1
2
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

1

what's the difference between war and terrorism?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

terrorism: the bad guys die, but they take countless thousands of civilians with them.

war: more countless thousands of civilians die, but we get the bad guys!

one difference is that with war, it's the GOOD GUYS(tm) pulling the triggers.

any others worth noting?

(oh, plus wars have flags, whoopee!)

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,373 • Replies: 35

No top replies

The obviuos difference would be that "war" is waged by a government entity whereas "terrorism" is generally defined as being waged by non-state actors.

You may not see that as a big deal but in the grand scheme of things it is.

0 Replies

Terrorism is a tactic, not a body in which to declare war on.

0 Replies

in the grand scheme of things, i only think in terms of people that suffer and whether it was for a reason. if technically impossible goals are set, those goals can't br reached, these aren't the best reasons to be at "war."

but getting back to the grand scheme of things, what's the nature of war in a one-world government? obviously there will be no war then, by your definition. it will all be terrorism, as there will be no other "countries" to declare war on. actually i think that's nonsense, but people seem to be talking about something like that in another thread.

0 Replies

Re: what's the difference between war and terrorism?

tinygiraffe wrote:

terrorism: the bad guys die, but they take countless thousands of civilians with them.

war: more countless thousands of civilians die, but we get the bad guys!

one difference is that with war, it's the GOOD GUYS(tm) pulling the triggers.

any others worth noting?

(oh, plus wars have flags, whoopee!)

Historically this isn't correct, I believe.

In war the military normally dies. Innocent civilians only die during an attempt to destroy military targets ("collateral damage").

In terrorism innocent civilian normally die in an attempt to terrorize a population, for the purpose of getting the respective government of those innocent civilians to make concessions to the terrorists concerns.

Terrorism, in my opinion, is like a "gang" of school yard bullies. War is a real life chess game.

0 Replies

i realize that, and i'll be happy to revise my definition again when war no longer fits it, whether or not it goes back to "the way it used to be."

funny you should mention chess though, because the kings and queens are the last to fall in any good game, while the pawns on both sides get knocked down right away. it reminds me of my post-modern definition, no matter how "ancient" chess might be. and to continue the metaphor, i bet the game is a little more carefully played when the leaders are actually vulnerable, where does one find the bunkers on a chess board?

0 Replies

Re: what's the difference between war and terrorism?

tinygiraffe wrote:

terrorism: the bad guys die, but they take countless thousands of civilians with them.

war: more countless thousands of civilians die, but we get the bad guys!

one difference is that with war, it's the GOOD GUYS(tm) pulling the triggers.

any others worth noting?

(oh, plus wars have flags, whoopee!)

Even today, combatants die more than innocent civilians. Targets are military targets. The fact that the bad guys hide in civilian population centers just shows that combatants can't "upgrade" to a fully equipped military. Like mendicants of old, they must rely on "arms" for the poor (instead of "alms" for the poor).

Are you using one theater of operation for your definition?

What about the Israeli/Arab countries wars? Those were armies against each other. Syria and Israel might resume hostilities one day (over the Golan Heights). That would likely be an old fashioned war. Old fashioned wars make better movies.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

in the grand scheme of things, i only think in terms of people that suffer and whether it was for a reason. if technically impossible goals are set, those goals can't br reached, these aren't the best reasons to be at "war."

If that is the only thing you consider then why not throw child abuse or schoolyard bullying into the mix too?

Quote:

but getting back to the grand scheme of things, what's the nature of war in a one-world government? obviously there will be no war then, by your definition. it will all be terrorism, as there will be no other "countries" to declare war on. actually i think that's nonsense, but people seem to be talking about something like that in another thread.

I don't know which thread you are referring to but even if there was a one-world government you'd still have politcial subdivisions. In theory I suppose it would be subclassified as "civil war" as opposed to just "war". The EU acts as a form of government over most of Europe but if France invaded Germany it would still be a war wouldn't it?

0 Replies

Quote:

Even today, combatants die more than innocent civilians.

i'd love to see your source, or even some unsourced, actual numbers there. last i heard, 10s, or 100s of thousands of innocent civilians were dead, i haven't seen any numbers on combatants killed.

Quote:

In theory I suppose it would be subclassified as "civil war" as opposed to just "war". The EU acts as a form of government over most of Europe but if France invaded Germany it would still be a war wouldn't it?

it would i think, but i thought it was an important enough point to bring up. the level of importance is entirely my opinion, of course.

0 Replies

An interesting tidbit from the latest Burn's documentary (on ww 2) was the statement from an american political or military leader (I don't recall) who explained the fire-bombing of german cities as follows, "We don't consider that there are any innocent civilians."

0 Replies

well in germany of that era it's tough to say how many were innocent.

but then with civilians, i think it's better to err on the side of caution, and give them the benefit of the doubt. it's better to focus on military targets, especially if you want to "fight" terrorism, and not become part of it. shooting and bombing unarmed people still seems kind of wrong, with or without the geneva convention.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

well in germany of that era it's tough to say how many were innocent.

but then with civilians, i think it's better to err on the side of caution, and give them the benefit of the doubt. it's better to focus on military targets, especially if you want to "fight" terrorism, and not become part of it. shooting and bombing unarmed people still seems kind of wrong, with or without the geneva convention.

The rationale of the people who flew the jets into the WTC, or the rationale of suicide bombers in Israel or Iraq or Indonesia... there are no innocent civilians.

0 Replies

Re: what's the difference between war and terrorism?

Foofie wrote:

tinygiraffe wrote:
terrorism: the bad guys die, but they take countless thousands of civilians with them.

war: more countless thousands of civilians die, but we get the bad guys!

one difference is that with war, it's the GOOD GUYS(tm) pulling the triggers.

any others worth noting?

(oh, plus wars have flags, whoopee!)

Historically this isn't correct, I believe.

In war the military normally dies. Innocent civilians only die during an attempt to destroy military targets ("collateral damage").

In terrorism innocent civilian normally die in an attempt to terrorize a population, for the purpose of getting the respective government of those innocent civilians to make concessions to the terrorists concerns.

Terrorism, in my opinion, is like a "gang" of school yard bullies. War is a real life chess game.

So when we dropped the atomic bombs on Japan we were not practicing terrorist? We were hitting a military target and it just so happens a few innocent civilians got in the way?

0 Replies

Re: what's the difference between war and terrorism?

xingu wrote:

Foofie wrote:
tinygiraffe wrote:
terrorism: the bad guys die, but they take countless thousands of civilians with them.

war: more countless thousands of civilians die, but we get the bad guys!

one difference is that with war, it's the GOOD GUYS(tm) pulling the triggers.

any others worth noting?

(oh, plus wars have flags, whoopee!)

Historically this isn't correct, I believe.

In war the military normally dies. Innocent civilians only die during an attempt to destroy military targets ("collateral damage").

In terrorism innocent civilian normally die in an attempt to terrorize a population, for the purpose of getting the respective government of those innocent civilians to make concessions to the terrorists concerns.

Terrorism, in my opinion, is like a "gang" of school yard bullies. War is a real life chess game.

So when we dropped the atomic bombs on Japan we were not practicing terrorist? We were hitting a military target and it just so happens a few innocent civilians got in the way?

I do not believe the U.S. was practicing terrorism by dropping the bombs on Japan. I believe the U.S. was trying to save many soldiers lives on both sides, by not having to invade Japan, inorder to end the war.

As I was taught, the Japanese in WWII did not accept the concept of surrender. And they had the idea they were followers of their Emperor who just happened to be a deity also. The bombing was a wake-up call, I believe, to the reality that they should put aside their hopes to dominate the Pacific rim countries.

Even in the U.S. Civil War, Sherman's March to the Sea had a devastating effect on civilians.

And, fire bombing Dresden in WWII killed many civilians.

But in war, governments can decide to negotiate and stop the killing. I believe that cannot be done with terrorists, since terrorists come in many different groups. Each group has their own agenda, but the same enemy. That makes terrorism so sinister; worse than what governments do in any war. In other words, all terrorists can do is terrorize; there's no political benefit to their terrorism, other than the satisfaction it gives the terrorists, and their followers or tacit supporters.

What has terrorism done in Israel? It made money for the people selling the cement to build that wall.

What did terrorism do in Europe? It made more security jobs and sold more security technology.

The terrorists gained nothing, unless one thinks Spain leaving a coalition was a triumph of some sort. Not at all, I believe.

Terrorism does not result in a political gain for the agenda of terrorists. It just terrorizes. Wars do result in political gains, in that wars change governments (for the losing side).

0 Replies

All of you are overlooking one thing.
The difference is simply based on who is reporting on the conflict, and who wins.

REmember, the winner gets to write the history.
As an examlpe, lets look at our own history.
The American Revolutionary WAR was fought against the British.
We started out as ragtag groups of armed men, fighting against superior forces.
We won that war,so our men were soldiers fighting a war.
If the Brits had won, our men would have been terrorists and traitors fighting against lawful authority.
In short...terrorists.

So,it all depends on who wins the conflict,as to what the difference is between terrorism and war.

0 Replies

Several really obvious differences...

Worst possible case in a war, such as the Pearl Harbor attack, even the Japanese had their own national insignia on their aircraft; nobody had to sit there for five days trying to guess or figure out who did it.

Terrorism totally depends upon the idea of the victim being more civilized and better behaved than the perpetrator. You will search the history books in vain for any sort of a story about anybody perpetrating any sort of a terrorist act against Chengis Khan, Tamerlane, or Hitler. Or at least for any sort of a tale involving anybody doing anything like that more than once...

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

All of you are overlooking one thing.
The difference is simply based on who is reporting on the conflict, and who wins.

REmember, the winner gets to write the history.
As an examlpe, lets look at our own history.
The American Revolutionary WAR was fought against the British.
We started out as ragtag groups of armed men, fighting against superior forces.
We won that war,so our men were soldiers fighting a war.
If the Brits had won, our men would have been terrorists and traitors fighting against lawful authority.
In short...terrorists.

So,it all depends on who wins the conflict,as to what the difference is between terrorism and war.

No; I can't agree. There were real battles against the British. New York State has numerous war memorials marking the spots where a battle occurred. Plus, the colonists were shooting at British soldiers, not British civilians back in Britain. We did not export the Revolutionary War to England. The tea in Boston harbor were not British civilians.

Naturally, if Britain put down the Colonial Army, and we stayed British, they would write the history books, and we'd be called something less than noble colonists attempting to free ourselves from British rule. The key, I believe, is whether we terrorized British civilians, or just fought British soldiers. We didn't terrorize British civilians.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Several really obvious differences...

Worst possible case in a war, such as the Pearl Harbor attack, even the Japanese had their own national insignia on their aircraft; nobody had to sit there for five days trying to guess or figure out who did it.

Terrorism totally depends upon the idea of the victim being more civilized and better behaved than the perpetrator. You will search the history books in vain for any sort of a story about anybody perpetrating any sort of a terrorist act against Chengis Khan, Tamerlane, or Hitler. Or at least for any sort of a tale involving anybody doing anything like that more than once...

I believe you should get a gold star for this posting. Terrorism is negligible with non-civilized countries, when they go to war. So, when a civilized country goes to war, its hostilities can't be compared to terrorism, since terrorism doesn't dare "play" with non-civilized countries, only civilized countries. In effect, a civilized country, a priori, has the moral upper hand against terrorism.

And, the point is well made, in that a non-civilized country uses terrorism itself, to put down terrorism. Both parties might just be morally equal.

The U.S. being civilized (we don't wipe out an entire town when a sniper killed a U.S. military person in WWII) cannot, therefore, be compared to terrorism.

You did a check-mate, in my opinion.

0 Replies

Re: what's the difference between war and terrorism?

Foofie wrote:

tinygiraffe wrote:
terrorism: the bad guys die, but they take countless thousands of civilians with them.

war: more countless thousands of civilians die, but we get the bad guys!

one difference is that with war, it's the GOOD GUYS(tm) pulling the triggers.

any others worth noting?

(oh, plus wars have flags, whoopee!)

Historically this isn't correct, I believe.

In war the military normally dies. Innocent civilians only die during an attempt to destroy military targets ("collateral damage").

In terrorism innocent civilian normally die in an attempt to terrorize a population, for the purpose of getting the respective government of those innocent civilians to make concessions to the terrorists concerns.

Terrorism, in my opinion, is like a "gang" of school yard bullies. War is a real life chess game.

funny, i consider all gov'ts to be "gangs", in fact they use the exact same tactics stratgies and techniques to attain and maintain power and control.

"OBEY OR WE WILL SEND MEN WITH GUNS TO CHANGE YOUR MIND"

war compared to chess? im not so sure.

war is more like a disease. AIDs to be specific.

0 Replies

Quote:

it all depends on who wins the conflict,as to what the difference is between terrorism and war.

heh... sick world if that's the case. not necessarily disagreeing, that is.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe

Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel

McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre

Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN

The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash

McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix

Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter

Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona

What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa

TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman

Forums
» what's the difference between war and terrorism?

1
2
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 09:44:23

▲ ▼