Murder is never justifiable, and yet what we call "WAR" is accepted to be "The Extension of Politics by Other Means" (Carl von Clauswitz).

Though at first it may seem that acts of terror are not political in nature, but rather simple anarchy - it seems to me "Terrorism" is virtually undistinguishable from war, with the exception that vice maintaining standing armies the enemy hides by means of Guerrilla tactics, in a war which is not formally declared by any actual nation which has spawned it (as far as anyone knows!), and wherein none of the conventions of recognised warfare are respected.

Once therefore the preponderance of evidence points to sponsorship by a specific nation or regime, then what?

And is it in fact possible to even have a "state of war" when or if the aggressor is not in fact a political entity?

Hmm...

Or are random acts of violence now acceptable means of entering into the international political arena... (He says, drily)

There are many questions here. But it is clear in my own mind at least, that what it is that Osama Bin Laden and anyone else like him have been doing must be stopped once and for all.

 

Could not have put it any better!

 

The floor is open to comment - please keep it on a theoretical/practical level, else I've opened up a huge can of worms here...

I'm particularly hoping to hear from Torque1st, since he's had the benefit of considerable military theory instruction.

And come to think of it - I wonder what an instructor at either West Point, or the Virginia Military Academy might comment on the subject?

Anyone have a way to pass this on to someone from one of these institutes?

~Wolf

 

A definition I've seen used over and over again for terrorism goes like this:

Terrorism is an act designed and intended to shake the public's faith in the ability of the government to protect its citizens.

In that way, then, terrorism is different from war. War is usually used to caused a lasting change. For instance, after 9/11, the US hunted down enough of the Taliban to enable a democratic government to be established in Afghanistan.

Terrorism may be used as a precursor to war, though.

 

From the Books:

Definition of Terrorism
[Source: Patterns of Global Terrorism. Washington: Dept. of State, 2001: vi]

No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.

The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The U.S. Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

Domestic terrorism is probably a more widespread phenomenon than international terrorism. Because international terrorism has a direct impact on U.S. interests, it is the primary focus of this report. However, the report also describes, but does not provide statistics on, significant developments in domestic terrorism.

(1) For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty. For example, in past reports we have listed as terrorist incidents the murders of the following U.S. military personnel: Col. James Rowe, killed in Manila in April 1989; Capt. William Nordeen, U.S. defense attache killed in Athens in June 1988; the two servicemen killed in the La Belle disco bombing in West Berlin in April 1986; and the four off-duty U.S. Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador in June 1985. We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against U.S. bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.

 

War: Moral or Immoral?

By Monty Rainey
February 8, 2003

I don't normally write about a subject such as this, but our nation is immersed in so much apostasy, from time to time, clarification of the Word of God becomes necessary. We currently have a lot of Americans running around asking questions like, "What would Jesus do?" and making false assumptions and twisting of doctrine to accommodate their cowardice and misguided political views.

People ignorantly cite such tidbits of doctrine as "Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth."

This is particularly popular among atheists attempting to ridicule Christianity as being hypocritical. Unfortunately, we have many citizens today who enjoy the freedom only available in America, while giving allegiance to other entities, such as communism, the United Nations or the Pope. This is nothing more than indulging in privilege, without shouldering the duty of responsibility. This is also the same destructive hypocrisy which has the ability to one day destroy America the same way it destroyed Judea. In 70 A.D., the Herodians, Sadducees and Pharisees paid the price for this type hypocrisy. They enjoyed the advantages of the Roman Empire while simultaneously seeking its destruction. Consequently, Rome destroyed them and completely removed their autonomy. Unfortunately today, America will likely never seek similar recourse, as the attacks are coming from within.

The Bible has a great deal to say about war. The confusion in regard to the Biblical precepts of war derives from ignorance of the Divine viewpoint on the subject. Despite constant attempts to distort the truth, the Bible teaches that warfare is necessary to protect freedoms and country and is moral and justified. Though immoral acts often occur during the course of war, the war itself is moral when necessary.

Fighting and killing the enemy is moral, not immoral! At this point, the popular retort is the generally misconstrued Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." The problem here is, the verse is well known to be a mistranslation. The Hebrew word for kill is "katal" and is not found here. The word found in the original texts is "ratsatch" which literally means 'murder.' Therefore, the corrected translation of Exodus 20:13 should read, "Thou shall not murder." This is not just a mere difference of semantics, but an entirely different concept altogether. This commandment correctly and clearly refers to homicide, not warfare.

Obviously, not all war is justified. One needs look no further than the settlement of the American west and such occurrences as the Sand Creek Massacre for examples of unjust warfare. War for personal or political enhancement, such as the **** movement of World War II is not justified warfare. As a rabid dog must be destroyed, so must evil and oppression be destroyed! God's perfect system of justice uses warfare to judge nations which have become totally depraved and whose viewpoints are incompatible with God's Divine Institution of Nationalism. Many times in the Old Testament, God used warfare to destroy nations and stop the spread of its corruption or to preserve His own people. Some examples can be found in Gen. 15:14, 16, Lev. 18:25, 1 Kings 21:26, and Amos 2. 1 Chronicles 5:22 tells us "For there fell down many slain, BECAUSE THE WAR WAS OF GOD ." The war was God's will and the enemy was killed! That phrase should answer once and for all any question of God's objection of war.

Many today also state that we are wrong to go into Iraq and should delay war until we are attacked here in America, (which we were on Sept. 11). This poses the question; however, is it justified for us to fight in another country for the protection of our own? This is answered in Numbers 32: 5 - 32. The tribes of Reuben and Gad wanted to be left out of the war. The simply wanted to be cowboys, left alone to tend their herds.

Reuben and Gad were dragging their feet. They had good land. Moses explained to them that by avoiding war, they were not only involved in sinful carnality, but their actions could well bring the Lord's wrath upon the entire land. The passages go on to explain, it was clearly time for war. Had Reuben and Gad not gone to war, they would have been guilty before God. Notice the alternative which Moses states: "But if you will not do so, behold, YE HAVE SINNED AGAINST THE LORD, [by not going to war]: and be sure your sin [of cowardice] will find you out [Your country will be conquered and you will be in slavery, if this sin is on a large enough scale]." (Num. 32:23) As a nation today, the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is a clear threat to our freedoms. As a nation, we are obligated to protect our freedom for future generations and each day we delay war, we are just as guilty of sinning against the Lord as Moses said the tribes of Reuben and Gad would have been!

The Bible goes on to explain that the objective of war is nothing less than decisive defeat of the enemy. Annihilation of the enemy is the only way to assure peace! Capturing towns or villages does not win wars. You must decimate the enemy ranks!

"Come behold the WORKS OF THE LORD [war], what desolations [annihilations] he hath made in the earth. He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire. (Psa. 46:8,9)

The Sennacherib invasion of Judah is the backdrop for this passage. Jesus has slaughtered the enemy and brought an end to the war, as found in Isaiah 37:36, 37, and 2 Kings 19:35. Christ gave the word and 185,000 Assyrian soldiers were destroyed. "He maketh wars to cease." How? History gives us the answer. Wars end when the enemy is defeated, decisively!

There will always be doves flitting about who unintentionally provoke war by hoping beyond hope to be able to "pet the cobra" or peacefully coexist with the leopard. You will inevitably end up peacefully dead. "Thus saith the Lord concerning the [false] prophets [which today would be analogous to liberal politicians and clergy] that make my people err, that bite with their teeth [they are unrealistic, lack common sense] and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him. (Mic. 3:5).

Liberals are deceived by peace propaganda and are blinded to the consequences of 'peace at any cost.' Those who urge a peaceful coexistence with the enemies of the United States are oblivious to the fact that they are the very people who are preparing for war against us now. They are blinded to the dangers of NOT going to war when going to war is the only solution to maintaining long term peace. The truth is, every "peacenik" in this country is a traitor and is a weapon of the enemy.

Our nation's freedom was obtained through military victory. It can only be maintained by the same. Are we not obliged to leave to our children and grandchildren, the same freedom we have enjoyed? We can only do so by destroying those who seek to destroy us. Those same enemies who despise our freedom and our prosperity.

God Bless America.

Monty L. Rainey
Email montyrainey@juntosociety.com

Hays County TX

 

WOW!!!

Excellent work, people! Keep it coming....

 

True. But by the same token, then, terrorism has to be considered war whenever those who participate in it are doing so in order to effectuate what they truly believe will be a "lasting change". They are in all respects fighting a war. Hence, any country or political entity that sponsers terrorism is sponsoring a war against those countries or political entities that are being targeted by the terrorists. For me, it's that simple.

 

America has been fighting a "war" for 20 years.
This war uses terrorist tactics on a daily basis, and it is fought on American soil.
Many people have been killed, and hundreds of thousands of people have been taken prisoner in this war, mostly Americans.
The enemy in this "war" is ambiguous, but almost everybody can be the enemy in this "war."
It's the "war" on drugs.
So, how can you call it "war" when it's really just terrorism?

BDV

 

My simple 2 cents:

War (i.e. declared war involving the overt, aggressive use of destructive resources) is meant to defeat the opposition. This defeat can be the result of killing, destroying, capturing, etc.

Terrorism is meant not necessarily to defeat the opposition, but to demoralize, undermine, splinter, and /or cause them to give up out of fear (i.e. "terror").

Terrorists who would otherwise stand no chance in a head-to-head war, hope to "win" by scaring the other side into giving up without there even being a "war".

 

Other than NRAJOE's post, I agree with the posts in this thread (though I don't condone drug use). I think ratsmokers definition is excellent. Terrorism is an evil that world needs to be rid of.

I want to go on record right now, as stating that I do not condone terrorism in any way, shape, or form. I am merely stating these ideas in order to present another side of a philosophical debate.

I think there are two kinds of terrorism, the type done for personal gain and for purely evil intentions, as is often hyped by Hollywood, and a second kind, the kind born of utter desperation.

There's a reason terrorism exists. It is spawned from the basic feeling of helplessness that those who resort to it are feeling. Look at nations that have been linked to terrorism, none have a standing military. These people have no means of otherwise defending themselves or bringing about change. Terrorists are in effect the military of the Islamic world. They feel that their entire way of life and homelands are being threatened and they have no other means of defending themselves or striking a blow against what is quite frankly, an invincible enemy.

Palestinians go into Israel and commit suicide bombings, not because they want to, or they think it's the best answer to the problem, they do it because it is their only weapon beyond sticks and stones. They don't have the tanks and military that Israel does.

Again, I'm not saying I condone it, only that I can understand how one could be driven to it. I think we eventually need to examine and address the causes of terrorism rather than kill terrorists. The fact is, for every one we kill, ten are being trained to take their place. Until we stop the desire to train more replacements, the "war" will never end.

Waxy

 

Here, I believe we run into one of the "gray" areas that surround this topic (loaded as it is with them).

In considering a "NATION" as a political entity, we must necessarily assume that the majority of the people of it are aligned, or mostly in agreement, with each other - else the ruling group/class/organization would come tumbling down.

But terror groups generally are thought to operate on their own as a small part of wherever it is they come from - and thus are not a dominant voice in whatever their community happens to be...

And yet - looking back on the reactions around the world following 9-11-01 there was a large amount of apparent support for the event, possibly in part due to it's shear sensationalism.
Indeed - most such responses were condemned over the days following, once the humanitarian side of it all came to light worldwide.

There has also been a great deal of examination of the media brainwashing practiced actively by the media in certain countries, but can that of and by itself include all of the people in those regions into the class "Primary Aggressor"?

It seems to me if that were true, the "Rednecks" in the USA would already have declared war against somebody somewhere, and WE have not done so. (Yes, I are one)

But the United States has not spent a significant amount of resources, or dictated media policy, so as to actively cause people to become "Rednecks" in the first place. Therefore if a bunch of Rednecks decided to sink a Japanese Car Carrier (and I know better than to think any self respecting country boy would do any stuff like that!) it would be an unrelated act.

-The USA couldn't be held responsible.

IF on the other hand, every time you turned on the TV you saw spots where "Good 'Ol Boys" were claiming "I consider it my responsibility to my minister, and my fambly ta blow up some of them suckers..." it would be another story entirely.

That would constitute doctrine, and propaganda.

- Both of which are good topics to take a hard look at.

 

Oh thats right your the forum liberal....my bad!

 

Is that mindless name-slinging I see in my forum topic?

Excuse me?

Quote: "Just the facts, Ma'am..."


Seriously - let's do our best to keep this on target.


~Wolf

WAXY and NRAJOE - 20 Demerit fine!

*Note: Demerits stand, even though erased.
Take Myagi's advice: "No be there"

 

My bad, I edited the post.

However, to clarifty, I was not attacking NRAJOE, only the content of the letter he posted. I believe I'm allowed to do that.

Waxy