
Journal mercedo's Journal: The Cause of Terror 20
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 (Score:2)
Re:I disagree with your split (Score:1)
*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 (Score:2)
Re:I disagree with your split (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:I disagree with your split (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:I disagree with your split (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:I disagree with your split (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)