London

[ALawPoker]

Right, overthrowing a dangerous dictator who kills thousands of people a year (and sacrificing our own troops safety and efficiency in order to protect innocent people) is the same thing as flying a plance into a building and intentionally killing thousands of innocents. Give me a break. I usually appreciate rational decent, but you my friend are 100% irrational. Go move to Iran if you love them so much. Or better yet, just do the whole world a favor and put a gun to your head.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, overthrowing a dangerous dictator who kills thousands of people a year (and sacrificing our own troops safety and efficiency in order to protect innocent people) is the same thing as flying a plance into a building and intentionally killing thousands of innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're talking about reasoning behind going to war. It has nothing to do with the post I made, talking about what war is. Innocent people die in every war, and any justification you make for it, and even very good ones doesn't change that fact. War is about people dying, people getting killed by other people, and nothing else.

Terrorism is a ruthless barbaric form of warfare that kills innocent people.

Warfare is a ruthless barbaric form of warfare that kills innocent people.

[Gamblor]

Warfare is done by uniformed soldiers who volunteer or are otherwise compensated for their efforts. Warfare is done by sovereign nations who protect their ideals by force, and most importantly, the targets are aware that they are targets and are afforded the opportunity and means to defend themselves.

Terrorism is committed against unknowing civilians who are unaware that they are targets. Warfare is done by political groups that are unwilling to fight face to face and wish to take advantage of democracy by terrorizing its citizens into demanding policy change.

[bluewilde]

I agree that both war and terrorism result in the deaths of innocents and that this makes both abhorrent. But I really do feel as though it's the intentions of the attackers in these conflicts that make one barbaric and the other not. I feel there are just wars and barbaric wars, but that terrorism is always barbaric. One regrettably kills innocents and the other intentionally kills innocents. From your post, however, it seems that while this distinction matters to me, it doesn't matter to you. Does this make our views irreconcilible? What do you think?

On a completely different note, it was mentioned above that terrorism has causes and these causes can be removed. Inasmuch as terrorists claim the policies of certain nations are at the core of their, the terrorist's, actions, this is true. But I suspect an element of terrorist's motivation is thirst for power. The US and other western countries do not only encroach on their culture, but their ability to exert control over their own people. I feel that many terrorist groups are playing on political and religious themes for their personal pursuit of power, not the best interst of those they claim to represent. Thoughts?

I am very interested in these discussions. Thanks for a great thread guys,

Blue

[lastchance]

Wars about killing other people. A terrorist may regret the fact that he is killing someone, but does it for his cause. A soldier will do the same thing.

Gamblor, why the hell are you giving the other person a fighting chance? And why does it make War somehow acceptable? War is not a fair thing. If you don't play fair, you'll live without honor. If you play fair, you'll die with honor. I'd rather live without honor. When it comes down to it, in war, you're putting everything on the line. If you're putting your life and other people's lives in trouble, then the stakes are already far too high to give them a chance to shoot back.

Agree with your second paragraph, bluewilde. A lot of people fight for self-interest, hell, most people do, but terrorism doesn't get started without support. Removing support singlehandedly winz.