRaiden 0]

In a real sense, to many Americans, western Europe was the 'fence' against Soviet expansion. Now with 'modern war' in a global environment, the 'border' or 'frontline' is each person's doorstep.

The unfamiliarity of this situation is on factor that we use to assign the label of 'terror' to this form of warfare. The actual differences in the forms of military action, or 'upgrades' from sticks and stones, to clubs, to swords, to archery, to combined tactics, to cavalry, to explosive powered projectiles, and a-bombs.

The other unfamilier factor is that 'terrorism' and 'anti-terrorism' implies some form of forced cultural change, as opposed to only regime change. Traditional warfare has tended to ignore cultures, and focused on political or economic factors. Hence the irreconcible debate on the purpose of the US involvement in Iraq. On one hand, you have a policy that results in only a transfer of the whip, on the other hand you have an attempt to change the cultural inclination to use the whip.

[ozanzac 0]

What are your view of terrorism?

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

Is terrorism not an old, if not ancient form of warfare though?

During the dark ages, did not kings and queens have armies and militias designed to install fear into the populations of both freind and especially foe?

IMO, terrorism is simply the exported (& modern) version of despotism. It is not new. Just implemented differently.

[Apollo 0]

I to see terrorism "mostly" as another form of vertical warfare.

And i can understand that this terrorism wich mostly target's Western country's need guerilla type of warfare in action's to be effeciant as in pure conventional warfare it would be withought a chance against the supperior technoligy weapons of the west.(i don't see Palestinian's defeat 1 Merkhava tank with their conventional weaponry)

But there are other ways of "terrorism":

1 of those is hurting the west severely economicly.It seems that the Iraqi insurgents already discovered the importance of blowing up oil pipe line's all over the country ,and that Al-Quaida is more and more also concentrating on hurting the western oil supply from the med east.Take the hostage crisis in Dhobar as an ex. ,if more and more terrorist attacks happens on the Western nationals working on oil rigs in Saudi Arabia then more of these people will leave and the il company's in Saudi Arabia will fall short of skilled personel to man the rigs.

This is Very dangerous for the west ,if the trend of terrorists targeting oil production or transportation facility's or their labourers then it will lead to enery crisis in the West eventually.

And there is another new form of terrorism wich i find most evil of all.

Last year a Palestinian man put himself to fire right before a French govermental building in Paris and ran around on fire screaming before an audiance of thousands of people ,picture's of this were made and send all over the world.While some might say well here no innocent people are killed by the suicide "terrorist" ,the effect's on people's mentallity might be a lot bigger.

Take into account that Mahatma Ghandi could get India free by a peacefull though grimm protest in wich they in many the let themselfs be beaten severly by Brittish order troops while not using violence themselfs ,these action's eventually brought so much resentment in brittian that India became free.

What would happen if thousands of such people would scatter to western capitals over the world and would put themselfs to fire near public places in these capitals ,it would shock the local poppulation and probably bring a lot of resentment on the conflict that produced such a grimm dead ,as surely a person that sets himself on fire withought hurting others just for the sake of his people's situation bring's forward such a powerfull message.

[stgn 39]

Terrorism is when you want to terrorise someone you ve problery heard kill 1 and terrorise a 1000.

I think Terrorism is War which have no or littel chance of turning in to conventionaly war whit in a persons life time and just a way of showing your points of view.

If the Terrorism is meant to create disorder in a system beacuse of a up comming war it should be carraterised a Guerilla Warfare which will at the end be turning in to Conventionaly warfare.

Terrorism is not at all modern.

Why does 911 mean more than Iraq to meany westerners thats simply beacuse they feel closer to Americans(and other) than Iraquis and You could ask your self how would rather see killed you freinds or my freinds think of a situation where you would have to choose and you could not choose yourself I think everybody(except me) would chose mine in that question.

STGN

[AdmiralKarlDonuts 0]

Terrorism is what we like to call "war," boiled down to its most base elements.  It's what we call war fought using the most basic elements - fear and death.  If you stripped away all the things that have been added to war over thousands of years, the point is to either kill every last one of the enemy or scare them into giving up.  That's what war is all about.  We western nations have put a lot more time and energy into trying to make war more palatable in the current era.  We've introduced the idea that civillian casualties are a thing to be avoided and we try to fight our wars in a neat-and-clean fashion.

On one hand, that's good - random people going about their business in Iraq or anyplace else shouldn't be getting bombed or shot up - but in a way it's bad, because we're trying to make war into something that it isn't - nice.

I think many people forget that war is war, and war is hell, no matter what kinds of ROEs, technology, or ideology you throw behind it.

I'm not trying to excuse or justify terrorism, but I think we're glossing over the fact that it's not as foreign and unthinkable as we consider it to be.  It's one of the core principles behind the art of warfare. At the moment we're taking a big step back in time and coming face to face with the fact that other people hate us and want to kill us, but they don't have a prayer of taking us head-on (would that be more "civilized"?) so they make do with what they've got.  When you really, really want somebody dead, you'll find a way to make it happen.

Reactions?

[Skewballzz 0]

Terrorism is what we like to call "war," boiled down to its most base elements.  It's what we call war fought using the most basic elements - fear and death.  If you stripped away all the things that have been added to war over thousands of years, the point is to either kill every last one of the enemy or scare them into giving up.  That's what war is all about.  We western nations have put a lot more time and energy into trying to make war more palatable in the current era.  We've introduced the idea that civillian casualties are a thing to be avoided and we try to fight our wars in a neat-and-clean fashion.

On one hand, that's good - random people going about their business in Iraq or anyplace else shouldn't be getting bombed or shot up - but in a way it's bad, because we're trying to make war into something that it isn't - nice.

I think many people forget that war is war, and war is hell, no matter what kinds of ROEs, technology, or ideology you throw behind it.

I'm not trying to excuse or justify terrorism, but I think we're glossing over the fact that it's not as foreign and unthinkable as we consider it to be.  It's one of the core principles behind the art of warfare.  At the moment we're taking a big step back in time and coming face to face with the fact that other people hate us and want to kill us, but they don't have a prayer of taking us head-on (would that be more "civilized"?) so they make do with what they've got.  When you really, really want somebody dead, you'll find a way to make it happen.

Reactions?

SEAL84, I couldnt have put it any better.

I noticed that people have to tread lightly on this subject. I for one am for the fact that terrorism is the basis of all war like u said in the above post. One of the problems I have is getting my beliefs across without coming off as a pro-terrorist.

I propose that from this post on taking people opinions as they are, and not haveing any judgment without cause. I must say that this thread has been very good about this compared to many other threads along this line of topic.