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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (7832)	8/26/2007 8:56:10 AM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

I think you'll like this one also: liveleak.com

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (7832)	8/26/2007 11:18:55 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 25737

Re: "of course, terrorism is as ancient as war" Yes. And, as is taught in military academy courses on terrorism, insurgencies, etc., the TACTIC that is called terrorism is most often (though not always...) rolled out when the relative force structures of the combatants are dissimilar, (so-called 'asymmetrical warfare', when one side cannot match the other force for force in 'standard' warfare). Now... as to the actual ideologies of various forces down through history that have employed the tactic we now call 'terrorism', the DELIBERATE targeting of civilians and 'non-combatants', they are far too many to even list in a short piece such as this. Message 23828287

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (7832)	8/26/2007 2:57:25 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 25737

Re: "preferred tactic of the jihadists' ideology, there is no denying that much...." Nah. If they had conventional military superiority then conventional military tactics would no doubt be their 'preferred' modus. Terrorism, down through history, has mostly been the resort of the WEAKER forces who find themselves up against STRONGER military forces that they could not otherwise challenge to any effective degree. (Think of the weak American Colonial 'rabbles' who refused to line up in nice straight rows and bright red coats to face the conventionally superior British Empire's forces... preferring instead to adopt tactics fashioned in the French and Indian War, and other battles with natives... hiding behind trees of the forests and fence rows in ambush... adopting 'Indian' hit-and-run tactics to oppose the superior British forces. True - since civilians were not specific targets - this would not at all be what we regard as 'terrorism' today, but it never-the-less serves as a helpful example of the basic principle that so-called unconventional tactics are usually the resort of the militarily WEAKER side when asymmetrical warfare occurs. Terrorism, too, is most often associated with the clash of asymmetrical forces....) Re: "you cannot apply 20th century cold war logic to a 21st century phenomenon." Both of those premises are incorrect. ONE, (I never referred to the Cold War...), and TWO, my point was, in case you've somehow missed it the several times I've made it, was that 'terrorism', the TACTIC, is as old as warfare, and has been around for THOUSANDS of years. So, I would certainly never say that it was just a tactic of the '20th.' or the '21st.' Centuries --- it is far, far older then that!