Is there really any significant difference...?

Question

between terrorism and the 'Shock and Awe' tactics employed in Iraq?

I'm not trying to cause arguments or internet drama or whatever, I'm actually genuinely interested.

The idea behind both concepts seems frighteningly similar: to scare people into submission.

Any thoughts?

John. T. - can you explain the differences to me, please?

Big Blair - thanks for that explanation. I was under the impression that the aim of terrorism is to cause fear, not to kill: that death is a byproduct of terrorism, not its aim.
It still feels to me that the idea of both is to cause fear in order to gain the upper hand.

Bouncer Bobtail - I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure that a terrorist is any more willing than a soldier. Both sign up to an organisation, willing to kill for a cause that they believe to be right. They're not responsible for what their leaders tell them to do and, in all likelihood, a potential terrorist would be punished for breaking ranks, even if the punishment isn't legal like the punishment of a soldier would be. Suicide bombers are rarely the brains behind the operation, I don't think: they are expendable lives thrown away in order to achieve a goal, which is something you could easily say about coalition soldiers.

Answer 1

I would say the difference is that our soldiers are fighting to give people a life where they have freedom of choice. Whereas terrorists generally fight to suppress peoples freedom of choice. The tactics are reasonably immaterial in the end. In World War Two we bombed the Germans and they bombed us, but only one side was fighting for freedom. Or do you also think that we were the bad guys there? You see, you try to appear neutral, but your words give you away.

Answer 2

In short terrorist are groups that don't have enough political clout to by peaceful means make a big impact on how there country is run so they use threats and violence to get some sort of power,

shock and Awe tactics are where country's that have a vested intrest in the produce (oil) will go in weather asked or not to try and kick out your terrorist (that have turned in rebels) so as to protect there interests in the oil fields,

then the terrorist who cant get rid of the oil protecting army's
by conventional means.
resault to sending fanatic cowards to the oil protecting country's back yard, and kill and maim innocent civilians
scum of the earth is what they are and god will judge them

as for the oil protecting soldiers god will judge them for doing there duty I'm sure the blame is not thiers

Answer 3

The only real difference are the reasons behind the acts.

However, trying to scare people into submission rarely works, so i doubt terrorism, or the 'shock and awe' tactics will actually make much of a difference, only create more of a reason fore retaliation.

Answer 4

If there wasn't any terrorism, there wouldn't be any need ANY (defencive) "tactics" anywhere. The mistake you are making (I would say, quite naturally) is that you don't know enough about the "tactics" that have to be used to fight an enemy that launches their cowardly attacks from behind 'innocent'(?) shields etc. There is a need (sometimes) to "fight fire with fire", or to "terrorise the terrorists", to maximise the destruction of the terrorists and, at the same time, to minimise the harm to innocent people. Does that help?

Answer 5

Big differences.

The primary difference is that Terrorists target civilians in order to inflict fear and thereby submission.

The military targets terrorists (or other military targets) in order to force the terrorists into submission to proper authority.

Another goal of military tactics is to demonstrate to civilians that they are safe from terrorists. This is one reason why terrorists continually target civilians. They wish to prove that the legitimate government cannot protect them.

It is certainly difficult to defeat terrorists, just as it is difficult to eliminate crime, because it takes only a few to inflict damage, while it takes many to create safety and security. Terrorists are criminals as well as combatants, hence they can be held as POWs or tried and thrown in prison. Under the Geneva Convention, they can even be executed.

To elaborate a bit on a "show of force," it is a way to demonstrate to all, terrorist and civilian, who is in charge of the area. As an example, a platoon patrols the city or part of it in a high state of readiness. Yes, they are on high alert and ready for combat. This will be seen by all. If the terrorists are not to cowardly to attack and terrorists are normally cowards that will not attack the military, then they will be crushed by the military. If they are the typical cowards they are, then the local citizens take note and are emboldened to help the legitimate authority.

A part of this tactic is also that because the civilians will see that the legitimate authority treats them respectfully, even when they are searching their houses, they will gain respect for the military/police. Compare this to the forceful tactics and fear instilled by the terrorists and it becomes clear to the civilians who to put their faith in. The civilians must still overcome their fear of reprisal from the terrorists to help in their own survival, but even if they dislike the concept of the military, they see it's fairness.

Answer 6

Announcing your intentions 6 months in advance and giving the jerk all that time to come to grips with his cease fire obligations is hardly a Terrorist Act.

It was the legal enforcement of UN Sanctions. The term "Serious Consequence" means military action. They have a Charter try reading it you will learn something. Might as well read the 80 pages of the Geneva Convention too.

Answer 7

Terrorism aims to murder as many civilians as possible.

Shock and Awe is known militarily as a "show of force" where the aim is not to take ground or sieze an objective, but just to display military might. The target of Shock and Awe campaigns are not civilians. If we had wanted to target civilians during the campaign, we have the technology to take out thousands of them. We take extreme measures to try to mitigate civilian casualties as much as possible.

Answer 8

Big Blair is the correct and intelligent answer the targets of shock and awe are troops whom it is intended to demoralize and reduce casualties on both sides,Terrorists got for soft targets who cant fight back.

Answer 9

A message to each and each social gathering's supporters: Democrats: Your social gathering's founder, Thomas Jefferson, is rolling over in his grave at what the social gathering has substitute into. President Jefferson espoused small government and real federalism, leaving almost each and every subject different than national protection and international relatives to the states or the human beings. the widespread social gathering, with its roots interior the policies of FDR and President Wilson, actively seeks to boost the welfare state, using fact people who're based on government will save vote casting for greater reward at somebody else's price. Republicans: Your social gathering lost its way early on in the time of the Bush administration. a social gathering it particularly is meant to espouse small government [who else, using fact the Dems abandoned it?] fairly went alongside with each and every vast-government (and massive Brother) theory that President Bush proposed. to illustrate, the Medicare drug suggestion substitute right into a clean welfare software; had a Democratic President presented the comparable suggestion to the Republican Congress in 2002, it could have been rejected. Overreactions to 9/eleven, no longer purely the Iraq conflict yet in addition Gitmo, have additionally injury. word the subject, each and each social gathering is hooked on ability, they simply have distinctive a thank you to get there. could somebody please examine the 10th substitute? can we by some potential resurrect Jefferson, who relatively believed in a small national government? "come again from the lifeless, Tom, sock 'em interior the top!" [lyric from "I Ain't Gonna p*** in No Jar" via Mojo Nixon]

Answer 10

The main difference is the terrorists are willing participants to a crime.

The soldiers/airman are being ordered to commit crimes and if they don't they are treated as criminals.

The Geneva Convention is clear. The coallition leaders responsible are war criminals, whether the invasion was legal or not.