I am taking a class right now that is the History of Terrorsim. Basically we just talk about "what terrorism is." Was just wondering what all the bluegrassprep minds thought?!?!?!?!

Attacking civilian targets for the sake of hatred and difference of thoughts with minimal to no provocation. Attacks that are not meant to defeat a country but rather to cause terror and disrupt the lifestyle of the citizens.

 

Key to me is attacking of civilians.

IMO, terrorism involves un-uniformed civilians attacking civilians or members of the military to terrorize the general population and affect a change in the behavior of governments. Members of an army may also engage in terrorism, but if they do so with their government's blessing they are committing acts of war, not terrorism.;

Attacking civilian targets for the sake of hatred and difference of thoughts with minimal to no provocation. Attacks that are not meant to defeat a country but rather to cause terror and disrupt the lifestyle of the citizens.

 

Key to me is attacking of civilians.

 

I disagree due to policies of open war. We have attacked civilians in our history, but is was during total war. I don't think that makes our government terrorist. Of course, terrorist for one are soldiers for another.

I disagree due to policies of open war. We have attacked civilians in our history, but is was during total war. I don't think that makes our government terrorist. Of course, terrorist for one are soldiers for another.

 

If you are talking about the army massacres of the women and children of Indian tribes, I think those are very close to being acts of terrorism.

If you are talking about the army massacres of the women and children of Indian tribes, I think those are very close to being acts of terrorism.

 

No. I would agree there. I am talking about our policy of total war that intentionally killed civilians during WWII.

No. I would agree there. I am talking about our policy of total war that intentionally killed civilians during WWII.

 

Please explain some more.

It's a lot harder than it seems, isn't it?

It's a lot harder than it seems, isn't it?

 

Thats the thing. I dont think you can "accurately" define the word.

Please explain some more.

 

When we fire bombed Tokyo, we knew we were going to kill civillians in mass, but we were trying to break their spirit to make war. We knew we were killing civilians with the A bombs as well. Would you consider those terrorist acts?

Thats the thing. I dont think you can "accurately" define the word.

 

It seems everyone has a different "act" in mind. I'll give it a shot.

 

War, as gruesome as it is, still has certain rules. In most cases a combatant will not target civilians although in some cases little attempt is made to minimize civilian casualties. A terrorist attack is designed to break an enemies' will by targeting it's citizens.

 

Example. WWII atomic bombing of Japan. Astounding number of human casualties but the goal was to destroy an entire city.

 

Example 2. The Twin Towers. I think that even though the buidings were destroyed, the people were the targets.

When we fire bombed Tokyo, we knew we were going to kill civillians in mass, but we were trying to break their spirit to make war. We knew we were killing civilians with the A bombs as well. Would you consider those terrorist acts?

 

No because it was in response to their attacking us first.

The Sons of Liberty would be considered terrorists by most of our standards.

No because it was in response to their attacking us first.

 

I do not think they are terrorist acts because they saved American lives in open war. I don't think that it has much to do with who attacked first.

I do not think they are terrorist acts because they saved American lives in open war. I don't think that it has much to do with who attacked first.

Overall, Anglo-American bombing of German cities claimed between 305,000 and 600,000 civilian lives. Whether these attacks hastened the end of the war is a controversial question.