Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2585)	8/3/2005 9:33:09 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541936

I suppose the only distinction is that if you consider attacks against military forces to not be terrorism I don't consider attacks against military forces to be terrorism. It's part of war to kill all the enemy soldiers you can. I can't see how it matters whether you use a sniper or a bomber to do the deed. Nor is the notion of terrorising for coercion purposes meaningful in an armed forces construct. Are soldiers supposed to be more afraid of one type of attack vs. the other and their leadership somehow coerced into surrender over it? Makes no sense to me. It harder to defend against. Sure, it matters tactically. And there are lots of different tactics one can employ and against which one needs to defend. Such is war.