today (friday, march 21, 2003) we saw the beggining of the "shock and awe" campaign. it is designed to frighten the Iraqis into submission.

the question is: is this not terrorism? it is designed to shock and frighten the Iraqis so much so they don't fight, or do much of any thing else. 9/11 was designed to "shock and awe" us into submission to whomever commited those atrocities, so how is this different?

points to debate: is this terrorism? why or why not?

The campaign is designed to limit casualties, not cause them. Don't just interpret the name, look at the tactics. They are targetting SPECIFIC buildings, not looking to maximize casualties (as terrorists would).

This question is idiotic.

Let's avoid snide commentary like this. It does nothing to add to a constructive debate.

The question certainly isn't idiotic.

Anyone who takes ten seconds to look up the definition of terrorism realizes that this question is in fact very relevant.

Per dictionary.com:



So, according to dictionary.com, this is terrorism.

Then again, we must realize that definitions do change with time and circumstances; these dictionaries have not likely been updated in some time.

Mike

With questions like this I always go look up the actual definition of the word in question and see if its meaning is in line with the perceived view of such.

This is what I found (note: this is just using a basic net dictionary so the definition in a major text could be slightly different)

ter·ror·ist [ térrrist ] (plural ter·ror·ists)
noun

somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes

With that definition, and using that definition only the arguments can be used both way. It will all come down to weather or not you or anyone else thinks, feels, knows this is for political reason

I personally do not think it is terrorism, and as Mike said, you cannot just take the literal definition and apply it. If you saw some of the bombing on TV, there were many instances where military installations were hit with apartments and other buildings right next door, which remained unhit. If it was terrorism then you would see our bombs hitting the apartments and all the residential areas, trying to maximize innocent death. I guess that is another difference between the US and terrorists, seeing how in their eyes there are no "innocent" Americans and that we are all evil and should be killed. Our strikes are painstakingly and expensively targeted so as to not kill innocent people. If we did not care we could just carpet bomb the entire city and just level it and be done with it, but we don't.

Mike, how do you figure that this is an "unlawful" use of force? The Congress approved war against Iraq last year link. . .aren't they the ones that pass the laws. By your perspective, any battle or attack is an act of terrorism.

I don't think that the term terrorism really applies to government entities. Governments can support terrorism, but they can't really be terrorists semantically.

I was speaking to the relevancy of the question, not my personal views.

Mike

I personally see this type of bombing as terrorism. it is meant to "terrorize" the Iraqi people into submission, or shock an awe them as the pentagon says. this is meant to persaude the iraqi's (all of them) from do much of anything, much less fight back. terrorism to me means more then deliberate targeting of civilians, it also means the delibirate terrorization of civilians as well (the anthrax attacks were considered a terrorist attack, yet less then 20 people died) the purpose of terrorism is to frighten people.

I did watch the opening strike of "shock and awe" and I know if I were an Iraqi citizen, I would terrorized. perhaps we could call it "surgical" terrorism? and despite all efforts, many innocent people are likely to die.

If the USA were engaging with Iraq as a terrorist would, the only living things in Bahgdad would be cockroaches. The shock and awe tactic is designed to minimize casualties by getting Iraqi's to surrender.

There is a huge difference between what the US is doing and what terrorists do. Especially terrorists as we have come to know them, muslim extremists who want to go back to living in caves and flogging their women. People who don't see the difference make me laugh.

No. I don't agree that this 'Shock and Awe' tactic is terrorism. If it is, then so is all warfare.

I don't think this is terrorism but it is a way to scare the living crud out of saddam's Elite(cough cough) Republican Guard into surrendering so causalties are limited on our side as well as theirs, civilian & military

Didn't the terrorists blow up the WTC to scare us into leaving the Middle East and/or converting to Islam?

My understanding the WTC was a matter of revenge. Which is what a lot of muslim extremists are all about (take a look at Hamas, etc in Palestine). It would be pretty naive to think that knocking down a couple of buildings would have more effect than *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** America off. If you want to convert me to Islam, you had better nuke a lot of cities, then I'll be out in the street on my rug facing east daily.

I seriously doubt you would find a group of muslim extremists who are interested in conquering America by force and then forking it over to the Americans after rebuilding it. You will find plenty who think that a big smoking crater where America is right now would be A-OK in their book.

How can it be terrorism when everybody knew it was coming?

Bagdad was practically a ghost town before the attacks. Anybody who stayed knew what the risks were.

This is a war. We are trying to win and protect our country. If this is terrorism I don't care. Our brand of terror is aimed at an evil totaliterian state. We are fighting a war and in wars really mean things tend to happen.

I may not agree with the "shock and awe" strategy, but I don't think it qualifies as terrorism. As far as the definitions and everything goes though, I question the tactic implemented immediately prior to the "S&A" where we tried to take out Saddam Hussein. Apparently "Commander in Chiefs" are now considered nothing more than enemy combatants and are subject to assassination... only it isn't classified as assassination -- rather it is an "act of war." But that's a topic for another thread....

Trying to simply assassinate a person I think could have qualified as terrorism if we used the term loosely. As for the rest of the bombings, though, I don't think so.

I also dont agree that this is a form of terrorism. If this should be an act of terrorism then most everything else that goes on in the world could also mean terrorism.The shock and awe theory is only meant to drive home the point to saddam that it would be in his best interest to surrender to avoid his people to further shock.The man cannot and will not win this war,

Actually it was

The United States, according to Osama, has invaded Mecca because we have a base in Saudi Arabia.

Also, in a letter supposivly written by Osama, he said the attacks on American interests would stop if all Americans converted to Islam. I know you will probably want a link or something but i can not provide it

I watched the "shock and awe" thing all day on TV today. I would be probably terrified if I was there. But, as far as I can see the U.S. targeted specific buildings. They also left the lights on in both Kuwait and Bagdad. It was reported that was to insure the Iraqis they were not there to kill innocent people. They were there to destroy Buildings.
It's been reported many of his country men hated him because he was can't think of a better word "nut case".
I wonder because we do not live under those circumstances do you think the every day civilian knew what was coming if he didn't resign.
Was it reported on the air waves what was going to happen?
I think if the civilians were not informed I would tend to think they might regard this as a terriorist act.
Maybe I am way off base. but what do you think about this? Do you think they were informed? I think because so many did not like him, and they were informed why were there not forces taken against him? Or was he just so powerful there was nothing they could do?

That's okay, GA - even the CIA hasn't been able to provide links to those sorts of statements.

I would not, personally, consider "shock and awe" terrorism (even if the intent is to "terrorize"). On the other hand, if it is not terrorism, then I don't see how anyone can accuse Saddam Hussein of being a terrorist, either. All his acts of violence have been in the context of war as well...

The question itself is evidence enough.

With the intention of perfecting our moral foundation, Americans go out of our way to see things from other perspectives - no matter how damaging that viewpoint may be. "What is right is right for everyone," we say and attempt to hold ourselves up to the same standard as we hold everyone else.

Considering ourselves "terrorists" is unpleasant, but we are willing to do it. We are willing to reflect on whether or not our moral foundation is right.

Ideally, "What is right is right for everyone." we say and in this, we serve the rule. If we are wrong then we change. The rule stays. The rule doesn't serve us. We serve it. This is our ideal. We may do things that contradict this, but as a vision, this is it.

Terrorists envision the opposite. Their rules serve them. They believe that they are "right" in killing us because it serves their interests. They consider us "wrong" for killing them. There is no reflection. They are not willing to extend their philosophy of "right" and "wrong" to other people and other countries. Their vision does not allow for debate, discussion, or dissension. No one can ever "agree to disagree" with them. It is their way or the highway.

In this sense, they are unreasonable.

And underneath this fervor lies cooly, calcuated violence on civilians by civilians, which leaves no room for debate, discussion , or dissension.

America and France may have disagreements, but there is a mutual understanding that respects each other's existence.

Terrorists respect only their own point of view.

The difference between terrorists and the US is cultural in this sense.

jjirout

The question should be : is war terrorism?

I submit that tactics of war which are designed specifically to NOT target civilians cannot fall under the category of terrorism.



Everyone knew the war was coming and that it would specifically target Baghdad heavily. I tend to agree with this assessment. ABC (among others) reports on Iraqi preparations for war (boarding up buildings, hoarding supplies, etc.) ABC reports

My view is that traditional tactics of war DO NOT fall into the category of war...and that includes applying overwhelming force (a classic tactic if you ask me) on specific places (a new tactic probably only available to the US).

I think technically we are trying to scare the crap out of SH and other enemies, however, I think this is just phsycological warfare, could you call it terror, yeah, I guess, but we aren't targeting people we are targeting the Iraqi regeme, who are terrorists themselves.

CP

I do not belive that the 'shock and awe' tactic we are using could be considered terrorism. I say that because of the fact that:

1. We do not target civilians

2. As far as I am concerned the whole tactic is implied, unlike a terrorist who would send a letter with a peice of someones ear we just said "hey, your government is doing something that it shouldn't, if it continues to do so we will have to do something about it ... you might want to stick around when we do"

3. We are a country, not a "minority" group (alot of people are calling terrorist that)Therefor we take responsability for our actions if we kill thousands of civilians we get in trouble.