Can you argue that War is NOT Terrorism with a bigger Budget?

Question

So why do the warmongers think they have the high moral ground, when they are nothing but common murderers....?

MoltarRocks... you tell that to all the villagers in Afghanistan that the Military kill on a daily basis... women, children, old, infirm...... Nice from you comfy chair right?

Answer 1

The U.S is guilty of Terrorism and worse. There are people in this Country as brainwashed as they believe their enemy to be! They absolutely believe the U.S is morally superior to any other Country. Sound familiar?

Answer 2

The warmongers you speak of delude the American people, and themselves, with rhetoric of how theirs is a battle for freedom and liberty and that all violent deaths initiated by them, though having a high civilian cost, are merely just collateral damage. In some sense they have a point.

Real terrorism is an action that promotes a political, ideological or theological aim by specifically targeting civilians, so as to bring an opponent under submission by inculcating fear in them, and in the population that supports them.

Now we are not specifically targeting civilians, outright, though their have been incidences where our men have intentionally done this in Iraq. However, since our aims are not for anything noble, but are instead for the profit of the corporate machine, the unfortunate death of civilians cannot be excused as it would if our war were being fought to preserve life and liberty. Hence from a moral standpoint, our so called “collateral damage”, and the deaths intentionally caused by terrorist actions, against civilians, is not ethically distinguishable.

Answer 3

Yes. The purpose of terrorism is to force political change upon a pupulation by evoking terror in that population through the use of illegal, violent, attacks - generally indiscriminant, or even actually targetting 'innocents,' specifically.

War, OTOH, is the use of force by a government ('legal' in the sense of being sanctioned by that government, at least) against another government. It generally doesn't involve directly targetting civilians (though civilian casualties will almost certainly occur, in spite of that), and the purpose is not to terrorize the civilian population, but to destroy the enemy's ability and will to wage war. And generally does include military action on both sides.

Thus, terrorism is distinct from warfare, in that terrorists target civilians intentionally (or randomly) to evoke fear, in that terrorism is not generally carried out by governments but 'illegally' carried out by other groups, and in that terrorists do not take to the field like an army, but hide within an otherwise 'innocent' population.

Terrorism thus has much more in common with some types of organized crime - such as extortion - than with military actions such as warfare. That's one reason it is so often treated as a law-enforcement, rather than a geopolicitical issue.

Answer 4

You obviously have your mind made up, and will not change it.
I have served in war, and I am not a common murderer. Neither were any of the Marines and Sailors around me.
Sovereign governments are not always "in the right" when they engage in war. However, they often DO have valid reasons for applying force to enemy SOLDIERS, as opposed to terrorists who often attack CIVILIANS. Sovereign governments often try to avoid conflict through diplomacy, while terrorists are usually trying to provoke conflict. Sovereign governments usually engage in war for reasons of economic necessity, nationalism (or national outrage), or self defense; terrorists engage in hostilities in order to frighten innocent people and show them that the government can not protect them from cowardly attacks on civilians.
You may be referring to the US invasion of Iraq as improper. Well...what did you say when Saddam was murdering his countrymen and gassing Kurds?
Maybe you are mad about the US in Afghanistan. Perhaps the idea of women getting health care and education offends you. It sure offended the Taliban.
You will hit the "Report Abuse" button before you are done with this. You can't see the other side, and don't care to.

Answer 5

GOING INTO IRAQ SAVED LIVES

It stopped hundreds of thousands of people from dying due to U.N. Santions.

Even by the year 2000, a half of million children died. The real numbers of Saddam related deaths are even higher since Iraq was not attacked until three years later.


The link is to a Liberal English newspaper.
2000:
"Half a million children have died in Iraq since UN sanctions were imposed - most enthusiastically by Britain and the US. Three UN officials have resigned in despair. Meanwhile, bombing of Iraq continues almost daily. John Pilger investigates "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html

Answer 6

Throwing more money at failing school systems is the answer to dealing with our miserable education program.

So why aren't the non-warmongers capable of throwing more money at a war to help stop it faster?

Answer 7

For the truth that the libs like you REFUSE to see.

We are going after TERRORISTS...not civilians...
We do not go into markets and plant car bombs to kill innocents
We do not kidnap innocents and behead them on TV
We fo not TARGET children on busses going to school

But you libs want the US to fail so badly that you refuse to see the truth and BLINDLY followthe requests from the terrorists..guess thats why they celebrated and congratulated you when you won control of the Congress...they are your ALLIES

Answer 8

Many countries consider the current administration of the US to be the biggest terrorists in the world. Just because this war was started in the name of "fighting terrorism" doesn't make it so. There are more terrorist now than there were before 9/11.

Answer 9

They are just working with a bigger budget.

Answer 10

It's all about who's being targeted--terrorist deliberately target civilians. People waging war target combatants.