BakerStreet, yes some forms of terrorism took place on the part of the revolutionaries, but the terrorism really didn't start until the expansion into the West. Unless one considers it conquest, then terrorism would be dropped because it is an obvious tool of conquest.

In modern days of conquest it is called collateral damage.

Acceptable civilian losses and or Friendly Fire (though I am hard pressed to figure out how any bomb, missile or bullet unleashed upon a human being for any reason could be considered friendly in even the most broad definition)

terrorism has been arround for ages

Yep years and years, it was first coined and mentioned with the French Revolution...

"In modern days of conquest it is called collateral damage."

No, another glaring, irresponsible misrepresentation. Terrorism is purposely targeting civilians to cause terror and thereby further your cause. These people wouldn't fight a war militarily if they could. It isn't even close to 'conquest'.

Surely you can't equate 'collatoral damage' to strapping a bomb onto yourself and visiting an Israeli wedding party. 'Collateral Damage' and 'Friendly Fire' is actively avoided, while terrorism omits the legitimate military action and just kills innocents. Pretty sick comparison.

Over coffee that attitude furthers your argument against war, but in a more public venue it just makes terrorists feel their acts are just as legitimate as anyone else's.



[Message Edited]

I agree with bakerstreet. Terrorism targets innocent people to strike terror. That terror is supposed to cause change for the terrorists benefit, but often it just makes things worse for the terrorists. If only they would realize this.

Collateral damage occurs and by no means was the damage meant to cause terror to achieve a goal.

Re: #201

I'm sorry, but that is a really ghastly comparison. Soldiers have to strike 'surgically', and have to make immediate decisions. To equate them, even when they inevitably err, with terrorism is a really shoddy way to make a point. All you need is a human shield and the opposing parties are terrorists, I suppose.

If you have a problem with war, fine, but terrorism is about intent.


[Message Edited]

It is a ghastly comparison, but sometimes true.

If soldiers were perfect there would be no collateral damage. However soldiers aren't perfect and damage occurs.

I guess it depends on which side of the situation you find yourself as to which it would end up being...

For instance the 9 children who died when they called in a A-10 Tank Killer to destroy a home in Afghanistan...

First there was claims that a terrorist was there and he had been killed, but they had also found that some children had been in the compound. Then within 12 hours a story comes out that there was no terrorist there and the children where in their yard playing when bombed, for the villagers.

Then the US Military comes out and states that no terrorist was killed, but 9 children had been killed, the terrorist had been there but had left earlier.

So, explain to me how bombing that home and yard with a Jet designed to make piles of metal out of fully operational tanks, killing 9 children with no proof in the least that any terrorist had been in or near that home is not a cause of terror?

I do not blame the pilot in the least, but whom ever gave the orders for that mission does hold fault.

Also, in previous comments about a President having the right to take credit for the actions of the armed forces... I would assume that this feeling holds true when it comes to killing 9 kids, oh BTW 6 others had been killed right before this within a 24 hour period. The acting Leader of Afghanistan went as far to say that he really sees the US as friends and such but could we please stop killing the kids because it would eventually have some really negative affects on the people of Afghanistan...

Also, if you want to make jumps to connecting our military being equivalent to terrorists then so be it, but you own that sucker, not me...

Or for example Israel firing a Side Winder or Hellfire Missile into an apartment building full of civilians to take out one Hamas member.

State sanctioned is called WAR, they have a flag, they have a government body, they have some standing in the world...

Frankly, I see no difference between throwing a Grenade into a room full of civilian and dropping 1000 - 2000 pound bombs into a housing center other than the numbers maimed and killed.

"It is a ghastly comparison, but sometimes true."

No, only if the soldiers are really terrorists. Damning the military because they aren't perfect or because the enemy placed his missile battery beside a hospital is unfair. I would hate to have to read such opinion and then go off fight. If i miss, or am forced to make a hard decision, I'm a terrorist. How awful.

"Frankly, I see no difference between throwing a Grenade into a room full of civilian and dropping 1000 - 2000 pound bombs into a housing center other than the numbers maimed and killed."

This comparison is more about debate tactics than battle tactics. It completely ignores 'intent'. Drunk drivers are terrorists, then, too. It was something to say to drive home an opposition to war in general. Sadly it is just enabling to people who really are terrorists.
[Message Edited]

Did the 'UniBomber' really exist is this another popular urban myth?

The UniBomber is real. Real people got injured or killed by real mail bombs. Do you want to try to tell the survivors that the guy who attacked them doesn't exist. The Unibomber is real and now resides in prison. Are you going to give me a black helicopter theory about the vast right wing conspiracy creating the Unibomber to make liberals look bad?

Over coffee that attitude furthers your argument against war, but in a more public venue it just makes terrorists feel their acts are just as legitimate as anyone else's.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, an active terrorist is only good when dead, without question...
It is a crime making use of murder as a means to achieve a goal. But legitimizing terrorism with a label such as "War On Terrorism" raising them above their station in the schema of things. They are no long a group of murdering gooks but are now a force to be reckoned with.

Odd thing is, we turned out back on that War on Terror to go into Iraq. Which posed no emanate threat to the USA and had nothing to do with the terrorists attack on 9/11.

Anyone have any idea just how many home grown terrorist groups set bombs, rob banks, stash illegal weapons, convert semi to fully auto, build bombs and so on in the USA over the period of a year?

I watched a special about the Christian Identity movement, and the FBI rep stated that there was at least 4000 murders on down to basic theft of explosive materials each year directly connected to such groups and it was on a rise. That was a year ago, but I would be interested to know the numbers now...

Up until the point that someone takes upon them self the idea that the only means of giving momentum to a religious, political or social goal is to pick up a weapon or strap a bomb on and start killing people, then they are someone who can be shown other possible paths to a mutual goal or at least as close to a mutually acceptable goal as they might reach. Once they take force as the path then they are dead man walking and the faster someone makes em a martyr the better...

Sadly it is just enabling to people who really are terrorists.

Truth in that without a doubt...

mmm.. yeah

I'm odd, ya'll are witness to that but I'm of a mind that there are a lot of people out there who belong dead. Real people who do real evil, including terrorists.

I guess what I was thinking more about before was not intent, but affect with taking everything into consideration. For the life of me I can not see it ever really ending until that is done and figured out. Terrorism and Terrorists are like Colonies of Cockroach-Roaches in some respects.

With a Cockroach colony, if you fumigate a number of them will slip away until it is safe to return. They will also start breeding at a faster pace, which in the end can leave you with a worse infestation or your neighbors house is going to end up taking the brunt of the move and the newly hatching roaches.

Terrorists are the same in the respect that when you go into to take them out a number slip away and with each that you kill more are created and they either hunker down and wait to come back out or the move to a neighboring place and infest it.

Sooner or later South America is going to be the major hot spot and I wonder if they will run north? One of the reason I wonder about border security and lack of it. Also immigration is something that gives me pause. I mean I can not for the life of me figure out how in the heck anyone can justify giving Illegals citizenship for any reason. I mean "Illegal" by definition means against the law, and they want to reward law breakers who are not even citizens? Hell no wonder this nation finds its self in the state it is in most of the time "Confusion based on totally contradictory political pandering on all sides, half truths are no better than the worse lies"...

anyway...

point taken and no more on it from me....

Anyway, Saddam is going to have something slapped on his butt that AJAX ain't going to touch!

I can't discern a single topic in this thread anymore so i will try to put together what's going on here and someone tell me if I am correct.

Terrorism is bad. Terrorism is hard to get rid of. Soldiers are not terrorists, but sometimes in error their actions come off as close to the same. The unibomber is real. I wish there were no terrorists.

In my opinion this thread has finally met a somewhat middle ground.

I guess now and more to the topic is what to do with saddam.

Yeah

hey pass the salt please? I think someones on a sodium free popcorn binge or sumtin.

Salt? I ain't got no salt. I got butter though. Want some butter?

yeah butter do in a pinch

now I like that one for sure !!

I trust Dean less than I trust Bush by a long shot...

know that these terrorist organizations ceased giving a damn about their supposed causes decades ago, they are billion dollar businesses now.

I wonder if anyone in power knows that?n It seems pretty clear to me that the 'insurgency' and 'freedom fighters' leaders and officials only do what they do to stay in power.

Peace talks? The money for them and the power is not in peace talks. They will attack mostly to provoke a response so they can say that 'they' are still needed.

Surely you can't equate 'collateral damage' to strapping a bomb onto yourself and visiting an Israeli wedding party. 'Collateral Damage' and 'Friendly Fire' is actively avoided, while terrorism omits the legitimate military action and just kills innocents. Pretty sick comparison.

^^^
How come when I say stuff like this people just look at me like I am crazy?

Look, terrorist might look like freedom fighters but freedom fighters or revolutionist do not attack the people who are just going out for a slice of bread, they focus on military, commercial and people in power.


When you think about it, I theorize that the leaders of terrorist groups actually purposely know their methods will not work but use them because it creates a perpetual war that they are the leaders of.

Anthony sometimes I wonder if your a Democrat.

Are you going to give me a black helicopter theory about the vast right wing conspiracy creating the Unibomber to make liberals look bad?

you are SUCH a joke! not everything that us 'liberals' say is about conspiracy....instead of having a conservative administration (which really just means a pro-war, lets kill everyone and dominate the world-administration), let's let the liberals run the show...less American's will be killed, less civilians will be killed, and less moronic error-ridden speeches will be made!

So quite your conservative liberal-mongering while you're down....or you can just keep digging