Is this terrorism?

[SkinsHokieFan]

[GhostofSparta]

If I had to describe it, I'd go more with "photoshopped." But that's just my gut telling me those people would have no time to react to a missle coming in that fast.

[PleaseBlitz]

I think it's a NERF Vortex.

I can throw those things like 80 yards.

[Madison Redskin]

It has to be photoshopped. It looks like a laser guided 2,000 pound bomb, but it looks like it's as big as a V-2 rocket.

[#98QBKiller]

I think it's a NERF Vortex.

I can throw those things like 80 yards.

[frostyj]

No, it would be terrorist prevention if the photo was real.

:evilg:

[DButz65]

I think it's a NERF Vortex.

I can throw those things like 80 yards.

You know Heath Shuler could throw a ball 80 yards, but look where that got him :pfft:

[Teller]

I think more than a picture -- shopped or un-shopped -- is needed to answer the question, SHF.

I'm quite sure you could pull up pictures of women and children in Dresdin cowering in fear as US bombs exploded around them during WWII. But WWII was a declared and total war (which is what I support in 99% of all circumstances that require it.)

I'm also certain that thousands of "innocent" lives were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; again under the declaration of war, and the waging of a total war. But how many lives were saved? How many Allied and American lives were saved?

War is an ugly thing. Entering it should be the most difficult of all human decisions. But once you do, you kill as many of your enemies, and break as many of their toys as humanly possible, until he surrenders.

The situation between Israel and Palestine (which is what I assume this photo comes from, real or not) is one of those things I truly detest. Randomly lobbing rockets into each other's neighborhoods does nothing but foster further hostility, aggression, and ugliness. It has no beginning and no end. If either side chooses to end this militarily, let them declare war, and fight until one side surrenders.

Course, this will no doubt mean WWIII. But I find that to be preferential to the current, unending, killing of civilians for seeming sport.

[Jumbo]

I had the same idea about the photo...but out of respect and appreciation for mi amigo and much-loved fellow poster, SHF,..I'll participate a bit in more serious manner. Plus I had a cancellation.

I have a "standard" view of framing terrorism that's comfortable enough for me, but have long realized that when considered in depth, labeling certain violent acts as "terrorism", whether historically or currently, is much like writing history--definitions, "facts", details, interpretation, and context are all very subject to who exactly is presenting what and what level of acceptance the presentation receives from a relevant audience.

Just one of endless examples: some of the same people who call it terrorism when some fighters blow up a bus full of non-combatants because they live in a city in the enemy's homeland, will also call for "turning X into a sea of glass" as though killing civilians is only wrong if you do it first.

I long ago (decades) noted that if I am holding my dead child in my arms because your plane bombed my house in my neighborhood though I am not a soldier nor is anyone in my house, then I don't really care about your "excuse" as to how "that's war." If "terrorism" includes a predictable killing of non-combatants for a military/political motive, then that brush paints far more broadly IMO than many will either accept or admit. But there is still a distinction to be made regarding the specific, deliberate and focued targeting of civilians. What forms such distinction takes with different people is a serious matter.

The matter of degree and deliberateness in such things does "count" to me. There are levels of wrong. Some nations go farther out of the way to conduct themselves (even in war) with less direct intention on inducing civilian casualties.

Of course, it could be argued that such higher standards can stem from having the luxury of far superior military power to effect your goals, but I think such ideals can come from more genuinely ethical and morality based principles.

Even at my most desperate, fighting as a guerrilla for an enslaved homeland were such a thing to pass, I could not see my way clear to blowing up a bus load of "enemy kids."

I'm not particularly fond of carpet bombing cities or launching rockets into neghborhoods even when known (let along "suspected") enemy is concealed in the area, either, due to collateral damage. But I understand the usage of those strategies, and I take the "war is hell" view without casting it in "terrorism" vs "the tragically inevitable killing of civilians" form.

Once two sides are at war, regardless of justification and "storyline" from any side, I just expect all hell to result. If "your side" makes efforts to minimize that hell to whatever degree possible (i.e. deaths of non-combatants or civilians) than that's a good choice in my book. Not all sides in all conflicts make the same level of effort.

There is also a difference to be considered between the man of the ground and the one killing from a distance with technology. As a soldier on the ground, I may be a lot less likely to empty a clip at some kids and women even in a firefight, unless I see a direct threat from them. Yet from a distance, I may activate a control that eradicates that same group without any thought or hesitation. Now my specific information relevant to taking the action and my intentions (and thoughts/beliefs at to what I'm doing) are different, but those civilians are juts as dead. And their loved ones likely feel the same emotions either way. But in one case we have an atrocity and in the other we have a "unintended and tragic result of war" by most people's views. It's not an uncomplicated matter. And likely, those folks mourning are less wrapped up in distinguishing the difference.

Me, I couldn't stomach a fighter who knowingly targets and kills unarmed non-threatening civilians for some strategic purpose. So guys that blow up school busses and **** get no breaks from me. On the other hand, I accept the airman who unloads those bombs and missiles, not knowing how many innocent civilians will die. To me, the airman scenario is part of the motivation to avoid war at almost all costs. I.E., I would not have invaded Iraq as we did.

I'm with the "war is war and it's all ugly" position but will indeed go to war and see it as still part of our human reality. I can't imagine that part of being human ever changing. Hopefully, it just becomes less frequent and for less troubling motives than seems often the case. Even so, leadership can actively try to minimize avoid civilian death and prosecute atrocities. I think the U.S. as a government and it's armed forces personnel are among those that make such efforts standard procedure and a rule of law.

[Corcaigh]

IF the photo was real, and IF it was fired by a state with the sole intention of inflicting harm against innocents, and if the act was intended to inspire fear of future such attacks, then it is terrorism.

State terrorism is still terrorism.

EDIT: terrorism is a tactic in warfare. Usually it's associated with illegal combatants, but often states are the ones committing terrorist acts.

[NavyDave]

Terrorism: not wearing a uniform dressing like a woman to go on a suicide bombing mission at a marketplace.

Using women and children as shields or bombs, killing citizens who want peace, throwing acid in the faces of little girls trying to get an education, pumping gas or chemicals into classrooms, raping a woman who is unatttended outside of her home then saying it her fault then stoning her. blowing up school and public buses.

[twa]

I agree with Jumbo's (rather wordy;)) post with the exception of invading Iraq and avoiding war at all cost.

For me it was needed and overdue,you can guess how I feel about Iran.

W/o changing our foreign policy/relations completely,it will always fall to us to act or suffer the consequences of inaction.

I wish it were not so

[Dan T.]

Terrorism? Or a game of Jarts?

[Skin'Em84]

Terrorism: not wearing a uniform dressing like a woman to go on a suicide bombing mission at a marketplace.

Using women and children as shields or bombs, killing citizens who want peace, throwing acid in the faces of little girls trying to get an education, pumping gas or chemicals into classrooms, raping a woman who is unatttended outside of her home then saying it her fault then stoning her. blowing up school and public buses.

Terrorism, by definition, is the use of terror as a form of coercion. Generally used in a conflict to defeat a force through destruction of their morale.

Those are all fine examples of terrorism, but by no means the be all end all of terrorism.

[herrmag]

How do you answer that question without knowing Who, What, When, Where, Why? The When being least important, the Why and Where being the most important, What being 2nd most important, and Who being second least important.

[Prosperity]

yes it appears to be

[Jumbo]

I agree with Jumbo's (rather wordy;)) post with the exception of invading Iraq and avoiding war at all cost.

For me it was needed and overdue,you can guess how I feel about Iran.

W/o changing our foreign policy/relations completely,it will always fall to us to act or suffer the consequences of inaction.

I wish it were not so

Just to be clear (and I'll use less words since I'm not in a wordy frame of mind ) I'm not any kind of pacifist, I said I'm willing to war when needed, and didn't say avoid it all costs. I wouldn't have done Vietnam or Iraq as we did, when we did, but I was a go on Korea for instance and certainly go on Afghanistan. And I was close on Iraq. I don't mind war, really, or killing people if merited (seriously). I'm just fussy about avoiding stupidity and wastefulness, and that aversion is highly intensified when lives are at stake.

[herrmag]

SHF is a very intelligent poster, particularly on all things ME. I'd HOPE that the point of the pic was more than just saying "we bomb people, we're terrorists too".

If we argue terrorism, let's argue to the root of it. EVERY country will do what they have to do to survive and maintain their balance. I don't want to delve too deep until he states what this is, or what this is supposed to be. Or perhaps it was just a pic in one of his studies and he's studying us right now.

[luckydevil]

Yes of course

[Ax]

Only if the bomb doesn't explode.

[JustAfan47]

I wanna know who threw that nerf vortex and why none of them are trying to catch it!.

[NavyDave]

How do you answer that question without knowing Who, What, When, Where, Why? The When being least important, the Why and Where being the most important, What being 2nd most important, and Who being second least important.

True since one country would drop flyers saying they were going to bomb this area to purge it of terrorists though those same terrorists would force people to stay at the targeted area.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I'm guessing this picture is from a drone attack in Pakistan

[Zhouse]

that picture is an act of terror.

[twa]

that picture is an act of terror.

Does that make SHF a terrorist?...you've been outed bro