It is said that the difference between war and terrorism is that war has a bigger budget. Agree or disagree? After all, aren't both seeking to dominate or impose their will through violence? Aren't both participants wrapped up in the "glory" of their cause? Aren't they really the same agenda on a somewhat different scales? Aren't innocent victims killed on mass in both acts? War and terrorism, why do we distinguish the two?
IMHO, a better question is what is the difference between a police action and a full blown gut busting Naval war?
Wars are fought between nations with well defined armies (In Uniform) and follow set rules of engagement to a degree (Geneva Convention) Terrorists on the other hand are not neciserily nations, do not wear uniforms and do not abide by the Geneva Convention. In either case you can wind up very dead but in the first you would be a unfortunate Casualty of war & in the second Murderd.
War is a state of actual armed hostilities regardless of a formal declaration of war, and has certain rules of conduct (Geneva Convention) while fighting the enemy. You are expected to limit, as much as possible the injury or killing of civilians, and folllow the rules for captured enemy troops. Where Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion through violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups and individuals in order to intimidate the general civilian population or government into granting the demands of the Terrorists.
I'm not saying all of these are correct, but it would help to have common definitions: conventional war = military against military guerrilla war = paramilitary against military massacre/war crime = military against civilian terrorism = paramilitary against civilian crime = civilian against civilian
The Just War theory, which is the broad outline of the Geneva Conventions, distinquishes between the two through the means of "intent." If I'm an American military planner, and I know that in "Capital City" a major munitions plant is located at the corner of 5th and Elm, I am justified in bombing it, and it alone, and in killing those working there. If a guy across the street on his way to his job at the rug factory (a non-military job) dies, and it is not my "intent" - this is a significant idea - to kill him, then I continue to be justified in bombing the plant. Proportionality is a consideration in this equation and comes up often in the discussion of sanctions as part of Just War thinking. Terrorism and terrorists make no such differentiations. If you're interested in reading what I suspect would be considered a "conservative" view of Just War, I recommend When God says War is Right. The author even makes the argument that under rare circumstances, the use of tactical, although never strategic, nuclear weapons is Just. The author's name escapes me, although I believe his last name is Cole. The book is now on a bookshelf in my study at work. As it is, I know it's available on Amazon for about $12.
When I heard the Geneva convention mentioned I had to respond. One time on the ship they gave everybody Geneva convention cards. They were the size of a regular business card and only said something about the Geneva convention but I forget the exact wording. You had to carry it like your dog tags or be in deep doodoo. A few months later or so we had to turn in our Geneva convention cards. I along with others wanted to keep it as a souveneer. Failure to turn in your card would cost you your next paycheck and if that didn't work then there was Captains Mast and it would escalate from there. We all turned in our cards because we had no casualties. But did we respect the Geneva Convention? Most of the time but sometimes we strayed as well did the enemy. The reason the cards were given out is because we were someplace we were not supposed to be. We violated the Geneva Convention when we used WP on personnel. That type of bullet is for illumination purposes only and we were only responding to the the Marines call. We also violated it when we refused to pick up refugees. We refused to pick up refugees becaue we were nuke capable. I am going to tell a secret from 1972, when I stated that we were nuke capable I meant that we really were. By accident they had a depth charge loaded in the ASROC launcher in a combat zone, at that time there was only one type of depth charge for ASROC and it was a nuke. If they were long then it was a torpedo that was not nuke. I forgot about the salt water switch or it would have worked but we did not need it. I hung a jumper that I thought would work if we really needed it, it would have failed but we thought we could give them an air burst. I was then disgraced before the other deal when I was told to stand out infront of my peers, but I took the jumper off in front of the Captain. I think we did a good job. And then we found ourselves it zap city!
As I see it, the difference is quite simple. Terrorism is an act to invoke fear and suffering with no intent of mutual engagement. Terrorism is like running up to someone in alley, shooting them in the back and running away; where war is more like a 10 pace duel. 9/11 was terrorism... what's happening in Iraq is war on both sides, even if we prefer to call the counter-attacks terroristic... it's still two sides fighting openly.
Check_em_all, You are 100% right. Failure to face the enemy face on is cowardly in my view. Face them face on before you kill them unlike the terrorists that shoot them in the back when they are not looking and then run away like roaches!
Are you saying the United States is seeking to dominate and impose our will on the rest of the world? Are you saying the United States is equivalent to Al Qaeda and terrorist nations? I think the Glory of our cause is Freedom, I don't remember Al Qaeda fighting for Freedoms for the good of the world! MOEN, you really are a confused individual. Comparing the United States to terrorist nations! How have you made it this far in life without a brain?
