American revoltionaries were terrorists!

[Eolbo]

@smiling bandit

Most of the direct attacks on soldiers are not terrorism per se. OTOH, they’re being carried out by foreign murderers who routinely kill random civilians. They are terrorists even if their specific actions agains US troops are not. Note that the attacks today are carried out predominently by foreign fighters, not Iraqis.

This is not even remotely true now and never has been. Attacks on US troops are overwhelmingly committed by iraqis and foreigners make up a very small percentage of insurgent ranks.

Cites:

Among Insurgents in Iraq, Few Foreigners Are Found

Iraq’s foreign fighters: few but deadly

Foreign detainees are few in Iraq

[LonesomePolecat]

@Apos

Let’s be frank: this is self-serving bullshit. This is the definition that allows people to commit the exact same acts in different costumes and in one case call it despicable terrorism, and in another necessary war efforts.

As far as I’m concerned, attacking civilian populations to instill fear and break their will and try to influence them politically is terrorism, period, if the word is really going to have the sinister moral overtones people try to use it for. That means, however, that just because you have a bunch of fancy stars, a uniform and think yourself a serious guy making hard choices in hard wartime, you don’t get a special excusal from having your acts called terrorism.

So, yeah, you’d BETTER believe that Hiroshima, Dresden, and any number of other acts by us in the past were flat-out terrorism. So was giving smallpox-infected blankets to Indians (likely the first known modern use of biological warfare). We can give all the fancy justifications for those acts we want, but that shouldn’t affect the definition of the tactics being used. If we believed that terrorism was justifed in those instances, well there are plenty of people in the Middle East that think their causes are just as morally important and justified. The debate then is who is correct about the justness of their cause and the means they use to achieve it: not who is the terrorist.

The U.S. has to its credit rejected the use of terrorism in the last few decades, at least directly.

Let’s be frank. This is the sort of self-serving bullshit that allows brain-dead lefties to pretend there is no difference between the coalition troops in Iraq and the sub-human scum they’re fighting, between Hitler and Churchill or between a cop and a criminal. The game you’re playing here is called “moral equivalency” and consists of pretending not to see obvious and crucial moral difference when those differences are not convenient to your political ideology or position. It is contemptibly dishonest, and I can say no more without taking it to the Pit. Goodbye.

[elucidator]

Well, since we’re all being frank…

Perhaps you could point out to us just which “brain dead lefties” are to blame for dragging us into this shitstorm in the first instance? In my recollection, it was a band of intelligent, sober, and dedicated tighty righties who whomped up this turd sundae by the judicious application of exaggeration, flim-flam, and the occasional outright lie.

As to the “moral equivalency”, the compaint is not that there is no difference, the complaint is that there is not sufficient difference. Ours are the best trained, best educated and arguably most humane fighting force in the world. By what evil mojo are they moved to commit acts we are ashamed of? “Brain dead lefties”? Hardly seems likely.

[Apos]

@LonesomePolecat

Let’s be frank. This is the sort of self-serving bullshit that allows brain-dead lefties to pretend there is no difference between the coalition troops in Iraq and the sub-human scum they’re fighting, between Hitler and Churchill or between a cop and a criminal.

Except I didn’t say anything about a) moral equivalency or b) the coalition in Iraq. In fact I pretty specifically said that the US has taken terrorism out of its arsenal over the past few decades, and previous to that it was largely there indirectly or by proxy (largely in Latin America). It’s embrace of torture is not particularly promising, but by and large the US has moved in a very positive moral direction.

So, if you re-read both my post and then your reaction: you come out looking pretty darn foolish, reacting more to your imagination than what I actually said.

The game you’re playing here is called “moral equivalency” and consists of pretending not to see obvious and crucial moral difference when those differences are not convenient to your political ideology or position.

An honest person would then proceed to make an actual argument, demonstrating that I had done this: point out the “obvious” difference being overlooked. But of course, doing that would require you actually reading my post and coming to the stunning realization that your attack is completely baseless: in fact your smear actually, and rather goofily largely REPEATS what I was saying: that we have to judge acts on their justness alone, not whether or not they fall under the rubric of terrorism. All I was saying is that wearing a uniform and being ordered to do something is an absolutely ludcrous excuse for not calling an act against civilians a terrorist act. If Al Qaeda sew up some uniforms and declared itself the official army of Afghanistan, that would not magically transform 9/11 into a legitimate opening salvo in a military war. It would still be terrorism: the use of violence against civilians in order to “send a message” rather than to attack a military force that you are fighting against.