attacking military is not terroism...right?

Post Reply New Topic

an ''old rule''was:Attacking military is not
consider a terrorist act.
So,If Isis blew up an Army base,it would not be consider
a ''terrorist''act or would it be consider a terrorist act.

what's the rule now?

It would be classified as an act of war conducted by terrorists, most likely.

Interesting question.

If you mean blowing up an Iraqi army base in Iraq, or a Syrian army base in Syria, then it just combat because its already a war zone.

If you mean a 9-11 type attack on an American army base here in the USA then that would be considered terrorism. The attack on the USS Cole off of Yemen was considered "terrorism" even though it was a US Navy warship, and not a civilian ship. It may not be considered as heinous as blowing up the shopping center in Nairobi, or the attack on the twin towers because it was not targeting civilians. But it would still be called terrorism because its not in a war zone.

one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Ukraine has declared roughly half their country to be terrorists and is waging a bloody war of attrition against them, all they do is what to live under their own rule.

what about terrorist attack against government official,CIA type people
is that consider a terrorist act?

civilian that's non-military but does that also include non-government,
non-CIA people

A terrorist attack is by definition an act of terror.

Terror Terror Terror.

Last edited by Stannis on 23 Aug 2014, 11:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.

"terrorism" is a consequence of something, not a cause for retaliation. We should be learning something from it instead of continuing to be party to making the conditions that grow acts of terrorism.

You may have a point there. It is important to look at the underlying factors that cause terrorism but at this moment in time it's much more practical to stop anyone who engages in acts of terror because of the many innocent lives these people are willing to take. In other words, they have to be defeated by military force first before one can investigate the circumstances which may have lead to the bad decisions they have made. There is no other option. Enough is enough! They are willing to die for their cause anyway so let's do them a favor. I have had it with IS, Al Qaida, Boko Haram and all of the many terrorist groups that find it necessary to commit one atrocious act after another. What have they achieved the death and destruction they have spread all over the world? The answer is ............... absolutely nothing!

What strikes me is that the majority of terrorist groups consists out of young males with a few older ones who nudge them along. Terrorism is not about religious dogma's, politics and the fight for freedom among other things. It has everything to do with male rage, frustration, power, a lack of intelligence and most of all the uncontrollable yet debilitating and destructive influence of male testosteron.

CIA are in a different category to military intelligence. Even if there is some overlap.

So attacking a CIA target is different from attacking a military base.

However in reality it is all terrorism.

Provocateur Provocateur Provocateur.

Last edited by Stannis on 24 Aug 2014, 2:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The US reporting on terror elicits more terror than the terrorists themselves

Terrorism is a tactic (or a form of government that rules by fear).

Many years ago, military against military with both sides in full uniform in plain view was the only accepted form of warfare.

Later, people learned to camouflage, but they still wore distinctive uniforms.

Guerrilla warfare became popular. Hit and run vs. open confrontation.

In Vietnam, we learned that an enemy is willing to dress like civilians. It's considered wrong, but guess who was prevailing with that tactic.

Now, people are willing to go after civilians to get what they want.

It's more a question of morality than anything else. Limiting valid targets to active combatants and military assets makes war more "civilized," but war is anything but that. History has proven again and again that the side willing to shed the most blood tends to prevail. Western cultures have prevailed due to superior technology, but they still fight the same types of people...whose hatred survives generation to generation.

Those who study military strategy understand this. It is why civilian oversight of the military is a double-edged sword. It holds military leaders accountable, but if the civilian oversight is too weak, it can compromise military effectiveness.

Some enemies require that you kill everyone, burn everything they've built to the ground and then salt the earth so that nothing will ever grow there again.

Military leaders understand this reality. Civilians often do not, or do not have the stomach to commit to that tactic.

It's all political speech straight out of 1984.

We think the people attacking the regime in Afghanistan are wrong so the U.S. sends their predator drones, fighters and bombers to kill, maim and destroy hundreds, if not thousands, of these fighters. But let's make one thing perfectly clear.....WE ARE NOT TRYING TO TERRORIZE THEM DESPITE THE WORDS "SHOCK AND AWE" (that would be inhumane)....WE'RE ONLY TRYING TO KILL THEM.

Can't they understand this???? Do they have to make a mockery of our electronic war by killing and beheading ONE of ours. How terrifying it is when we see the as*holes we've become.

There hasn't been a single western war where this approach was necessary. Indeed since the second world war all western wars have been poorly executed public relations campaigns and have been about maintaining western hegemony.

"There hasn't been a single western war where this approach was necessary."

U.S. command thought it was necessary to destroy entire villages in order to prevent their take over and usage by the Viet fighters. You disagree with their decision and it's effectiveness? Although not instituted 100% in the overall battle campaign, it's a tactic that will always be used.

Or perhaps I missed your intent and you were only commenting on wars "on battlefields in the West?" In this case I agree the capitalists and corporations driving the wars are VERY concerned about damaging infrastructure and will avoid this in hopes they can soon take over the enemies lands.