Isn't "Shock and Awe" a terrorist tactic?
2007-04-06 09:55:31 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Terrorist is anyone that spreads fear and not always using violence. If a leader comes on T.V. and tells the people to "Be Afraid" right after a disaster they are a terrorist.
2007-04-06 10:06:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Smart bombs aren't actually sentient, so they can't be terrorists, per se. They could be used to carry out terrorist attacks, but they'd have to be used more or less indescriminately, which kinda obviates the 'smart' part. Saturation bombing would be more effective at instilling terror in a populace, since no one knows where a bomb might land next - just that more bombs will land until they give in.
Precision bombing might instill shock or awe (mabye) but it won't evoke much terror in those who know they have no reason to be targetted.
Suicide bombing, OTOH, can be carried out against anyone at any time, and the very willingness of the bomber to go up with his victims communicates a level of unreasoning fanaticism that instill terror by itself. Quite apart from the fear that you might be a victim of such an attack, it's terrifying to think that there are people out there who hate you so much thier willing to give thier lives to blow you up.
2007-04-06 17:06:19 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No it's not. It's in response to terroristic events. Oh wait you are a Liberal so you like the terrorists. I'm sure you would have even condoned the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
2007-04-06 17:00:31 · answer #3 · answered by Cookie Monster 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
A terrorist intentionally tries to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible. Islamic terrorists are motivated by a belief that non-Muslims are INFIDELS who GOD HAS TOLD THEM TO SLAUGHTER.
American military operations attempt to AVOID civilian casualties as much as possible. Unfortunately, this is IMPOSSIBLE. Hence, the moral quandary that liberals have about using military force in the cavalier way that conservatives advocate.
I am not a supporter of Bush or the war, but there is a VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION between ACTS OF TERRORISM THAT DELIBERATELY TARGET CIVILIANS and the use of military force to achieve a noble objective that ACCIDENTLY INJURES AND KILLS CIVILIANS.
2007-04-06 17:04:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Depends if you are the one being shocked and awed.
2007-04-06 17:00:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Terrorism is a war "tactic" that can never be undone, time to swallow the reality pill and get on with your life, to defeat terror, one needs to simply "not be afraid"....
2007-04-06 17:01:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A coward
2007-04-06 17:02:07 · answer #7 · answered by Jose G 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
historically, "shock and awe" was used once before. at that time it was called "blitzkrieg".
2007-04-07 03:24:01 · answer #8 · answered by Abdu Rahim 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋