If your intention for blowing up a structure or person is because that structure or person poses a direct threat to you (ie he is the only guy who can effectively lead your opposition's front, or the building contains all military intelligence of the opposition), then it is more classifiable (in my opinion) as a militaristic-type attack.
If your intention for blowing up a structure or person is not because that structure or person poses a direct threat to you, but more so that the person or structure represent a symbol of what you are trying to defeat, and your intention is to get an idea across rather than to simply destroy something that is of danger to you, than it is an act of terrorism.
Line gets fuzzy though, and I think often times attacks are combinations of both (ie attack a symbolic and direct threat type target).
Last edited by David D.; 09-15-11 at 12:50 PM.
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
Burning the USA flag in Europe??
I guess Obama's apologizing for the USA being a mean country and all that didn't do any good after all.
Catch me if you can.
This is breaking news?
These news forums are about two things:
bland corp. news dogma and censorship.
That's the whole point behind sub-dividing all these topics,
Just because the NYT, LAT, WaHoPo, avoid things doesn't
our free speech zones should be cordoned off into sub topics
Its like the Community>User Map function. Its Moderator abuse!
The Rand Corp recommended this in 2008 with Iraq and Afghanistan in hindsight, not in 2001 as America headed down the road. There is a key difference there worth noting; more importantly though, Rand is not suggesting what you are. It claims that US efforts have been mislead, yes; It claims America's War on Terror strategy since 9/11 has failed, yes; but it doesn't claim the best route to victory would've been to send a few CIA agents in dark cloaks to parachute down and choke hold Osama, not ever and especially not from the beginning.Originally Posted by Catawba
Originally Posted by How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for countering al'Qaida Rand Report, Military Force and al'Qaida in IraqThat is an asinine statement that expresses political motivation instead of actual analysisOriginally Posted by Catawba
Originally Posted by CatawbaOriginally Posted by http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/opinion/recasting-the-iraq-sanctions.html?src=pmOriginally Posted by http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/07/26/iraq7_25.a.tm/Originally Posted by http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-03-16/news/9803160160_1_sanctions-policy-iraqi-compliance-sanctions-don-t-workOriginally Posted by Iraq late 1990s report by RandThen why was Al Zarqawi in Baghdad in 2002?Originally Posted by Catawba
Saddam Hussein harbored horrible terrorists like Abu Nidal, and personally gave $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He was not an enemy of terrorism
Source?Originally Posted by Catawba
Originally Posted by CatawbaIraqbodycount.org: Between 100,000 and 150,000 killedOriginally Posted by http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html?src=pm
But most importantly, You're missing the point. If you constantly favor instant results over delayed ones, you will not see long-term success. If you want to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs
Last edited by Tubub; 09-15-11 at 11:04 PM.
“Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”