can you read? i am questioning the definition. the definition, as i read it, does include what we did.

you throw in all these "factors" that aren't in the definition that somehow absolves us.

like the size of the military group matters? do we not send small groups into battle?

and have our commandos, green berets and special forces not gone on "suicide missions" in the past where the odds were that they would be killed in the battle?

example,,,from wwII...

Col. Frederick was authorized to recruit 133 officers and 1,688 men from both the United States and Canada for what was widely regarded as a suicide mission. Frederick put out a call for officers under 35 in excellent condition who were willing to learn parachute training and had experience living in the arctic or mountainous regions. Some officers were told they would have "a short and exciting life" if they volunteered.WWW Link

like guy, i always considered "terrorism" to be attacks on civillian targets. i don't consider guerrilla warfare on military targets to be terrorism. and neither did ronald reagan when he funded the contras and called them "freedom fighters."

if you break it down, all military combat actions are designed to scare and intimidate the opponent into surrender. to attempt to stretch every opponent attack as an "act of terrorism" in my view dilutes and deligitimizes our actions and hurts america's cause more than the inflamatory language helps.

and please stop trying to equate my discontent with the "generous" defintion of terrorism that is being thrown around since 9/11 with me being anti american or pro terrorist in any way, shape or form.

as far as b/l'ing ya goes...you have stated clearly your intention to violate the terms of service and have made your threats. if you pursue them, that is your call. but i won't b/l ya "pre-emtively." if you follow up on your threats, i'll then do what i need to. and it won't tbe blacklisting, which is broken and useless anyway.

I don't know if you're acting ignorant or this is what you are, but unless you are calling the American people terrorist, you can not compare the concept of sending an army, in plain view, to fight a war (where the enemy will be facing us on the same grounds) with the intention of changing the entire structure of the country with a small "group" of guys who wanted to make a statement. Especially when these 6 guys are the type that would have ended their adventure and their lives in a single attack and not be able to do more damage, which is not how our military works.

Your definition of war is somewhat unique. Your saying the only way they can fight us and not be terrorist is to stand in the middle of the desert and call us out. As many have said you go to war with what you have and using stealth, sneak attacks and attacks designed to frustrate, demoralize or cost the enemy resources have long been a part of traditional warfare. We have also used war and the threat of violence to achieve political goals so by many definitions that is terrorism, along with any of the above tactics. Russia considers anyone deemed a threat to their own security a terrorist.

I'm curious to know why we have dictionaries and why we send our children to school to learn when people can give their own version of what they believe a word really means and that is acceptable? God forbid I ever pick up another dictionary and look up the meaning of a word just to be contradicted by someone who thinks the word means something else.

The definition of a terrorist is controversial to say the least. But hey if you have a dictionary that can clear it up for the whole world don’t hold back.

The six gents in New Jersey intended to do harm...the goal of that harm was no doubt to shake the confidence of the military at home...showing them to be vulnerable even here...to cause fear...hence...terror?

When the 8th Air Force undertook the destruction of German industry and infrastructure they referred to their campaign as "terror bombing". In the first Gulf War, the intense air attacks preceding the actual ground invasion was so effective that captured Iraqi soldiers, safe in compounds in the rear, would cringe and curl into the prenatal position whenever fighter-bombers would fly over the holding area...that is the result of an effective terror campaign. War is both terrible and terrifying...for soldiers and civilians alike. Rambling answer to your query...short answer is that it is called terrorism because that is what it is.

By this definition all warfare is terrorism, and that’s just not my reality. I can’t think of one action taken by any warring parties other than and prior to the intentional targeting of civilians that was called and accepted to be a terrorist act.

If Al-Qaeda had never intentionally targeted civilians, they would not be known as a terrorist organization today.

i hear that.



that actually is a better explanation to call this terrorism than politicically motivated defintions. once a terrorist, always a terrorist, kinda...

OK you guys are just creating a soup out of this argument by putting everything in the same bowl and mixing it together. War and terrorism are not the same, they may have similarities but by definition are not.

War - a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Synonyms: battle, bloodshed, cold war, combat, conflict, contention, contest, enmity, fighting, hostilities, hostility, police action, strife, strike, struggle, warfare

Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Synonyms: agitation, anarchism, anarchy, brawl, bustle, chaos, clamor, commotion, complication, convolution, discombobulation*, discord, disorganization, distemper, disturbance, dither, entanglement, fight, flap, fracas, fuss, hubbub, hullabaloo*, imbroglio, insurrection, lawlessness, mayhem, misrule, mob rule*, quarrel, rebellion, revolution, riot, rioting, ruckus, rumpus, static, strike, terrorism, tizzy*, trouble, tumult, turbulence, turmoil, unrest, unruliness, uproar

All this can be found in www.dictionary.com

If it is not terrorism then maybe you can enlighten me. But before that you need to first put away your paint brushes. Yes the attack was gonna be to a military facility but the act itself is considered a terrorist attack by the nature in which the attack would have been carried out. Or are you gonna tell me that the 9/11 events which include an attack on the Pentagon (a military facility), the attack on the Cole (a military ship) and the multiple embassy attacks (all which had military soldiers) were not terrorist attacks?

You guys are painting this topic to broad in my opinion. You can’t just up and call ever war ever done a terrorist attack. You guys are just being silly and trying to confuse people by making them doubt their beliefs with all these minor details. Let’s stick to what this article was about. Why is this attack considered to be terrorism? Simple, because it was in the way the act was to be carried out. Unless you want to go and revisit history so that you can then change the facts about what exactly was what back then, you have to stick with what is known and what is know is that these guys were gonna commit an attack that was not of military strategy but more of a terrorist strategy. Look at it how you want, it won’t change the fact that even though it was not a civilian target which is “normally” (and I stress normally), it isn’t always civilian the target and it does not change the fact that the way in which it was to have been accomplished would have been as an act of terror.

I understand your point that it seems that this country is on the mind set that anything Muslim related is some kind of terrorist act but the reality is that at this moment it is Muslims that have done previous recent terrorist attacks and that we can not tell who is a sleeper cell and who isn’t so being vigilant without accusing them all at once is not an easy task but then we are not perfect are we? Mistakes will be made regardless how perfect we want the system to be. Sometimes we will catch them on time as we did this time, chances are we may miss the next chance and chances are innocent people will get caught in the process. When you can show me a perfect system where error are a thing of the past then I will accept perfection.

thanks for sharing your comments charles  

War and terrorism are not the same, they may have similarities but by definition are not.

Terrorism is one of many tactics of warfare.

Warfare from Encarta,

“The use of force on the part of two or more nations or other organized groups for the purpose of deciding questions at issue that cannot be settled by diplomatic means. Warfare takes a variety of forms besides organized military confrontations—among them insurrections, revolutions, coups d'état, guerrilla warfare, and terrorism. A state of war can also exist without actual recourse to arms, such as the cold war”.

If it is not terrorism then maybe you can enlighten me.

Al-Qaida’s and their supporter’s goals are religious and cultural domination. Sound familiar? The goal of this foiled attack was "to kill as many American soldiers as possible”. When American soldiers go after the enemy in Iraq their goal is to kill as many of them as possible. The only reason we want to capture any of them alive is to get information that allows them to kill even more or them, until they surrender and agree not to attack us. That’s warfare, and terrorism is a part of warfare. So yes, what they were planning to do was a form of terrorism.

What separates us from them is the intentional targeting of civilians, which is the only tactic most People and I have a problem with. In WW2 we painted a red cross on the roof of hospital buildings to keep them from being bombed, to a terrorist this would be an bullseye. When you don’t separate combatants from non-combatants your saying there’s no living on the same planet as you and we want all of you to die. When you make that separation it say’s we know your human beings and once our conflict is resolved and one of us surrenders you will be respected you as a human being.

Terrorism is one of many tactics of warfare.Warfare from Encarta,“The use of force on the part of two or more nations or other organized groups for the purpose of deciding questions at issue that cannot be settled by diplomatic means. Warfare takes a variety of forms besides organized military confrontations—among them insurrections, revolutions, coups d'état, guerrilla warfare, and terrorism. A state of war can also exist without actual recourse to arms, such as the cold war”.

My point exactly, it may be part of it but it's not the same thing. Still you failed to answer the main question of this article: Why is this attack considered to be terrorism? It is not about war, it's about terrorism. That is what I meant when I said you guys were creating a soup out of this argument.

Al-Qaida’s and their supporter’s goals are religious and cultural domination. Sound familiar? The goal of this foiled attack was "to kill as many American soldiers as possible”. When American soldiers go after the enemy in Iraq their goal is to kill as many of them as possible. The only reason we want to capture any of them alive is to get information that allows them to kill even more or them, until they surrender and agree not to attack us. That’s warfare, and terrorism is a part of warfare. So yes, what they were planning to do was a form of terrorism.What separates us from them is the intentional targeting of civilians, which is the only tactic most People and I have a problem with. In WW2 we painted a red cross on the roof of hospital buildings to keep them from being bombed, to a terrorist this would be an bullseye. When you don’t separate combatants from non-combatants your saying there’s no living on the same planet as you and we want all of you to die. When you make that separation it say’s we know your human beings and once our conflict is resolved and one of us surrenders you will be respected you as a human being.

How's about you respond to what you quote? No where in this reply did you "enlighten" me. When American soldiers go after the enemy, they do not try to kill as many of them as possible, they try to stop their efforts to fight back with as little casualties as possible. Obviously it can't always be accomplished, sometimes the enemy is to resilient and we have no choice but to pound them with some of our most powerful weapons, but last I checked when the Iraqi army surrendered, we did not continue to shot at them. My point still stands, if this act that was to be done by the Six was not a terrorist act, then what was it?

Thousands upon thousands died in WWII, many were civilians. I, personally, have never seen the use of the word "terrorism" to describe any of it. I guess it's a matter of perspective. The freedom to believe what you want to believe based on what you see. As I said before, what the point of dictionaries if people will give the word the meaning they see better fit. It seems the only good thing school have now a days is that they are good daycares to let the parents work, cause education seems to be almost non existant.

thanks for sharing your comments charles

You're welcome. Look, I know I came off a bit too strong there. It just ticks me off when people give me the impression that they are trying to make Americans seem as if we somehow are just as bad as they are. Sure, we are not angels here, I won't deny that. But even with people like those in the White House, Congress and the Senate we are still far from being anything like a terrorist. The fact that our soldiers in Iraq are dying because we are fighting by the rules says it all. This is what I got from you're point of view.

My point exactly, it may be part of it but it's not the same thing. Still you failed to answer the main question of this article: Why is this attack considered to be terrorism? It is not about war, it's about terrorism. That is what I meant when I said you guys were creating a soup out of this argument.

Yes I did, I admitted what they did was a form of terrorism. It is tactic of warfare that has been used for thousands of years. It’s only the targeting civilians part that the world has a problem with. You seem to believe that terrorist have no motive other than terrifying people. They’re at war, for about the only reason they fight wars in the Middle East, religion. How are their goals not “warfare goals”? Is their no such thing as a religious war to you? They’re using tactics that have proven over many years of warfare to be very successful, especially when fighting a superior enemy. Look at 911, a few million and 13 willing believers cost this country a trillion and counting, gave them billions in weapons and a massive urban setting to train against American soldiers. That’s how a small group can bring down a supper power. We keep playing this game and they will.

When American soldiers go after the enemy, they do not try to kill as many of them as possible, they try to stop their efforts to fight back with as little casualties as possible.

We try to minimize CIVILIAN casualties. If we had a really smart bomb that only killed combatants, we would carpet-bomb Iraq with it tomorrow and go home.

Thousands upon thousands died in WWII, many were civilians. I, personally, have never seen the use of the word "terrorism" to describe any of it. I guess it's a matter of perspective. The freedom to believe what you want to believe based on what you see. As I said before, what the point of dictionaries if people will give the word the meaning they see better fit. It seems the only good thing school have now a days is that they are good daycares to let the parents work, cause education seems to be almost non existant.

I’m quoting here,
“It is no accident that there is no agreed definition of terrorism, since the word is so subjective as to be devoid of any inherent meaning. At the same time, the word is extremely dangerous, because people tend to believe that it does have meaning, and they use and abuse it by applying it to whatever they hate as a way of avoiding rational thought and discussion and, frequently, excusing their own illegal and immoral behavior”.
“Perhaps the only honest and globally workable definition of "terrorism" is an explicitly subjective one - "violence that I don't support." Anyone who reads both the Western and Arab press cannot help noticing that the Western press routinely characterizes as "terrorism" virtually all Palestinian violence against Israelis (even against Israeli occupation forces within Palestine), while the Arab press routinely characterizes as "terrorism" virtually all Israeli violence against Palestinians. Only such a formulation would accommodate both characterizations, as well as most others”.

This is my point; you want to simplify a word that is by no means simple. What constitutes a terrorist act is very subjective. Much of what of what was done by all sides in WW2 was and should be considered terrorism by most definitions. Much of the world considered dropping the most terrifying weapon ever created by man on a defeated civilian population an act of terrorism. Why were kamikaze attacks not referred to as terrorism? You just refuse to see this from any other perspective.

The terrorism that our generation has become unwittingly familiar with and the only reason that there is a global war on terror now is because it targets civilians.

You're welcome. Look, I know I came off a bit too strong there. It just ticks me off when people give me the impression that they are trying to make Americans seem as if we somehow are just as bad as they are. Sure, we are not angels here, I won't deny that. But even with people like those in the White House, Congress and the Senate we are still far from being anything like a terrorist. The fact that our soldiers in Iraq are dying because we are fighting by the rules says it all. This is what I got from you're point of view.

You know this; if you point out any simularities between us and them you’re saying were just as bad as them, is just tired, stupid crap.

Actually, besides the civilian part, they also hate the nature in which a terrorist attack is done. Terrorist don't just walk up to the enemy like in war, point their weapons and start shooting. They use sneaky, cowardly, behind the enemies back attacks. Sure you can say we have done this with groups like the Navy Seals, but again I state that missions like these were not with terrorist intentions, they were not seeking to kill as many as possible but to deal a blow to the enemy by making it harder for them to fight back. Terrorist on the other hand want to cause mental damage, they don't care if you are civilian or military. Sure civilian is a better target but what they really look for is what hurts the most at the moment and right now considering that a civilian target is 10 thousand times easier to attack why attack a military target inside the US? Simple, if they can get in there and cause as much damage as possible, they can prove to us that even a military base is vulnerable in this country and that would prove that our President has not made this country safer. The end results are what make war and terrorism different. As far as I'm concerned terrorism is just a cowardly way to get what you want.



We try to minimize all casualties, remember the rules of engagement, we don't shoot first. We would rather have the enemy surrender than fight to the death. Again, it is our mission to take away their ability to fight not their lives. It just so happens that sometimes we have no choice. SWAT teams are trained to shoot those who are pointing guns at them. Even if a criminal or enemy they will not shoot an unarmed man unless he posses a threat to their lives. This is the reason we are in such bad shape in Iraq.



I agree here. People define it based on whats more convenient for them. Talk about something being so wrong. Maybe the word terrorism should not be used period.



You're confusing me, are you saying that terrorism did not target civilians before? Are what you are trying to say that it's only important now because it's happening to us, still to this date?



That's why we have the right to different opinions. You may think this kind of thinking is crap, but I think it's legit. I'm not a terrorist, our soldiers are not terrorist and no matter how much you want to hate the current administration and no matter how idiotic they can be, they are no where near being terrorist. They just money hungry. Any time I feel that somehow we are being compared to terrorism like those we are familiar with today I will have something to say about it, so this may be one time where you may have to deal with crap whether you like it or not.

and i never said they were. maybe try thinking about it this way...that maybe, just maybe the rhetoric of "they hate us for our freedom" is bullsh*t. maybe the reasons for the conflicts are a little deeper than the neocon spin machine would like us to think.

now i'm not saying that we "caused" 9/11 or anything of the sort. but from THEIR PERSPECTIVE all we have done since WWII was

1) took their land and declared it the property of the jewish religion as a "make up" for all the injustice they got in europe. if i were in their shoes and foreigners came in and stronghanded a major area of land from them i might be a little resentful.

2) in 1953, 5 years after we took palestine and created israel, we went into iran and propped up the Shah, who brutalized the people with our blessing and help until the messy revolt in the late 70's.

3) stuck military bases on their holy land when they have never attacked us.

4) exploited them for their oil while backing dictators throughout the region who squelched any alternative viewpoints.

and so on...i'm not even gonna touch on the crusades or other "injustices" we have committed, from their perspective.

now, just like in iraq,,,what is done is done, and can't be undone. but ignoring the history of our imperialism and exploitation of the region with little or no regard to human rights or anything except keeping the resources flowing from the region might cause a little resentment, and is just dumb in my opinion. i want ot see us begin to outsmart these guys, cause we're not gonna "out-tough" them on their home turf...that's just a fool's errand, imho.

face it...we're not going to "genocide" our way out of this. we are not going to "catch terrorism in a bag" or anything of the sort. anyone who thinks we can "war" our way out of this or even that the military should be a primary force in this ideological conflict is a fool, in my mind. the military can play a role, but not in the way we have badly misused them for the past 5 years or so.

relations with the nations and people of the middle east are going to take years, if not a generation or 2 (or 3) to repair if we started today. that's just a fact. and yeah, some of those folks will never stop hating us, they have gone past teh point of return on that. and we'll have to deal with them as situations arise. but military occupation that is so much more about our interests than theirs is only adding to the problem.

we put all our energies into continuing the iraq war, with no end in sight, while our actual enemy, the one who attacked us, osama and al qaeda, are enjoying safe haven in pakistan...a country with very real nuclear weapons and a significant radicalized population. a country that is the home to the king of "guys who give technology to terrorists", AQ Kahn.

this overextended, mistake in the 1st place war has done nothing but make america weaker...which is exactly what they want.

now, we're gonna be in that region in some capacity for some time. but the one place we should not be is on the streets, with a target on our back, refereeing a civil war where we have no clue who is on which of the many sides of the conflict. that only weakens us, and emboldens them.

we can continue to fight al queda interests, which are minor in iraq without being in combat,,,which hasn't worked, ever.

whichever paths we choose down the road, it will be messy. but overextending our military abroad and making us weaker at home as a result is hardly a good plan. it might bruise an ego or 2 if we withdraw from refereeing a civil war, but i could care less about that. what is more important is our long term security, which is being compromised by a mistake of a war that is costing us 100's of billions of dollars annually, and unlike WWII, is being financed in the markets, vs. a shared sacrifice at home. a problem that will haunt our grandchildren's children.

that's enough rambin for now...take care:)

Well just to get one thing straight, this was not to you. I said my comment to stubbyfinger. But since you had an opinion I might as well respond to it.

Maybe they are a little deeper, and maybe they are not. Last I check you were no expert on Muslim thinking so if you want to base your opinion on a hypotesis be my guest but you are no more sure of why they do what they do than anyone on this site is. Keep in mind that the spin machine spins both ways and the Democrats are no saints. When it comes to politics you either call them all a bunch of selfish jerks or great role models, there are no angels in politics.



And so you think they are within their rights to do what they do because this is how they see it? So why do you condemn what this country does when we do what we do cause we think, based on how WE see things, we are doing the right thing? You can't have your cake and eat it too Sean. Call it lowering ourselves to their level if you want, but in a situation where survival is the goal, one sometimes must fight fire with fire and though we don't believe in fighting the way our current enemy does, there may be a time when we will find ourselves with no other choice just like they seem to find themselves today.

Keep in mind, here you are excusing the actions of a group of people because they somehow feel they got the short end of the stick, the same group of people who keep get along with their own kind. The same group of people who use the same terror tactics on their own race. The same kind of people who threaten to mass murder their own people because some of them chose to follow different faith. I'm sorry Sean, but just like the legal system here in the US, you defend the ones commiting the crimes and condemn those with good intentions. Or at least do not resort to extinction of an entire race to get a point across. We may not have been the best role models in the past, but times have changed and so have we. WE still have a lot to learn but we are at the least several hundred years ahead when it comes to being closer to be a better society than they are at this moment.



OK, you need to make up your mind. You complain that we are the bad guys here yet you want us to win? You're starting to sound like Col gene again, not being able to follow you're own line of thinking. And lets see if you are more sure of what you believe in, all this use of words like "might" and "maybe" tells me, yet again, that you base your opinion on a hypotesis rather than facts. This either cause resentment or it didn't. You can't just go and accuse you're wife (if you're married) of being a whore just because you "think" she "might" be cheating on you. Again you keep excusing their actions just because it "seems" they "might" have the right to do so. See how the use of these words makes a situation questionable? It's probably why you can barely (please forcus on the word barely) get anyone on this site to agree with you on anything.



You make it sound easy. You can not make peace with people who believe that those who do not follow their ways are infidels and only their deaths with satisfy them. I personally see no hope in creating any kind of relationship with people who believe in shooting first diplomacy later, if any. I don't even trust the current Iraqi Gov't I'm sad to say. We are not just facing a people who are more passionate about giving their lives for what they believe in, they actually think that they are better off dead if their mission is a success. I'm not one to suggest that the erradication of the entire Islamic population is the only solution, apart from impossible it is inmoral and inhumane, but love, compassion, open arms, understanding and care will never overpower their mission in life. Eventually we will be forced to fight fire with fire. As I have said before we may separate ourselves from the animal kingdom because of our ability to think, but we still maintain our survial instincts as a back-up and time and time again history shows that humans always tend to go back to those instincts when their lives are on the line, hence all the wars that have been fought thru out the ages. Be it American, British, German, Muslim, Chinese, etc., we all have a history of survival at all cost. When the going gets tough, throw the book at the enemy is what I say.