Debates
04 Apr 07
04 Apr 07
Here's an article that was written just after the attack on the Twin Towers: http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=305
Do you think this notion of hyperterrorism has been borne out by subsequent events? From my swivel chair, it rather looks like it has, but perhaps I've been blinded by my monitor...
04 Apr 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe Nazis and the terrorists (who are they? they are everywhere!) are not comparable at a military level, for a start. The Nazis were a conventional target, more or less. The USA hit the conventional target (Iraq) nice and hard, but seemingly without affecting the terrorists.
Nah -- like the Nazis before them, the terrorists had a couple of good innings, but they'll get their comeuppance.
04 Apr 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThere is no such thing as a conventional target in the WoT.
The Nazis and the terrorists (who are they? they are everywhere!) are not comparable at a military level, for a start. The Nazis were a conventional target, more or less. The USA hit the conventional target (Iraq) nice and hard, but seemingly without affecting the terrorists.
04 Apr 07
Originally posted by shavixmirI assume he means by that, "Military Assets" or Production facilities.
Well, define "conventional"...
In short, infrastructure. Terrorists by their very nature have no such, except hidden camps, maybe underground in caves or spread out through safehouses. They by definition have little actual miltiary power only propaganda power and some light arms, explosives and the like. So there is really nothing to "Attack' in the traditional military sense.
04 Apr 07
Originally posted by MerkWell, through-out history armies have changed.
A good old fashioned national military.
From clans to posses, from local militia to summoned hordes, from national armies to regional horse-riders.
Terrorism? Well, the English called George Washington a terrorist. That was a good couple of hundred years ago.
I guess you could call some of the tactics used against the Roman empire terrorist in nature as well.
The whole partisan movement was terrorist, so was the underground resistence against the nazis in France, the Netherlands and Belgium.
When looking over the last 2000 years or so, national militaries are actually far and few between. Not so old fashioned at all.
04 Apr 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAll in all it's a good article and the guy had a good idea what he was talking about. He is reading into things a little bit in spots, but it's mostly a solid article.
Here's an article that was written just after the attack on the Twin Towers: http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=305
Do you think this notion of hyperterrorism has been borne out by subsequent events? From my swivel chair, it rather looks like it has, but perhaps I've been blinded by my monitor...
Excepts for this.
"The low tech component were the simple weapons the hijackers carried to evade poorly-paid and undertrained airport security guards."
The security people were perhaps underpaid, but they did their job. Boxcutters were not banned from airliners at the time.
04 Apr 07
Originally posted by shavixmirYes, Armies have evolved over the centuries. Regardless, Khan had an Army, Rome had an Army and Armies still exist. It's seperate from terrorism. No matter what the British thought of Washington, or you or I think of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, terrorist orgs are a different beast than an Army and that includes dual or triple role terrorist/political/militia organizations.
Well, through-out history armies have changed.
From clans to posses, from local militia to summoned hordes, from national armies to regional horse-riders.
Terrorism? Well, the English called George Washington a terrorist. That was a good couple of hundred years ago.
I guess you could call some of the tactics used against the Roman empire terrorist in ...[text shortened]... years or so, national militaries are actually far and few between. Not so old fashioned at all.
"Terrorism? Well, the English called George Washington a terrorist."
People have confuse terrorism for guerilla tactics for a long time I guess.
"The whole partisan movement was terrorist, so was the underground resistence against the nazis in France, the Netherlands and Belgium."
You lost me here.
04 Apr 07
Originally posted by MerkThe nazis called the resistence movement during WWII terrorism.
Yes, Armies have evolved over the centuries. Regardless, Khan had an Army, Rome had an Army and Armies still exist. It's seperate from terrorism. No matter what the British thought of Washington, or you or I think of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, terrorist orgs are a different beast than an Army and that includes dual or triple role terrorist/political/militia organ ...[text shortened]... resistence against the nazis in France, the Netherlands and Belgium."
You lost me here.
04 Apr 07
Originally posted by shavixmirWould you equate their tactics with those used by today's terrorists? Viral terrorism seems a product of globalisation more than anything else. Also, the partisans were fighting for their various countries, which doesn't quite seem to be the case with the various terrorist organisations today.
The whole partisan movement was terrorist, so was the underground resistence against the nazis in France, the Netherlands and Belgium.
04 Apr 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageViral terrorism? You mean that one attack in Japan many years ago?
Would you equate their tactics with those used by today's terrorists? Viral terrorism seems a product of globalisation more than anything else. Also, the partisans were fighting for their various countries, which doesn't quite seem to be the case with the various terrorist organisations today.
As far as I know, very few terrorist attacks have ever used virusses.
Well, except Anthrax in the US, but that came from US government labs...
IRA, ETA, PLO, ANC... all terrorist organisations which "embodied" nationhood.
Many Islamic terrorist organisations also make claim to territory (or least removal of the West from territory).
And the military tactics are quite often similar as well.