War on Terrorism, What is Terrorism?

[wade]

so in order for us to win in iraq and bring peace, justice and democracy we should restore to terrorism, based on your statements.
1. cannot really attach military targets right now
2. will force general population into bowing to our desires
3. forces general public to realise that any support for islamic terrorists is bad.

did i get it right?

Terrorism by a government is called oppression. We can certainly terrorize the Arabs into submitting, or anhilate them, which ever comes first. If that is the kind of country we want to be, then sure.

Wade.

 

[wade]

I am disappointed in you, Wade. No one insulted you and exageration of your argument is not necessarily stupid, despite the fact you do not like it. As to the amount of thinking power I may or may not have, I would dare say that it is adequate enough to get me through over half a decade of life without too much trouble. I suppose that could be the luck of the draw though.

Make that a half a century, though it did get me through the last decade as well!

My remark was not aimed at you specifically, but the stupidity of the post indicating the rich should burn the poor, and the replies to it. This was not an exageration, but rather a flippant obfuscation of the point of my post.

As for living a half century - that is no big accomplishment if you're a US citizen, espeically if you're white. Have to be pretty stupid or very unlucky not to "get through" to age 50 in this country.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

My remark was not aimed at you specifically, but the stupidity of the post indicating the rich should burn the poor, and the replies to it. This was not an exageration, but rather a flippant obfuscation of the point of my post.


Wade.

It was just an extension of your constipated logic. Flippant? Who? Me? Never!

 

[drac]

Terrorism by a government is called oppression.

not really. does not have to be a government. in any case there is a very blur line between two definitions.

We can certainly terrorize the Arabs into submitting, or anhilate them, which ever comes first. If that is the kind of country we want to be, then sure.

Well, one of your original post stated that terrorism is ok if fighting against totalitarian government. In that context it seems to me you would support/agree us using terror to rebuild iraq, no?

 

[wade]

Well, one of your original post stated that terrorism is ok if fighting against totalitarian government. In that context it seems to me you would support/agree us using terror to rebuild iraq, no?

No. What totalitarian government would we be fighting? And besides, it is a tactic to be used only by those who have no other options. Besides, Israel has proven that when the strong use terror as a tactic it doesn't work.

Wade.

 

[drac]

No. What totalitarian government would we be fighting? And besides, it is a tactic to be used only by those who have no other options.

Totalitarism is an idea, just as democracy, monarchy.... The government in that form just an inforcement of the idea, imho. So, it does not have to be a government, but just a group of people who advocate the idea about it.
I am not advocating using terror, i am just trying to understand your opinion about it and it looks to me this is where it would lead you if you follow through, imho.
Any fight which leads to terror no matter how justifiable will loose its moral standing. There are never a case when no other options exists in the fight. Look at Ghandi and look at israel-palestian cituation and compare them.

Besides, Israel has proven that when the strong use terror as a tactic it doesn't work.

Sry i strongly disagree with you, i failed to see where israel uses terror, granted some of the action they do are border line, but most of the cases like that usually get extreme negative reaction within israel.

 

[CSM]

My remark was not aimed at you specifically, but the stupidity of the post indicating the rich should burn the poor, and the replies to it. This was not an exageration, but rather a flippant obfuscation of the point of my post.

As for living a half century - that is no big accomplishment if you're a US citizen, espeically if you're white. Have to be pretty stupid or very unlucky not to "get through" to age 50 in this country.

Wade.

I've got news for you buddy. Being white and living in the US is very easy if you just sit on your butt and dont do anything. However, a lot of my contemporaries aren't around today because they chose to serve this country by joining the military and going off to fight in some hell hole just so folks like you can sit around and wax eloquent about things you really could give a damn less about. They were not stupid, though some may consider them "unucky". I am not talking only of Vietnam, either.

Who the hell are YOU to tell ME how easy life is? You have no idea what ANYONE my age has been through...white, black, or purple.

If I sound angry, I am. You come to this board, make some general statements about how things should be (some of your points are valid; some are not) then get all offended when others disagree with you. Your backhanded comments about certain people's intelligence and such have been largely ignored, but I will no longer do that. Early on, I had hoped that finally we had a person who could debate without resorting to name calling and making personal attacks but you just chose to do exactly that in a more subtle manner than most of the fat heads who troll around these boards.

I have to go cool off now.

 

[wade]

Totalitarism is an idea, just as democracy, monarchy.... The government in that form just an inforcement of the idea, imho. So, it does not have to be a government, but just a group of people who advocate the idea about it.
I am not advocating using terror, i am just trying to understand your opinion about it and it looks to me this is where it would lead you if you follow through, imho.
Any fight which leads to terror no matter how justifiable will loose its moral standing. There are never a case when no other options exists in the fight. Look at Ghandi and look at israel-palestian cituation and compare them.

No, Totalitarianism is more than just an idea. It is the concept of a small number of people having and using power to dictate how a population will live or die. Without this, it is nothing at all.

Sry i strongly disagree with you, i failed to see where israel uses terror, granted some of the action they do are border line, but most of the cases like that usually get extreme negative reaction within israel.

You obviously do not pay attention to how Isreal behaves. When you fire missiles or artillary into civilian areas because you think there might be some enemy there, knowing that it will cause civilian causualties, that is terrorism. When you shoot people unarmed civilians for being in the street, that is terrorism. When you force people out of their homes and then bulldoze the homes and rebuild homes for your own people on the land - that is terrorism. When you steal the scarce water poeple have struggeled to locate and dig a well to, in a desert, that is terrorism.

Just because terrorism is sponsored by a State does not santize it and make it other than what it is.

Wade.

 

[wade]

I've got news for you buddy. Being white and living in the US is very easy if you just sit on your butt and dont do anything. However, a lot of my contemporaries aren't around today because they chose to serve this country by joining the military and going off to fight in some hell hole just so folks like you can sit around and wax eloquent about things you really could give a damn less about. They were not stupid, though some may consider them "unucky". I am not talking only of Vietnam, either.

Who the hell are YOU to tell ME how easy life is? You have no idea what ANYONE my age has been through...white, black, or purple.

If I sound angry, I am. You come to this board, make some general statements about how things should be (some of your points are valid; some are not) then get all offended when others disagree with you. Your backhanded comments about certain people's intelligence and such have been largely ignored, but I will no longer do that. Early on, I had hoped that finally we had a person who could debate without resorting to name calling and making personal attacks but you just chose to do exactly that in a more subtle manner than most of the fat heads who troll around these boards.

I have to go cool off now.

Likewise you have no idea what I've been through either mate. And I've paid the price - and I have the scars to prove it - do you? And what makes you think you are older than I, as you imply in your post?

Every one of my derogatory comments about anyone on this board were perciptated by such a comment made towards me. It's the only time I make such comments. If people would be respectful of my opinions and positions, I'd be respectful of theirs - I don't expect people to necessarily agree with me, but I expect reasonable respect - if they wish to play the insults game however - I'm more than willing to oblidge them.

Wade.

 

[freeandfun1]

No, Totalitarianism is more than just an idea. It is the concept of a small number of people having and using power to dictate how a population will live or die. Without this, it is nothing at all.



You obviously do not pay attention to how Isreal behaves. When you fire missiles or artillary into civilian areas because you think there might be some enemy there, knowing that it will cause civilian causualties, that is terrorism. When you shoot people unarmed civilians for being in the street, that is terrorism. When you force people out of their homes and then bulldoze the homes and rebuild homes for your own people on the land - that is terrorism. When you steal the scarce water poeple have struggeled to locate and dig a well to, in a desert, that is terrorism.

Just because terrorism is sponsored by a State does not santize it and make it other than what it is.

Wade.

So your position is that WAR is TERRORISM?

 

[wade]

So your position is that WAR is TERRORISM?

No. And I didn't say anything of the sort. What Israel has been doing is state sponsored terrorism when it is directed at civilians, which is very often the case.

Wade.

 

[freeandfun1]

No. And I didn't say anything of the sort. What Israel has been doing is state sponsored terrorism when it is directed at civilians, which is very often the case.

Wade.

So were the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Aachen, etc. terrorism? What about when, in war zones, we relocate people? Is that terrorism? You made a blanket statement. All the things you say Israel is doing are things others have done during war to deprive the enemy of needed supplies, bases, etc. Israel is in a war for their survival. Is it THEIR fault that the Palestinian terrorists hide behind civilians?

 

[wade]

So were the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Aachen, etc. terrorism? What about when, in war zones, we relocate people? Is that terrorism? You made a blanket statement. All the things you say Israel is doing are things others have done during war to deprive the enemy of needed supplies, bases, etc. Israel is in a war for their survival. Is it THEIR fault that the Palestinian terrorists hide behind civilians?

The nighttime firebombing of German cities by the British, and Japanese cities by the USA, was terrorism.

In war zones, when people are relocated to move them out of harms way, that is not terrorism. But that is not what Israel does. What they do is move them out of harms way, and then move their own people in to live on the land.

It is Israel's fault that it gives the Palastinians nothing to live for. That it oppresses them to the point that they are willing to throw their lives away simply to hurt the Israelis a little bit.

I'm not a big fan of the Arabs in any part of the world. I think their philosphies are backward and oppressive. I'm just pointing out that Israel has made this problem even worse than it needs to be. Everything about how Israel acts means the extermination of the "palastinians" over time. So of course the fight back in the only way they can.

If you wish to debate this further, let me know we can move to the appropriate forum for it.

Wade.

 

[CSM]

Likewise you have no idea what I've been through either mate. And I've paid the price - and I have the scars to prove it - do you? And what makes you think you are older than I, as you imply in your post?

Every one of my derogatory comments about anyone on this board were perciptated by such a comment made towards me. It's the only time I make such comments. If people would be respectful of my opinions and positions, I'd be respectful of theirs - I don't expect people to necessarily agree with me, but I expect reasonable respect - if they wish to play the insults game however - I'm more than willing to oblidge them.

Wade.

I have the scars. Two tours in Southeast Asia, one in Southwest Asia. 30 years service and retired honorably. I get the impression that you are younger than I by the way you write and some of your views you express in this forum.

 

[CSM]

The nighttime firebombing of German cities by the British, and Japanese cities by the USA, was terrorism.

In war zones, when people are relocated to move them out of harms way, that is not terrorism. But that is not what Israel does. What they do is move them out of harms way, and then move their own people in to live on the land.

It is Israel's fault that it gives the Palastinians nothing to live for. That it oppresses them to the point that they are willing to throw their lives away simply to hurt the Israelis a little bit.

I'm not a big fan of the Arabs in any part of the world. I think their philosphies are backward and oppressive. I'm just pointing out that Israel has made this problem even worse than it needs to be. Everything about how Israel acts means the extermination of the "palastinians" over time. So of course the fight back in the only way they can.

If you wish to debate this further, let me know we can move to the appropriate forum for it.

Wade.

Moving on...

It is reasonable (based on my personal definition of terrorism--see previous posts) to view the INTENTIONAL targeting/bombing of civilians, whether by a government or any other organization, as terrorism. Such actions are still not justifiable, in my opinion.

I know that brings into question a whole plethora of historical events propagated by many nations (including the US and Israel). I can only say that the US military does not espouse the use of terror tactics and that I nor any soldiers that I have been associated with have never been instructed, trained, or ordered to use such tactics.

I abhor terrorism as I define it.

On another point, I do not agree that a nations citizenry should always be held accountable for that nation's government. As you have pointed out already, governments can be oppressive. They can be oppressive enough that any hope of resistance is futile.

 

[wade]

Moving on...

It is reasonable (based on my personal definition of terrorism--see previous posts) to view the INTENTIONAL targeting/bombing of civilians, whether by a government or any other organization, as terrorism. Such actions are still not justifiable, in my opinion.

I know that brings into question a whole plethora of historical events propagated by many nations (including the US and Israel). I can only say that the US military does not espouse the use of terror tactics and that I nor any soldiers that I have been associated with have never been instructed, trained, or ordered to use such tactics.

I abhor terrorism as I define it.

On another point, I do not agree that a nations citizenry should always be held accountable for that nation's government. As you have pointed out already, governments can be oppressive. They can be oppressive enough that any hope of resistance is futile.

Well, as we have seen at Abu Ghraib, the US military does use terror and torcher at times. In Vietnam we engaged in free-fire-zones and conducted search and destroy missions which were clearly in violation of international law, and we terror bombed with our B-52 raids.

It does not take much to move from non-terror tactics to terror tactics. The whole special forces movement in our military is designed as much to create soldiers who will obey w/o question as to create superior soldiers.

I'm not saying the people ruled by a despotic regime should be held accountable, that implies punishment even after the regime is defeated. I'm saying they are responsible to the degree that if it is necessary to kill them to defeat the regime, this is justified.

For instance, if we had neutron bombed the Taliban and Al-Queda in Afganistan a few days after 9/11, and this had killed Bin-Ladin and the great majority of Al-Queda and Taliban, at the cost of perhaps 10-20,000 civilians, this would have been justified. The same holds true for Saddam and the Baath party in Iraq.

Wade.

 

[CSM]

Well, as we have seen at Abu Ghraib, the US military does use terror and torcher at times. In Vietnam we engaged in free-fire-zones and conducted search and destroy missions which were clearly in violation of international law, and we terror bombed with our B-52 raids.

It does not take much to move from non-terror tactics to terror tactics. The whole special forces movement in our military is designed as much to create soldiers who will obey w/o question as to create superior soldiers.

I'm not saying the people ruled by a despotic regime should be held accountable, that implies punishment even after the regime is defeated. I'm saying they are responsible to the degree that if it is necessary to kill them to defeat the regime, this is justified.

For instance, if we had neutron bombed the Taliban and Al-Queda in Afganistan a few days after 9/11, and this had killed Bin-Ladin and the great majority of Al-Queda and Taliban, at the cost of perhaps 10-20,000 civilians, this would have been justified. The same holds true for Saddam and the Baath party in Iraq.

Wade.

I am not convinced that Abu Graib is/was formal policy. Free fire zones and search and destroy missions are not necessarily directed specifically at civilians. Bombing with B-52s is not necessarily terrorism either, though it is pretty devastating.

I disagree that special forces soldiers are trained to obey without question. Having been there and done that, I can tell you that US Special Teams have more autononmy regarding tactics and missions than the average soldier.

Bombing the Taliban and Al Queda I consider a military act, though collateral damage of 10,000 to 20,000 I view as unacceptable.

It appears that we will have to agree to disagree on justification for terrorism.

 

[wade]

I am not convinced that Abu Graib is/was formal policy.

What went on at Abu Graib and other prisons was too extensive to have been less than actual policy. It was just set up to allow "plausible deniability". In any case, it is a disgrace we must now live with.

Free fire zones and search and destroy missions are not necessarily directed specifically at civilians. Bombing with B-52s is not necessarily terrorism either, though it is pretty devastating.

Please note that I'm just trying to define the terms here.

Free fire zones and search and destroy missions, as outlined in Vietnam basically consider collateral damage (civilian deaths and destruction of their property) acceptable and normal - and this is in violation of international law. It was especially grevious in VN because the zones involved were usually in in S. VN.

Carpet bombing non-military targets, or saturation bombing of a small facility knowing that a very large non-military area will be devestated, without prior warning, is terror bombing.

I disagree that special forces soldiers are trained to obey without question. Having been there and done that, I can tell you that US Special Teams have more autononmy regarding tactics and missions than the average soldier.

But they are trained to succeed no matter what, and thier position in the elite unit depends on success. I'm not saying that this is what is being practiced today, but the "elite" Special Forces thing is really against past US military doctrine for just this reason. If the war were to get tough the very nature of such elite units is that they tend to become very brutal.

Bombing the Taliban and Al Queda I consider a military act, though collateral damage of 10,000 to 20,000 I view as unacceptable.

I agree it would be regrettable if the numbers got that high, but if it eliminated the Taliban, Al-Queda, and got Bin Ladin, it would be justified.

In Iraq, such tactics would probably have resulted in a lower overall civilian death toll from US actions and immeadiate consequences of US action. It would also have sent a clear and unmistakeable message to any organization supporting terrorists.

It appears that we will have to agree to disagree on justification for terrorism.

Sure thing, everyone has the right to their own opinion.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

What went on at Abu Graib and other prisons was too extensive to have been less than actual policy. It was just set up to allow "plausible deniability". In any case, it is a disgrace we must now live with.

You two watched how inmates were pictured in humuliating positions and even made to wear underwear on their heads. And then watch as those acts become front page news for a month of marathon of media scrutiny, free of all censorship, and invoke outrage and condemnation from all of our leaders, and finally see those perpetrators tried in a court of law and convicted in due process.

Which also equates to the methodical, cold blooded, execution of hundreds of civilians for public consumption, held in capitivity for days and made to beg for the camera.

Forgetting those twelve Nepalise cooks/cleaners working for a Jordanian firm were simply methodically beheaded in a row in the most brutal manner imaginable without any demand for salvation, the broadcast provided for consumption invoked very little outrage, zero expectation of justice, or even blame for their acts in light of their oppression... or what?

Oh sure that's a 'bad' thing, we'll surely hear that. In fact, you might want to say, it's just as bad as the human pyramid, the same kind of "terror and torture" inflicted upon those 'innocent' held as fighters supporting those who would cut from the neck as retribution to American wrought horrors visited upon them by Lydie the penis pointer.



Seems like America is still the bankrupt ideology, still the one who invokes outrage, still a singularly ammoral power among the oppressed and worthy of continued despise. Terror and Torture? MY ASS.

Please note that I'm just trying to define the terms here.

Free fire zones and search and destroy missions, as outlined in Vietnam basically consider collateral damage (civilian deaths and destruction of their property) acceptable and normal - and this is in violation of international law. It was especially grevious in VN because the zones involved were usually in in S. VN.

And International law by what means you say?

You can bring up the Geneva conventions in that time and place, but then have to excluse all the Viet Cong from any such protection while they never claimed nor practiced such conventions... so as per the letter of the international law in effect they are indeed spies and subject to summary execution by Geneva. And sure, that allowance wasn't really the common practice in any case, but I bet that once there is mention the actions of North Vietnam and the communist supporters supported inside the South we can end that whole sanctified preacher act.

Carpet bombing non-military targets, or saturation bombing of a small facility knowing that a very large non-military area will be devestated, without prior warning, is terror bombing.

Unfortunately large areas are not protected by conventions. Niether are small facilities protected from conventions. You want to say that non-combatants were targetted intentionally, really. Almost like the millions killed in South East Asia by victorious Communist regimes in oppression and not really remotely connected to acts that could be tried as murder to any US soldier in the field.

But they are trained to succeed no matter what, and thier position in the elite unit depends on success. I'm not saying that this is what is being practiced today, but the "elite" Special Forces thing is really against past US military doctrine for just this reason. If the war were to get tough the very nature of such elite units is that they tend to become very brutal.

I think the gentle ones all die in battle.

I agree it would be regrettable if the numbers got that high, but if it eliminated the Taliban, Al-Queda, and got Bin Ladin, it would be justified.

Apparently it's the assumption from CMS that we knew where to target Osama and/or Saddam from the open stages, which we certainly tried to do anyway, several times in fact, with a little less mass death and a good deal more restraint but at times with massive conventional firepower no less lethal than any field WMD.

And so we eliminated the Taliban and Al-Queda as any viable force. Isn't that believable?

In Iraq, such tactics would probably have resulted in a lower overall civilian death toll from US actions and immeadiate consequences of US action. It would also have sent a clear and unmistakeable message to any organization supporting terrorists.

Sure thing, everyone has the right to their own opinion.

Wade.

Now, there is something to be said for being a lunatic with a zeal for murderous rampages and how people just don't fuck with that type of person.

But look... the thing is when you and CSM pretend that Abu Gharaib is a terrorist acts, with torture by design, and then work in the barb about Vietnam and that the civilian slaughter that 'we' committed is illegal, well WTF?

All the while the Communist takeover of Hue after Tet and then the fall of South Vietnam in 1973 did in fact wreak mass murder and what I hear from both of you as 'terror and torture' is something Lydie waged on naked Iraqi men, and not mentioned with respect to the 12 senseless beheadings of Nepalese, by those who call us enemy... well fuck that. Nothing like a series of neutron bombs to clear our name, right?

 

[wade]

Please Comrade, note that I was trying to define terms.

Personally, I think that many aspects of international law concerning war crimes are antiquated and unrealistic. And it has always been the case that these are only very rarely applied to the victor in any case.

However, one thing I do think is that prisoners should almost always be treated humanely and with reasonable respect. What happened at Abu Graib was a blight on the honor of the USA, and especially that of our military. Only when a prisoner is specifically known to have commited atrocities (such as hi ranking Al-Queda) should such respect be denied. At Abu Graib, we lost a lot of hearts and minds to the enemy.

As for Bin-Ladin, he had too much time to clear out, and too much awareness we were comming. The way to get him was to strike without warning, and make sure we hit a wide enough area to get him. We knew about where he was, and about what his initial escape path would have been (and this was a very unpopulated region allowing us freedom to bombard with neutrinos). Using neutron weapons to ensure we got him within a few days, perhaps weeks, of 9/11, with no buildup or sign that America was there, rather than using conventional means after we had time to get into position, would very likely have gotten him.

As for VN, our policies are what wrought our destruction. You must win the hearts and minds of the people, and this is something we failed to do. We treated the SVN people with no respect, turned their women into whores, killed villagers who were caught between a rock and a hard place, supported the worst of their own people, and eventually were surrounded by only enemies.

Finally, I point out that just because our enemies do something in no way justifies that we do it too.

Wade.