If "Shock and Awe" wasn't terrorism there is no such thing as terrorism

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/25/1042911596206.html

800 missiles to hit Iraq in first 48 hours

By Andrew West and agencies
January 26 2003
The Sun-Herald


The US intends to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.

The Pentagon battle plan aims not only to crush Iraqi troops, but also wipe out power and water supplies in the capital, Baghdad.

It is based on a strategy known as "Shock and Awe", conceived at the National Defense University in Washington, in which between 300 and 400 cruise missiles would fall on Iraq each day for two consecutive days. It would be more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 GulfWar.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before." snip

"We want them to quit, not to fight," Ullman said, "so that you have this simultaneous effect - rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima - not taking days or weeks but minutes." snip

"You're sitting in Baghdad and, all of a sudden, you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out," Mr Ullman said. "You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power and water. In two, three, four, five days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

[bluerum]

1. Shock 'n Awe: Also known as scare the livin bejeezeelebub out

of the bastards.

Yeah, I would call it terrosism.

[noneofmybusiness]

2. Come on, terrorism is what the brown people do nt

[paparush]

3. Yeah and the casualties were about 80% civilian

[bryant69]

4. This is a tricky linguistic problem

The attempt is to state that al-Qaeda and the American MIlitary are morally equivilent, I take it? Or am I wrong?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NNN0LHI]

6. I never mentioned al-Qaeda. You did

Forget about al-Qaeda.

Someone drop bombs on my families heads they are terrorists.

Simple as that. Its not tricky for me at all.

Don

[bryant69]

7. Are Al Qaeda terrorists?

And, on another subject, are all civilian casualties the victims of terrorists?

Bryant

[NNN0LHI]

8. You appear really obsessed with that Al Qaeda stuff

[bryant69]

10. Are you familiar with the phrase

Conspicuous by it's absense?

We seem evenly matched, at any rate. I am obsessed with bring al-qaeda into this debate and you are obsessed with keeping it out.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NNN0LHI]

11. Why would you want to bring al-qaeda into a debate...

...about the "Shock and Awe" we devastated Iraq and its people with?

Do you think we were shocking and awing al-qaeda per chance?

Don

[bryant69]

13. Well it wasn't the Shock and Awe so much as the terrorism

where i saw the connection. What is your title for the op? No need to look up, here it is.

"If "Shock and Awe" wasn't terrorism there is no such thing as terrorism"

I'm sorry for thinking of Al-Qaeda when I think of terrorism - a sign of a weak mind, I suppose.

But to answer your question, clearly designed to implicate me as a freeper, no I do not believe that we shocked and awed al-qaeda when we invaded Iraq.

Bryant

[KurtNYC]

5. All war is terror

but that doesn't make this terrorism. Personally I don't see any value in going from specific terms (like guerilla warfare, para-military death squads, snipers, etc.) to non-specific, over-arching terms like terrorism. Rule #1 is "know your enemy"; not 'take a general guess.'

[Selatius]

9. "Terrorism" is a meaningless term; it's the idiot's term du jour

If you blew up my family with a cruise missile or a suicide bomber, I frankly don't really care what to call you except that I know I will oppose you.

If need be, I will kill you if that means you won't kill anymore people. It's a difficult statement to make, but sometimes there's really little one can do in the face of irrationality and brutal destructive power.

[The2ndWheel]

12. One is a state, the other is stateless

Well, not really stateless. You can't do anything on a large scale without having the backing of a state. It all basically comes down to who you're talking to. Some bombs are freedom bombs, others are terror bombs.

[leesa]

14. The United States acted as terrorists during that attack. They targeted

civilians in a brutal, unprovoked attack.