By your definition of a terrorist I have two questions for you.

1.) Is north korea a terrorist and therefore bush was wrong to remove them from the list of terrorist countries? They use their power to create fear in their people and other countries in the world. They love to target innocents.

2.) *note I support almost everything we did in WW2* that said by your definition we were terrorist in WW2. One of our tactics was to bomb areas in Germany and Japan to create fear in the general population(target innocents). So they would not support their own leaders. Do you believe that we were justified in using terrorism in WW2?

Chris.

I have yet to see a credible explanation of terrorist.

The problem in defining terror is making the definition universal.
One culture's terrorist is another culture's hero. This goes both ways.

This isn't that hard, but given your posts here, it's not surprising that you find it difficult.

Generally, a terrorist is one whose acts are calculated to cause fear, to support an ideological agenda, that deliberately target innocents, and that cannot hope to bring about the desired result.

That isn't that hard. Neither is it dependent on the culture in question.

To the bus passengers on a morning commute to work in London, who at the last moment witnessed a suicide bomber pulling the pin, the terror was real.

This likely fits the definition because it fits the points noted in the general definition above. That the victims feel terror isn't really the point--a person who sees a drunk driver about to crush them feels terror, but that does not make the drunk a terrorist.

To the bus passengers on a morning commute to work in Baghdad, who at the last moment witnessed a missile fired from an F-18 about to strike them, the terror was also real.

This does not fit the definition because it does not fit the points above. Again, that people feel terror at their impending doom does not mean that the pilot is a terrorist.

The similarities in these two examples are the large explosions, many civilian deaths and property damage, all following that moment where the victims knew they were about to die.
The only difference between these two explosive moments of death being that one of these acts was sanctioned by a government.

Which, of course, is simply wrong. The difference is in the simple definition of terrorist.

I'm open to anyone's suggestions toward a definitive explanation of the word.

As it stands now from a western perspective, the explanation seems to be;
1) Any act of violence directed at us is terrorism
2) Any act of violence directed at (insert enemy here) is heroic and for the cause of freedom

Maybe it's time to drop the pretense and just admit that ALL extreme violence causing death is terrorism.

Is this like the time you had a really hard time with the term "socialism?" Because it seems that you problems with relatively simple concepts.

To reiterate, a terrorist is one whose acts are calculated to cause fear, to support an ideological agenda, that deliberately target innocents, and that cannot hope to bring about the desired result.

The differences between a missile fired from an F-18 that may have missed it's target and an mentally-muddled person deliberately targeting innocent civilians by bombing a London bus are striking.

---

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose






sadly this is not true

Have You ever been in the US Military? If not then You don't know what You are talking about, they live by the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice) Which are the Laws of the US Military.

I second that.

i have served in army, and , surprise, they are collective of idiots.
sorry, that how it goes-
have you?

[quote]By your definition of a terrorist I have two questions for you.

1.) Is north korea a terrorist and therefore bush was wrong to remove them from the list of terrorist countries? They use their power to create fear in their people and other countries in the world. They love to target innocents.

2.) *note I support almost everything we did in WW2* that said by your definition we were terrorist in WW2. One of our tactics was to bomb areas in Germany and Japan to create fear in the general population(target innocents). So they would not support their own leaders. Do you believe that we were justified in using terrorism in WW2?

Chris.


i like you

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose






sadly this is not true

Have You ever been in the US Military? If not then You don't know what You are talking about, they live by the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice) Which are the Laws of the US Military.

I second that.

I have served in army, and surprise, they are a collection of idiots.
sorry, that's how it goes.
have you?

I said I had already, My Dad(He didn't believe in being called a Father as He thought that the word Father was for a Priest only) and My Uncle served back in WWII, My Brother served in the US Navy for just over 20 Years, He would have retired after 30 years, But His specialty was being phased out, So just over 20 was going to have to do, As soon as He retired He had 23 years to live(Lung Cancer and Emphysema and the Cancer spread to His brain in the last Year).

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose

The Japanese version of this particular 'sound-byte' might be slightly different... ;)

Actually Terror comes in many forms and the Military does it just as often as any other. The example below is but one of many. The Germans were defeated the city was UNARMED and mostly civilian population. The point is not to disrespect your point of view or the Military but to prove a point that even the Military massacres civilians when ordered to by their Governments.

Care to justify this?
February 14-15, 1945: Night indiscriminate bombing against the city of Dresden. 805 RAF bombers dropped fire bombs causing a huge Fire Hurricane. Between 35.000 and 135.000 civilians are estimated to be killed. Many people think this massacre was not justified due to the war situation (The german defeat was only a matter of days). No massacre is ever justified of course.

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose

The Japanese version of this particular 'sound-byte' might be slightly different... ;)

Actually Terror comes in many forms and the Military does it just as often as any other. The example below is but one of many. The Germans were defeated the city was UNARMED and mostly civilian population. The point is not to disrespect your point of view or the Military but to prove a point that even the Military massacres civilians when ordered to by their Governments.

Care to justify this?
February 14-15, 1945: Night indiscriminate bombing against the city of Dresden. 805 RAF bombers dropped fire bombs causing a huge Fire Hurricane. Between 35.000 and 135.000 civilians are estimated to be killed. Many people think this massacre was not justified due to the war situation (The german defeat was only a matter of days). No massacre is ever justified of course.

Neither side was innocent. Firebombing is just obscene, but then all war is. However whatever one side does, the other will retaliate with. I suppose it does end it faster.

The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose

The Japanese version of this particular 'sound-byte' might be slightly different... ;)

Actually Terror comes in many forms and the Military does it just as often as any other. The example below is but one of many. The Germans were defeated the city was UNARMED and mostly civilian population. The point is not to disrespect your point of view or the Military but to prove a point that even the Military massacres civilians when ordered to by their Governments.

Care to justify this?
February 14-15, 1945: Night indiscriminate bombing against the city of Dresden. 805 RAF bombers dropped fire bombs causing a huge Fire Hurricane. Between 35.000 and 135.000 civilians are estimated to be killed. Many people think this massacre was not justified due to the war situation (The German defeat was only a matter of days). No massacre is ever justified of course.

And as You pointed out those were RAF bombers, Here's a reason and why It had to be done(And that was 12 days, But at the time this was unknown to the Allied High Command as hindsight is always 20/20 the Future can be very murky):

Bombing of Dresden in World War II wrote:

A USAAF report defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort.

USAF wrote:

The U.S. Air Force Historical Division wrote a report in response to the international concern about the bombing, which was classified until December 1978.[28] This said that there were 110 factories and 50,000 workers in the city supporting the German war effort at the time of the raid.[29] According to the report, there were aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); an optical goods factory (Zeiss Ikon AG); as well as factories producing electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel AG); gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke); and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler). It also said there were barracks, and hutted camps, and a munitions storage depot.[30]

The USAF report also states that two of Dresden's traffic routes were of military importance: north-south from Germany to Czechoslovakia, and east-west along the central European uplands.[31] The city was at the junction of the Berlin-Prague-Vienna railway line, as well as Munich-Breslau, and Hamburg-Leipzig.[31] Colonel Harold E. Cook, an American POW held in the Friedrichstadt marshaling yard the night before the attacks, later said that "I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians."

A special British Joint Intelligence Subcommittee report titled German Strategy and Capacity to Resist, prepared for Churchill's eyes only, predicted that Germany might collapse as early as mid-April if the Soviets overran them at their eastern defenses. Alternatively, the report warned that the Germans might hold out until November if they could prevent the Soviets from taking Silesia. Hence any assistance provided to the Soviets on the eastern front could shorten the war.[13]

Plans for a large and intense offensive targeting Berlin and the other eastern cities had been discussed under the code name Operation Thunderclap in the summer of 1944, but it had been shelved on 16 August.[14] These were now re-examined, and the decision made to draw up a more limited operation.[15]

On 22 January, the RAF director of Bomber operations sent a memo to Air Commodore Buffton[dubious – discuss], an aide to the Deputy Chief of Air Staff, Sir Norman Bottomley, suggesting that an attack on Breslau, Munich and Berlin while the current Soviet offensive continued would have a detrimental affect on German morale. On 25 January, the Joint Intelligence Committee expressed support for the idea and ask Harris, AOC Bomber Command, for his opinion. He proposed a simultaneous attack on Chemnitz, Leipzig and Dresden.

Note some bridges and other structures were not hit, Why? As there were only so many Heavy Bombers(Lancasters gained worldwide renown as the "Dam Buster" used in the 1943 Operation Chastise raids on Germany's Ruhr Valley dams.) available to the Brits, It's not like The Brits had an Inexhaustible supply of Planes or People as the Brits Bombed at Night, The USAAF bombed only during the Day and did not bomb Dresden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

How many more People would have died that were still in Nazi hands had this hub not been crushed utterly. Millions of People had already died at the hands of the Nazis, Why? For being no more than who they were and what they believed in, Or for their opinion, Or If they were disabled, Or If they were Gypsies(Roma) or Jews, Or even anybody who objected to the Thefts of Artworks and Gold by the Nazis, And their was No German resistance was ever allowed to exist as the Gestapo was utterly ruthless in their torture methods, If You spoke out, Were of a political party that was forbidden after the Enabling Act was approved or for any other reason, One was either sent to a Labor Camp to be worked to death or directly to a death camp to be exterminated, The Nazis had ordered after the Battle of the Bulge that POWs be executed as they were a drain on the war effort and Some SS Units at the Malmedy Massacre did just this and POWs there were massacred after they had already surrendered, This at least was not done elsewhere after this to other POWs in the Camps. The Nazis were truly Evil and were not Christians as they believed they were the Master Race and all others would be either enslaved or exterminated.

Irans Revolutionary Guard=SS Troops(Schutzstaffel(German for "Protective Squadron"))

The Brits made one other error in WWII, Specifically: "Operation Market Garden" or as Hollywood called It "A Bridge too Far".

Oh and I did find a Reference to the Holocaust in WWII here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
Jews, Slavs, Ethnic Poles, South and East Slavs, Soviet POWs, Roma, Disabled and mentally ill, Homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Political activists(German communists, socialists and trade unionists were among the earliest domestic opponents of Nazism) were rounded up and exterminated or worked to death in Labor camps.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

I really don't know why Jeffey has a right to post anything about this topic which presumes notionally the right of free religion when recently he responded to the news story about christians being beaten in England for proselytizing ina moslem neighborhood with the comment, "what are they doing in a moslem neighborhood anyway?"

I'm an atheist. Naturally I defended the right of the christians to speak anywhere they choose.

People's tolerance for intolerance and violence is astounding....

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

U.S. authorities apply different labels to crimes committed by two extremists -- one Muslim, the other Jewish.

Read about it here --->Terrorism or hate crime?... ;)

To bring this back on topic, I don't see much difference between Hate crime and Terrorist in this instance both are guilty of the same basic crime. A hatred and intolorance of someone who doesn't believe the same thing they believe.

As for the example I used with Dresden.
Proponents of the "war crime" position argue that the devastation known to be caused by firebombing was greater than anything that could be justified by military necessity alone, and that this establishes their case on a prima facie basis. The Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing, as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz.[129] "War crime" proponents say that Dresden did not have a military garrison, that most of the industry was in the outskirts and not in the targeted city centre,[130] and that the cultural significance of the city should have precluded the Allies from bombing it.

British historian Anthony Beevor wrote that Dresden was considered relatively safe, having been spared previous RAF night attacks, and that at the time of the raids there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city seeking sanctuary from the fighting on the Eastern Front.[131] In Fire Sites, German revisionist historian Jörg Friedrich agrees that the RAF's relentless bombing campaign against German cities in the last months of the war served no military purpose.[132]

The bombing served no real Military purpose, The Nazi's had lost anyone watching the advances Allied troops were making could see that, You didn't need to be a General or have hindsight to see the outcome, Germany was pushed back on all fronts and the end was near. The bombing was nothing more than a vicious retaliation strike to further punish the Germans for all that had happened in the war. Add to that Military intelligence KNEW the city was filled with refugees who wanted nothing more to do with the war and were not even armed. And that isn't much different than what we call Terrorist bombings today. There were other ways to have handled the German troops without utterly destroying a civilian target that at that late stage of the war couldn't have changed the outcome of the war even with its intacked industry.

To bring this back on topic

Why bother? Ya'll missed the point anyway... ;)


Remember the rules:

1. Accuse your enemy of doing what you intend to do...

2. Do the exact opposite of what you said you would do...

3. Blame your enemy for doing what you have just done...

Now go read the first two paragraphs again...

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

U.S. authorities apply different labels to crimes committed by two extremists -- one Muslim, the other Jewish.

Read about it here --->Terrorism or hate crime?... ;)

To bring this back on topic, I don't see much difference between Hate crime and Terrorist in this instance both are guilty of the same basic crime. A hatred and intolorance of someone who doesn't believe the same thing they believe.

As for the example I used with Dresden.
Proponents of the "war crime" position argue that the devastation known to be caused by firebombing was greater than anything that could be justified by military necessity alone, and that this establishes their case on a prima facie basis. The Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing, as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz.[129] "War crime" proponents say that Dresden did not have a military garrison, that most of the industry was in the outskirts and not in the targeted city centre,[130] and that the cultural significance of the city should have precluded the Allies from bombing it.

British historian Anthony Beevor wrote that Dresden was considered relatively safe, having been spared previous RAF night attacks, and that at the time of the raids there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city seeking sanctuary from the fighting on the Eastern Front.[131] In Fire Sites, German revisionist historian Jörg Friedrich agrees that the RAF's relentless bombing campaign against German cities in the last months of the war served no military purpose.[132]

The bombing served no real Military purpose, The Nazi's had lost anyone watching the advances Allied troops were making could see that, You didn't need to be a General or have hindsight to see the outcome, Germany was pushed back on all fronts and the end was near. The bombing was nothing more than a vicious retaliation strike to further punish the Germans for all that had happened in the war. Add to that Military intelligence KNEW the city was filled with refugees who wanted nothing more to do with the war and were not even armed. And that isn't much different than what we call Terrorist bombings today. There were other ways to have handled the German troops without utterly destroying a civilian target that at that late stage of the war couldn't have changed the outcome of the war even with its intacked industry.

second time i thank you for tolerate post, nice to see some niceties in here

By your definition of a terrorist I have two questions for you.

1.) Is north korea a terrorist and therefore bush was wrong to remove them from the list of terrorist countries? They use their power to create fear in their people and other countries in the world. They love to target innocents.

It gets really dicey when you start ascribing things to countries as a whole, because they do so many things, some of which can be 180 degrees removed from other things that they do. Yes, I think that the DPRK has often sought to sponsor acts of terrorism.

As far whether Dubya is right or wrong to use incentives to change the DPRK's behavior, well, that's just an opinion call.

2.) *note I support almost everything we did in WW2* that said by your definition we were terrorist in WW2. One of our tactics was to bomb areas in Germany and Japan to create fear in the general population(target innocents). So they would not support their own leaders. Do you believe that we were justified in using terrorism in WW2?

I think you're trying to shoehorn the definition of terrorism into a war. Regardless of all the feelgood rhetoric concerning war and how wars should be fought and all that BS, wars are fought to be won.

That isn't blowing up buses and trains in London, or 9/11, both of which match all the criteria noted previously. It's war. All out war. In a war, the populace is held ultimately responsible for the existence of it's gov't, regardless of all the "rules" that make people feel better about them.

Terrorism applies then in some contexts, but not in others.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Thanks for your answers.

However, I take issue with the answer to question 2. The people attacking our country ... the people that our politicians say we are at war with (the war on terror) do not have a country. They don't have standard army or methods of attacking. You say that "in war the populace is held ultimately responsible for the existence of it's gov't". This is what the terrorist are saying to us. They are saying "Because your government supports our enemies we are hold the populace responsible." A concept that you agree with and to a degree I agree with. This is how they justify bombing buildings in New York and subways in London. This is the same reasoning that you used to say that we could attack buildings in Germany and Japan. Going as far as to nuke two cities in Japan(which by the way I supported for many reasons). The fact is that we needed to win WW2 and that is why we did "terrorism" in WW2. And that is why they are doing it today. They are at war with us and are holding our people ultimately responsible for the existence of our gov't and it actions. I'm sorry to say that the terrorists have a point here. Now can't we all just get along and crush the terrorists instead of invading the wrong countries and creating more.

Chris.

By your definition of a terrorist I have two questions for you.

1.) Is north korea a terrorist and therefore bush was wrong to remove them from the list of terrorist countries? They use their power to create fear in their people and other countries in the world. They love to target innocents.

It gets really dicey when you start ascribing things to countries as a whole, because they do so many things, some of which can be 180 degrees removed from other things that they do. Yes, I think that the DPRK has often sought to sponsor acts of terrorism.

As far whether Dubya is right or wrong to use incentives to change the DPRK's behavior, well, that's just an opinion call.

2.) *note I support almost everything we did in WW2* that said by your definition we were terrorist in WW2. One of our tactics was to bomb areas in Germany and Japan to create fear in the general population(target innocents). So they would not support their own leaders. Do you believe that we were justified in using terrorism in WW2?

I think you're trying to shoehorn the definition of terrorism into a war. Regardless of all the feelgood rhetoric concerning war and how wars should be fought and all that BS, wars are fought to be won.

That isn't blowing up buses and trains in London, or 9/11, both of which match all the criteria noted previously. It's war. All out war. In a war, the populace is held ultimately responsible for the existence of it's gov't, regardless of all the "rules" that make people feel better about them.

Terrorism applies then in some contexts, but not in others.

---

Thanks for your answers.

However, I take issue with the answer to question 2. The people attacking our country ... the people that our politicians say we are at war with (the war on terror) do not have a country. They don't have standard army or methods of attacking. You say that "in war the populace is held ultimately responsible for the existence of it's gov't". This is what the terrorist are saying to us. They are saying "Because your government supports our enemies we are hold the populace responsible." A concept that you agree with and to a degree I agree with. This is how they justify bombing buildings in New York and subways in London. This is the same reasoning that you used to say that we could attack buildings in Germany and Japan. Going as far as to nuke two cities in Japan(which by the way I supported for many reasons). The fact is that we needed to win WW2 and that is why we did "terrorism" in WW2. And that is why they are doing it today. They are at war with us and are holding our people ultimately responsible for the existence of our gov't and it actions. I'm sorry to say that the terrorists have a point here. Now can't we all just get along and crush the terrorists instead of invading the wrong countries and creating more.

Chris.

The people of Japan were willing to commit suicide for their God. The people who do suicide bombings today are obviously willing to do the same. The world still hasn't learned the lesson.

Thanks for your answers.

However, I take issue with the answer to question 2. The people attacking our country ... the people that our politicians say we are at war with (the war on terror) do not have a country. They don't have standard army or methods of attacking. You say that "in war the populace is held ultimately responsible for the existence of it's gov't". This is what the terrorist are saying to us. They are saying "Because your government supports our enemies we are hold the populace responsible." A concept that you agree with and to a degree I agree with. This is how they justify bombing buildings in New York and subways in London. This is the same reasoning that you used to say that we could attack buildings in Germany and Japan. Going as far as to nuke two cities in Japan(which by the way I supported for many reasons). The fact is that we needed to win WW2 and that is why we did "terrorism" in WW2. And that is why they are doing it today. They are at war with us and are holding our people ultimately responsible for the existence of our gov't and it actions. I'm sorry to say that the terrorists have a point here. Now can't we all just get along and crush the terrorists instead of invading the wrong countries and creating more.

Chris.

The people of Japan were willing to commit suicide for their God. The people who do suicide bombings today are obviously willing to do the same. The world still hasn't learned the lesson.

agreed.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Interesting point. I feel that nations and faiths do suicide bombings or attacks out of desperation when they don't have other resources to fight with. Japan did the majority of them when their war resources ran out. If Japan and Germany had beaten American's army in WW2 and were invading Kansas I feel that a few or maybe of lot of us Americans would have done suicide bombings or attacks. Don't you? Charge into emeny forces with no real chance to live ... just to weaken them in some chance that other Americans can live longer?

Chris.

Thanks for your answers.

However, I take issue with the answer to question 2. The people attacking our country ... the people that our politicians say we are at war with (the war on terror) do not have a country. They don't have standard army or methods of attacking. You say that "in war the populace is held ultimately responsible for the existence of it's gov't". This is what the terrorist are saying to us. They are saying "Because your government supports our enemies we are hold the populace responsible." A concept that you agree with and to a degree I agree with. This is how they justify bombing buildings in New York and subways in London. This is the same reasoning that you used to say that we could attack buildings in Germany and Japan. Going as far as to nuke two cities in Japan(which by the way I supported for many reasons). The fact is that we needed to win WW2 and that is why we did "terrorism" in WW2. And that is why they are doing it today. They are at war with us and are holding our people ultimately responsible for the existence of our gov't and it actions. I'm sorry to say that the terrorists have a point here. Now can't we all just get along and crush the terrorists instead of invading the wrong countries and creating more.

Chris.

The people of Japan were willing to commit suicide for their God. The people who do suicide bombings today are obviously willing to do the same. The world still hasn't learned the lesson.

---

The people of Japan were willing to commit suicide for their God.

The Japanese did it out of loyalty to their country, the 'terrorists' do it to fight persecution and oppression... ;)

(Maybe you should stop blaming God long enough to look yourself in the mirror.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Thanks for your answers.

However, I take issue with the answer to question 2. The people attacking our country ... the people that our politicians say we are at war with (the war on terror) do not have a country. They don't have standard army or methods of attacking. You say that "in war the populace is held ultimately responsible for the existence of it's gov't". This is what the terrorist are saying to us. They are saying "Because your government supports our enemies we are hold the populace responsible." A concept that you agree with and to a degree I agree with. This is how they justify bombing buildings in New York and subways in London. This is the same reasoning that you used to say that we could attack buildings in Germany and Japan. Going as far as to nuke two cities in Japan(which by the way I supported for many reasons). The fact is that we needed to win WW2 and that is why we did "terrorism" in WW2. And that is why they are doing it today. They are at war with us and are holding our people ultimately responsible for the existence of our gov't and it actions. I'm sorry to say that the terrorists have a point here. Now can't we all just get along and crush the terrorists instead of invading the wrong countries and creating more.

Chris.

The people of Japan were willing to commit suicide for their God. The people who do suicide bombings today are obviously willing to do the same. The world still hasn't learned the lesson.

They did not for their God. They have done for their Country an Tenno.

---

Thanks for your answers.

However, I take issue with the answer to question 2. The people attacking our country ... the people that our politicians say we are at war with (the war on terror) do not have a country. They don't have standard army or methods of attacking. You say that "in war the populace is held ultimately responsible for the existence of it's gov't". This is what the terrorist are saying to us. They are saying "Because your government supports our enemies we are hold the populace responsible." A concept that you agree with and to a degree I agree with. This is how they justify bombing buildings in New York and subways in London.

You're all over the place here. American B52s are clearly marked. The planes that firebombed Dresden were clearly marked. The civilian populace (not to mention the military) were well within their rights to seek to shoot them down.

But what you're doing is expanding a relatively small concept (terrorist, or terrorism) to apply to open warfare. That doesn't work because war, especially world war, is the ultimate attempt to completely and utterly disassemble the conventions of civilization. Similarly, military attacks can and are designed to bring about the goal of doing so.

That the mentally muddled try to justify bombings in New York and London the same way is just silly. Such tactics do not work and never have.

This is the same reasoning that you used to say that we could attack buildings in Germany and Japan. Going as far as to nuke two cities in Japan(which by the way I supported for many reasons). The fact is that we needed to win WW2 and that is why we did "terrorism" in WW2.

Again, the concept of terrorism is too small to be expanded to encompass all-out wars where an attempt is being made to utterly destroy a country or a culture.

And that is why they are doing it today. They are at war with us and are holding our people ultimately responsible for the existence of our gov't and it actions.

That they use such justifications does not mean that they have a valid point. Look at the idiocy posted on these boards as an example--just because people say stupid things does not mean that they are true.

The people you are referring to deliberately hide to do things to cause fear, to support an ideological agenda, that deliberately target innocents, and that cannot hope to bring about their desired result.

Attempting to win a world war, with clearly marked weapons and soldiers, as the non-aggressor, that can and did bring about the desired result is a much different concept.

I'm sorry to say that the terrorists have a point here.

To you, maybe. I think they are just so frustrated with impotence that they use these miserable tactics to make themselves feel better that they've done something.

Kinda like all the back-patters here, just not as bomby or killy.

Now can't we all just get along and crush the terrorists instead of invading the wrong countries and creating more.

This is once again just an opinion call. Killing "terrorists" over there is like shooting fish in a barrel. The more fanatic ones make it a point to travel over there, where they get to play the fish in the barrel.

While you may be of the mind that that "creat[es] more" of them, well, terrorists have existed long before the U.S. went into Iraq, and they will exist long after. Key point: they will exist because they always have and they always will. Dubya may annoy the crap out of a few more of them, but no matter who wins this election the net result is more status quo.

And there will plenty of terrorists regardless.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Thanks for your answers.

However, I take issue with the answer to question 2. The people attacking our country ... the people that our politicians say we are at war with (the war on terror) do not have a country. They don't have standard army or methods of attacking. You say that "in war the populace is held ultimately responsible for the existence of it's gov't". This is what the terrorist are saying to us. They are saying "Because your government supports our enemies we are hold the populace responsible." A concept that you agree with and to a degree I agree with. This is how they justify bombing buildings in New York and subways in London. This is the same reasoning that you used to say that we could attack buildings in Germany and Japan. Going as far as to nuke two cities in Japan(which by the way I supported for many reasons). The fact is that we needed to win WW2 and that is why we did "terrorism" in WW2. And that is why they are doing it today. They are at war with us and are holding our people ultimately responsible for the existence of our gov't and it actions. I'm sorry to say that the terrorists have a point here. Now can't we all just get along and crush the terrorists instead of invading the wrong countries and creating more.

Chris.

The people of Japan were willing to commit suicide for their God. The people who do suicide bombings today are obviously willing to do the same. The world still hasn't learned the lesson.

They did not for their God. They have done for their Country an Tenno.

Champ before the End of WWII in the Pacific Emperor Hirohito was considered a Living God, At the Surrender He became a Constitutional Monarch.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Japanese_consider_their_emperor_a_living_god

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's