What is the different between a solider and a terrorist?

A middle easterner fighting and attacking the US is bad but a solider fighting and attacking for the US is good. Isn't America being a hypocrite by conveying fighting, attacking and violence are bad and wrong yet using them to achieve it's cause?


How does the actions of a few justify attacking a whole nation? 2000 people died on 9/11 but 20 thousand plus died because of the Iraq war and many now live in despair. Are American lives superior to Iraqi lives?

 

Um. Fighting and trying to avoiding civilian casualties for a cause vs. strapping on bombs and killing your own people? I think that's a big difference.

 

The difference is a matter of legality...simply put

 

exactly

​

 

word.

 

Well, let's just see: They are immoral, committers of senseless violence, wreakers of havoc and dismay, causing the deaths of thousands of innocent lives for no purpose whatsoever, and destroyers of the peace. The difference between a terrorist and a soldier however is, uh, well.... Shit. I guess soldiers just have more expensive technology to use then the terrorists do. I should remind you, however, that the weaponry used by the terrorists were supplied by the US in the first place, hence the reason why the military gets to upgrade their shit.

 

a terrorists task is not to attack to conquer but more so to create situations that invoke terror among its citizens of its enemy thus disrupting the lives of its enemy. A soldier is a person who upon command is to fight an enemy only after a declaration of war has been sent to the enemy and now also (thanks to the un) declared to the world. Now a soldier can also be used as a peice keeping force and then the delcaration of war need not be served but rather it is called a piece keeping mission and the people who fight are then not soldiers but asort of UN police force.

As for the 2000 to 20,000 ratio it is really not a numbers game. In life if you are lucky enough to keep the number to your favor in life than great. I mean if you take a blow of X number lives and then are able to take 100X that many lives from your enemy than it is a great day for you.

Im not saying I agree or disagree just pointing out the logic of it.

 

I don't think a reasoned arguement is what was being asked for..

Two differing issues.. though suprisingly or unsuprisingly it IS a few that seem to 'justify' everything...Saddam being the one that 'justified' the current conflict.. [if you see what i mean ??].

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,863569,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2412837.stm

Main Entry: 1in·sur·gent
Pronunciation: -j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at [size=-1]SURGE[/size]
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

i think that is more applicable

 

A uniform?

 

terrorists use terror as a tactic... Nelson Mandella could have be considered a terrorist.

The millitary use millitary force, which is a different thing.

 

So if I were to find myself defending my country, and hadn't gone through the process of being conscripted or signing up to fight, I'd be a terrorist?

I've said it before in these forums, but.. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter"...

 

legitimate authority.

 

semantics.

technically, soldiers are murderers too, any way you sugar-coat it.

 

A world without either would sure be more peaceful..

 

agreed.

 

NO. Murder is the unlawful killing of another. The killing that a soldier does is within the law.

Soldiers are killers, not murderers.

One difference between a soldier and a terrorist is that a soldier is acting under orders. The soldier is at the bottom of a chain of command that supposedly, cools the personal passions. The fight/no fight decision is not made by the soldier. A terrorist makes that decsion for themselves.

Which is worse, killing because you are told to or killing because you have a greivence? I'm not sure. Shall we ask the dead if they care why they were killed?

 

toe-MAY-toe, or toe-MAH-toe ...

you think a terrorist acts out alone?!? a terrorist answers to superiors too, you know.
The soldier is a grunt, who thinks he's actually doing something for his country; and many of them get some sick adrenaline rush from invading someone else's land, to kill the "bad guys"

oh, but if innocent civilians get killed, oops...that's called "collateral damage", not murder.

 

ooh, ooh, i got it! whose side you are on!

 

as Dubya would say, "if yer not with us, yer against us"
such a compelling argument.

we chemists have a saying too: "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."

 

Why pretend that terrorists target civilians because they have no choice? Why do they have no choice but to put on an explosives belt and walk into a Shi'ite mosque or vegetable market?