Will terrorism some day be an accepted part of warfare?

[NuclearNed]

I don't know why, but I was thinking about the American Revolutionary war today. Remember those pictures in your old history books of soldiers lining up in straight lines on opposite sides of the field and firing at each other like ducks in a shooting gallery? I remember one of my teachers saying that back then this was the "honorable" way people waged war. Also, she said something about how the British thought that colonial Americans were cowardly savages for taking cover, engaging in sneak attacks, and other tactics that are part of modern warfare. I'm sure the British at one time would have never imagined stooping so low as to try to dodge incoming fire from their enemies, yet today things are different.

So I started thinking about how I think that terrorists are cowardly people with little honor because of the methods they use to achieve their goals. I'm not in any way trying to justify their tactics, and until the day I die I will think of them as madmen. But as time goes on, will terrorist tactics (i.e. attacking non-military targets and civilians) become more of the norm of warfare?

 

[WhiteKnight]

Wow, I was just talking about this the other day with my fiancee. Great minds think alike, and coincidently so do we.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

not in any civilized country.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Eh... terrorism is meant to instill fear into your enemies, not necessarily to kill/disable them. Not really a valid warfare tactic.

 

[quakefiend420]

makes you wonder...

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
not in any civilized country.

My point is that "civilized" takes on different meanings to different people at different times. "Civilized" warfare was once much different than it is today.

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Eh... terrorism is meant to instill fear into your enemies, not necessarily to kill/disable them. Not really a valid warfare tactic.

I disagree. If you instill fear in the soldier in the opposite trench, you've already won half the battle.

 

[conjur]

Terrorism, no.

Guerrilla warfare, sure.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
not in any civilized country.

My point is that "civilized" takes on different meanings to different people at different times. "Civilized" warfare was once much different than it is today.

I take civilized to mean a society where life is, on the whole, valued. Where people would not support such activity as intentionally killing or maiming noncombatants. This country, as well as the majority of the world, do not view that as accepatable. I hate to say it, but it takes religious and sociopathic fanatacism to turn a society into accepting those ideals.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: WhiteKnight
Wow, I was just talking about this the other day with my fiancee. Great minds think alike, and coincidently so do we.

😛

I think it never become accepted as it misallocates power. The proletariat won't support a manner of warfare that puts so much control in the hands of so few...nor will the united nations support something that potentially gives power to unestablished, non-wealthy countries

Isn't terrorrism older than traditional warfare anyway?

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
not in any civilized country.

My point is that "civilized" takes on different meanings to different people at different times. "Civilized" warfare was once much different than it is today.

I take civilized to mean a society where life is, on the whole, valued. Where people would not support such activity as intentionally killing or maiming noncombatants. This country, as well as the majority of the world, do not view that as accepatable. I hate to say it, but it takes religious and sociopathic fanatacism to turn a society into accepting those ideals.

I'm going to hijack my own thread:
Some would say that our society doesn't value life in some regards because of how we view abortion and euthanasia, among other issues. Neither of these issues are pushed by the religious crowd.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Eh... terrorism is meant to instill fear into your enemies, not necessarily to kill/disable them. Not really a valid warfare tactic.

I disagree. If you instill fear in the soldier in the opposite trench, you've already won half the battle.

That's true, I thought about that right after posting. By that definition of terrorism, it is already in use by militaries around the world.

If you define terrorism as intentional murder of innocent people to further your cause... never happen. Atleast I hope morals don't degrade that much anytime soon.

 

[biostud]

Terrorism is only used against civilians, otherwise it's guerrilla warfare. I doubt that terrorism will be accepted as a tactic as in most cases innocent bystanders are the victims.

 

[K1052]

It is worth noting that technology played a big role in how warfare has evolved over the last 150 years. As weapons developed, new tactics had to be adopted. WWI is a perfect case in point since they used the tactics of the previous wars to fight using modern weapons (machinegun/modern artillery).

I think that terrorism is strategically a dead end as they really don't have the ability to force a favorable outcome, though they keep trying and only manage kill a lot of innocent people in the process.

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Eh... terrorism is meant to instill fear into your enemies, not necessarily to kill/disable them. Not really a valid warfare tactic.

I disagree. If you instill fear in the soldier in the opposite trench, you've already won half the battle.

That's true, I thought about that right after posting. By that definition of terrorism, it is already in use by militaries around the world.

If you define terrorism as intentional murder of innocent people to further your cause... never happen. Atleast I hope morals don't degrade that much anytime soon.

It has already happened. The Romans were fond of crucifying entire towns of innocent people just to get a point across.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
not in any civilized country.

My point is that "civilized" takes on different meanings to different people at different times. "Civilized" warfare was once much different than it is today.

I take civilized to mean a society where life is, on the whole, valued. Where people would not support such activity as intentionally killing or maiming noncombatants. This country, as well as the majority of the world, do not view that as accepatable. I hate to say it, but it takes religious and sociopathic fanatacism to turn a society into accepting those ideals.

I'm going to hijack my own thread:
Some would say that our society doesn't value life in some regards because of how we view abortion and euthanasia, among other issues. Neither of these issues are pushed by the religious crowd.

I said religious because some religions around the world teach retribution and murder of one's enemies. While some western religions speak of an eye for an eye, many other religions take it farther. And more importantly the followers oftern take it fanatical and interpret that as kill everyone who disagrees or who represents evil

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Eh... terrorism is meant to instill fear into your enemies, not necessarily to kill/disable them. Not really a valid warfare tactic.

I disagree. If you instill fear in the soldier in the opposite trench, you've already won half the battle.

That's true, I thought about that right after posting. By that definition of terrorism, it is already in use by militaries around the world.

If you define terrorism as intentional murder of innocent people to further your cause... never happen. Atleast I hope morals don't degrade that much anytime soon.

It has already happened. The Romans were fond of crucifying entire towns of innocent people just to get a point across.

That'd be genocide in my opinion.

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Eh... terrorism is meant to instill fear into your enemies, not necessarily to kill/disable them. Not really a valid warfare tactic.

I disagree. If you instill fear in the soldier in the opposite trench, you've already won half the battle.

That's true, I thought about that right after posting. By that definition of terrorism, it is already in use by militaries around the world.

If you define terrorism as intentional murder of innocent people to further your cause... never happen. Atleast I hope morals don't degrade that much anytime soon.

It has already happened. The Romans were fond of crucifying entire towns of innocent people just to get a point across.

That'd be genocide in my opinion.

I would quibble with that because I think genocide is a method to wipe out a type of people, whereas terrorism is used to create fear in people that you want to control. It is pretty clear from history that when the Romans crucified whole towns, they were doing it as a warning to other villages to not cross the Roman Empire, not because they didn't like Greeks/Arabs/Jews/Other.

 

[Ynog]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Eh... terrorism is meant to instill fear into your enemies, not necessarily to kill/disable them. Not really a valid warfare tactic.

As well, most terrorist tactics involve someone committing suicide. The problem you run into is that if you are not attacking military targets, you then lose one of the members of your army with only psychological effects on the other side. In a war that isn't enough to defeat an enemy.
I will also note that if an enemy that blows himself up and the goal was a military target isn't a terrorist.

Also guerrila warfare what is basically what the American Revolutionary soldiers used, was because that was the best way to defeat the British in the low numbers we possessed. However it has to also be noted that in order to defeat the British we did eventually have to fight using their style of combat.

Also I think the change in warfare tactics today vs in the past has much more to do with the change in battlefield weapons. If you think about it, the first sea battles involved people ramming each other. Multiple shot weapons also served to eliminate the British fighting style.

 

[WhiteKnight]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Eh... terrorism is meant to instill fear into your enemies, not necessarily to kill/disable them. Not really a valid warfare tactic.

I disagree. If you instill fear in the soldier in the opposite trench, you've already won half the battle.

That's true, I thought about that right after posting. By that definition of terrorism, it is already in use by militaries around the world.

If you define terrorism as intentional murder of innocent people to further your cause... never happen. Atleast I hope morals don't degrade that much anytime soon.

How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Eh... terrorism is meant to instill fear into your enemies, not necessarily to kill/disable them. Not really a valid warfare tactic.

As well, most terrorist tactics involve someone committing suicide. The problem you run into is that if you are not attacking military targets, you then lose one of the members of your army with only psychological effects on the other side. In a war that isn't enough to defeat an enemy.
I will also note that if an enemy that blows himself up and the goal was a military target isn't a terrorist.

Also guerrila warfare what is basically what the American Revolutionary soldiers used, was because that was the best way to defeat the British in the low numbers we possessed. However it has to also be noted that in order to defeat the British we did eventually have to fight using their style of combat.

Also I think the change in warfare tactics today vs in the past has much more to do with the change in battlefield weapons. If you think about it, the first sea battles involved people ramming each other. Multiple shot weapons also served to eliminate the British fighting style.

1. Lots of military tactics throughout history have involved intentional suicide of one or more members of an army. Alexander the Great supposedly used these tactics. It is a valid form of warfare, although it may be unpopular with the ordinary grunt who may be called upon to give to his country.

2. I wasn't saying that during the American Revolution the Americans used terrorism as a tactic. I was just trying to highlight that over time the values of what is and is not acceptable and honorable change.

 

[Rogue]

The problem with terrorism as a warfare tactic is that it doesn't work against the United States. We're too pompous and arrogant to allow someone to "scare" us into submission. Perhaps it will work in other "civilized" nations, but terrorism will never work as a valid and effective tactic against the United States. In the end, we're just as fundamentalist and psychotic about our freedoms as others are about their restriction thereof.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: WhiteKnight

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Eh... terrorism is meant to instill fear into your enemies, not necessarily to kill/disable them. Not really a valid warfare tactic.

I disagree. If you instill fear in the soldier in the opposite trench, you've already won half the battle.

That's true, I thought about that right after posting. By that definition of terrorism, it is already in use by militaries around the world.

If you define terrorism as intentional murder of innocent people to further your cause... never happen. Atleast I hope morals don't degrade that much anytime soon.

How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Good point, by my definition.

All of my definitions of terrorism are out.

Define terrorism?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Eh... terrorism is meant to instill fear into your enemies, not necessarily to kill/disable them. Not really a valid warfare tactic.

I disagree. If you instill fear in the soldier in the opposite trench, you've already won half the battle.

That's true, I thought about that right after posting. By that definition of terrorism, it is already in use by militaries around the world.

If you define terrorism as intentional murder of innocent people to further your cause... never happen. Atleast I hope morals don't degrade that much anytime soon.

It has already happened. The Romans were fond of crucifying entire towns of innocent people just to get a point across.

Things like that could never happen in modern times.




What, Mi Lai?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: WhiteKnight

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Eh... terrorism is meant to instill fear into your enemies, not necessarily to kill/disable them. Not really a valid warfare tactic.

I disagree. If you instill fear in the soldier in the opposite trench, you've already won half the battle.

That's true, I thought about that right after posting. By that definition of terrorism, it is already in use by militaries around the world.

If you define terrorism as intentional murder of innocent people to further your cause... never happen. Atleast I hope morals don't degrade that much anytime soon.

How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained legitimate military and strategic industry targets, they just happened to be in population centers. The Japan was also a special case.