It seems that people have neglected to look at the fact that a war on terrorism must be fought with terrorist tactics. The only way to truly keep your nose clean in this sort of case (it’s impossible to keep your nose clean when it comes to fighting) is to only attack your aggressors or those of your allies. Do we wish to become terrorists in this, the near future? As I said in another thread, it will be hard to decide who we label as terrorists or not. Do we start targetting the Israeli government for it’s policy of political assassination upon terrorists? Then when we are done ridding the world of terrorists do we willfully nuke Washington because of what we have become, so that at least we can remain consistent?
you are confusing action versus reaction. Anything we do is reaction. That is not terrorism. Let me guess, you are confused by the death penalty for convicted murderers too, right? Does killing people who kill make us killers? No.
If we react by indiscriminately killing civilians, then, yes, that would make us no better than terrorists ourselves. But going after and killing those responsible for the terrorism and those who support and shelter them isn’t the same thing.
Okay, so let’s plug in “Uncle Sam” and “bombing selected terrorist encampments in Afghanistan” here.
The action that Uncle Sam is contemplating would be premeditated violence.
It would not be politically motivated, as that means when you have two opposing political parties.
it would not be perpetrated against noncombatant targets.
And it would not be perpetrated by clandestine or subnational groups.
The part about “intended to influence an audience”, that’s a “Yes” only if you consider that the Federal Government really cares what the voting populace thinks.
Terrorism: “The systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments.”
We are not trying to coerce societies or governments through the indiscriminate mass murder of their people. We want to bring the murderers of our people, those who have declared war against the United States, to justice. If you can’t see the obvious difference then, intelligence wise, you don’t have a whole lot of “horse power under the hood”.
If you can’t see that the carpet bombing would result in the “indiscriminate mass murder of their people”, if you can’t see that US policy in Iraq now causes the “indiscriminate mass murder of their people”, if you can’t see that previous actions against targets in Sudan and Afghanistan lead to the "indiscriminate mass murder of their people, then you should check your gerbils.
DDG
It sure is convenient to be able to define a term the way you want to exclude your own actions from scrutiny. Just remember, this is not a universally accepted definition.
Just because some people on a message board or a radio call-in show are advocating carpet bombing does not mean that is actually the military action we will take.
It’s Saddam Hussein’s policies which are causing his people to suffer. There are UN programs to allow vital supplies in to Iraq, but he would rather score political points. Of course, he and his sons and his Republican Guard and his secret police have plenty of food and medicine.
As screwed up as those actions were, they hardly resulted in the mass murder of thousands of people. Without defending the attack on the Sudanese chemical factory–I still don’t know for sure if it was a chemical weapons plant or an aspirin factory, although I have grave doubts that we made the right choice there–I seem to recall us hitting it in the middle of the night to insure it would be at least relatively deserted.
"…If you can’t see that the carpet bombing would result in the “indiscriminate mass murder of their people”, if you can’t see that US policy in Iraq now causes the “indiscriminate mass murder of their people…”
If you knew ANYTHING about history, you would know that there was not even one instance of “carpet bombing” during the Gulf War against Iraq. We exclusively used “smart weapons”, laser guided weapons that were pinpoint in their precision. We decimated the fourth largest military force in the world (Iraq’s) with AMAZINGLY few civilian casualties. The lion’s share of the civilian casualties that they did suffer were due to the fact that Saddam Hussein likes to use his own people as a shield for his nefarious activities. In fact, now that I think of it, we allowed over one hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers to peacefully surrender when we could have simply exterminated them right there on the open desert terrain.
In regards to our policy towards Iraq, it is designed to prevent their military machine from regaining the kind of power that allowed it to unjustly invade and conquer one of its neighbors. If Iraqi civilians are suffering, it is because of Saddam Hussein’s single-minded desire to defy that policy at the cost of his OWN people.
It should be obvious to any intelligent individual that not only do these people have no regard for the lives of our civilian citizens, they have no regard for the lives of their OWN civilian citizens.
It is quite obvious that you are a “terrorist sympathizer”. I think it is disgusting. I think YOU are disgusting. In any event, stand ready because your pals are going to pay for the THOUSANDS OF COUNTS OF CAPITAL MURDER against CIVILIAN MEN, WOMEN and CHILDREN for which they are GUILTY.
A killer kills people. Doesn’t matter why, or how. Just because it’s done by a bunch of people, some ordering it to be done, some neglecting to prevent it, others actually carrying it out, makes it no less of a killing.
Killing innocent people is bad. Killing German and Japanese civilians in the Second World War was bad. Perhaps some of those deaths were necessary, perhaps not.
If, as a lot of politicians claim, this was an attack on the civilised world, we should act like civilised people. Act within legal and moral codes to bring about justice, not revenge.
For a country full of people who claim to be Christians, I have heard little talk of forgiveness or turning the other cheek, still less of loving your neighbours.
Perhaps your recollections are of what you saw on the TV at the time. They are wrong.
I will not respond to your remarks about “terrorist sympathizers”, except to suggest you take such remarks to the BBQ Pit, although it is unlikely that too many people will deign to respond to you on this point.
Yes, dumb bombs were the vast majority of the bombs used in the Gulf War. But none of these were dropped in any instance where civilian casualties were believed to be a major risk. The vast majority were dropped by B-52s against Iraqi infantry positions in the desert. Civilian cities were never subjected to “carpet bombing” in the Gulf war.
I say we declare war on War! That way, there won’t be any more wars. Except for the war on War. Which is a war. So it would have to be at war with itself.
Not to open up a can of worms here, but I’d just like to point out that this is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, I’m completely certain that the terrorists, whoever they are, would define what they do as a reaction as well. To whatever the hell it is that has pissed them off so much they needed and wanted to do it.
There is an exception to killing–self defense. This is way different. These terrorists did not do this for a redress of legitimate grievnces. This act was to wipe us out, to turn America and the free world into somethng like they are used to. This is a direct assault on democracy throughout the entire world. All hatemongers will lie low and stay low through the rest of time. All extremists, religious and otherwise, are put on notice. We flaming moderates will no longer take the notion that destruction of our society is needed to save society.
I don’t think there are many arguing that any persons found to have been directly responsible for these acts should be tried and (probably) executed if found guilty. And I’d venture to guess that most feel that if it’s impossible to lay hands on the guilty parties without some use of force that certain acts of force (along with other means) would then be deemed necessary. But there’s a potentially huge difference between these limited objectives and a “war on terrorism.”
DDG: thanks for the link and interesting post but, as someone else has already said, that definition basically exempts any government from terrorist acts on the grounds of it simply being a government.
In addition, I can’t imagine a war that isn’t “politically motivated.” The political motivation of either a war against Osama bin Laden/the Taliban, or “a war against terrorism” would include 1) reasserting US security; 2) demonstrating the US’s readiness to defend its borders against terrorist attacks; 3) appeasing the public’s desire for action; 4) attempting to stabilize a volatile region, etc. etc. You might prefer to call these foreign policy objectives, but that won’t make them any less political than they manifestly are.
A war on terrorism does not include the retaliation. A war on terrorism refers to a much wider spread policy that will affect us for years to come.
I don’t know why my post wasn’t clear, rereading it, it seems pretty clear to me. Maybe you should read the lines after the first and second one.
My point is that a war on terrorism is too broad and it IS in fact a terror campaign. The ends are to make people realize that terror is not effective and that they cannot use these types of tactics.
In other words make countries afraid to support terrorists, therefore coercing them with a political motivation. That political motivation is the cessation of terrorism. The means are terrorizing them into submission through superior military might and the will to use it against a perceived terrorist.
So a war on terrorism IS terrorism. We must use terror tactics to truly fight terrorism. War is terrorism. If we go beyond the retaliation, then we are terrorists.
Also as I pointed out and every post up to this one ignored was the fact of, “where” do we draw the line at who is a terrorist and who is not? The IRA are terrorists, the Israeli’s have used terrorist tactics in the past. So who is a terrorist and who is not? Are revolutionary guerillas terrorists? Most definitely yes. Was the United States started by revolutionary terrorists? Most definitely yes.
Please all of you take a look at your history books before you sanction a war on terrorism.