'Terrorist' attack Vs Conventional Army

[Sativa Indica]

Before i begin, i would just like to clarify what i mean by the term 'terrorist' attack, as lets face it what really defines it. obviously, i would hope, most of us are aware of state terrorism in relation to regular terrorism which we see almost every day in the news and on TV, if indeed there is even ANY real difference. although there is a definition for terrorism, something along the lines of an attack on civilians for the purpose of political leverage, personally i see ANY attack on human life, be it politically motivated or not, to be an act of terror, thus being terrorism by its very nature.

However, my point if this discussion is that of what the media deems 'terrorism', generally of the more primitive means of attacking a populous, be it through car bombs, suicide attacks or even just plain Q'assam rockets and AK 47 fire, in comparison to more conventional warfare tactics used, such as air strikes, tanks and other more modern weaponry. cus lets face it, if Iraq has taught us one thing is that no matter what your means of attack is, civilians will always suffer the consequences. In particular i would like to discuss moral opinions on 'which is better' or less 'evil', so to say, and how important it is to keep perceptions as they are. i will be considering two situations, 1 being the middle east situation involving groups such as Hamas and H'zbollah, and 2, the 9/11 attacks.

1stly, when we look at the attacks made most commonly on Israel, many are led to judge these acts of aggression simple by the means of which these acts are done. Quite often, Palestinians, to be more specific Hamas, is viewed as a 'terrorist' organisation due to their use of rocket fire into Israel, and in the past, car bombs and suicide bombers, tho these have not happened at all in quite a while, to my knowledge anyway. what has often bothered me, and I'm sure most here too, is that very often this is all the general public, in particular the west, are often very quick to label attackers themselves as primitive savages due to the nature of their attack. i mean, why should we take these people seriously if all they do is blow up cars and people in public places, right?

However, if we are to consider the alternative, and by which i mean alternative forms of attack as in NO WAY is a peacefull resolution even AN OPTION for the Palestinians( and i challenge anyone who thinks they do indeed have this), being if Palestinians actually had themselves a fully equipped army even half as powerfull as Israel do, would this be any better for both sides. I stress for readers to be at no disillusion at the current crisis in Palestine in which they DO have an invading army consistently at their throats, and thus MUST defend themselves.

Therefore, what if they actually did have more modern forms of defense, such as a few tanks, planes and missiles at their disposal, could you imagine the casualties then? where would public opinion lie with this matter, as they are now no no different than the US or Israel, they could no longer be portrayed as 'primitives', and yet they WOULD inflict ALOT more harm. With the use of modern warfare at the hands of BOTH sides, the situation would be a grand deal more drastic for both sides, indeed, we would be talking straight out warfare occurring, instead of the one sided battle it is at current.

Also, with regards to 9/11, what if, albeit negating any form of real defence the US naturally have via radar etc, Bin laden was to use bombers and jet fighters in his attacks on september 11th. Illuminati and FEMA aside, given the accuracy of missile guidance systems, it would be safe to say that bin laden could have easily destroyed the twin towers with the use of bombers, at the same time inflicting alot more damage and causalities by attacking other places. Indeed, much like Hamas, these attackers had no real alternative means of attack as the simple do not obtain the same means of weaponry as their victims do.

which bring me on to my next point, in why it is important to keep perception as they are, that these fighters are primitive savages and thus should not be negotiated with, merely killed themselves. Its important for most people who seek to kill another human being to dehumanize our victims, for if we see them as less than human, i.e just an animal to be slaughtered as we see most animals such as cows, chickens and pigs, it becomes much easier for us, morally speaking, to simple kill them. however as soon as we associate that person as an actually person, it becomes very hard to be as glad by their death as other animals, why just conside china and their taste for cats and dogs. sure the west views this as horrific as most of us actually OWN a cat or dog as a pet, thus we build emotional attachments to all of their species, where as is perfectly fine for us to go to a seafood restaurant and PICK which fish i want killed, gutted and served with chilly and garlic.

This has always been the situation in the past, be it 'krauts', 'gooks' and todays 'ragheads', dehumanizing your victim is always the easiest way to sleep at night. so it becomes almost vital for public support, that the perception of these attackers is that of being primitive savages, in doing so negating, not only the fact that for many groups their is NO alternative, but also the reasons WHY they are doing the attack. in essence its almost a win win loop for the powerfull side in every conflict. THEY maintain their oppositions weak defences by limiting their resources, and when they do attack using what ever means they have, they are then dehumanized allowing the powerfull sides to offer justification for a lack of will to negotiate.

I really dont know if having an army would even help Palestinians. sure they could offer more defence, indeed they would no longer be 'primitive' or 'savages' in they eyes of the west. however, they would then offer more justification for real excessive force from Israel, cuz lets face it at any time Israel could EASILY wipe Palestine and her peoples of the face of the earth. Perhaps, if they could offer more of a fight, the resultant rise in casualties on both sides, and larger portion of attention form the media, could cause the world to actually act NOW, much like the horrors of Vietnam did on the American public, but who knows really.

[Drizzle]

Terrorism is a tactic. The west uses it all the time. So when I hear Bush's "War on Terror" I LOL.
1. How do you declare war on a war tactic?
2. How do you declare war on a war tactic that you use?!

[Sativa Indica]

Hence the comparison man, BOTH use terrorism, what i discuss is why the west views these as two different forms of defence, how its benefical for the powerful in every situation, and would the weak be any better off if they resorted to the same means.