Religious beliefs

[What_the]

I'm starting to very much detest the word terrorism. Lately it's used by those that don't understand warfare and the misery and death and desperation.

If one thinks that "terrorism/guerrilla tactics are something born from the '60s or '70s... you must be a millenial or naive; self absorbed nit wit with no comprehension of history.

Terror. A word prescribed by those on the receiving end. On the other, legitimate tactic.

I'll not bother citing historical reference as it's all there on Google.

We can drop tons of munitions for national interests but the guy that has nothing more than a truck and a Chinese/ Russian rifle for a few dollars is a terrorist.

While civilians are manufacturing arms that kill others, a fascination of innocence endures.

The targets of bombing, factories and logistical infra structure where civilians worked are not legitimate targets, or the civilians that inhabit and lives revolve around?
WWII changed that childish thought.

Ideo logical religion? Or desperation?

In the scope of think tank,
Discuss.

[cliffy1]

The biggest, most well funded and armed terrorist organization in the world is the United States of Aggression. Under Harper, Canada became the US's partner in crime along with NATO.

[FreeRights]

The issue here is that this is based on a belief that all combat tactics are the same. They are not.

A professional standing military has rules of engagement and utilizes tactics that are compliant with international standards. This is to reduce non-combatant casualties, as well as treatment of prisoners of war. Yes, there is often collateral damage - especially when the opposing force is operating out of civilian areas - but consider how much higher the number of casualties would be if care wasn't taken to reduce civilian casualties.

On the other side, the use of roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices, and attacks on military forces and convoys is unconventional, but it's targeting a military force, not a civilian one. This is not terrorism.

But to argue that a aerial bombing operation, which is designed to reduce collateral damage while targeting military infrastructure or forces, is the same as a suicide bombing in a civilian marketplace in Baghdad or hijacking civilian passenger jets and colliding them with civilian commercial towers, you would be wrong.

Both operations may create collateral damage. However, one has a clear military objective in mind, and the other targets civilian non-combatants specifically in order to spread terror in the aftermath.

[What_the]

I agree with much of what you said Free rights and is also expanding on my premise. However, I don't think all combat tactics are the same, hence this thread.

Using my WWII example, both axis and allied leveled cities, civilians, however the barbarity of this and the levels human kind will sink to in war, is my point. There are no rules at the end of day in warfare. I'm by no means saying I condone suicide bombers btw, just that in warfare whatever helps one's side to win.

Rules of engagement. I agree as an honourable people that we abide by that. I don't believe at all the vast majority of Canadian soldiers have any taste for the blood of women and children. On the contrary, I whole heartedly believe they signed up for the greater good as they are men who grew up in the same just and honourable land I did, and I trust them to do the right thing, even if it means dying for those principles.

Terror as a warfare tactic.
We could go through history and pick out tons of examples.
I'll use this one for illumination-
Punji stake ground traps.
They don't diminish combat efficiency, they do however affect the morale of the men in the field, and the will to fight was a deciding factor in many historical battles.
That is a form of terror tactics.
Another I could use- the advance of the ottomans into Wallachia. Scorched earth policy and coming across hundreds of people impaled on stakes, the force commander withdrew, quoting "how can we win with our opponent able to be so barbaric?"
Again, terror tactic. That worked. Barbaric yes, against an overwhelming opponent? Sound.

As I said, although citing a couple references, I See no need to actually cite history and what's there for anyone to look up.

In the context I'm speaking about, there is a "trillion dollar" industrial war machine vs people right or wrongly, fighting for their families, their country, their way of life, their beliefs. How is that different from us?

Terror tactics are used by all sides, again, google will confirm that statement. To cite- the U.S. dropped more tonnage on north and south Vietnam than all sides in WWII. It's war, civilians die in this day and age.

I have no doubt in my heart and intellect that human kind is the same all over the world. We want nothing more than to provide for our families; show up to work, and work hard, provide a home for our elderly parents and children. That is a constant of evolutionary legacy.

Unless of course one has their familial duties high jacked by ideological and religious means, Not fighting against oppression, whether that's within one's own society or another foreign power, but within the confines of honour and just and right.

Islam? It's just another man made construct, and used against what's in all human kind hearts.
In traditional Europe, Asia and middle east, (used to be anyway. and is in my house hold) the greatest honour is giving food to a stranger who needed it. Not in north America, we're content here to let people starve in the streets. Digressing.

In my opinion, the people that use the word "terrorist" are those that have literally everything and do not have a foreign power whose their armies boots on their ground.

Forgive the disjointedness .I'm not writing a thesis paper for my Phd.

[Glacier]

The biggest, most well funded and armed terrorist organization in the world is the United States of Aggression. Under Harper, Canada became the US's partner in crime along with NATO.

So when you have the religious fanatics (Islamic Jihad) against the secular fanatics (US Military Industrial Complex), the latter is worse?

[maryjane48]

The issue here is that this is based on a belief that all combat tactics are the same. They are not.

A professional standing military has rules of engagement and utilizes tactics that are compliant with international standards. This is to reduce non-combatant casualties, as well as treatment of prisoners of war. Yes, there is often collateral damage - especially when the opposing force is operating out of civilian areas - but consider how much higher the number of casualties would be if care wasn't taken to reduce civilian casualties.

On the other side, the use of roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices, and attacks on military forces and convoys is unconventional, but it's targeting a military force, not a civilian one. This is not terrorism.

But to argue that a aerial bombing operation, which is designed to reduce collateral damage while targeting military infrastructure or forces, is the same as a suicide bombing in a civilian marketplace in Baghdad or hijacking civilian passenger jets and colliding them with civilian commercial towers, you would be wrong.

Both operations may create collateral damage. However, one has a clear military objective in mind, and the other targets civilian non-combatants specifically in order to spread terror in the aftermath.

no ones arguing against that . when what you describe takes place its all good . but usa uses drones with the intentiion of scaring the enemy in a non traditional military way .

on youtube pilots and crew have uploaded video of attack runs in a10 and big prop gunship platforms . some its a regular as you say missions but others the crew isnt really sure who they shooting at and you can hear the crew talking about if it is the enemy and if it isnt they have made huge mistake .

and abu the jail in iraq , that was repulsive as a westener to think a north american army would degrade itself like that . torture for kicks is banana republic grade warfare .


the americans have every right to protect themselves and they should but invading vietnam for instance was the americans aggresivly trying to scare the russians and chinese . which again is fine but i bet even the americans would admit off tape it was really a straight military operation . there were never plans to occupy hanoi for instance .


when the americans went after pablo escabar its known history that military provided the pepes info to go after pablos frends and family . the pepes were a terrorist group formed and paid by the cali cartel to take pablo out by any means and the americans knew exactly what them people were up to .

and andrew jackson used terror tactics on first nations in states to try and heel them to the govts wishes or ourtright kill them off .