mercedo's Journal: The Cause of Terror

I just juxtaposed two entire different causes in terror - and I am not still sure which factor is more than the other. Maybe proverty might be a reason in part but not in the least all the causes of terror, at the same time just show-off in a world stage does not explain everything.

Battle is an act of terror in time of war.

Terror is an act of battle in time of peace.

We cannot argue the cause of terror as the same lebel as the war held between countries though, now it is certain we live under the age of unpredictability, the fact we've been living in peace till yesterday does not guarantee the peaceful day today.

In other words, the age of uncertainty.

I disagree with your split

[Marxist Hacker 42]

To me- the time of war (official declaration) isn't as important as the targets and purposes. Battle is an act of violence between opposing military forces whose commanders choose where, when, and how the conflict happens, in hopes of overcoming one's enemies by sheer force. Terrorism is an act of violence by a military force against a civilian population- carefully timed and designed to create some form of political response. The two major differences therefore are 1. who is harmed (civilian vs military

Re:I disagree with your split

[eglamkowski]

But by and large throughout history, there's been a major attempt on the part of the world's armies to not affect civilian populations.

*blink*

And when exactly does your version of history begin? And end? And what parts of the planet does it cover?

Complete and total obliteration of entire enemy populations was common in ancient times. Carthage is merely the most famous example.

And such actions are hardly confined to ancient times, although the scope of such actions hasn't always been as grand (though

Re:I disagree with your split

[Marxist Hacker 42]

We can also go through a whole litany, begining with the Bahgavad Gita in the Hindu Vidas, of holy books and holy armies specifically AVOIDING civilian populations- and last I looked, that holy book was about 500 years older than Moses. There are plenty of examples on both sides- but when the military codes of honor get written down, they tend to avoid the counter examples you mention- and thus most soldiers in the world TODAY are taught with avoidance of civilian casualties being a major point of the just

Re:I disagree with your split

[eglamkowski]

I still disagree with you - the laws of war, the military codes of honor, were well known to Sherman, Grant, John Kerry (in Vietnam, along with many others) the japanese military, the german military, and all the rest, but they intentionally, deliberately ignored them.

I'm not talking about collateral damage here. Targetting of civlians happens regardless of what the laws of warfare say about it. Whether the violators get charged or not usually depends on whether their side wins or loses is all.

Hell, we

Re:I disagree with your split

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I still disagree with you - the laws of war, the military codes of honor, were well known to Sherman, Grant, John Kerry (in Vietnam, along with many others) the japanese military, the german military, and all the rest, but they intentionally, deliberately ignored them.

In fact, if anything, I'm coming over to your side- in at least three other messages today I've argued that to win it's NECESSARY to ignore these codes of honor- deliberately and with as much intent to induce terror as the terrorists.

One gr

Re:I disagree with your split

[Stargoat]

Tamerlane
Sherman
Attila
Ghengis Khan
Scipio the Younger
Mao
Pol Pot
Xerxes
Babur
Li Zicheng
Stalin
Simon de Montfort

Anyway. It's not terror that wins wars.

Wars are won by making the enemy not able to fight you. There are three ways to accomplish this.

1. Make him dead. (Easy explanation.)

2. Place him in jail. (Concentration camp, prison camp, just plain ole' prison.)

3. Make him not want to fight you. (Scare him too badly to fight you, give him something better to do like pray, make mone

Re:I disagree with your split

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Anyway. It's not terror that wins wars.

A funny thing to say right after a list of terrorists who won wars through correct use of terror.

Wars are won by making the enemy not able to fight you. There are three ways to accomplish this.

1. Make him dead. (Easy explanation.)

2. Place him in jail. (Concentration camp, prison camp, just plain ole' prison.)

3. Make him not want to fight you. (Scare him too badly to fight you, give him something better to do like pray, make money, etc)



Did you note that

Re:I disagree with your split

[Stargoat]

You completely missed the point.

Terror is a means to an end. It is not the end, nor the only means to the end.

For example, the recent unpleasantness in Yugoslavia was not solved through terrorism. The local people were convinced there was something better to do.

The trouble in Carthage was solved by killing everyone.

The Boer War solution involved placing the entire populance in jail and killing the rest.

Re:I disagree with your split

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Asside from Yugoslavia (and even there, HOW were they convinced to do something better? By a genocide and mass graves and war crimes trials), your examples are all terrorism of one form or another. But yes, I completely agree that terrorism is only a means to an end- but the problem is, it seems to be a neccessary means- the ends would not be accomplished without it. The real value lies in the search for different means.

Re:I disagree with your split

[Stargoat]

In Yugoslavia, the people were convinced that NATO would back them up. I've spoken with some of the people in the final protest, and they were just tired of being hungry, and hated by the rest of Europe. They knew that the war was wrong, and they wanted to get on with their lives.

Carthage had nothing to do with terror. It had everything to do with solving the problem permanently.

The Boer War was solved by placing the civilian population in concentration camps, denying the guerrillas access to the po

Re:I disagree with your split

[Marxist Hacker 42]

My point is that terrorism is in the eye of the victim. From that point of view, do you think the Carthageans thought that their own genocide was mere convential warfare? Or the Boers on their imprisonment? Both of these examples would likely be called terrorism by the populations they were applied to.

You're still stuck in winner-written history; try looking at it from the loser's point of view before you condemn utterly (I'm one to talk- I support the destruction of Mecca at this point).

Re:I disagree with your split

[Stargoat]

The Carthageans did not think much about their genocide. They were dead.

The Boers were imprisoned, not terrorized. They might have been annoyed, even scared, but not terrorized.

I'm not stuck in any winner-written history, rather I am forcing the actions to be viewed the way they took place. Actions are what matter in this case. The complete destruction of Mecca, for example, would be terrorism, as it does not kill a specific nation of people; much as the bombing of Dresden was terrorism. The compl

Re:I disagree with your split

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I never quite agreed with Kant. Effects to me are often as important as the original intent. Especially when you're dealing with the type of people who have yet to forgive the Mongols for Ghengis Kahn.

Re:I disagree with your split

[Stargoat]

Heh. But Khan wanted to cause terror.

Normally, I would agree with you, but in this case, because we are attempting to define different styles of warfare, we must acknowledge the aggressor's Grand Strategic intent. The actual outcome is technically irrelevant, as long as it resembles what was intended. (If it is not, it's called a failure.)

Re:I disagree with your split

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Then we have agreement- because I most certainly consider the Iran and Afghani fronts in the war on terror to be FAILURES.

Re:I disagree with your split

[iminplaya]

...try looking at it from the loser's point of view before you condemn utterly (I'm one to talk- I support the destruction of Mecca at this point).

Oh thank you for saying that. That kind of honesty is SOOO refreshing. I've been trying to get people to see things from the other side for so long. It's a big part of my rant against the machine. You are the first that I've seen to acknowledge that, and I salute you for it. As that line of thinking becomes more prominent, the urge to destroy should diminish ov

Re:I disagree with your split

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Oh thank you for saying that. That kind of honesty is SOOO refreshing. I've been trying to get people to see things from the other side for so long. It's a big part of my rant against the machine. You are the first that I've seen to acknowledge that, and I salute you for it. As that line of thinking becomes more prominent, the urge to destroy should diminish over time. Please, don't ever lose that thought.

What you don't understand is that the urge to destroy is NOT comming from the history- it's comming f

Re:I disagree with your split

[iminplaya]

We're stuck with it.

I'm still willing to see what happens when we stop antagonizing them. Then an appropriate conclusion can be drawn. Until then, we just can't know what their intentions are. It's going to take a giant step on our part, but this time, we have to make the first move. They will not stop until we make that move. If they don't stop afterword, then we will know, and we can act. Justly, this time. We won't have to let them reach our shores. We just have to watch very carefully. As it is, there

Re:I disagree with your split

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'm still willing to see what happens when we stop antagonizing them.

Ghengis Khan stopped antagonizing them 600 years ago- and Mongols who stray to Afghanistan still get pelted with rocks. What makes you think the anger will go away just because we stop unilaterally?

Then an appropriate conclusion can be drawn. Until then, we just can't know what their intentions are.

It has been tried in the past with semitic cultures- it almost always fails. I'm not sure if that's a flaw in their culture- in many wa

Re:I disagree with your split

[mercedo]

Battle is a use of force in time of war, basically between regular armed forces in which to fight is duty, obligation so it is completely in line with law and order, regulation, etc. But the word terror connotes illegality, that ought not to be occurred. Terror is a use of force by those who are not authorised to exercise use of force, so use of force by armed forces toward civilians who don't bear arms falls in this category in narrow sense, but use of force against militia - civilians who bear arms, and g