War Crimes vs. Terrorism....for American patriots!

[The Sloth]

Taking a logical stance on the matter, and by incorporating the current realities, it seems as if there is absolutely no difference between so-called "war crimes", "acts of war" (as they currently are) and terrorism. Once you strip the two phrases of their bullshit "connotations" and whatever artificial crap that is applied to each phrase, you basically have two concepts which are identical and end with the same result. Because it has been bothering me...what difference does it make to the victim of "war crimes" if, in reality, these "war crimes" were actually "terrorist acts" or vice-versa? The result, probably pain, suffering, or death, would be the same no matter the "idea" each represents.

Now, the reason I say this because it seems after several debates with patriotic and conservative Americans, I was always attacked for bringing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "terrorist acts"...most called them "acts of war", yet others called them "war crimes." And if I brought up the massacre of the Palestinians and other Arabs by the Israelis, such as Lebanon in 1982, such things are either denied, or more often, they are called "war crimes" when I try to attach the image of a "terrorist act."

Now, let's see how interesting this all becomes when you use the example of Arab terrorism against the West....

When people talk about "declaring war", they are unfortunately speaking through a very Western perspective. To Islamic terrorist, for example, they are in a constant state of war, and have been for decades now. They cannot turn to Middle-Eastern states, because they are half-independent and half-puppet regimes, meaning, they cannot truly look after the interests of the Arab people collectively.

Now, if a group of terrorists exist, they are a group of people with legitimate concerns and few alternatives to turn to. However, they cannot declare war...since they cannot do this officially as this group is not a nation, every single "act of war" they perpetrate will be called "terrorism" even though, in their minds, they are at war!

So, in the end, what do you have? You have the people only with the means and power that are able to create any type of "legitimate resistance" that will not be called "terrorism." Israel, for example, does this all the time. Same with America.

So, declaring war is now used as a blanket for excusing or even justifying what would normally be called "terrorism"...terrorist acts are thus cloaked by ideas of legitimacy. Even if I were to stop being stubborn and call Israel's crimes as "war crimes", it wouldn't even matter because I know that nobody will prosecute that state, ever!

I guess definitions belong in the hands of the definers...and the definers, in this case, are those with the power and the influence and such. And everyone that resists is a terrorist....but when things are looked at with objectivity, it seems as if both sides are just as guilty of terrorism. Some, such as Israel, more so than others. :lol:

I would love a patriot's opinion.

[fernando]

Americans are allowed to do what they want since they are the most powerful nation on earth. That is their mentality "might makes right".

They will throw bombs, kill innocent people and say those are acts of war and not terrorism because they use high tech gadgets and wear uniforms, but when arabs take some Imperialist soldiers and kill them it is an act of terrorism <_<

Yanks have a hypocrit way of thinking, and there really isnt a way to have them change their minds, they will just deny it, spin the facts around to make them look good, and just call you ignorant all the time all together.

[The Sloth]

Any more opinions on this?

[Guerrilla22]

[QUOTE]Taking a logical stance on the matter, and by incorporating the current realities, it seems as if there is absolutely no difference between so-called "war crimes", "acts of war" (as they currently are) and terrorism.

Most definitely. However, the general American public doesn&#39;t see it this way, I&#39;ve heard members of this very board say things like "yeah, but that&#39;s colateral-damage, it&#39;s different". It&#39;s not different, at my University if you use the term "terrorist" in a paer you can be sure that you will get a bad grade. Why? because the use of the term is so subjective.

I beleive the meaning of the word terrorism in the dictionary is something like a person who committs acts of violence against a civillian population, however if you were to buy into this definition, then that would make all armys terrorist. The acceptable term to use in a paper, is militants, or armed opposition.

[Kurai Tsuki]

With the Iraqi death toll ranging between 15,000 and 55,000, the least Americans could do is stop *****ing about 9/11.

[life beyond life]

very good post, and well articulated. i cannot disagree in the least, but i have a question for Guerrilla22, who said:

"...at my University if you use the term "terrorist" in a paper you can be sure that you will get a bad grade..."

in which way would the word "terrorist" amount to a failing grade? in reference to americans and their military industrial complex, or in reference to the "third world" resistance fighter in the middle east?

and just to add to the subject of the thread, which addresses language and labeling, in one of the lectures for a class i took, my instructor wrote,

"The ability to name is powerful; it allows one to shape a concept, a person, a country&#39;s culture and perception of the world and other&#39;s perception of it. Consider for a moment how we have seen/do see other countries and regions—The Middle East, China, Mexico, Indonesia—because of the language that has been used to describe their conflicts, values, daily lives, cultures by others. For example, if I say the word terrorist, to whom do you attach that to; or if I say militia what culture does that belong to? These associations, connotations, from words like terrorist are conjured up by a writer, advertiser, propagandist and then reinforced through repetition: say on the media of television or in print.

In this way, if we are exposed to language that paints a mental picture of something, that defines something for us, we are given a world view of something. If we internalize this information and come to believe it we become further extensions of those who originally provided the information to us. Their language is now our language. If we reground this in the word terrorist or terrorist nation according to current news agencies and repeat this information using the language given to us, we also help to reinforce the realty presented. Sometimes this is called patriotism and those who most strongly advocated this to be patriots." (Neal Skapura)

and the same can be said of the word, Jihad, which translates not to &#39;holy war&#39; which is a gross misnomer, but translates to struggle. and this struggle can be broken down into different categories and applies to different stages and situations in someone&#39;s life. but, of course, the propagandists have used this same term in reference to &#39;holy war&#39;, which couldn&#39;t be more misleading. oddly enough, corporate journalists now coined the term &#39;Jihadist&#39;, and i&#39;m assuming its in reference to resistance fighters overseas.

what about other terms like fundamentalist, extremist, etc? its all terminology that seeks to delude the people from cultures they already don&#39;t understand, and shouldn&#39;t presume to know. i could easily reverse these same phrases and use them in accordance with the behavior of americans themselves and especially their soldiers. Bush could be labeled as a fundamentalist; and his patriots could easily be seen as extremist. couldn&#39;t they?

[Guerrilla22]

You are supposed to be as objective as possible. I don&#39;t refer to the US military as terrorist in papers either, however most students won&#39;t do this, most of the time you get people refering to groups like Hamas as terrorist, which usually doesn&#39;t go over well with your proffesor.