I can only assume you posted this here because its so wrong its funny…
No, because it’s true. Although some wars are completely stupid. Like the war on “infidels”.
But around the world you see people deemed as terrorists that are fighting for just causes.
Its so true. Even I agree on that!
Really? So give me a example pls. What´s is the just cause that give a good reason to kill innocent people?
Terrorism is definitely not the war of poor. How much costs to make a bomb and buy guns? How much costs to lobotomize a guy to throw away his life for a “cause”? How much costs to sustain and support all the terrorism strategies around the world?
The only flaw with this sentiment is that the majority of those behind terrorism today are exceptionally wealthy. A more accurate statement would be “War is practiced by nations, terrorism is practiced by special interest groups.” Excepting of course things like Iranian support for Hamas etc.
But don’t let reality get in the way of a good slogan!
So what is it when two third world countries declare war on each other?
Yeah, just like killing 1 person is the same as killing 6 million. Moral equivalent bullsh*t.
So Osama Bin Laden, whose family (and himself) are worth billions, and many of the Saudi’s that took down the WTC’s, and who came from rich families, are in which category?
Isn’t the Undie Bomber from a rich family? The tribal wars in Africa are waged by the rich? Japan was rich and powerful in the 30s? Isn’t the bulk of international terrorism funded by the rich who use the poor to carry it out?
I don’t think this bears a lot of scrutiny if you analyze it for more than a minute.
*sigh
anyone who makes a catchy phrase to justify murder should be executed.
How about: War is usually gov’t vs gov’t with a primary mission of disabling each other’s military and gov’t functions.
Terrorism is the use of poor people by rich people to kill, injure, and terrify civilians, especially the innocent: women & children, travelers on trains, subways, buses, aircraft, in hotels, schools, soccer stadiums, etc.
I see a bit of Stockholm Syndrome in this statement. Basically, the terrorists are attempting to hold the world hostage with fear. Some people, as a way of dealing with that fear, seem to think that if we’d only find common ground with the terrorists, see things from THEIR perspective, try to understand them, that the terrorists will see that we’re people just like them and they’ll pack up their bombs and go home and we’ll all live happily ever after.
So we get people who spout terrorist rhetoric.
Yes, typically war is undertaken by countries, or if not whole countries, then at least by large organized groups of people. Wars generally involve linear command structures with an organized chain of command and representatives willing to negotiate.
Terrorism by contrast typically involves small, isolated, independent groups of people with non-linear command structures. The leaders may be in contact with other terrorist cells, but cells generally work independently so that units may continue to operate even if the upper command structure caves in or is destroyed.
Thus, organized armies have an image of power and organization, while terrorists have an image of being local, “home-grown”, and on a budget.
In the war on terrorism, we are not fighting a country. We’re fighting groups of religious extremists who are united only by their religious beliefs, and by a desire to spread their religion to ALL countries. They are recruited not only from the poor and dispossessed who have been taught to blame foreign countries for their problems and to believe themselves directly oppressed and endangered by the evil WEST, but also they are recruited from the rich and well-meaning young people who are taught to feel guilty for having rich and powerful families.
Bin Ladin’s family, and bin Ladin himself, is extremely wealthy. Bin Ladin used his wealth to finance terrorism and terrorist training camps. Rich extremists pour billions of dollars a year into funds that support terrorism. At the same time, well-meaning people unknowingly contribute millions if not billions of dollars a year to so-called “Charities” that also fund terrorist groups.
So I say the above quote is false on a logical level. A more honest statement would be:
“War is conducted by organized groups with linear command structures. Terrorism is conducted by independent, isolated cells operating under non-linear command structures.”
Furthermore, I will say that in war, there are rules, although rules of engagement and conduct will vary VASTLY in scope and enforcement, due to the nature of the command structure. Terrorism, by contrast, has NO rules.
Crud. DJ said it better, and he used fewer words. Crispy bows to DJ.
Hard to argue with DJ. I’d add tall office buildings too.
I just always wonder about the kind of misguided people who think this is true, or that terrorism is justified…
Google “schoolgirl beheadings” or “acid attack girl’s face” or “Beslin School” or “Dubrovka Theatre” or “Bus 405” or “Olympic massacre” ….look at the photos if you have the stomach…and explain how any of those murders are justified.
And it doesn’t take much googling to discover that the misconception that terrorism is the war of the poor is pretty much a load of bu11shite.
I guess it’s supposed to be funny because it’s completely backwards? Ha? I guess?
DJ,
Tokyo, March 10, 1945.
War is not always pretty, rarely humane, and the number of innocent lives lost in war dwarfs those lost in terror attacks.
You are not very much a student of history. The war we Americans waged to subdue the native people of this country was one of the most brutal and ruthless in human history.
You may remember the men who founded this country were called rebels, and their method of warfare was deeded uncivilized.
Those people who murdered the victims of 911 thought they would be rewarded in paradise for their actions. They used tried and proven methods of shocking a greater foe, and rattling the civilian population. The Jews used these methods to secure a home state against the Brits, the PLO used these methods to carve their own home state out of the same land.
Terrorism is the method of war used when fighting a far superior military force. It had little to do with economics, in the case of 911 because that was a very well funded operation.
When the Islamics of Afghanistan were fighting the Russians, and being supported by the USA, they were “freedom fighters”. When those same people turned on us, as we should have expected them to do, they became “terrorists”.
We will continue to lose the wars we fight against terrorists as long as we ignore history. Guerrilla wars are beaten only when their support base, which would be common people, innocent civilians stop supporting them.
Tell me, DJ, looking back at history, how is this always been achieved before?
And it doesn’t take much googling to discover that the misconception that terrorism is the war of the poor is pretty much a load of bu11shite.
It is not entirely inaccurate at all. And it works. Ask the IRA.
McNamara asked, “Why is some action considered war crimes when someone loses a war, but not when the other side wins?”
The answer is, of course, a matter of who is writing the history. Take away your emotive reaction to this, and look at it in context of a larger picture, and you will discover we’re reliving history.
Crispy,
Know your enemy. You cannot tear a heart out if you know little of where it might be. That’s paraphrasing someone, and I cannot remember who.
Crispy, you seem to understand what is going on better than most here, who have reacted mostly emotionally.
Those the gods would destroy, they first anger.
First,you have to define terrorism.
Then, you have to define war.
Otherwise all comments are meaningless.
I hope Jonco posted this, not because it is true or humorous, but to stimulate debate. Am I on the right site?
Would make a good topic for a Philosophy, History, etc. essay topic.
Whatever, going forward and with all due respect, to be honest and just trying to think outside the box, it is what it is. And, it’s all good.
Mike F – I was hoping you’d weigh in. And as I typed it, I saw a lot of flaws as they came out of my fingers, but like Grumpy said, it’s an awesome stimulation for debate, so I thought I’d leave it. Of course the lines are always very blurry, and “rules of war” measn different things to different peoples at different times in different parts of the world, It does depend on which side you’re looking at it from, and the fact that the victor writes the history.
I bow to you and Crispy.
I love this place.
(Oh–btw – Hearts. And. Minds.)
I don’t agree with the saying. You can be poor and go to war, you can be rich and be a terrorist.
IMO – Many of you are correct but some say it better than others.
but lets keep it simple here …
bombing nightclubs or killing woman and children is terrorism
bombing strategic targets and killing other combatants is war
I think the flaw in many of the arguments is they hinge their argument on one word. Such as tying terrorism’s meaning with just being poor when that’s only half the equation. Losing focus of incorporating powerless lessens all arguments who debate that statement. Then there are those who use the fallacy of defining third world countries as being on the same level of poor as individuals who are poor, failing to connect that terrorism is an individual war and not a battle between nation states. These may be considered nuances that some people refuse to consider because their world is based on absolutes. They imply if a statement is correct only 99% of the time, then the meaning of it is 100% wrong. Unfortunately, that is the typical logical fallacy that drives most debate nowadays. Remember, it’s no different than many other phrases out there that people generally accept as axioms. After all, all the world is not literally a stage, but at times, it’s apropos to think so.
Oh, and to say you can be poor and go to war furthers my argument. “Going” to war is not utilized in it’s proper context. Going to war in relation to the above quote is based on declaration. In this country, declaration of war is made by well-to-do bureaucrats, and ends up being fought most often by the economically poorer. And to suggest that one can be rich and be a terrorist negates the same quote is a perfect example of absolutism. They fail to recognize that the greater majority of terrorists tend to fall into the poverty category and mostly powerless (think gangs and school cliques). Plus people lose all sense of objective reasoning when news channels point out that one terrorist came from a privileged background and then dismiss the thousands that fall short of that same background.
In the end, the quote is not so much a rule, but really is a generalization of existing facts where it’s true more often than it’s not.
Mike, very well said. You make very good points about colonization (and it applies not only to America, but to many places), but also to the American revolution.
Part of this is indeed semantic, because sometimes the lines between war and terrorism and between soldier and terrorist blur. I think the most important distinction however, is purpose. The terrorist’s purpose is terror. In this respect, for example, Sherman’s March to the Sea would not be considered terrorism because his goal was strategic: to break the back of the South by cutting supply lines, destroying food production, etc. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on the other hand, would definitely qualify as terrorism because the ultimate purpose was not the destruction of the military targets in those cities (which could have been achieved with conventional bombs) but rather to impress upon the Emperor the complete futility of resistance, to in essence create in him a fear of continuing to fight. The sheer force of the blast alone was unbelievable for its time. Recently, I read an interesting article by a man who was in BOTH bombings.
I can only assume you posted this here because its so wrong its funny…
No, because it’s true. Although some wars are completely stupid. Like the war on “infidels”.
But around the world you see people deemed as terrorists that are fighting for just causes.
Its so true. Even I agree on that!
Really? So give me a example pls. What´s is the just cause that give a good reason to kill innocent people?
Terrorism is definitely not the war of poor. How much costs to make a bomb and buy guns? How much costs to lobotomize a guy to throw away his life for a “cause”? How much costs to sustain and support all the terrorism strategies around the world?
The only flaw with this sentiment is that the majority of those behind terrorism today are exceptionally wealthy. A more accurate statement would be “War is practiced by nations, terrorism is practiced by special interest groups.” Excepting of course things like Iranian support for Hamas etc.
But don’t let reality get in the way of a good slogan!
So what is it when two third world countries declare war on each other?
Yeah, just like killing 1 person is the same as killing 6 million. Moral equivalent bullsh*t.
So Osama Bin Laden, whose family (and himself) are worth billions, and many of the Saudi’s that took down the WTC’s, and who came from rich families, are in which category?
Isn’t the Undie Bomber from a rich family? The tribal wars in Africa are waged by the rich? Japan was rich and powerful in the 30s? Isn’t the bulk of international terrorism funded by the rich who use the poor to carry it out?
I don’t think this bears a lot of scrutiny if you analyze it for more than a minute.
*sigh
anyone who makes a catchy phrase to justify murder should be executed.
How about: War is usually gov’t vs gov’t with a primary mission of disabling each other’s military and gov’t functions.
Terrorism is the use of poor people by rich people to kill, injure, and terrify civilians, especially the innocent: women & children, travelers on trains, subways, buses, aircraft, in hotels, schools, soccer stadiums, etc.
I see a bit of Stockholm Syndrome in this statement. Basically, the terrorists are attempting to hold the world hostage with fear. Some people, as a way of dealing with that fear, seem to think that if we’d only find common ground with the terrorists, see things from THEIR perspective, try to understand them, that the terrorists will see that we’re people just like them and they’ll pack up their bombs and go home and we’ll all live happily ever after.
So we get people who spout terrorist rhetoric.
Yes, typically war is undertaken by countries, or if not whole countries, then at least by large organized groups of people. Wars generally involve linear command structures with an organized chain of command and representatives willing to negotiate.
Terrorism by contrast typically involves small, isolated, independent groups of people with non-linear command structures. The leaders may be in contact with other terrorist cells, but cells generally work independently so that units may continue to operate even if the upper command structure caves in or is destroyed.
Thus, organized armies have an image of power and organization, while terrorists have an image of being local, “home-grown”, and on a budget.
In the war on terrorism, we are not fighting a country. We’re fighting groups of religious extremists who are united only by their religious beliefs, and by a desire to spread their religion to ALL countries. They are recruited not only from the poor and dispossessed who have been taught to blame foreign countries for their problems and to believe themselves directly oppressed and endangered by the evil WEST, but also they are recruited from the rich and well-meaning young people who are taught to feel guilty for having rich and powerful families.
Bin Ladin’s family, and bin Ladin himself, is extremely wealthy. Bin Ladin used his wealth to finance terrorism and terrorist training camps. Rich extremists pour billions of dollars a year into funds that support terrorism. At the same time, well-meaning people unknowingly contribute millions if not billions of dollars a year to so-called “Charities” that also fund terrorist groups.
So I say the above quote is false on a logical level. A more honest statement would be:
“War is conducted by organized groups with linear command structures. Terrorism is conducted by independent, isolated cells operating under non-linear command structures.”
Furthermore, I will say that in war, there are rules, although rules of engagement and conduct will vary VASTLY in scope and enforcement, due to the nature of the command structure. Terrorism, by contrast, has NO rules.
Crud. DJ said it better, and he used fewer words. Crispy bows to DJ.
Hard to argue with DJ. I’d add tall office buildings too.
I just always wonder about the kind of misguided people who think this is true, or that terrorism is justified…
Google “schoolgirl beheadings” or “acid attack girl’s face” or “Beslin School” or “Dubrovka Theatre” or “Bus 405” or “Olympic massacre” ….look at the photos if you have the stomach…and explain how any of those murders are justified.
And it doesn’t take much googling to discover that the misconception that terrorism is the war of the poor is pretty much a load of bu11shite.
I guess it’s supposed to be funny because it’s completely backwards? Ha? I guess?
DJ,
Tokyo, March 10, 1945.
War is not always pretty, rarely humane, and the number of innocent lives lost in war dwarfs those lost in terror attacks.
You are not very much a student of history. The war we Americans waged to subdue the native people of this country was one of the most brutal and ruthless in human history.
You may remember the men who founded this country were called rebels, and their method of warfare was deeded uncivilized.
Those people who murdered the victims of 911 thought they would be rewarded in paradise for their actions. They used tried and proven methods of shocking a greater foe, and rattling the civilian population. The Jews used these methods to secure a home state against the Brits, the PLO used these methods to carve their own home state out of the same land.
Terrorism is the method of war used when fighting a far superior military force. It had little to do with economics, in the case of 911 because that was a very well funded operation.
When the Islamics of Afghanistan were fighting the Russians, and being supported by the USA, they were “freedom fighters”. When those same people turned on us, as we should have expected them to do, they became “terrorists”.
We will continue to lose the wars we fight against terrorists as long as we ignore history. Guerrilla wars are beaten only when their support base, which would be common people, innocent civilians stop supporting them.
Tell me, DJ, looking back at history, how is this always been achieved before?
And it doesn’t take much googling to discover that the misconception that terrorism is the war of the poor is pretty much a load of bu11shite.
It is not entirely inaccurate at all. And it works. Ask the IRA.
McNamara asked, “Why is some action considered war crimes when someone loses a war, but not when the other side wins?”
The answer is, of course, a matter of who is writing the history. Take away your emotive reaction to this, and look at it in context of a larger picture, and you will discover we’re reliving history.
Crispy,
Know your enemy. You cannot tear a heart out if you know little of where it might be. That’s paraphrasing someone, and I cannot remember who.
Crispy, you seem to understand what is going on better than most here, who have reacted mostly emotionally.
Those the gods would destroy, they first anger.
First,you have to define terrorism.
Then, you have to define war.
Otherwise all comments are meaningless.
I hope Jonco posted this, not because it is true or humorous, but to stimulate debate. Am I on the right site?
Would make a good topic for a Philosophy, History, etc. essay topic.
Whatever, going forward and with all due respect, to be honest and just trying to think outside the box, it is what it is. And, it’s all good.
Mike F – I was hoping you’d weigh in. And as I typed it, I saw a lot of flaws as they came out of my fingers, but like Grumpy said, it’s an awesome stimulation for debate, so I thought I’d leave it. Of course the lines are always very blurry, and “rules of war” measn different things to different peoples at different times in different parts of the world, It does depend on which side you’re looking at it from, and the fact that the victor writes the history.
I bow to you and Crispy.
I love this place.
(Oh–btw – Hearts. And. Minds.)
I don’t agree with the saying. You can be poor and go to war, you can be rich and be a terrorist.
IMO – Many of you are correct but some say it better than others.
but lets keep it simple here …
bombing nightclubs or killing woman and children is terrorism
bombing strategic targets and killing other combatants is war
I think the flaw in many of the arguments is they hinge their argument on one word. Such as tying terrorism’s meaning with just being poor when that’s only half the equation. Losing focus of incorporating powerless lessens all arguments who debate that statement. Then there are those who use the fallacy of defining third world countries as being on the same level of poor as individuals who are poor, failing to connect that terrorism is an individual war and not a battle between nation states. These may be considered nuances that some people refuse to consider because their world is based on absolutes. They imply if a statement is correct only 99% of the time, then the meaning of it is 100% wrong. Unfortunately, that is the typical logical fallacy that drives most debate nowadays. Remember, it’s no different than many other phrases out there that people generally accept as axioms. After all, all the world is not literally a stage, but at times, it’s apropos to think so.
Oh, and to say you can be poor and go to war furthers my argument. “Going” to war is not utilized in it’s proper context. Going to war in relation to the above quote is based on declaration. In this country, declaration of war is made by well-to-do bureaucrats, and ends up being fought most often by the economically poorer. And to suggest that one can be rich and be a terrorist negates the same quote is a perfect example of absolutism. They fail to recognize that the greater majority of terrorists tend to fall into the poverty category and mostly powerless (think gangs and school cliques). Plus people lose all sense of objective reasoning when news channels point out that one terrorist came from a privileged background and then dismiss the thousands that fall short of that same background.
In the end, the quote is not so much a rule, but really is a generalization of existing facts where it’s true more often than it’s not.
Mike, very well said. You make very good points about colonization (and it applies not only to America, but to many places), but also to the American revolution.
Part of this is indeed semantic, because sometimes the lines between war and terrorism and between soldier and terrorist blur. I think the most important distinction however, is purpose. The terrorist’s purpose is terror. In this respect, for example, Sherman’s March to the Sea would not be considered terrorism because his goal was strategic: to break the back of the South by cutting supply lines, destroying food production, etc. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on the other hand, would definitely qualify as terrorism because the ultimate purpose was not the destruction of the military targets in those cities (which could have been achieved with conventional bombs) but rather to impress upon the Emperor the complete futility of resistance, to in essence create in him a fear of continuing to fight. The sheer force of the blast alone was unbelievable for its time. Recently, I read an interesting article by a man who was in BOTH bombings.
Crispy,
He died yesterday.
Holy cow! I missed that. I had no idea.
Isn’t that weird?
100% True…
Even if you don’t like it….