StarGateWars Forums

what does it take for somthing to be considered terrorism? one could say that terror attacks are part of war yet when our side attacks its not terrorism

one mans hero is anothers villian

same to terrorism

most * i say most* are classified as terrorists by states but most are considered heros to people there fighting for or liberators if you agree rightly or wrongly Irish groups were called terrorists by Britain but were considered liberators in parts of the USA And Ireland itself to the good Friday agreement

so it is not a easy answer

Terrorism is using tactics to inflict fear on a civilian population with no how should i say no support for liberation of a country but just a group that kills members of a certain country just because they dont like their policies

Almost38 wrote:what does it take for somthing to be considered terrorism? one could say that terror attacks are part of war yet when our side attacks its not terrorism

terrorism is the spreading of terror as a political levearage.
usually, by attacking civilian population.
an attack on military forces (regular, or militia) is not usually considered an act of terror.

Hitchkok wrote:

Almost38 wrote:what does it take for somthing to be considered terrorism? one could say that terror attacks are part of war yet when our side attacks its not terrorism

terrorism is the spreading of terror as a political levearage.
usually, by attacking civilian population.
an attack on military forces (regular, or militia) is not usually considered an act of terror.

what do u consider the predator drone strike then

Almost38 wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Almost38 wrote:what does it take for somthing to be considered terrorism? one could say that terror attacks are part of war yet when our side attacks its not terrorism

terrorism is the spreading of terror as a political levearage.
usually, by attacking civilian population.
an attack on military forces (regular, or militia) is not usually considered an act of terror.

what do u consider the predator drone strike then

a machine.
neither good, nor bad.
the way it's used is what counts.
if it's used as SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) in an all out war, it's not terrorism. if it's used to target civilians in anything less than an all out war, it is (if it's used to target civilians in an all out war, it is a crime of war).

Almost38 wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Almost38 wrote:what does it take for somthing to be considered terrorism? one could say that terror attacks are part of war yet when our side attacks its not terrorism

terrorism is the spreading of terror as a political levearage.
usually, by attacking civilian population.
an attack on military forces (regular, or militia) is not usually considered an act of terror.

what do u consider the predator drone strike then

Cowardice, imbued with technological superiority. *grin*
A cowardice, merited by the superiority of the Army of the United States of America. It saves lives, particularly the lives of the US soldiers, which makes the use of Predator Drones a valid tactic to reduce losses.

Collateral damage will always be there.. and the enemy needs to know that under whatever rock he hides, once he will be seen, he will be hit. So the occasional goat farmer and his family are hit.. would you rather see entire mountainsides cave under carpet bombardment?

I know what I'd prefer if I were one of the country's inhabitants.



The concept of all-out war is a thing of history. It no longer exists. Military and international law should reflect these changes.






Daisy-cutters are so beautiful. Bring it on!

u ccan make the same argument for when al quadi attacks or any terrorist organization

Almost38 wrote:u ccan make the same argument for when al quadi attacks or any terrorist organization

no, you can't.
you can, in a pinch, use it for the attack on the pentagon (in a pinch, cause the passengers of the airplane were not "collateral-damage". it was absolutely certain that they will die).
but the attack on the WTC? what martial porpuse did that serve?

Almost38 wrote:u ccan make the same argument for when al quadi attacks or any terrorist organization

You could, but it wouldn't hold up.
Any attacks aimed at the civilian population of a country or region you are fighting is a criminal action.

Al Qaeda doesn't attack military targets. Insurrectionists in Afghanistan and Iraq attack military targets, these are regrettable, but not criminal. Al Qaeda attacks targets of opportunity, preferably civilians. That is criminal.
Given their goal, it is the most logical course of action, but that doesn't make it any less criminal.


You can't really compare an organisation and a country's war efforts. Organisations fight for nothing tangible.

Juliette wrote:

Almost38 wrote:u ccan make the same argument for when al quadi attacks or any terrorist organization

You could, but it wouldn't hold up.
Any attacks aimed at the civilian population of a country or region you are fighting is a criminal action.

Al Qaeda doesn't attack military targets. Insurrectionists in Afghanistan and Iraq attack military targets, these are regrettable, but not criminal. Al Qaeda attacks targets of opportunity, preferably civilians. That is criminal.
Given their goal, it is the most logical course of action, but that doesn't make it any less criminal.

BTW, what IS their goal?

Hitchkok wrote:

Almost38 wrote:u ccan make the same argument for when al quadi attacks or any terrorist organization

no, you can't.
you can, in a pinch, use it for the attack on the pentagon (in a pinch, cause the passengers of the airplane were not "collateral-damage". it was absolutely certain that they will die).
but the attack on the WTC? what martial porpuse did that serve?

attack the world TRADE center that was an economic target every militsry attacks civilians targets during a war u have to sure the bombing of the bus was an act of terrorism im not supporting any of these attacks

Almost38 wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Almost38 wrote:u ccan make the same argument for when al quadi attacks or any terrorist organization

no, you can't.
you can, in a pinch, use it for the attack on the pentagon (in a pinch, cause the passengers of the airplane were not "collateral-damage". it was absolutely certain that they will die).
but the attack on the WTC? what martial porpuse did that serve?

attack the world TRADE center that was an economic target every militsry attacks civilians targets during a war u have to sure the bombing of the bus was an act of terrorism im not supporting any of these attacks

Contrary to popular belief, the amount of trade going through the WTC was pretty insignificant. A street-side bank saw more traffic. The attack on the World Trade Center, if for economic reasons, was comparable to carpet bombing Kabul because the local ice cream man was a 'target of economic opportunity'. Your remark doesn't work.

Hitchkok wrote:

Juliette wrote:Al Qaeda doesn't attack military targets. Insurrectionists in Afghanistan and Iraq attack military targets, these are regrettable, but not criminal. Al Qaeda attacks targets of opportunity, preferably civilians. That is criminal.
Given their goal, it is the most logical course of action, but that doesn't make it any less criminal.

BTW, what IS their goal?

Show how marvellously civilised muslims are. Didn't you hear? "Brothers of the Faith, today we have struck a blow against the Heart of the Great Shaitan." That was, as I recall, the first reply by Al Qaeda to the attacks on the WTC. Clearly a crusade/jihad/holy war. And crusade/jihad/holy war are aimed at killing as many infidels as you can. Us Westerners should know this, we've done it before. Against your (hitchkok's) people too, I believe?

Juliette wrote:

Almost38 wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Almost38 wrote:u ccan make the same argument for when al quadi attacks or any terrorist organization

no, you can't.
you can, in a pinch, use it for the attack on the pentagon (in a pinch, cause the passengers of the airplane were not "collateral-damage". it was absolutely certain that they will die).
but the attack on the WTC? what martial porpuse did that serve?

attack the world TRADE center that was an economic target every militsry attacks civilians targets during a war u have to sure the bombing of the bus was an act of terrorism im not supporting any of these attacks

Contrary to popular belief, the amount of trade going through the WTC was pretty insignificant. A street-side bank saw more traffic. The attack on the World Trade Center, if for economic reasons, was comparable to carpet bombing Kabul because the local ice cream man was a 'target of economic opportunity'. Your remark doesn't work.

Hitchkok wrote:

Juliette wrote:Al Qaeda doesn't attack military targets. Insurrectionists in Afghanistan and Iraq attack military targets, these are regrettable, but not criminal. Al Qaeda attacks targets of opportunity, preferably civilians. That is criminal.
Given their goal, it is the most logical course of action, but that doesn't make it any less criminal.

BTW, what IS their goal?

Show how marvellously civilised muslims are. Didn't you hear? "Brothers of the Faith, today we have struck a blow against the Heart of the Great Shaitan." That was, as I recall, the first reply by Al Qaeda to the attacks on the WTC. Clearly a crusade/jihad/holy war. And crusade/jihad/holy war are aimed at killing as many infidels as you can. Us Westerners should know this, we've done it before. Against your (hitchkok's) people too, I believe?

its not all Muslim that are terrorist history is written by the victor simply said anything can be made out to look bad and the attack was econmic the stock market and our eceonmy stoped even if for just a moment

Juliette wrote:Show how marvellously civilised muslims are. Didn't you hear? "Brothers of the Faith, today we have struck a blow against the Heart of the Great Shaitan." That was, as I recall, the first reply by Al Qaeda to the attacks on the WTC. Clearly a crusade/jihad/holy war. And crusade/jihad/holy war are aimed at killing as many infidels as you can. Us Westerners should know this, we've done it before. Against your (hitchkok's) people too, I believe?

Not to forget they also target within muslim nations, because it's not only being muslims which is the only path to take according to them, but the archaic, erroneous and outdated version of islam.
Makes me wonder why more and more people in muslim nations (and non muslim nations such as countries in European continent, mine included) follow indirectly what such terrorist groups want to see (radicalisation of islam) considering those same terrorist groups are the one killing civilians in same nations they pretend to defend. And people follow what their murderers tell them to do..*facepalm*

Almost38 wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Almost38 wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Almost38 wrote:u ccan make the same argument for when al quadi attacks or any terrorist organization

no, you can't.
you can, in a pinch, use it for the attack on the pentagon (in a pinch, cause the passengers of the airplane were not "collateral-damage". it was absolutely certain that they will die).
but the attack on the WTC? what martial porpuse did that serve?

attack the world TRADE center that was an economic target every militsry attacks civilians targets during a war u have to sure the bombing of the bus was an act of terrorism im not supporting any of these attacks

Contrary to popular belief, the amount of trade going through the WTC was pretty insignificant. A street-side bank saw more traffic. The attack on the World Trade Center, if for economic reasons, was comparable to carpet bombing Kabul because the local ice cream man was a 'target of economic opportunity'. Your remark doesn't work.

Hitchkok wrote:

Juliette wrote:Al Qaeda doesn't attack military targets. Insurrectionists in Afghanistan and Iraq attack military targets, these are regrettable, but not criminal. Al Qaeda attacks targets of opportunity, preferably civilians. That is criminal.
Given their goal, it is the most logical course of action, but that doesn't make it any less criminal.

BTW, what IS their goal?

Show how marvellously civilised muslims are. Didn't you hear? "Brothers of the Faith, today we have struck a blow against the Heart of the Great Shaitan." That was, as I recall, the first reply by Al Qaeda to the attacks on the WTC. Clearly a crusade/jihad/holy war. And crusade/jihad/holy war are aimed at killing as many infidels as you can. Us Westerners should know this, we've done it before. Against your (hitchkok's) people too, I believe?

its not all Muslim that are terrorist

this is true and important to remember.
i do not believe Julli intented to imply that they were.

Almost38 wrote: history is written by the victor simply said anything can be made out to look bad and the attack was econmic the stock market and our eceonmy stoped even if for just a moment

the attack was not economic, and even in an all out war an attack on civilian buildings not immediatly serving the war effort is not legitimate.
attacking an iron mill to stop production of tanks? an act of war.
attacking a residential/commercial area? a crime of war.