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.

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.

i am wishing it wasn't like that though.

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.

fishin wrote:

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.

well that's a real load of bull$hit.... the mining of Managua harbor by the US Navy and the financing and training of contra-terrorists by the CIA and US Defense Dept to depose the elected Sandinista regime of Nicaragua were acts of state-sponsored terrorism, and these acts were ruled illegal by the World Court.

kuvasz wrote:

fishin wrote:

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.

well that's a real load of bull$hit.... the mining of Managua harbor by the US Navy and the financing and training of contra-terrorists by the CIA and US Defense Dept to depose the elected Sandinista regime of Nicaragua were acts of state-sponsored terrorism, and these acts were ruled illegal by the World Court.

The load of $hit here is in your head as usual. My post was referring to direct action - not 3rd or 4th party behind the scenes activity. There is a difference between waging attacks and secretly training and paying others to wage attacks on your behalf. The U.S. Navy didn't mine Managua Harbor. The CIA paid Keenie Meenie Services to mine it.

kuvasz wrote:

fishin wrote:

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.

[/b][/size]


well that's a real load of bull$hit.... the mining of Managua harbor by the US Navy and the financing and training of contra-terrorists by the CIA and US Defense Dept to depose the elected Sandinista regime of Nicaragua were acts of state-sponsored terrorism, and these acts were ruled illegal by the World Court.

The load of $hit here is in your head as usual. My post was referring to direct action - not 3rd or 4th party behind the scenes activity. There is a difference between waging attacks and secretly training and paying others to wage attacks on your behalf.
And that difference is just what? Are the victims less dead?

The U.S. Navy didn't mine Managua Harbor. The CIA paid Keenie Meenie Services to mine it.

fishin wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

fishin wrote:

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.

well that's a real load of bull$hit.... the mining of Managua harbor by the US Navy and the financing and training of contra-terrorists by the CIA and US Defense Dept to depose the elected Sandinista regime of Nicaragua were acts of state-sponsored terrorism, and these acts were ruled illegal by the World Court.

The load of $hit here is in your head as usual. My post was referring to direct action - not 3rd or 4th party behind the scenes activity. There is a difference between waging attacks and secretly training and paying others to wage attacks on your behalf. The U.S. Navy didn't mine Managua Harbor. The CIA paid Keenie Meenie Services to mine it.

Would you agree then that the US were state sponsors of terrorism?

Cycloptichorn

fishin wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

fishin wrote:

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.

[/b][/size]


well that's a real load of bull$hit.... the mining of Managua harbor by the US Navy and the financing and training of contra-terrorists by the CIA and US Defense Dept to depose the elected Sandinista regime of Nicaragua were acts of state-sponsored terrorism, and these acts were ruled illegal by the World Court.

The load of $hit here is in your head as usual. My post was referring to direct action - not 3rd or 4th party behind the scenes activity. There is a difference between waging attacks and secretly training and paying others to wage attacks on your behalf.
And that difference is just what? Are the victims less dead?

The U.S. Navy didn't mine Managua Harbor. The CIA paid Keenie Meenie Services to mine it.

Right baby.

You just sit there like a typical right wing little puke and get pissed off because your psychological comfort zone of denial gets rocked. So, by your logic, your defense is that the American government might have paid to rape, torture, and murder the Maryknoll nuns in El Salvador in 1980, but the Americans get your personal expiation because they simply paid for it instead of actually raping, torturing and slitting the throats of the nuns.

But perhaps, that passes muster with apologists for rape, torture, and murdering of defenseless woman of God, like some fu^*king hypocrites on the Right, but civilized people know better.

Just what the hell kind of human being are you to think that the murder of a person is morally dependent on who is to blame for it??

Oh I know, a Republican.

I suppose people who are killed by Blackwater in Iraq - yeah, that doesn't have anything to do with the US either. Hell, all we did was pay them. We're not responsible.

Cycloptichorn

kuvasz wrote:

fishin wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

fishin wrote:

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.

[/b][/size]

your grand scheme is that there is an "obviuos[sic] difference" between governments engaging in acts of terror versus non-state participants.

What is that difference?

That you think if the US does it, its okay?

That paying another to kill absolves one from guilt?

try a plain answer for a change.


well that's a real load of bull$hit.... the mining of Managua harbor by the US Navy and the financing and training of contra-terrorists by the CIA and US Defense Dept to depose the elected Sandinista regime of Nicaragua were acts of state-sponsored terrorism, and these acts were ruled illegal by the World Court.

The load of $hit here is in your head as usual. My post was referring to direct action - not 3rd or 4th party behind the scenes activity. There is a difference between waging attacks and secretly training and paying others to wage attacks on your behalf.
And that difference is just what? Are the victims less dead?

AGAIN, WHAT IS THAT DIFFERENCE TO THE VICTIMS?

you cannot say they are different without telling what the difference is. and you haven't done it. actually you said "obviuos[sic] difference" the only thing obvious is ......? that state sponsored terrorism is unlike non-state sponsored terrorism in what way? if you can spend your time insulting me for calling you on it you can reply what the "obviuos[sic] difference" is.

The U.S. Navy didn't mine Managua Harbor. The CIA paid Keenie Meenie Services to mine it.

and that implies what in your fetid little mind? that if i paid someone to kill a person that absolves me because i didn't actually pull the trigger? is that why you brought up the fact that the US only paid for the mining of the harbor? is that your moral obviuos[sic] difference?

it is not a hard question to answer

Right baby.

You just sit there like a typical right wing little puke and get pissed off because your psychological comfort zone of denial gets rocked. So, by your logic, your defense is that the American government might have paid to rape, torture, and murder the Maryknoll nuns in El Salvador in 1980, but the Americans get your personal expiation because they simply paid for it instead of actually raping, torturing and slitting the throats of the nuns.

lol Pissed off? The only one here that appears to be pissed off is you. Of course that could be because you opened your mouth and quickly figured out that once again, nothing but bile spilled forth.

Now please, do go back and show where I have defended the U.S. anywhere in this thread. You are spouting absoulte bull$hit and going as far as fabricating claims.

Again, are you not defending the US and its acts of terrorism against latin america?

Did the US government not blockade the harbor of another country?

Did the US not train, arm, and fund latino terrorists in the field to topple popular latin american governments.

Did these paid agents of the US not rape, torture and murder people?

If you think none of that is true, do you want me to show the data to you?

What "obviuos[sic] differences" are present in those acts versus a palestinian suicide bomber to the victims of the violences.

Do you agree or disagree that the US engaged in state sponsored terrorism by mining Managua's harbor?

Do you agree or disagree that aid to the El Salvadoran hit squads and Contras was supporting terrorism.

Do you agree or disagree that the US was responsible for the murder of the Marynoll nuns.

Quote:

But perhaps, that passes muster with apologists for rape, torture, and murdering of defenseless woman of God, like some fu^*king hypocrites on the Right, but civilized people know better.

What would you know of civillized people? lmao You've got to be the biggest mouth breather on this forum and as you shown here once again, you've engaged your mouth before bothering to wait for your brain to turn on.

I know that civilized people don't engage in terrorism, do you? I know that civilized people do not support such action, do you?

Quote:

Just what the hell kind of human being are you to think that the murder of a person is morally dependent on who is to blame for it??

Oh I know, a Republican.

Are you always this stupid? This is simply another of your fabnricated claims that is without evidence.

Please, try not to be so nebulous, show me what claim I made that is unsubstantiated You opened your mouth and where shown to be wrong and now you throw a temper tantrum like a 4 year old.

And there has allways been a next generation.... or we would be extinct.