»What is the difference between war,terrorism,assassinations?«
|
|||
 lets flip this argument on its head by introducing a previous argument from another thread bush avoided his service in vietnem where as kerry was a gun toting nutter fighting for his country so that would make kerry and terrorist and bush not   posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)What is the difference between war,terrorism,assassinations? |
|
|||
 It IS the only necessary parameter. Do you think there's any difference to you if you were killed by a terrorist or a 'soldier' tomorrow? If there isn't any, there isn't any. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
but what about the victims families? do you think that margret hassans husbands reaction would change if she had been killed in a fire fight during a battle of the how she actually died...by being dismembered in a basement by masked terrorists chanting allah uakbar so the difference is in the ideologies of the soldier and the terrorist the terrorists aim is to kill whoever and the more the better regardless of innocent civilians being caught up in it...this is not the case for the soldiers involved in iraq i have also gave the legal boundaries that govern soldiers actions...none govern the terrorists we can argue this til we are blue in the face...but ill still be right and you'll still be wrong posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 the anomaly: think of it in these terms are these people terrorists? Imagine the same page but for Hitler soldier. Showing off their medals. Yet, was Hitler a terrorist? Didn't he attack peaceful countries? Or better: Imagine a glorifying internet page for USAma bin Laden's suicide bombers. How do decorations change a thing? posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: the anomaly: think of it in these terms are these people terrorists? Imagine the same page but for Hitler soldier. Showing off their medals. Yet, was Hitler a terrorist? Didn't he attack peaceful countries? Or better: Imagine a glorifying internet page for USAma bin Laden's suicide bombers. How do decorations change a thing? i suppose you have a point...i watched a documentary about a german soldier who manned a gun on omaha beach on d-day...after the battle he was captured and over 3000 american troops lay dead in front of his gun he went back 50 years later to lay a wreath for his own fallen comrades and it was vandalised by french citizens... if he were on the winning side it would have been different as shown by the burma soldier in ww2 who manned an observation post when it was attacked by the japanese...he held of an advance of over 3000 troops with a single machine gun...firing almost constantly for 8 hours at wave after wave of enemy troops who got as close as to be able to throw grenades into his fox hole which he threw back over 10 of them before one blew up in his right hand and shattered it completely...so what did he do...fired and reloaded for another 3 hours with his left hand BUT i have never heard of hitler being refered to as a terrorist...an evil dictator and genocidal maniac...but never a terrorist posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
the anomaly: i have never heard of hitler being refered to as a terrorist...an evil dictator and genocidal maniac...but never a terrorist Exactly my point: If you are a country leader you are no terrorist no matter how terroristic you are. I tellya: In the future the differences will even be harder to find. Iran builds planes and sells them to "US freelancers" who call themselves "revolutionaries" who then bomb the CIA building. Is this terror? Is this an internal affair? Is this war? Are these terrorists? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 As someone stated previously, the difference between all three (war, terrorism, assasination) is the intent, the ideology of the perpetrator. War, by a Soldier, is for a purpose, usually political. This is an up-front attack directed at a particular purpose of defense or offense. The resources are usually managed to minimise casualties and to optimally achieve the set goal. Terrorism, by a Terrorist, is for a purpose, to create terror. To throw into chaos. Thus, there is a goal the terrorist wishes to achieve, and he chooses to centre the world's attention by creating confusion. The resources are used to create maximum damage to create the maximum shock. Assassination, by an Assassin, is for a purpose, to remove a factor to simplify an equation. This may eventually lead to the fulfilling of a purpose, but it is more discreet than war. Resources are used to minimise casualities and to complete the mission, so as to facilitate easier achievement of a political target in future. Sometimes, "figure heads" are taken out to achieve a state of confusion, solely to create the chaos. This would be terror. But if the chaos is used later on to be able to easily win a war, that would be an assassination. posted by ryder |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 ryder: As someone stated previously, the difference between all three (war, terrorism, assasination) is the intent The intent is always political. Thus there is no difference. When USA drops an atom bomb on civilians in Japan to get Japan out of the war, then this is basically the same when terorrist bomb civilians to get the USA out of war. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
well, maybe I should say methodology instead of ideology. posted by ryder |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ryder: well, maybe I should say methodology instead of ideology And how does the methodology of throwing a bomb on civilians (e.g. London) differ from the methodology of throwing a bomb on civilians (e.g. Hiroshima) posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: ryder: well, maybe I should say methodology instead of ideology And how does the methodology of throwing a bomb on civilians (e.g. London) differ from the methodology of throwing a bomb on civilians (e.g. Hiroshima) I would say there is an issue of law at play here. The war on Japan was essentially "unlegal" in the sense that there were few established conventions that were followed in the prosecution of the war... But the London bombings should be considered illegal because there were already international laws which were not followed in the attacks on the UK...so I would say all war is "bad" , but the London bombings are "worse" than Hiroshima because they were done in defiance of international law, while the Hiroshima attack was done in the absence of such law. It is one of the legacies of WWII that Americans tend to see international law as the kind of thing that should not be breached, but we have a few assholes in power who think they are above international law. And those assholes have opposite numbers among the disenfranchised religious fundamentalists, who believe that there is no earthly law that applies to them. And of course international law is based on power, which in the modern age is predicated on one thing: nuclear weapons. Which have only ever been used on one country: Japan...at Hiroshima and Nagasaki... posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
holy_of_holies: but the London bombings are "worse" than Hiroshima because they were done in defiance of international law, while the Hiroshima attack was done in the absence of such law. You have a point there. But how about assassinations? Can we agree that USA's attempt to kill Fidel Castro would be the same as Iran's attempt to kill George W. Bush? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 I read recently an interesting statement by (I think) the US government about the difference between war parties and terrorists. It said, that in a normal war (= not in terrorism) one can expect final peace, while with terrorists there is no peace. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 Register Log in |
The time now is 22 May 2012, 06:13 php B.B. |