caldrail Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Found this article that may be of interest. http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/a...rs/3038546.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Interesting, but I think the author it's confused on what means terrorism. Everithing becames terrorism with such ambiguity. I define terrorism as an act of mass violence, targeting unprepared civilians at random, carried by camuflaged irregular forces with the purpose of creating fear. Political assasination it is not an act of terrorism, but an ancient and wide spread practice. Neither the deliberate spread of fear by armed forces does not represent terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludovicus Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) I know most of us are fascinated by Rome's history and rich legacy. But it would also be fair to discuss here how the Romans employed terrorism as a tactic in empire building. Mass execution and enslavement of defeated populations, a tactic to inspire fear, were also Roman tools. Witness crucifixion. The thousands of crosses with rotting bodies erected along the Via Appia after the defeat of Sparticus's slave rebellion were surely designed to terrorize all Roman slaves. Edited March 21, 2007 by Ludovicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 But it would also be fair to discuss here how the Romans employed terrorism as a tactic in empire building. Mass execution and enslavement of defeated populations, a tactic to inspire fear, were also Roman tools. "a tactic to inspire fear" it's not terrorism, but a page in the military and politic book that was applied by most states/organisations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Interesting, but I think the author it's confused on what means terrorism. Everithing becames terrorism with such ambiguity.I define terrorism as an act of mass violence, targeting unprepared civilians at random, carried by camuflaged irregular forces with the purpose of creating fear. Political assasination it is not an act of terrorism, but an ancient and wide spread practice. Neither the deliberate spread of fear by armed forces does not represent terrorism. I would agree with this definition - but I would add to it that the terrorist also acts from a political standpoint, and often sees himself as a victim or even a 'freedom fighter'. This could not be said of the Romans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Ratus Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The whole terrorism issue in the world today is utter BS. How is suicide bombing any worse morally than aerial bombardment? One bomber mission in WWII could kill more people than all the suicide bombings in Iraq in the past three years. Terror tactics are just one more interesting way for people to murder one another. On topic: since there is a disconnect between our everyday lives and the atrocities commited in the ancient world we are more able to dismiss them as just tactics. In a few centuries, today's terrorism will be the tactics of the past.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 On topic: since there is a disconnect between our everyday lives and the atrocities commited in the ancient world we are more able to dismiss them as just tactics. In a few centuries, today's terrorism will be the tactics of the past.. Therein lies a lesson for us all, JR. I agree with you. However, I think how our descendants view such methods/tactics will depend largely on who eventually 'wins' in these situations, if indeed anyone does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimus Flavius Galarius Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 In a few centuries, today's terrorism will be the tactics of the past Are you really serious about that statement!! How is blowing yourself up at a market a "tactic". Its the cowardly fanatics at the top, setting out other fanatics at the bottom to kill as many civilians as possible, because apparently when you blow yourself up and kill women and children with you, you go to some kind of afterlife paradise!!!! Its a cowardly act used by people who are blinded by religious hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The whole terrorism issue in the world today is utter BS. How is suicide bombing any worse morally than aerial bombardment? One bomber mission in WWII could kill more people than all the suicide bombings in Iraq in the past three years. Terror tactics are just one more interesting way for people to murder one another. On topic: since there is a disconnect between our everyday lives and the atrocities commited in the ancient world we are more able to dismiss them as just tactics. In a few centuries, today's terrorism will be the tactics of the past.. I had to check to find out whether this thread was in the Arena. Isn't that the place for questions about the moral equivalence between (1) strapping a bomb to your chest to blow up teenagers in a discotheque and (2) unavoidably killing civilians in a surgical strike against genocidal dictators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 In a few centuries, today's terrorism will be the tactics of the past Are you really serious about that statement!! How is blowing yourself up at a market a "tactic". Its the cowardly fanatics at the top, setting out other fanatics at the bottom to kill as many civilians as possible, because apparently when you blow yourself up and kill women and children with you, you go to some kind of afterlife paradise!!!! Its a cowardly act used by people who are blinded by religious hate. JR was not calling it a 'tactic' today, Septimus - he suggested that in a future age, it may well be interpreted as one. There is a difference. I backed him up, and implicit in my statement - seeing you have raised it - was the horrific scenario of today's Islamic terrorists somehow winning this 'war on terror', for instance, and having a huge say in the writing of today's historyof it. Imagine, too, if Hitler had won the war: how would future generations be forced to see the Holocaust? I had to check to find out whether this thread was in the Arena. Isn't that the place for questions about the moral equivalence between (1) strapping a bomb to your chest to blow up teenagers in a discotheque and (2) unavoidably killing civilians in a surgical strike against genocidal dictators? Put like that, yes it is. But the thread began in an historical context. I am trying to get us back there - slowly but surely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 I agree with Kosmo's definition, and I don't think much of what the Romans did could be justly classified as terrorism. They certainly believed in savagely punishing those who attacked Romans, and the execution of the combatants in the Servile War is as good an example as any. But even at their most bloody-minded (the sack of Carthage, say), the Romans declared war, wore their uniforms into battle, and fought first and primarily against armed adversaries. They didn't send children through the gates of Carthage to poison the water supply. Yes, the Romans were brutual. No, they weren't terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 For me: When two recognizable armies meet in the field or a city is besieged, and the victor then proceeds to commit mayhem on the surrendered vanquished, that is terrorism. (Tamerlane) When a cult of the discontented attack civilians, that is terrorism. When these cultists, not in uniform, attack men in uniform, that is terrorism. When 'surgical' strikes result in civilian casualties, that is terrorism. What ever 'word' is used for 'terrorism', in the past, the present, or the future, it will still mean terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 GO: How could one conduct warfare of any kind without meeting your definition of terrorism? It's impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) MPC, if people insist on war making, everyone puts a uniform on and have at each other and not civilians. Baghdad, London, Warsaw and NYC are off the menu. Did you ever wonder why Bomber Harris isn't a hero? His efforts (along with the USA's), did little to end WWII and wasted valuable assets. These raids, on both sides ,mostly managed to murder civilians. It might also be said that these raids prolonged the war. In North Africa, the war was said to be a 'gentlemanly war' (an oxymoron, if ever there was one!). Supposedly, neither side mistreated soldiers or civilians. Yet, when a combatant was caught without a uniform on, he was summarily shot. Naturally, I won't say that the people who clamber most for wars, wear a yellow ribbon - on their spines. I really don't see why my prior post obviates prosecuting a war. [ Here, I speak ex cathedra - do I have it right now? ] Edited March 21, 2007 by Gaius Octavius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 I really don't see why my prior post obviates prosecuting a war. It certainly obviates the possibility of ending a war because it makes it impossible to target command-and-control, dual use infrastructure, and armament manufacture, all of which must be destroyed to reduce the capacity of the enemy to wage war. Moreover, if one army uses civilians as human shields, your definition implies that the opposing army is the terrorist, whereas the reverse is in fact true. You seem to imply that opposing armies are to choose their seconds, don white gloves, and draw pistols by mutual consent. These quaint ideas may have some place in children's books, but they have nothing whatever to do with real warfare. [ Here, I speak ex cathedra - do I have it right now? ] Well, at least your Latin is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts