(February 23, 2013 at 10:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: Suntzu said plenty of things, but having Suntzu weigh in on something does not make it terrorism, or exclude it from being terrorism. Even the most civilized and advanced countries mislay munitions. Aiming for a strategic target and instead hitting a civilian target is an unfortunate consequence of war, but not terrorism. One must explicitly engage in a campaign of violence against soft targets, say civilians with the aim of producing terror- for something to be called terrorism.
"Shock and Awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight. The doctrine was written by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in 1996 and is a product of the National Defense University of the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe
Hmn, I guess the part about attacking civilians in order to scare the shit out of them got left out of the draft the wiki contributor was working from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb...d_Nagasaki
since we know that those bombs were aimed at soft targets, would that also make the USA army a terrorist organization ?
but back to the link you provided. According to your definition, terrorism is the engagment of civilian & soft targets to produce terror.. I found this in the link
Quote:"the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."[7]
knowing that the american army did hit "baghdad" which is a soft target, without the consideration of the fact the people & children live there, to spread terror that "prevents an action"..
does that also means it's a terrorist attack ?
Quote:Neither do I, but that wouldn't excuse terrorism from any faction. I'm not putting forward any standard- terrorism already has a definition that segregates it from conventional warfare (which is what the rapid dominance doctrine is - and what strategic bombers are for - though of course they can be used for acts of terrorism - say the fire bombing of Dresden). Engaging in a war does not make one a terrorist, and it wouldn't matter if it did (with respects to excusing this or that act of another factions terrorists). To be completely blunt, moralizing acts of war is pretty shaky right from the outset as it's a giant shit sandwhich start to finish - whats the aim, to show that one side is the lesser of two turds?
Who's blaming soldiers for anything? I'd be the last person to point that finger. I have no problem pointing a finger at terrorists. I'll point the finger at the terrorist, I'll point the finger at the people who funded and trained the terrorist and I'll point the finger at the people who support or attempt to excuse their actions.......
(and just to add a little spice to the convo, a large number of civilian casualties in recent wars can be attributed to a battle doctrine of mixing civilians with combatants, so I suppose it's up to you to decide which faction is the lesser of the two turds, the one that hits civilians while returning fire in an attempt to save their lives - or the one that brings along their auntie and nephews with the aim of turning them into human shields. I'm biased, after all, wasn't my auntie, aint my nephews.)
Trying to make a "good side" & a "bad side" during wars can help us end it. There is always a better side, especially in invasions.
When I revise the history of america, I know that the native americans were right. If I wanted to stop that war, I would stop the part which started the oppression.
