War Seminar/Terrorism and war

What, if any, are the differences between intimidation perpetrated by big governments and armies to achieve specific political purposes and terrorism perpetrated by individuals or smaller organizations to do the same? Mirwin 06:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I'd like to agree that there are few differences between these two possibly organized crimes, however, governments is a vague term considering that there are so many different kinds of government. Those that are chosen by the people for the people, or at least attempt to be so chosen, are not out to "seek and destroy." While some governments as history and present day prove are out to "seek and destroy," and I'll agree that there is little difference between these governments and any group that promotes organized terrorism or crime. Thankfully there are organizations such as the UN that unite the "good-guys" to help prevent too much destruction. --Dancewiththewind 16:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

At what price too little destruction? Consider the economic exploitation of resources in Africa and Labor in China, India, etc. while hundreds of millions if not billions of people are undercapitlized the capital that exists only purpose in life is to extract a greater toll on economic activities. It seems a little destruction here and there might serve the same purpose as the American Revolution ... getting foreigners off people's backs. 71.161.8.137 08:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be more of a debate than an article, perhaps this belongs in the discussion area? Or maybe we could use a wikiversity place thingy for debate? Anyway, as my two bits seem to feel left out...

Terror and intimidation have been present in some form or another since the beginning of interpersonal relationships. Their use on a large scale since the inception of war. Read Sun Tzu, if you dare to tell me that demoralizing an enemy group or populous for the sake of victory is not terrorism, I'll want some good argument.

Probably most pressing is the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable terrorism. In the last millenia it has become something of taboo among "civilized" nations to attack non-combatants. However, anything other than "total" war has always been something of a lie and I view terrorism as a modern day equivalent of pillaging the countryside in lieu of attacking fortified centres. -KyranTyr