The words you're looking for are "invasion" and "conquest". Far, far more people were killed in those actions then have ever been killed by terrorists, largely because the millitary has much bigger guns.

Calling wikileaks "terrorists" is pretty amusing for people from a country where politicians are actively promoting assassination as a way to deal with the problem. Last time I checked, that was drastically more illegal (and immoral) then causing embarrassment to the government is.

America is a plutocratic Police state feigning as a democracy. So terrorism is defined loosely as anything that harms  those in power. Or anything that provides a pretext to increase the weath and power of the ruling Class.

The literal definition of terrorism was thrown out long ago in favor of a the new definition that tries to ignore that indeed many acts of the U.S. government itself is literal terrorism.

As far as wikileaks goes.. it cannot be considered terrorism in the literal sense.. but its a perfect example of how the word terrorism itself has become convoluted in U.S. society.

@OP

 I lol'd

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.

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.

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).

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

No. The operatives agreed to be placed into danger and harms way when they signed up to be hired killers for their government. They are in a place they shouldn't be, doing things they shouldn't be doing. Make no mistake, the U.S is only out for their own interests in the region. The Taliban is a very convenient reason to stay and be active in the country, though if the Taliban were to disband tomorrow, that would be great news for the families of the soldiers, but horrible news for the U.S government agencies involved. In all likelihood though, they would probably fund the 'other side' to continue the fight, as they have done before in places like Lebanon. It would not be surprising in the slightest if the U.S was covertly supporting and bolstering the Taliban (in fact I'd be surprised if they weren't), similar to how they created Saddam and Osama as we know them.

The strategy is always the same one, cause and/or support dissent, malcontent and unrest by placing focus on rival interests, racial and religious differences, and old feuds to cause revolts, political uprisings, insurgency, and civil and international war. Then they bring their military and/or politicians into the fray with the pretense of aiding that country, and take by force and extortion whatever boon or piece of chocolate they had their eyes on. In other words, divide and conquer.

Prevention is better than cure as they say, and if these leaked documents can be a step towards preventing or reducing these kinds of occurences by placing less trust in governments, making them more accountable, and forcing them to be more transparent, then we would all be placing less of our fellow humans in danger.

The U.S is already trying to have Julian assassinated, or failing that, discredited with that ridiculous rape charge that even the women involved are denying. The problem with those types of public charges is that they don't have to stick, and the damage is already done. So in effect, he's guilty whether or not he's proven innocent.

The Russians might also try to assassinate Julian, and they may or may not be successful (though I hope not). The previous president of Syria had countless assassinations attempted against him over a span of 30 years, but in the end died of natural causes. The point there being, it's never a sure thing, and you don't go until it's your time to.

The fact that Julian Assange is willing to risk his own life and his freedom, safety and security to publish these documents shows a lot of character. I have heard it suggested that his motive is financial, and that I find preposterous.

The fact remains that if the U.S government agencies kept their murderous hands out of the region, the Afghan civilians would be better off and safer for it. What I don't understand is, why and how are so many people in this world so against the uncovering of this corruption and bloody murder that is occuring on a worldwide scale? How can you condemn Julian Assange for allegedly placing people in danger by leaking the documents that were given to him, but not in the same breath speak to the danger the entire world is being placed in by all these reckless dealings that are being uncovered?

You've made one thing clear to me that pretty much settles the entire discussion. You aren't interested in the moral or ethical side of this. What Julian did is technically illegal, and so (to you apparently) that trumps all the disgusting corruption that was uncovered, and all the callous, immoral and reckless activities of the U.S government, and all the humiliation, rights deprivation, torture and death they have been party to. Of course, this is the same government that made the law which says that you're not allowed to expose their filth. Brilliant.

But at the same time, as you say, Julian is not a U.S citizen. So should the laws of the U.S be applicable to anyone anywhere? To your mind, this one breach of law has justified the murder of a non-U.S citizen for the breaking of a U.S law whilst not in the U.S.

As for why should any non-American care? Because what is occurring on a global scale is leaving no country unaffected. If you live on this planet and don't give a shit, then you're not in a position of entitlement to complain when the shit hits your personal fan and splatters in your face.

If sex without a condom is considered rape in Sweden (I'm assuming it only applies to non-married couples, as otherwise where would babies come from?), then the word loses all meaning. You could say that sex without a condom is illegal, but to call it rape is just stupid. The only real advantage to calling it rape is in the negative stigma associated with that word. This is only advantageous to those would seek to discredit Julian. Most people (even Swedish people) wouldn't really think less of the guy if they found out he had sex without a condom. Once again, this is a perfect example of the U.S using it's influence in the media to villainize and discredit.

At any rate, if you don't care about or don't mind the corruption and murder that has resulted from the actions of the U.S government agencies, and that has been to some extent uncovered by these leaks, and if you only care that a law that protects these types of actions was possibly broken, then there is really no sense in taking this discussion any further.