Grunching, but are they currently, or have they ever served the McRib?

If so, then no, they are friends.

As I understand this, as long as you can come up with a reason for why to attack someone, America is fine. However, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever attack an American.

wouldnt be happy about it. and would be all for a military response. but there is a big diff between blowing up a school bus by strapping a bomb to a mentally handicapped kid. and dropping a 500lber on a base or camp.

It's super easy to have this attitude when you know the other guys don't have the capability of flying over your military base. This is like the military version of the taxi medalion. If you don't have a million bucks to buy a medallion you're not a taxi driver you're a pirate and a menace to society. Only the big boys with deep pockets and aircraft carriers are "legit" and the other guys are terrorists.

they can suicide bomb all they want versus military targets. big diff when the whole plan is lets go to a market and just kill as many women and children as possible.

fyp

So when we run over a bomb, and then enter civilian homes, shooting first, and kill 23 women and children, is that terrorism?

This is mostly how I see it with a few notable exceptions:

I have a problem with the absolutes in this. I'm against wasting time and resources on fruitless diplomacy. Our advisers at the state department and other such agencies should be able to give a good indication of what the effectiveness and risk of non-violent course of actions and that should be weighed along with other policies in regards to reaching what ever foreign policy goals we are hoping to achieve.

This does not belong on the list. I see all the others as must have for any military involvement, except this. While I do not deny it should be considered, it should in no way prevent military intervention if the other significant criteria you listed is met.

are you talking about haditha?

It's super easy to have this attitude when you know the others guys have the capability of flying over a military base and crash a plane into it. Unless, of course, you forget about this capability. I digress though, many here would rather have more convenience at the airport than reduce the ability of people hijacking a plane, of which, they supposedly believe the "other guys" do not have this capability.

Does it change your opinion if the "other guys" do have this capability, of which, you seem to imply they do not?

Interesting thing, looked up the definition for terrorism and war. The dictionary definition is by no means what my personal understanding of what terrorism is.

Terrorism:

1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

War:

1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.



According to the dictionary, war is a subset of terrorism, which in my mind are very different political tools. Yet, the same source for the above definitions has a description much more line with with my understanding when you query terrorist attack.

terrorist attack

a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims

My definition: using violence for political lobbying.

It's a level of indirection, like stock options.

In common usage it is degrading to ~ violence by the enemy.

They would have become terrorists in the future, can't you see?

Preventive care is cheaper