2007-09-13 06:36:19 · 29 answers · asked by Belzetot 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yeah.. pretty much. If it is the military that does it against mostly military targets, it's called 'shock and awe', but if it is an extremist radical that does it against mostly civilian targets, it's called 'terrorism'. It's just a matter of scale and who the target is. 'Shock and Awe' can kill 10 or 100 times more than an average terrorist act. Compare the numbers of casualties (from collateral damage) of 'shock and awe' and the 9-11 disaster.
One of the biggest examples of 'Shock and Awe' is the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attack with the A-bombs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Historical_applications
2007-09-13 06:52:38 · answer #1 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I am guessing you are referring the battle plan/action of the Second Gulf War, if you want to call it that? No it is/was not terrorism in the proper definition; it was not designed to kill or terrorize civilians but to terrorize the Iraqi military in which it succeeded too well. Terrorism as it is used in most cases now has to do with killing non-combatants on purpose to cause the rest of the noon-combatants or a government to bow to the demands of a minority or weaker group. If we had carpet bombed Baghdad then it could have been considered an act of terrorism but we didn't though we had the ability; which should tell you something. Civilians have been/are/will be killed during a war; this is unfortunate but a fact of life and history. If you want to minimize civilian causalities it can be done easily-have both sides send their military to an inhabited area and let the military fight it out there; doesn't work because in Iraq now and in the past one side is afraid to wear a uniform or fight another military-they prefer to fight women, children, the old and the innocent; that side is not the United States.
The World Trade Center was terrorism, car bombing an open air market in Baghdad is terrorism and a suicide bomber at a bus stop is terrorism without question.
2007-09-13 07:04:57 · answer #2 · answered by GunnyC 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
its a skater phrase and a biker one too, and also some dumb generals with too much time on there hands, but for the middle east that was what it was suppose to be. Too bad we could not back each other in these times to stay United and beat radical Islamics , but i guess some think some police can handle these things, little do most know this has been growing since before Bush was born, hard to blame him but it makes some feel better while they have their heads in the sand. I am in shock and the way people are crying just awe's me.
2007-09-13 06:44:30 · answer #3 · answered by tzimmer44 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Shock and Awe is aimed at military targets as much as the attacks on the towers was.
Fact is, there were CIA and other US security agencies in the towers. By the logic used to bomb Hiroshima (which contained a small barracks) and the logic involved in "shocking" Afghanis and Iraqis into "awe", the attacks of 9/11 were completely legitimate.
Of course, I think 9/11 is as much an act of terror as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Shock and Awe, Free Fire Zones, Dresden and all the US military tactics which target civilians in order to force them not to support insurgent armies.
Ulman and Wade, the authors of Shock and Awe speak of the need to ""means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure". Which are, of course, part of the civilian establishment, are needed for civilian survival and are so entrenched in civilian infrastructure that attacking them always will result in untold civilan deaths.
Furthermore, the objective of Shock and Awe is the same as that of terrorism, to inflict damage on the civilian population in order to achieve a political/military outcome. In this case, the outcome desired is paralysis.
""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."
Note that the objective is to cause fear (i.e. terror) among the civilian population so as to prevent them from fighting against the occupying army.
Shock and Awe is the rich man's terrorism... as are nuclear weapons, dropping bombs and embargoes. They are attacks on civilians intended to have a military/political outcome.
Peace.
2007-09-13 06:52:36 · answer #4 · answered by Washington Irving 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
shock and awe? we only displayed a portion of what our military can do. In my oppinion we should of done more. Way to go Americans, always wanting to be the moral backbone of civilization. Your marality gets our Marines and soldiers killed!! Just like in Vietnam. If the support and understanding were there we'de unleash hell on these terrorist bastards!!
2007-09-13 06:52:23 · answer #5 · answered by headbaker2003 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No its not, its a Military Doctrine suggesting overwhelming force in the war theater. Terrorism is tactic mainly used by non military groups as a tool for political gain or simply a tool for their criminal intent.
2007-09-13 06:45:57 · answer #6 · answered by Josh_NY 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Terrorism is aimed specifically at innocent bystanders in order to call media attention to ones cause and is used as an attempt to blackmail the world in to acquiescing to the terrorist demands.
On the other hand, military campaigns like "shock and awe" are aimed at military targets and great care is taken to minimize civilian casualty. That is not to say that "collateral damage" never happens, but it is actively avoided.
2007-09-13 06:42:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
shock and awe is designed to terrorize an enemy army, so I guess if you are an army opposing the USA, prepare for some serious TERROR!!!!
2007-09-13 06:47:24 · answer #8 · answered by ARKARNG 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Terror is what the Bush Administration has used all along to get their way. Bush did not protect us from 9/11 anymore than he could protect us from the next attack. He has used 9/11 to attack Iraq who had nothing to do with the attack on us. He had a personal agenda against Saddam Hussein that went back to his father.The real culprit, Bin-Laden, is still running around free to attack again. Of course he couldn't go after Bin-Laden because the Bin La-den's are the Bush's personal friends. The Bush's have spent the night in the royal palace of the Bin La-den's and you know the Bin La-den's have had barbecue at the ranch.Bush has used this terror against us and is still using it today.
2007-09-13 06:48:28 · answer #9 · answered by oldhag 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋
no
ex. I was in shock and awe of Britteny Spears' "performance"
I was not in terror
2007-09-13 06:44:27 · answer #10 · answered by Jenae, TV (tempter of the vile) 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋