The Cause of Terror
005.07.08 4:40

I just juxtaposed two entire different causes in terror - and I am not still sure which factor is more than the other. Maybe proverty might be a reason in part but not in the least all the causes of terror, at the same time just show-off in a world stage does not explain everything.
Battle is an act of terror in time of war.
Terror is an act of battle in time of peace.
We cannot argue the cause of terror as the same lebel as the war held between countries though, now it is certain we live under the age of unpredictability, the fact we've been living in peace till yesterday does not guarantee the peaceful day today.
In other words, the age of uncertainty.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Cause of Terror Preferences Top 20 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 20 comments 0: 20 comments 1: 20 comments 2: 15 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.07.08 5:23 (#13007342) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
To me- the time of war (official declaration) isn't as important as the targets and purposes. Battle is an act of violence between opposing military forces whose commanders choose where, when, and how the conflict happens, in hopes of overcoming one's enemies by sheer force. Terrorism is an act of violence by a military force against a civilian population- carefully timed and designed to create some form of political response. The two major differences therefore are 1. who is harmed (civilian vs military casualties) and 2. what the aim in mind is (gradual political change vs change by force).Of course, there are acts that are both battle and terrorism- the use of WMDs, such as the United States vs Japan at the end of WWII, is an obvious example. But by and large throughout history, there's been a major attempt on the part of the world's armies to not affect civilian populations.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both!
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:1)
by eglamkowski (631706) <eglamkowskiNO@SPAMangelfire.com> on 2005.07.08 5:34 (#13007471) (http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski Last Journal: 2005.09.29 4:06)
But by and large throughout history, there's been a major attempt on the part of the world's armies to not affect civilian populations. *blink*And when exactly does your version of history begin? And end? And what parts of the planet does it cover?Complete and total obliteration of entire enemy populations was common in ancient times. Carthage is merely the most famous example.And such actions are hardly confined to ancient times, although the scope of such actions hasn't always been as grand (though sometimes it has, such as with the Nazis in Russia or the Japanese in China during WWII).Indeed, most of history has been the victors slaughtering or enslaving enemy civilian populations after wars are won. The idea of avoiding civilians is both relatively modern and mostly over-romanticized. General Sherman in the US civil war, for example, or the US treatment of indian populations in general, are just two examples, aside from the obvious Nazi and Japanese examples mentioned above. We could go through a whole litany of modern (i.e. 18th century to the present) examples where civilians are targetted by militaries.--Glamkowski's Law of Email: Co-workers will never read more than two lines worth of any email you send them. [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.07.08 5:51 (#13007633) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
We can also go through a whole litany, begining with the Bahgavad Gita in the Hindu Vidas, of holy books and holy armies specifically AVOIDING civilian populations- and last I looked, that holy book was about 500 years older than Moses. There are plenty of examples on both sides- but when the military codes of honor get written down, they tend to avoid the counter examples you mention- and thus most soldiers in the world TODAY are taught with avoidance of civilian casualties being a major point of the just war.Of course- the point can be made that it's very rare that a just army defeats an unjust one without commiting acts of terrorism by the above definitions, in fact I can't point to a single example. But to say that they don't try would also be an exageration.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both! [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:1)
by eglamkowski (631706) <eglamkowskiNO@SPAMangelfire.com> on 2005.07.08 6:41 (#13008173) (http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski Last Journal: 2005.09.29 4:06)
I still disagree with you - the laws of war, the military codes of honor, were well known to Sherman, Grant, John Kerry (in Vietnam, along with many others) the japanese military, the german military, and all the rest, but they intentionally, deliberately ignored them.I'm not talking about collateral damage here. Targetting of civlians happens regardless of what the laws of warfare say about it. Whether the violators get charged or not usually depends on whether their side wins or loses is all.Hell, we got people today claiming the US military is intentionally and deliberatelly targetting civilians (especially journalists) in Iraq. I'm not convinced yet that that is true, myself, but the claim is out there.Now, maybe in WESTERN countries, soldiers are taught avoidance of civilians, but I doubt that's much part of the training in most countries. Heck, in much of Africa soldiers are frequently teenagers and I doubt the corrupt officers in charge bother with teaching them such nicities. And whatever muslim armies may or may not teach, there's no shortage of muslim soldiers who will happily slaughter "infidels" (including other muslims who are not of the same sect, shiite vs. sunni vs. sufi) - see the Darfur region.Yeah, there's a law of warfare that tells us to avoid civilian casualties, but my point is that adhereing to it seems to be the exception rather than the norm.--Glamkowski's Law of Email: Co-workers will never read more than two lines worth of any email you send them. [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.07.08 6:54 (#13008304) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
I still disagree with you - the laws of war, the military codes of honor, were well known to Sherman, Grant, John Kerry (in Vietnam, along with many others) the japanese military, the german military, and all the rest, but they intentionally, deliberately ignored them. In fact, if anything, I'm coming over to your side- in at least three other messages today I've argued that to win it's NECESSARY to ignore these codes of honor- deliberately and with as much intent to induce terror as the terrorists.One great way to beat your enemy is to make the civilian population supporting him unable to bear the burden of that support.I'm not talking about collateral damage here. Targetting of civlians happens regardless of what the laws of warfare say about it. Whether the violators get charged or not usually depends on whether their side wins or loses is all. Agreed. In fact- it might be impossible to win without such acts. I've been thinking since our last exchange, and I don't know of a single war in the last 500 years- or maybe the last 2000- that was won without such acts of terrorism.Hell, we got people today claiming the US military is intentionally and deliberatelly targetting civilians (especially journalists) in Iraq. I'm not convinced yet that that is true, myself, but the claim is out there. I hope so in some ways- we won't win this war without such acts.Now, maybe in WESTERN countries, soldiers are taught avoidance of civilians, but I doubt that's much part of the training in most countries. Heck, in much of Africa soldiers are frequently teenagers and I doubt the corrupt officers in charge bother with teaching them such nicities. And whatever muslim armies may or may not teach, there's no shortage of muslim soldiers who will happily slaughter "infidels" (including other muslims who are not of the same sect, shiite vs. sunni vs. sufi) - see the Darfur region. And yet, the Koran itself contains instructions that label it a sin to slaughter civilian non-combatants. But like other examples- the actions differ greatly from the words.Yeah, there's a law of warfare that tells us to avoid civilian casualties, but my point is that adhereing to it seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Or at least, it's the exception among winners in warfare- and might actually be neccessary to the win.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both! [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) on 2005.07.08 11:15 (#13010352) (http://www.stargoat.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.29 2:15)
TamerlaneShermanAttilaGhengis KhanScipio the YoungerMaoPol PotXerxesBaburLi ZichengStalinSimon de Montfort
Anyway. It's not terror that wins wars.
Wars are won by making the enemy not able to fight you. There are three ways to accomplish this.
1. Make him dead. (Easy explanation.)
2. Place him in jail. (Concentration camp, prison camp, just plain ole' prison.)
3. Make him not want to fight you. (Scare him too badly to fight you, give him something better to do like pray, make money, etc)[ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.07.09 2:35 (#13014936) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
Anyway. It's not terror that wins wars. A funny thing to say right after a list of terrorists who won wars through correct use of terror.Wars are won by making the enemy not able to fight you. There are three ways to accomplish this.1. Make him dead. (Easy explanation.)2. Place him in jail. (Concentration camp, prison camp, just plain ole' prison.) 3. Make him not want to fight you. (Scare him too badly to fight you, give him something better to do like pray, make money, etc)Did you note that all three of these can most easily be acomplished through terrorism of some sort? Making him dead through a weapon of mass destruction is obvious. Placing him in jail requires kidnapping him first (though of course the winners call this arresting). Making him not want to fight you is easiest to accomplish by "Scaring him too badly to fight you", the inducement of terror, which is the very definition of terrorism. So most certainly terrorism CAN win wars- the real question is, are there other ways to win wars? I can't seem to find an example of a victory that does not include at least some form of terrorism.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both! [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) on 2005.07.10 13:58 (#13024657) (http://www.stargoat.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.29 2:15)
You completely missed the point.
Terror is a means to an end. It is not the end, nor the only means to the end.
For example, the recent unpleasantness in Yugoslavia was not solved through terrorism. The local people were convinced there was something better to do.
The trouble in Carthage was solved by killing everyone.
The Boer War solution involved placing the entire populance in jail and killing the rest.[ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.07.11 23:15 (#13032555) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
Asside from Yugoslavia (and even there, HOW were they convinced to do something better? By a genocide and mass graves and war crimes trials), your examples are all terrorism of one form or another. But yes, I completely agree that terrorism is only a means to an end- but the problem is, it seems to be a neccessary means- the ends would not be accomplished without it. The real value lies in the search for different means.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both! [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) on 2005.07.12 1:53 (#13034049) (http://www.stargoat.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.29 2:15)
In Yugoslavia, the people were convinced that NATO would back them up. I've spoken with some of the people in the final protest, and they were just tired of being hungry, and hated by the rest of Europe. They knew that the war was wrong, and they wanted to get on with their lives.
Carthage had nothing to do with terror. It had everything to do with solving the problem permanently.
The Boer War was solved by placing the civilian population in concentration camps, denying the guerrillas access to the population that was supporting them. It worked well, and the war ended. It was not about spreading terror.
As I stated earlier, there are four ways to get a person to not do something. Make them afraid to do it, kill them, place them in jail, or give them something better to do. Everything else is a derivitive of these four things.[ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.07.14 5:27 (#13057162) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
My point is that terrorism is in the eye of the victim. From that point of view, do you think the Carthageans thought that their own genocide was mere convential warfare? Or the Boers on their imprisonment? Both of these examples would likely be called terrorism by the populations they were applied to.You're still stuck in winner-written history; try looking at it from the loser's point of view before you condemn utterly (I'm one to talk- I support the destruction of Mecca at this point).--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both! [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) on 2005.07.14 5:51 (#13057344) (http://www.stargoat.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.29 2:15)
The Carthageans did not think much about their genocide. They were dead.
The Boers were imprisoned, not terrorized. They might have been annoyed, even scared, but not terrorized.
I'm not stuck in any winner-written history, rather I am forcing the actions to be viewed the way they took place. Actions are what matter in this case. The complete destruction of Mecca, for example, would be terrorism, as it does not kill a specific nation of people; much as the bombing of Dresden was terrorism. The complete destruction of everyone in Saudi Arabi would be genocide, not terrorism.
In order for something to be terrorism, the intent must be to terrorize. The action itself is the definition of action, not the action's effect (supposed or otherwise). True, it is Kantian, but still correct.[ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.07.14 6:04 (#13057447) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
I never quite agreed with Kant. Effects to me are often as important as the original intent. Especially when you're dealing with the type of people who have yet to forgive the Mongols for Ghengis Kahn.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both! [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) on 2005.07.14 10:39 (#13059464) (http://www.stargoat.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.29 2:15)
Heh. But Khan wanted to cause terror.
Normally, I would agree with you, but in this case, because we are attempting to define different styles of warfare, we must acknowledge the aggressor's Grand Strategic intent. The actual outcome is technically irrelevant, as long as it resembles what was intended. (If it is not, it's called a failure.)[ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.07.15 4:59 (#13066388) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
Then we have agreement- because I most certainly consider the Iran and Afghani fronts in the war on terror to be FAILURES.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both! [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:1)
by iminplaya (723125) on 2005.07.15 11:20 (#13069364) (Last Journal: 2005.09.04 7:21)
...try looking at it from the loser's point of view before you condemn utterly (I'm one to talk- I support the destruction of Mecca at this point). Oh thank you for saying that. That kind of honesty is SOOO refreshing. I've been trying to get people to see things from the other side for so long. It's a big part of my rant against the machine. You are the first that I've seen to acknowledge that, and I salute you for it. As that line of thinking becomes more prominent, the urge to destroy should diminish over time. Please, don't ever lose that thought.--Oooo...standing for the Queen, are we? RTFM [bfi.org] [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.07.16 0:44 (#13073620) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
Oh thank you for saying that. That kind of honesty is SOOO refreshing. I've been trying to get people to see things from the other side for so long. It's a big part of my rant against the machine. You are the first that I've seen to acknowledge that, and I salute you for it. As that line of thinking becomes more prominent, the urge to destroy should diminish over time. Please, don't ever lose that thought. What you don't understand is that the urge to destroy is NOT comming from the history- it's comming from what we're currently faced with. The current terrorism is in DIRECT response to our own terrorism committed in the Middle East since the Ottoman Empire fell. Unless you know of a way to go back in time, we can't change that cause at all. We're stuck with it. The result will be a genocide. It can be a genocide of people on our side. It can be a genocide of people on their side. OR, alternatively, it can be a genocide of the two ideas that cause the current conflict: Islamic Nationalism and Free Trade.In the last, it will cost us entire cities and economic health- but no humans need die, just ideas and the symbols of ideas. It will require Mecca and Medina be sacrificed to a monument so horrific that nobody ever even THINKS about Islamic Nationalism and a world government from there ever again- but they can be evacuated first and the radioactive monument that replaces those cities can wait until the cities have been evacuated. It will require, in the United States, an end to Wall Street and quite likely the final economic failure of the East Coast, and distributism in the west replacing shipping networks. It might very well mean the end of Federalism- damn hard to keep track of the West Coast, Alaska, and Hawaii if we're once again limited to non-fossil-fuel modes of transportation (I seem to remember mail taking six months between the coasts- it won't be that bad because INFORMATION is more free now thanks to the Internet, but goods will have to be produced and sold locally, and people will be less likely to meet in person, thus making government slightly hard). Are we willing to give up all of that to avoid the real human genocides? I'm not sure. But it points out that the destruction that is required does not have to include human lives.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both! [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:1)
by iminplaya (723125) on 2005.07.16 3:09 (#13075330) (Last Journal: 2005.09.04 7:21)
We're stuck with it. I'm still willing to see what happens when we stop antagonizing them. Then an appropriate conclusion can be drawn. Until then, we just can't know what their intentions are. It's going to take a giant step on our part, but this time, we have to make the first move. They will not stop until we make that move. If they don't stop afterword, then we will know, and we can act. Justly, this time. We won't have to let them reach our shores. We just have to watch very carefully. As it is, there is no good guy. Just OUR guy. And I want us to be the good guy. I want to be able to support our people with a clean conscience. Right now that's not possible. One thing they have over on us is that they don't desparately cling to life on this planet the way we do.(from what I hear and read. I coundn't know for sure) This will always give them an edge...until we apply the "final solution"...or accept that life here isn't the end-all [wonderlyrics.com].--Oooo...standing for the Queen, are we? RTFM [bfi.org] [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.07.16 3:30 (#13075541) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
I'm still willing to see what happens when we stop antagonizing them. Ghengis Khan stopped antagonizing them 600 years ago- and Mongols who stray to Afghanistan still get pelted with rocks. What makes you think the anger will go away just because we stop unilaterally?Then an appropriate conclusion can be drawn. Until then, we just can't know what their intentions are. It has been tried in the past with semitic cultures- it almost always fails. I'm not sure if that's a flaw in their culture- in many ways it's a strength that we lack.It's going to take a giant step on our part, but this time, we have to make the first move. They will not stop until we make that move. If they don't stop afterword, then we will know, and we can act. On the plus side- we're going to have to take that move eventually. The Hubert Peak might not have been hit globally yet- but Saudi production and water percentage statistics now clearly show that the Saudi oil fields are running dry. We don't have a choice about making that move eventually- the only question is, will they kill us before we find the courage to make that move?Justly, this time. We won't have to let them reach our shores. We just have to watch very carefully. My favorite Just War theory was the very first- Augustine of Hippo. By that, you can't have a Just War WITHOUT letting them reach your shores- because the first rule of Just Warfare is that you fight only on your own soil against an invader, and you don't follow him back to his country to take revenge. But I'd point out that it's impossible to fight a just war against an unjust enemy- and thus control of the borders is neccessary to even be able to watch.As it is, there is no good guy. Just OUR guy. And I want us to be the good guy. Then you're about 160 years too late- our "good guy" status left the day the government made corporations first rate citizens and the rest of us second rate.I want to be able to support our people with a clean conscience. Right now that's not possible. And it's not going to be possible as long as we continue to engage their culture at all- because capitalism and Islam are NOT compatible (neither are capitalism and Christianity, strictly speaking, but there's a little more leeway there).One thing they have over on us is that they don't desparately cling to life on this planet the way we do.(from what I hear and read. I coundn't know for sure) This will always give them an edge...until we apply the "final solution"...or accept that life here isn't the end-all. And that's a big part of the reason why Bush won't win the war with the current tactics- that even attempting to fight using conventional warfare against terrorism is cowardly and foolish. Oh- BTW, check out my journal- I moved one of our discussions there when the previous discussion was archived.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both! [ Parent ]
Re:I disagree with your split(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.07.09 11:22 (#13018538) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Battle is a use of force in time of war, basically between regular armed forces in which to fight is duty, obligation so it is completely in line with law and order, regulation, etc. But the word terror connotes illegality, that ought not to be occurred. Terror is a use of force by those who are not authorised to exercise use of force, so use of force by armed forces toward civilians who don't bear arms falls in this category in narrow sense, but use of force against militia - civilians who bear arms, and guerillas - not regular armed foces but bear arms, and rebels alike are regarded as a justifiable use of force by regular army.
Basically the term terror is used in time of peace, for those who acted terror would insist their use of force is a batlle, but indeed their acts are regarded as nothing but a crime in any country in time of peace. So I had to state instead ' Battle is a legitimate use of force in time of war and terror is an abuse of force in time of peace '
But by and large throughout history, there's been a major attempt on the part of the world's armies to not affect civilian populations
I hope so yet especially since the WWI, the nature of war changed from the limited use of force by regular armies to just all out war where all the people of the other side were thought to be enemies. But you are right - thanks to the development of information technology throughout the world, people regardless which regime they belong to can have relatively easier access to the more accurate information from outside the world.
So now, 'Their regime is wrong but they are just the same as other people' type of thinking has been prevailed. So unless any army being accepted as a liberator not an oppressor, there's no way to prevail. It is very important for liberators to be supported by the very local populations they liberated. Let alone use of force against civilians are just out of the question.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters