Why terrorists attack America

[Glorfindel_of_Gondolin]

Yes they did, and it was based on the same principle, that being "fight the fights you can win."

Unfortunatley, a terrorist principal.

They only attack, where they can "win"...

[azalea]

Originally posted by Glorfindel_of_Gondolin
I always considered modern terrorism getting its ideas from Vietnam, and specifically the Viet Cong.

Regardless for the reasons for the conflict (reasons that could have a thread all of their own), one fact is clear.

The VC, when faced with the massively superior technology, equipment, and far superior soldiers of the US, they could not stand and face them in open battle. For if they ever did, and when they did, they would be annihilated.

Thus the birth of their brand of terrorism, one of necessity. The US would have won the war in a week if the VC stood and fought, and the VC knew it.

That’s why they resorted to ambush, hit and run, and alike.

Not to mention their use of innocents, including children, to do the dirty work.
It made me so sad to see that Palestinian boy on the front page today .

[Ruinel]

it is very sad...

I feel very sorry for this kid.

Within the week, an 11 year old and this 14 year old have been used to either transport explosives or for a (attempted) terrorist hit.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Ruinel
it is very sad...

I feel very sorry for this kid.

Within the week, an 11 year old and this 14 year old have been used to either transport explosives or for a (attempted) terrorist hit.

Well... the first kid, the smaller, didn't really know what is the heavy bag he's carrying, and was supposed to explode near the soldiers. But the bomb didn't work.
The second 15 years old knew he's going to suicide - but probably because he was told he'd go to heaven if he suicide 'to help his people to free their land'. He regretted, was afraid to die, when the soldiers understood he's got a bomb.

[Ruinel]

Rad, if you hear anything more, I'm sure we'd like to hear about this. Keep us informed.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Glorfindel_of_Gondolin
I always considered modern terrorism getting its ideas from Vietnam, and specifically the Viet Cong.

Regardless for the reasons for the conflict (reasons that could have a thread all of their own), one fact is clear.

The VC, when faced with the massively superior technology, equipment, and far superior soldiers of the US, they could not stand and face them in open battle. For if they ever did, and when they did, they would be annihilated.

Thus the birth of their brand of terrorism, one of necessity. The US would have won the war in a week if the VC stood and fought, and the VC knew it.

That’s why they resorted to ambush, hit and run, and alike.


Not really on point, given the current argument, but one can draw parallels.

If terrorists every tried to fight America in a conventional war, they would certainly lose.

Disagree with that- that is 'guerrilla' warfare, which, as has been pointed out, has occurred in many times and places- the origin of the word in English came from the Spanish uprising against Napoleon, ably abetted by the Duke of Wellington, during the Penninsular Campaign.

Terrorism aims it's strikes against the civilian population with the purpose of sowing...well, terror. The point is to spread panic and disruption in the society as a whole.

Thus a bombing (even a suicide bombing) against a military target is not an act of terror- it's simply irregular war.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So then if that;s the case - why aren't the IRAQI'S the one attacking us? Which they aren't even attacking us - they are attacking innocent iraqis. See this is where your reasoning falls apart. The iraqis are working with us to rebuild their country - but outside forces have come in to try to disrupt this.

maybe you should educate yourself and look at the INTERNATIONAL poll which was taken on how iraqis feel before spewing this nonsense. I posted it several pages back - you obviosly chose to ignore it.

Or you could take a stand against them instead of wimp asses like Europe (12 years of endless UN resolutions anyone). You know what - WHO is attacking us? Is it a bunch of new terrorist groups? Are iraqi's attacking us? You spew out a bunch of stuff - and it's not even based in fact. Your solution is to do nothing.

"Getting them on side?"

Yes, it is Iraqis attacking you- the polls you cite show that about five million Iraqis agree that it's okay to launch attacks against the CPA and the occupation forces - even if it's a minority, it's a pretty substantial one.
the

[The Gaffer]

Another aspect to this issue is the use of the term "war". Personally, I think it's a mistake to declare "war" on terrorism, for lots of reasons, but one of them is semantic.

If you're at war, things which you'd normally not do (like kill 10,000 civilians) suddenly become acceptable. That's because in war, the main thing is winning. So, you can argue that, for example, by dropping a nuclear bomb and killing 100,000 people we actually saved lives in the long term because Japan surrendered without being invaded.

The point is that the normal concepts of right and wrong don't apply in a war situation.

This is one reason why the IRA was always trying to get the British to declare "war" on them, as it would have legitimised their own tactics.

So, by declaring war on terrorists, Bush brings us down towards their level, and gives them the opportunity of justifying their own tactics, because it's a "war".

I found myself in a very unusual position the other day: agreeing with John Redwood (arch Thatcherite). He said that to defeat terrorists you have to treat them like criminals, and use the law to defeat them.