Since war is terrorism, how can there be a war on terrorism?

Question

Is it right to respond to terrorism (acts of war) with more terrorism (acts of war)?

Wouldn't this be nothing more than expanding terrism (more acts of war)?

When did two wrongs become a right?

Is Condaleeza Rice scaring you when she threatens you with a mushroom cloud?

What country caused mushroom clouds over Nagasaki and Heroshima?

Was it Iran or Syria?

Answer 1

You are completely right it is a poor analogy it should really be a war on Islamic Extremism would be more accurate statement. It is like the media calling terrorist in Iraq, insurgents. Those that control the language control the culture.

Answer 2

Your definition of terrorism is too broad. War is not synonimous with terrorism. Why, what if the war was a completely defensive one? If armed men came on your land to kill your family, would shooting these men be terrorism? Of course not.

War differs from terrorism in two major respects, its aim and its targets. It aims to intimidate not by force, but by fear. Whereas war seeks to destroy, terrorism seeks to manipulate. War targets are military and political targets, whereas terrorist targets are entirely civilian. Obviously there will always be some overlap; civilians get hurt because they are nearby to military actions, or because they are aiding the enemy.

During a war, a state may feel the necessity to participate in terrorism. As notable as the dropping of the Atom bomb on Japan is Sherman's march to the sea. However, in both cases, these were desperate measures to end a long and resource intesive war that was starving the population. The atom bomb, however, is an interesting case since part of what pressured its use was scientific curiouosity.

The main point is, do not confuse war and terrorism. Even a guerrila war is not one of terrorism. Also, I am in constant awe of how the inhumanity of Arab terrorists escapes so many people's notice. They bomb busses, cafes, public buildings; they snipe at Muslims of different denominations during religious processions. Our war is not nearly as much responsible for terrorism as our economic dominations; if I were you, I'd stop complaining about the war and start making sure to shop at local places rather than Starbucks and Wal-Mart, and start riding a bicycle everywhere you go so as not to fuel the oil driven economy.

Answer 3

That cloud over Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved countless lives of Americans and our allies. The war on terrorism is one that all non terrorist nations should be fighting. It is about time that some one stepped up and decided to take the neighborhood back. The US has been victim of terrorist attacks for years and until the war on terror started the attacks were getting more frequent and larger. I want try to say that the war has been handled perfectly but at least action is being taken. We are not just sitting back and taking it. If we are pacifist with the terrorist they will keep attacking us because terrorism only works on cowards.

Answer 4

Hahaha, you get the international conflict on Terrorism provider Medal after winding up training. they have diverse ribbons for being deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan, one in each and every of it relatively is the international conflict on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. To get the GWOTEM, you need to be deployed for no less than a month without delay. Dude, attempt Google sometime.

Answer 5

Wake up dude!

Terrorism is the use of murder and fear (terror) to spread a political ideaollogy. Terrorists usually target innocents: men, women, children, etc... Remember? 9/11? U.S.S. Cole? U.S. Embassy bombings? Shall I go on?

The difference is that the "War on terror" is to PREVENT terrorism by stopping/killing the TERRORISTS before they can murder innocents for the spreading of their theocracy. War CAUSES terror, but it is NOT TERRORISM.

BTW, anyone who knows history knows that it was the U.S. that used the A-bombs, and many people were unforunately killed in the process... But I wonder... How many more MIGHT have been killed had we NOT used our power to bring the war in Japan to such a swift conclusion?

Answer 6

So you are saying that England and
America performed "terrorism" on Germany?

And JAPAN attacked Hawaii first, with no warning and unprovoked. That's terrorism too, by your definition,

We were the first and the last to use the A bomb, hopefully we all learned what it can do and it wont' happen again.



By the way, you sound just like a Radical Islam sympathising terrorist.

I notice you never meantioned how the radical Islam Jihadists mass murdered over 3000 people in one day only a few years ago.

And what about strapping bombs to your women and children? Nice people you have.
Westerners don't stoop to the levels Muslims do in scum countries.

Answer 7

Condoleeza Rice looks like Chucky...so of course she scares me.

No, war, although it cause extreme levels of terror, is not terrorism. Two totally different things.

America caused mushroom clouds over Japan. Ask Bush, he may say it was Iran or Syria..

Answer 8

terrorism is those who try to control others through fear by killing innocents and if you don't do as we say it could be you next. War is two groups of armed people who kill eachother. ,

the key is killing "innocents" intentionally with the purpose of instilling fear.

the action and the motivation are taken into acount when judging such actions.

Answer 9

If Bush has the God given right to be King of the United States (thus indirectly the world) then he has the pontifical power to do whatever the hell he pleases. If he says US terrorism is really a holy war against, uh, terrorism, then you can't question it. It's like questioning God!

Answer 10

Your entire premise is wrong. War and terrism are two distinctly seperate things.