War by definition is terrorism first of all.

Second of all its amusing simply because releasing information is itself not violent and there for Isn't terrorism.. however assassination could very well be considered terrorism.

Except for the fact that it is HIGHLY likely that much of the released information has caused harm to those civilians in Afghanistan.

Additionally, Fistalis, you are an idiot if you think that war is by definition terrorism. War is not terrorism; it is actually the function of one entity attempting to impress its own will on another entity; whether this is two people, or two nations (or more than two parties for that matter) is fairly irrelevant as pertains to what war is.

War requires a declaration, which was never issued (although it seems nobody does that anymore). It also requires an opposing force, and the Iraqi military didn't fight back. That wasn't a war, it was an invasion, conquest, and then resistance.

It also worked out really badly, given both the deaths and how cozy the new Iraqi government is with Iran (and thanks to Wikileaks we know what the rest of the region REALLY thinks of Iran).

The fight with the Taliban is more like an actual war. Shame the US abandoned it for years to go on that Iraq adventure.

Lol. Terrorism is simply an act of violence to achieve some goal. You call me an idiot simply because you don't understand the words you use.

Speaking literally war is by definition terrorism.

While the release or sharing of information no matter how damaging to an entity is not.. because it involves no violence. Again you have simply demonstrated the way the word terrorism itself has been convoluted and misunderstood by nearly the entire population of the U.S.

Terrorism is not a catch all phrase for doing things you don't like. Yet it has become the modern day version of McCarthy's communism in the collective mind of the uninformed populace.

No, terrorism is not simply an act of violence to achieve some goal. It may be an act of violence to achieve a goal, but first and foremost it is a violent act intended to inspire TERROR and fear into the enemy, usually the enemy civilian populace.

The fact remains that terrorism != war. War can involve terrorism, and terrorism can escalate to a full-scale war, but they are NOT the same thing.

Terrorism is an act of violence. It is used to achieve a goal. But that's not its main purpose, which happens to be to inspire terror and fear in an enemy civilian populace (or military force).

Convoluted definition.. not literal.. lol. If your going to argue semantics atleast take your time to learn the accepted definitions.

Terrorism is a violent act to acheive a goal(usually political in nature) which is what war is.  Terrorism's main goal is not to intimidate or cause terror in the populace its goal is political in nature. To change political policy. An effective way to assert this in a democracy is causing terror in the populace but this isn't the main goal of terrorism at all simply a means to the end.

A terrorist succeeds not when people are scared but when policies are changed in reaction to his action.

(see 2004 Madrid train bombings for a perfect example. They bombed. People voted and spain left the coalition of the willing)

Regardless I can see there will be no agreement and this conversation is going no where. so go back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Except the fact that terrorism is one-sided. Utterly, completely, and INCONTROVERTIBLY one-sided.

Why do you think terrorism is called "terrorism" then? /begin British accent/ it's a fancy word that's sounds nasty, so we'll use it to describe things we don't like /end British accent/

The fact of the matter is that the invocation of terror is the central element of terrorism. THAT would be why it's called terrorism and not "violent political policy changing" or "armed rebellion" or something.

Besides, you fail to account for the fact that Party A may decide to go to war with Party B because for the past 10 years Party B has been building up massive military force and has openly declared that they intend to conquer Party A's territory, and make it into the equivalent of a puppet state. After all, wouldn't you agree that it is in Party A's best interest to preemptively declare war on Party B, destroy aforementioned military buildup, and then withdraw from Party B's territory?

I believe terrorism to be violent attacks intentionally directed at civilian populaces for the purpose of causing fear in said civilians.  Blowing up a military base is not terrorism as the intended targets are military in nature.  Placing bombs in a shopping mall or market is terrorism because the intent is to cause harm and terror to civilians.  Yes, this means that if a military force intentionally attacks civilians in order to cause terror, that is terrorism.  Yes, the Tokyo and Dresden firebombings were terrorism, and ineffective terrorism at that.

I have to say that I concur with most of your post Sparda. I'd have to dig more into WWII history to form an opinion on the Tokyo&Dresden firebombings, but hey, can't say I don't want to do my research.

I'm rather curious about what American propaganda about North Korea and what Wikileaks whistle blowing of government and corporate questionable behavior have to do with pc gaming? I"m sure there will be some cheesy games about these subjects soon, there always is, but why post this crap now in a section called pc gaming?

My two cents:

Deciding which words to use to describe needless violence and killing is an utter waste of time. War, terrorism, etc., it doesn't matter.

Julian Assange could not do more harm to the soldiers or civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq than what the U.S government is doing on a daily basis, even if he tried. A lot of people are very sensitive when it comes to the soldiers. The soldiers have been lied to, just like everyone else, but there is a difference. When you agree to kill people you don't know at the order of other people you don't know, for a cause you cannot actually be certain about, then there is definitely something fundamentally wrong with you.

Fighting to defend family, friends, fellow citizens, rights, land and country, is certainly understandable and justifiable. Not so however when it comes to some bullshit war on terror that does more to fuel terrorism/war/violent resistance than it does to stop it.

People need to wake up to what their governments are doing, and what their taxes are paying for. People can't wake up if they don't know the truth. In other words, the world needs Wikileaks.

Except of course, when WikiLeaks releases documents of highly covert operations where the mere knowledge that there IS an operation puts all operatives in danger.

The fact remains that by releasing these documents people, many of which are almost certainly innocent Afghani civilians, ARE being put in danger.

And when Assange releases those Russian government papers that he's said he's going to, he'll have pretty much signed his death warrant. The Russians aren't going to fuck around; they'll just kill him.

It won't be pretty.  The Russians killed an ex-pat in England by putting polonium, which emits alpha radiation, in his tea.  Alpha particles (emitted as part of alpha decay) are made of two neutrons and two protons each, and are the deadliest form of radiation known to man.  Due to the size of the particles, skin can pretty much neutralize the effects by stopping them dead in their tracks.  When they're inside the human body though, they slam through the internal organs, shredding them into a gooey mess.

Even more evidence that they'll definitely get rid of Assange in a very permanent fashion. Though I have to say, that's some pretty gruesome methods right there. I'll be sure to use them if I ever happen to found an independent nation; they'll certainly defer foreign agents from trying to muck around.

Why don't you just shoot them?

And gruesome is only the beginning of that method.  I find it ironic that the Russians killed the man as if he were a plot device in a James Bond movie and they were, well, the Russians.  The irony was probably the real cause of death, actually.