Thoughts on Terrorism.
I'm on yet another message board that deals with England. The visitors are mainly English (shocker) and are interested in devolution of central powers from Britain to Scotland, England, N. Ireland (don't get me started) and Wales. Perhaps even Cornwall. A fellow calling himself Big Mad Tam and I were dueling about the nature of terrorism.
Here ya go:
"George Washington was a terrorist. "
X>Why Washington? He was a rebel but not a terrorist. There is a difference.
Really? Don't you think a modern-day Washington would be called a terrorist by the government? By the way, the Bush Administration has defined terrorism as:
(d) the term "terrorism" means an activity that --
(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and
(ii) appears to be intended --
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.
Under the US government's own definition, Washington was a terrorist!
Citing the criteria and then declaring that someone fits that criteria does not make it so. Explain the reason why Washington was a terrorist. Use references that do not include anti-American idiotarians like Zinn, Chomsky, and Vidal.
And even more importantly, the US government itself has also been engaging in terroristic activity, by using violence to coerce a sovereign government - Iraq - which has never attacked any legitimate US interest.
Let's get this straight, a tyrant that sized power in a bloody coup and then slaughtered his political opponents and continues to use torture and execution as a means of staying in power is worthy of soverignty? Iraq is one of the prime sponsors of terrorism in the world. Attacking evil is not terroristic or evil, it is morally right.
"The term "terrorist" is applied to any private individual or group which uses violence to achieve its ends."
Only by you. You seem unable to delinate between criminal behavior and terrorism.
X>Bzzzt! Wrong. A terrorist is somone who uses violence against civilans and property to undermine confidence in the state and/or to achive a political agenda. The key here is civilians. If an organization restricts its attacks to military/government installations they are rebels not nec. terrorists. If that same group plants a bomb in a movie theater, they are terrorists.
So how about when NATO deliberately attacked civilian targets in Serbia in 1999, like hotels, television stations, and the Chinese embassy?
1. Troops holed up in hotels make the hotel a legitimate military target
2. Television stations that broadcast instructions to hostile forces are also legitimate targets
3. The Chinese embassy was bombed in error. The JDAM warheads target only sophisticated communication equipment that operates in the terrahertz range that is generally used by ELINT and SIGINT equipment. The Chinese had such equipment in their embassy (a violation of international law) and the result was their fault.
There is no real difference between a 'rebel', 'freedom fighter' and a 'terrorist' except in the minds of those who choose such terms. The way such descriptions are chosen is used to pre-frame the terms of debate so as to make meaningful dialogue possible. That is why, for example, Palestinians who resist Israeli occupation are referred to as "gunmen" by the media. And the Islamist Afghans who fought Soviet occupation of their country were "freedom fighters" when they were useful tools of CIA policy. When they turned against their erstwhile handlers, they became "terrorists".
So you are able to morally equate Palestinians who have a penchant for blowing up unarmed civilians in pizza places and Afghanis who were fighting against an INVADING FOREIGN ARMY? You are an idiot.
"But when governments kill innocent people to achieve their aims, we call it "collateral damage"."
X>The difference is that governments (usually) try to reduce civilan casualties to zero. As in Afghanistan. We had no reason to nor will to bomb the civilians in Afghanistan and made every effort to avoid doing so. That civilan deaths occured is tragic but inevitable. Such is war.
My friend, you have a very naive view of how governments operate. Especially if you think Afghanistan was a war in which only a few civilians were killed. Such deaths are
Please cite evidence to the contrary. Where are the mass civilian casualties? Cite ONE reputable source.
not inevitable - war is usually avoidable. Gore Vidal was correct to point out that Afghanistan was attacked in order to control the strategic oil interests of the Caspian
Crap crap crap. Haliburton et al have repeatedly stated that they DO NOT have an interest in natural resources in the region. They abandoned the project years ago due to political instability and further stated they would not return even if said stability were to emerge. Don’t take my word for it, check their website, they have docs that predate any US intervention in Afghanistan.
rather than for the stated reasons, it seems that the old left-wing fag has more balls than most right-wing American commentators! Where IS Osma Bin Laden, whom Bush so
Not only does he not have more balls, he has less brains.
confidently predicted would be caught? And now we're supposed to have forgotten Osama and turn our attention to the new Hitler-of-the-week, Saddam Hussein, who has suddenly (in the last 5 minutes) become a major threat to world peace!
Osama is dead, buried beneath tons of rock in Tora Bora. He is entirely too fond of seeing himself on Al-Jazeera to have been quiet this long. Second, the fact that the Clinton administration was too callow and feckless to deal with Saddam does not make him any less evil. The fact that we left him alone to build his armies and his WMD program for 8 years makes his ouster and death alarmingly urgent.
"Bill Clinton had an aspirin factory in Sudan bombed because he wanted to distract people from the Lewinsky testimony - wasn't that "terrorism"? "
Maybe. You might be able to make a case for that. Criminal? Yes. Terrorism…depends, I’d have to see all the evidence. From what I gather much of it was conflicting and tenuous.
I never have done. Don't confuse criticism of US government policies with anti-Americanism. Flag-waving and patriotism are also two different things.
I wasn’t speaking of you specifically and didn’t mean to imply that I was.
X>The only reason we need to figure out how they think is to figure out the best way to destroy them and destroy the sick cancer of wahabbi fundamentalism and arab nationalism that is poisoning the Middle East and Islam.
The biggest cancer in the Middle East is Zionism, and it is America's support for Israel that turned the Arab world against it.
Wrong again. The fact that we support Israel is incidental. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow or if we ceased all foreign aid to Israel tomorrow, we would still be the Great Satan and they would be calling for our heads on a pike. The one aspect of the war on terror that you have correct is that this is an imperialistic war. The galactic error that you make is understanding that fundmentalist Islam is the imperialist here. They seek to dominate the globe and subjugate all kafirs. In their world, Islam is supposed to dominate the globe and they will not rest until it does. They are willing to kill and/or die to achieve their goals.
People like Osama Bin Laden want war, especially against the secularist regimes of Iraq and Egypt (who are bitter enemies of Islamic fundamentalists like Bin Laden). The House of Saud is a long-standing American ally which is equally a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism.
No on Iraq, yes on Egypt and Saudi. Iraq is a ally of convenience to Al Qaeda and would likely put them last on the list to be overthrown. The House of Saud is in no way a bulwark against fundamentalism. They CREATED Wahabbism. It is their claim to be the keepers of the holy mosques. They further have exported it and focused the rage of their subjects outward to avoid conflict at home. They blame all of the shortcomings of their society on Jews, Israel and the US and Britain. It’s a lot easier to blame someone else for your problems than actually do something about them.
It is the Zionists in the US media who are coming out with all this "Islamofascist" crap, which is an equally propagandist label as "Islamophobia".
Wrong. The US has gone to war 3 times to protect Muslims. Gulf War 1, Serbia, Mogadishu. We have good relations with Turkey a secular Islamic state. Finally, please stop with this “Jews run the media” crap. Using the word “Zionist” does not change anything, your intent is understood.
The US has no reason to get into a major regional conflagration, which will only lead to needless American and Arab deaths, and create opportunities for Islamic fundamentalists like Bin Laden to take over entire Middle Eastern countries. Is that what you want?
The US does not WANT to get into a major regional conflict however, we were forced to. We were content to leave well enough alone until a few Saudis decided that mass murder was:
1. A good idea
2. We would do nothing
3. It would somehow cause us to take a long look in the mirror and realize that all this freedom and prosperity was the wrong way to go and what we really need is an oppressive Islamic theocracy.
The best way to deal with terrorists like Bin Laden is to put a bounty on their heads and hunt them down. Waging war on an abstract concept: i.e. "war on terrorism" is senseless and unwinnable.
No it is not. In World War II in the Pacific, we were at war with militant Japanese Nationalism. It was ingrained in the fabric of society there. We had to destroy it root and branch. Likewise with Germany and Italy. Italian Fascism and German National Socialism were part and parcel of society. Both of those memes were destroyed and both nations remain cowed. In World War III we were fighting communism. We countered the Soviet’s attempts at expansion and fomenting communist revolutions around the world. We finally won. We showed the Soviets the folly of trying to keep up with us while simultaneous oppressing their own people. Oppression and innovation do not go hand in hand. The Soviets pioneered few things beyond militarily useful items. That fact is illustrative of what their culture valued. They only reason there was innovation and invention there was that there was reward for doing so, and that’s where the money was spent.
"A "war on terrorism" is merely a blank cheque for the government to restrict people's freedoms and declare a permanent state of emergency."
No it is not. It is us finally getting serious about protecting our nation. There has been no restriction on freedoms nor has there been any state of emergency declared, let alone a permanent one.
At the moment, they're only rounding up Arabs. In future, they'll be rounding up a far wider range of domestic dissidents. Many leftists support this "war on terrorism" crap,
Will you eat crow when they are not? When is this future you’re talking about?
because it is expanding the power of government beyond their wildest dreams! Alan Dershowitz wants the FBI to be allowed to torture suspects by putting needles under their fingernails. Is that the sort of USA you want to live in? Is that a price worth paying for an American Empire in the Middle East, run for the benefit of Israel and oil companies?
Dersh is off the map on this one and out on his own. His idea is that torture is going to occur anyway so why not have it controlled. I don’t agree. Second, he was speaking of a very very narrowly defined case. One in which there was a “ticking bomb”. That is, when we know for certain that there is going to be an attack with large numbers of casualties we need to do everything to prevent that. Third, in no way does anyone in this country want an empire. They are costly, inefficient and very draining on resources. We merely need to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm. To wait until Saddam has the ability to destroy America or dominate the global oil supply is suicidal. Saddam believes he is a reincarnation of Saladin and believes he will be remembered for thousands of years as the great Arab leader who united the Arab world and destroyed the infidels. Osama and Saddam are ideological cousins. The only difference is that Osamas dream is rooted in a loony version of Islam while Saddams is rooted merely in establishing his own greatness.
They're coming for the Arabs now, but with loony left criminal organisations like the ADL advising the FBI on whom to profile for "terrorism", in future they'll be rounding up Second Amendment supporters, the Christian Right, anti-abortion campaigners, "racists", etc.
The ADL is not advising the FBI on anything, let alone whom they should profile. Please, you latent anti-Semitism is really disgusting.
Tell YOU what: when the US government provokes more terrorist attacks on American soil because its aggression inflames a whole new generation of Muslim radicals, when
We are not going to inflame them, we are going to free them. The Saudis and Yemenis may prove problematic but the Iranian and Iraqis CANNOT WAIT for regime change and freedom. Terrorist attacks are going to come to our shores no matter what we do. Even if we withdrew from the world and become totally isolationist, we would be attacked.
ordinary American GI's are killed trying to capture the oil fields of the middle east and make the region safe for the tiny, sick parasite state that is Israel, and all the while your
We may have some casualties to be sure and each of them will be a great loss. It will, however, be less of a loss than we’re risking if we do nothing. Second, we are not trying to make only the region safe but we are trying to make the WORLD safe. Were we trying to make the region safe for a tiny sick state of France when we stormed the beaches at Normandy? Israel is not sick. It is the only democracy in the middle east.
country is becoming a third world police state thanks to unchecked turd world immigration (like the accomplice of the Washington sniper) and the Constitution is torn
My country will be just fine in five years or in 500 and in both scenarios we will be several orders of magnitude stronger than England or Britain.
up in the name of "defending freedom" and your countrymen's jobs are exported to China and India and Mexico ..... don't worry, I won't tell you "I told you so", because the chances are you might not be around to hear it.
Yeah we’ve heard about the horrors of NAFTA and GATT and all the jobs going to Mexico and China for years from Pat Buchannan and other 18th century mercantilists yet our GDP is growing year over year.
I'm on yet another message board that deals with England. The visitors are mainly English (shocker) and are interested in devolution of central powers from Britain to Scotland, England, N. Ireland (don't get me started) and Wales. Perhaps even Cornwall. A fellow calling himself Big Mad Tam and I were dueling about the nature of terrorism.
Here ya go:
"George Washington was a terrorist. "
X>Why Washington? He was a rebel but not a terrorist. There is a difference.
Really? Don't you think a modern-day Washington would be called a terrorist by the government? By the way, the Bush Administration has defined terrorism as:
(d) the term "terrorism" means an activity that --
(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and
(ii) appears to be intended --
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.
Under the US government's own definition, Washington was a terrorist!
Citing the criteria and then declaring that someone fits that criteria does not make it so. Explain the reason why Washington was a terrorist. Use references that do not include anti-American idiotarians like Zinn, Chomsky, and Vidal.
And even more importantly, the US government itself has also been engaging in terroristic activity, by using violence to coerce a sovereign government - Iraq - which has never attacked any legitimate US interest.
Let's get this straight, a tyrant that sized power in a bloody coup and then slaughtered his political opponents and continues to use torture and execution as a means of staying in power is worthy of soverignty? Iraq is one of the prime sponsors of terrorism in the world. Attacking evil is not terroristic or evil, it is morally right.
"The term "terrorist" is applied to any private individual or group which uses violence to achieve its ends."
Only by you. You seem unable to delinate between criminal behavior and terrorism.
X>Bzzzt! Wrong. A terrorist is somone who uses violence against civilans and property to undermine confidence in the state and/or to achive a political agenda. The key here is civilians. If an organization restricts its attacks to military/government installations they are rebels not nec. terrorists. If that same group plants a bomb in a movie theater, they are terrorists.
So how about when NATO deliberately attacked civilian targets in Serbia in 1999, like hotels, television stations, and the Chinese embassy?
1. Troops holed up in hotels make the hotel a legitimate military target
2. Television stations that broadcast instructions to hostile forces are also legitimate targets
3. The Chinese embassy was bombed in error. The JDAM warheads target only sophisticated communication equipment that operates in the terrahertz range that is generally used by ELINT and SIGINT equipment. The Chinese had such equipment in their embassy (a violation of international law) and the result was their fault.
There is no real difference between a 'rebel', 'freedom fighter' and a 'terrorist' except in the minds of those who choose such terms. The way such descriptions are chosen is used to pre-frame the terms of debate so as to make meaningful dialogue possible. That is why, for example, Palestinians who resist Israeli occupation are referred to as "gunmen" by the media. And the Islamist Afghans who fought Soviet occupation of their country were "freedom fighters" when they were useful tools of CIA policy. When they turned against their erstwhile handlers, they became "terrorists".
So you are able to morally equate Palestinians who have a penchant for blowing up unarmed civilians in pizza places and Afghanis who were fighting against an INVADING FOREIGN ARMY? You are an idiot.
"But when governments kill innocent people to achieve their aims, we call it "collateral damage"."
X>The difference is that governments (usually) try to reduce civilan casualties to zero. As in Afghanistan. We had no reason to nor will to bomb the civilians in Afghanistan and made every effort to avoid doing so. That civilan deaths occured is tragic but inevitable. Such is war.
My friend, you have a very naive view of how governments operate. Especially if you think Afghanistan was a war in which only a few civilians were killed. Such deaths are
Please cite evidence to the contrary. Where are the mass civilian casualties? Cite ONE reputable source.
not inevitable - war is usually avoidable. Gore Vidal was correct to point out that Afghanistan was attacked in order to control the strategic oil interests of the Caspian
Crap crap crap. Haliburton et al have repeatedly stated that they DO NOT have an interest in natural resources in the region. They abandoned the project years ago due to political instability and further stated they would not return even if said stability were to emerge. Don’t take my word for it, check their website, they have docs that predate any US intervention in Afghanistan.
rather than for the stated reasons, it seems that the old left-wing fag has more balls than most right-wing American commentators! Where IS Osma Bin Laden, whom Bush so
Not only does he not have more balls, he has less brains.
confidently predicted would be caught? And now we're supposed to have forgotten Osama and turn our attention to the new Hitler-of-the-week, Saddam Hussein, who has suddenly (in the last 5 minutes) become a major threat to world peace!
Osama is dead, buried beneath tons of rock in Tora Bora. He is entirely too fond of seeing himself on Al-Jazeera to have been quiet this long. Second, the fact that the Clinton administration was too callow and feckless to deal with Saddam does not make him any less evil. The fact that we left him alone to build his armies and his WMD program for 8 years makes his ouster and death alarmingly urgent.
"Bill Clinton had an aspirin factory in Sudan bombed because he wanted to distract people from the Lewinsky testimony - wasn't that "terrorism"? "
Maybe. You might be able to make a case for that. Criminal? Yes. Terrorism…depends, I’d have to see all the evidence. From what I gather much of it was conflicting and tenuous.
I never have done. Don't confuse criticism of US government policies with anti-Americanism. Flag-waving and patriotism are also two different things.
I wasn’t speaking of you specifically and didn’t mean to imply that I was.
X>The only reason we need to figure out how they think is to figure out the best way to destroy them and destroy the sick cancer of wahabbi fundamentalism and arab nationalism that is poisoning the Middle East and Islam.
The biggest cancer in the Middle East is Zionism, and it is America's support for Israel that turned the Arab world against it.
Wrong again. The fact that we support Israel is incidental. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow or if we ceased all foreign aid to Israel tomorrow, we would still be the Great Satan and they would be calling for our heads on a pike. The one aspect of the war on terror that you have correct is that this is an imperialistic war. The galactic error that you make is understanding that fundmentalist Islam is the imperialist here. They seek to dominate the globe and subjugate all kafirs. In their world, Islam is supposed to dominate the globe and they will not rest until it does. They are willing to kill and/or die to achieve their goals.
People like Osama Bin Laden want war, especially against the secularist regimes of Iraq and Egypt (who are bitter enemies of Islamic fundamentalists like Bin Laden). The House of Saud is a long-standing American ally which is equally a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism.
No on Iraq, yes on Egypt and Saudi. Iraq is a ally of convenience to Al Qaeda and would likely put them last on the list to be overthrown. The House of Saud is in no way a bulwark against fundamentalism. They CREATED Wahabbism. It is their claim to be the keepers of the holy mosques. They further have exported it and focused the rage of their subjects outward to avoid conflict at home. They blame all of the shortcomings of their society on Jews, Israel and the US and Britain. It’s a lot easier to blame someone else for your problems than actually do something about them.
It is the Zionists in the US media who are coming out with all this "Islamofascist" crap, which is an equally propagandist label as "Islamophobia".
Wrong. The US has gone to war 3 times to protect Muslims. Gulf War 1, Serbia, Mogadishu. We have good relations with Turkey a secular Islamic state. Finally, please stop with this “Jews run the media” crap. Using the word “Zionist” does not change anything, your intent is understood.
The US has no reason to get into a major regional conflagration, which will only lead to needless American and Arab deaths, and create opportunities for Islamic fundamentalists like Bin Laden to take over entire Middle Eastern countries. Is that what you want?
The US does not WANT to get into a major regional conflict however, we were forced to. We were content to leave well enough alone until a few Saudis decided that mass murder was:
1. A good idea
2. We would do nothing
3. It would somehow cause us to take a long look in the mirror and realize that all this freedom and prosperity was the wrong way to go and what we really need is an oppressive Islamic theocracy.
The best way to deal with terrorists like Bin Laden is to put a bounty on their heads and hunt them down. Waging war on an abstract concept: i.e. "war on terrorism" is senseless and unwinnable.
No it is not. In World War II in the Pacific, we were at war with militant Japanese Nationalism. It was ingrained in the fabric of society there. We had to destroy it root and branch. Likewise with Germany and Italy. Italian Fascism and German National Socialism were part and parcel of society. Both of those memes were destroyed and both nations remain cowed. In World War III we were fighting communism. We countered the Soviet’s attempts at expansion and fomenting communist revolutions around the world. We finally won. We showed the Soviets the folly of trying to keep up with us while simultaneous oppressing their own people. Oppression and innovation do not go hand in hand. The Soviets pioneered few things beyond militarily useful items. That fact is illustrative of what their culture valued. They only reason there was innovation and invention there was that there was reward for doing so, and that’s where the money was spent.
"A "war on terrorism" is merely a blank cheque for the government to restrict people's freedoms and declare a permanent state of emergency."
No it is not. It is us finally getting serious about protecting our nation. There has been no restriction on freedoms nor has there been any state of emergency declared, let alone a permanent one.
At the moment, they're only rounding up Arabs. In future, they'll be rounding up a far wider range of domestic dissidents. Many leftists support this "war on terrorism" crap,
Will you eat crow when they are not? When is this future you’re talking about?
because it is expanding the power of government beyond their wildest dreams! Alan Dershowitz wants the FBI to be allowed to torture suspects by putting needles under their fingernails. Is that the sort of USA you want to live in? Is that a price worth paying for an American Empire in the Middle East, run for the benefit of Israel and oil companies?
Dersh is off the map on this one and out on his own. His idea is that torture is going to occur anyway so why not have it controlled. I don’t agree. Second, he was speaking of a very very narrowly defined case. One in which there was a “ticking bomb”. That is, when we know for certain that there is going to be an attack with large numbers of casualties we need to do everything to prevent that. Third, in no way does anyone in this country want an empire. They are costly, inefficient and very draining on resources. We merely need to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm. To wait until Saddam has the ability to destroy America or dominate the global oil supply is suicidal. Saddam believes he is a reincarnation of Saladin and believes he will be remembered for thousands of years as the great Arab leader who united the Arab world and destroyed the infidels. Osama and Saddam are ideological cousins. The only difference is that Osamas dream is rooted in a loony version of Islam while Saddams is rooted merely in establishing his own greatness.
They're coming for the Arabs now, but with loony left criminal organisations like the ADL advising the FBI on whom to profile for "terrorism", in future they'll be rounding up Second Amendment supporters, the Christian Right, anti-abortion campaigners, "racists", etc.
The ADL is not advising the FBI on anything, let alone whom they should profile. Please, you latent anti-Semitism is really disgusting.
Tell YOU what: when the US government provokes more terrorist attacks on American soil because its aggression inflames a whole new generation of Muslim radicals, when
We are not going to inflame them, we are going to free them. The Saudis and Yemenis may prove problematic but the Iranian and Iraqis CANNOT WAIT for regime change and freedom. Terrorist attacks are going to come to our shores no matter what we do. Even if we withdrew from the world and become totally isolationist, we would be attacked.
ordinary American GI's are killed trying to capture the oil fields of the middle east and make the region safe for the tiny, sick parasite state that is Israel, and all the while your
We may have some casualties to be sure and each of them will be a great loss. It will, however, be less of a loss than we’re risking if we do nothing. Second, we are not trying to make only the region safe but we are trying to make the WORLD safe. Were we trying to make the region safe for a tiny sick state of France when we stormed the beaches at Normandy? Israel is not sick. It is the only democracy in the middle east.
country is becoming a third world police state thanks to unchecked turd world immigration (like the accomplice of the Washington sniper) and the Constitution is torn
My country will be just fine in five years or in 500 and in both scenarios we will be several orders of magnitude stronger than England or Britain.
up in the name of "defending freedom" and your countrymen's jobs are exported to China and India and Mexico ..... don't worry, I won't tell you "I told you so", because the chances are you might not be around to hear it.
Yeah we’ve heard about the horrors of NAFTA and GATT and all the jobs going to Mexico and China for years from Pat Buchannan and other 18th century mercantilists yet our GDP is growing year over year.
Comments