A Question on the "War on Terrorism"

[Makalakumu]

I agree to an extent. It is my hope, though, that we can look at history so as to not repeat the mistakes of the past. Fat chance of that with our current leadership...which has proven otherwise rather consistantly. Who knows though, I could be wrong and things just might turn out all right? Yet this "pre-emptive"cliff stands before us and I don't want to be riding along if we pitch over it.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
IIs it not "Terrorism" that most of the world now must live in fear and wonder if they are next in our 'war on terror"? Then again, is that any different from we Americans fears of which of our cities will be hit next? (Avoiding for a moment the sword held over our own heads by our government in the form of near constant 'warnings' and 'threats'.)

:asian:

Bob,

The who cold war was terrorism. If you nuke me I will nuke you. If you attack me I will attack you.

This is prety standard gang mentality or bully mentality. If I walk softly and carry the biggest stick then no one would be stupid enough to attack me.

And to a certain point that works just fine, until you apply the tactics discussed by Sun Tzu, in the Art of War, if your enemy is large and you are small, then you use you strengths which are speed and small tactics. You attack their supply lines and hit them where they do not expect you to hit them. Take this a step farther and hit them in civilian locations and now you got terrorism.

Yet, many of the small groups will say they are living in terror of their cultures and lives being destroyed and are only defending their way of life.

Oh Well
:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by CanuckMA
The delibirate targetting of civilians, non-combatants and civililian targets, while not engaged in a declared war, to achieve political goals.

This has pretty much defined all war up until now. The current war in Iraq is no different. Except we target civilians with psy-war.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

As a slight aside, we must also keep in mind that our founding fathers were 'terrorists' or a sort. They
- fought against an established government
- they ignored the established rules of warfare
- they seized goods to supply their army

Is it really only a matter of semantics on if someone is a terrorist or a revolutionary or a freedom fighter?
:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
As a slight aside, we must also keep in mind that our founding fathers were 'terrorists' or a sort. They
- fought against an established government
- they ignored the established rules of warfare
- they seized goods to supply their army

Is it really only a matter of semantics on if someone is a terrorist or a revolutionary or a freedom fighter?
:asian:

Yes and No

If you win, then you were revolutionaries, until you win you are terrorists. Freedom Fighters and/or revolutionists who fight against a repressive government will have the sympaty of others, and maybe recorded as freedom fighters by others, and as terrorists by their own governement until/if they win.

 

[TonyM.]

I hate the word terrorism. I am not terrorized at all. What I am is extremely angry and more than willing to help these viscious murderers meet their maker. I really wish the ignorant media would stop using this terminology to sell newspapers or whatever.