What is the difference between terrorism and war?

[Anonymous]

And brett, what exactly do you think their cause is?

That is irrelevant to the discussion, which is about terrorism in general -- not just Al Qaeda. You do not have to agree with or support their cause, or even deem it at all valid, to have the opinion that they are not cowards and that they are simply following human nature by employing any and all means available to them to further their cause.

Then again, posting rational thoughts is equivalent to supporting the enemy here, right?

[Willh]

brett, the term coward is because they choose to hide and attack. Not to mention they cover their cowardly faces. Do you see the United States military hiding to attack? Nope.

That makes absolutely no sense to me.

They choose to hide and attack because to do otherwise would mean automatic defeat. It is easy for you to sit there and set the standards for how war "should" be fought because you are living in the most powerful nation in the world; something tells me that if you were living in the least powerful, you'd be changing your story a bit.

By the way, the United States military certainly does carry out some missions with stealth involved (e.g., special forces), and as such would seem to fit your definition of cowardice.

Sorry you see no sense in it. And you said it, "they choose to attack because to do otherwise would mean automatic defeat" I REST MY CASE!! C-O-W-A-R-D-S.

Ok, please stop filling my thread with your banal thoughts and comments. I'd like to salvage what I can of this before you ruin the rest of it.
Thanks.

[ColdFront77]

Terrorism is when brainwashed cowards torture and kill innocent people in unprovoked attacks, in an effort to bring about fear, panic, and intimidation.

Terroristst torture and kill non-innocent people, too... which isn't right, either.

In short, apples and oranges.

They are both fruit, despite the diffrence in color.

[Lindaloo]

brett, the term coward is because they choose to hide and attack. Not to mention they cover their cowardly faces. Do you see the United States military hiding to attack? Nope.

That makes absolutely no sense to me.

They choose to hide and attack because to do otherwise would mean automatic defeat. It is easy for you to sit there and set the standards for how war "should" be fought because you are living in the most powerful nation in the world; something tells me that if you were living in the least powerful, you'd be changing your story a bit.

By the way, the United States military certainly does carry out some missions with stealth involved (e.g., special forces), and as such would seem to fit your definition of cowardice.

Sorry you see no sense in it. And you said it, "they choose to attack because to do otherwise would mean automatic defeat" I REST MY CASE!! C-O-W-A-R-D-S.

Ok, please stop filling my thread with your banal thoughts and comments. I'd like to salvage what I can of this before you ruin the rest of it.
Thanks.

Well back it up will. You brought all this up. Truth hurt?

[CaluWxBill]

And brett, what exactly do you think their cause is?

That is irrelevant to the discussion, which is about terrorism in general -- not just Al Qaeda. You do not have to agree with or support their cause, or even deem it at all valid, to have the opinion that they are not cowards and that they are simply following human nature by employing any and all means available to them to further their cause.

Then again, posting rational thoughts is equivalent to supporting the enemy here, right?

Good point, of course I don't agree with their tactics, but they are a limitless power in the grand scheme of things. If they attempted to come right out with their guns, they would be dead in seconds, not a very smart strategy. So what they do, while very immoral is hardly a choice if they are going to choose to fight this war. what are they going to declare war on america, send some battleships over, drop troops on our soil and expect to do damage.

[GalvestonDuck]

The difference b/w war and terrorism?

Well first of all you are comparing a strategy to a conflict. Terrorism needs no reason and is an act which is meant only to intimidate. While war is a broadscale conflict that pits one group against another.

For instance the US chooses (wisely) not to use terrorism in their war on the "terrorists". While the "terrorists" use terrorism as a strategy to try to win their war on America.

Thank you -- like I said:

In short, apples and oranges.

Terrorism is when brainwashed cowards

Please explain why you believe terrorists are "cowards."

Not just "cowards"..."brainwashed cowards" -- Because, in my opinion, they appear to only know and understand fear, which they themselves feel because they do not or cannot accept and allow others, who have beliefs that differ from their own, to live. They are led to believe that we are infidels who must die because we cannot be reasoned with, taught, or changed (not that we would anyway), even though we mean them no harm by believing differently than they do.

War is a violent but necessary conflict, characterized by brave men and women fighting to protect innocent lives from those who seek to terrorize them, and it is necessary because diplomatic reasoning and/or negotiations are not possible.

This is a poor definition of war IMO because it only applies to this "war on terrorism." What about traditional wars such as WWI/II, Vietnam, etc., where neither side are terrorists? Are both sides justified simply because they are using traditional means to fight?

He asked our opinion about the difference between the two. And as far as Vietnam, Korea, the WW's, and many others go, I have no expressable opinion because they happened before my time (or in my infancy). That's not to say I can't form an opinion about something that happened before I was born. But it would be difficult since I've heard different sides and was not alive at the time so as to understand things as they happened.

[Willh]

Terrorism is not different from war.
Personalize it.
Say, in Nazi Germany.
If your adopted son was taken by the nazi's for being a Jew...would you not try to stop them?
If you had the emotional strength, perhaps you could try to chase him down, find where he is. Then, hiding, not because you're a coward but because you don't want to be seen or killed, you could perhaps find a way in to the compound. Say, then, that along the way you have to kill a few guards, maybe by silently choking them to death.
You then get to your son, grab him and get out as quietly and safely as possible.

Now...were you being a coward for being quiet and for not just walking in saying, "There is no justifiable reason for killing my son on the grounds of his ethnicity." Grabbing your son and walking out? No, you'd have been killed and thus your son would have too.

Now take this out on a larger scale, and see the parent as a group. The son being taken could represent, say, the threat on your religion or something else. The Nazi Stormtroopers could represent the government, the western hemisphere...basically who you feel threatened by.
Think of it in that manner and you'll see...terrorists, as they're called by their opponents, aren't cowards. They are anything but cowards because they are the ones willing to stand up for what they believe in against whatever odds face them. How many Al Qaeda are there? Several thousand? And how many people have they declared outright war on? The entire western Hemisphere, just about.

[ColdFront77]

Terrorism is not different from war.

Then that would mean those that start terrorizing/are terrorists are starting a war/are in a war.

[coriolis]

I personally wouldn't call terrorists cowards. In our revolutionary war, our patriots adopted tactics like hiding behind trees, sniping, & etc, against the british who marched in formation while getting mowed down. Our patriots weren't cowards. They adopted tactics that worked for them.

Terrorists use tactics that work for them.

Now, that being a dispassionate brief on tactics, the issue of who is right and who is wrong is an entirely different story:

I feel that the modern terrorists are slime sucking, filthy, smelly, bad guys, who should go back to herding camels. But they are not stupid, and they are not cowardly. Brainwashed? Maybe. Indoctrinated? Definitely. They are acting within their beliefs and world view. They are dedicated to their cause and happy to die for it. That makes them a formidable enemy. One key to winning a conflict is knowing the enemy. Calling them names is Monty Pythonesque.

We believe that we are right, they believe that they are right. Of course we are right! If we don't think that we are right, what's the point of anything?

[Willh]

Terrorism is not different from war.

Then that would mean those that start terrorizing/are terrorists are starting a war/are in a war.

And they are.
Like I said...A war doesn't have to involve a formal country. Just a unification of like-minded individuals.
Even a single person.

[ColdFront77]

A belief of death cannot be seen as normal.

[Willh]

I personally wouldn't call terrorists cowards. In our revolutionary war, our patriots adopted tactics like hiding behind trees, sniping, & etc, against the british who marched in formation while getting mowed down. Our patriots weren't cowards. They adopted tactics that worked for them.

Terrorists use tactics that work for them.

Now, that being a dispassionate brief on tactics, the issue of who is right and who is wrong is an entirely different story:

I feel that the modern terrorists are slime sucking, filthy, smelly, bad guys, who should go back to herding camels. But they are not stupid, and they are not cowardly. Brainwashed? Maybe. Indoctrinated? Definitely. They are acting within their beliefs and world view. They are dedicated to their cause and happy to die for it. That makes them a formidable enemy. One key to winning a conflict is knowing the enemy. Calling them names is Monty Pythonesque.

We believe that we are right, they believe that they are right. Of course we are right! If we don't think that we are right, what's the point of anything?

Don't say that...Lindaloo disagrees. The Patriots were cowards. They hid behind trees. Don't you get it? They didn't just come out and fight in the open so the opposing military could fit them in their sites better.

[CaluWxBill]

And they are.
Like I said...A war doesn't have to involve a formal country. Just a unification of like-minded individuals.
Even a single person.

But, still war is not terrorism. war is basically just a largescale conflict, regardless of who it is against. for instance the war on drugs. Terrorism is a strategy, although a perfect definition for terrorism is very vague at best. I don't think Al Qaeda are cowards, they are just severely misled in there intentions.

[CaluWxBill]

I personally wouldn't call terrorists cowards. In our revolutionary war, our patriots adopted tactics like hiding behind trees, sniping, & etc, against the british who marched in formation while getting mowed down. Our patriots weren't cowards. They adopted tactics that worked for them.

Terrorists use tactics that work for them.

Now, that being a dispassionate brief on tactics, the issue of who is right and who is wrong is an entirely different story:

I feel that the modern terrorists are slime sucking, filthy, smelly, bad guys, who should go back to herding camels. But they are not stupid, and they are not cowardly. Brainwashed? Maybe. Indoctrinated? Definitely. They are acting within their beliefs and world view. They are dedicated to their cause and happy to die for it. That makes them a formidable enemy. One key to winning a conflict is knowing the enemy. Calling them names is Monty Pythonesque.

We believe that we are right, they believe that they are right. Of course we are right! If we don't think that we are right, what's the point of anything?

Don't say that...Lindaloo disagrees. The Patriots were cowards. They hid behind trees. Don't you get it? They didn't just come out and fight in the open so the opposing military could fit them in their sites better.

Yes I think you understand. We couldn't just say shoot us, and try to win the war. They weren't cowards, but they weren't stupid either.

[Willh]

And they are.
Like I said...A war doesn't have to involve a formal country. Just a unification of like-minded individuals.
Even a single person.

But, still war is not terrorism. war is basically just a largescale conflict, regardless of who it is against. for instance the war on drugs. Terrorism is a strategy, although a perfect definition for terrorism is very vague at best. I don't think Al Qaeda are cowards, they are just severely misled in there intentions.

I agree pretty much completely...
I think it's better said that they choose to fight their war using guerilla warfare.
I don't think they're cowards...and I don't think they're evil.
We appreciate life differently than they do because of our specifics upbringing. Not because we're inherently better. I think that's something too many people forget...after all, if we saw them as humans, just like ourselves with families and friends and loved ones...would we be as capable of killing them?

[Rainband]

We don't fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians.
We don't take hostages and threaten to kill them.
We don't burn people after they are dead and mutilate their bodies.
We don't use religion to murder people and that very same religion.
Doesn't take much more common sense than that to show the difference

[CaluWxBill]

We don't fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians.
We don't take hostages and threaten to kill them.
We don't burn people after they are dead and mutilate their bodies.
We don't use religion to murder people and that very same religion.
Doesn't take much more common sense than that to show the difference

We have nuclear weapons
We have 1.5 million well armed troops
We have stealth fighters that cannot be detected by radar
We have missles that can strike a 10 square meter target from 2000 miles

See of course I don't agree with their tactics, but that is they way they have chose to fight their war. and they weren't going to come right at us.

[Anonymous]

We don't fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians.
We don't take hostages and threaten to kill them.
We don't burn people after they are dead and mutilate their bodies.
We don't use religion to murder people and that very same religion.
Doesn't take much more common sense than that to show the difference

Actually it does... IMHO .

[coriolis]

Don't say that...Lindaloo disagrees.

That's not necessary. Please don't do that.

[Willh]

We don't fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians.
We don't take hostages and threaten to kill them.
We don't burn people after they are dead and mutilate their bodies.
We don't use religion to murder people and that very same religion.
Doesn't take much more common sense than that to show the difference

In Vietnam we took people up on helicopters, tossed their friend off and said to the other...if you don't speak, you're next. They spoke...and when finished, were tossed off.

In Vietnam we often razed entire villages, killing everyone...children included.

In the gulf war, we blocked a near 100 mile strip of highway at both ends and then went in and bombed the living crap out of everything. No thought was put into differentiating the civilians from the enemy.

In the 1800's we often rubbed smallpox on blankets and then gave them to Native Americans.

Back in the 1600's through the 1800's, our country allowed the enslavement of people for no better reason than their ethnicity.
Countless were murdered, raped, and tortured.

Stories of this nature go on and on.

These stories are not evidence of the inherent evil of people...but of people pushed by fear.
These people, Al Qaeda, are no different than us.

What about the Japanese lining children up 70 or so years ago and then taking turns to see who could lop the mose heads off at one time with a sword?