Hmm… IOW, she should instill terror in civilian’s minds?
Good God man, who better knows if terror was instilled by these attacks than the survivors?
Terrorism is not merely defined by the causation of terror - but the intention to cause terror. I would label this example as callous, but not terrorism.
Yep, that’s exactly right.
Which reduces the question framed in the OP to “How pure are Bush’s thoughts?”
Call me cynical, but when I first read about this attack, I immediately wondered whether they actually, finally got Al-Zawarahri, and if so, how long it would take for the president to start trumpeting the operation as a success story for his warrantless wiretaps on Americans program.
You’ll have to ask Laura about that. 
Seriously, though, I hope you’re not going down the road of speculating that Bush wants to kill innocent civilians-- that he is deliberately targeting civilians in order to accomplish some goal. I don’t even think the OP is asserting that-- he just doesn’t know what the definition of “terrorism” is.
You are cynical.
For those who don’t mind killing innocents just as long as we get the bad guys. Why just nuke the whole region?
Problem solved.
Nah, just pointing out that the initial question is extremely difficult to answer based on the facts at hand. Perhaps if we ship Bush down to Gitmo, and do a little waterboarding? 
I see no difference in deliberately targeting civilians, and knowingly targeting civilians. Both are terrorist acts.
The goal is to demonstrate that he is at one with his constituency.
That is a distinction I am sure the victims find unpersuasive.
Well, they’ll be dead. But change “victims” to “survivors and victim’s families” and I’d still say you’re wrong. People may feel deliberately targeted by US forces, but the truth of the matter is, they are not - thus, it is not terrorism, regardless of how they feel about it. I was just pointing out that calling the example in the OP a terrorist attack would be incorrect.
As regards to their feelings? Yep, i’m sure whether their family’s been deliberately targeted, or they were part of “acceptable losses”, it’s not going to make that much difference - they’ll hate those actions just the same. That’s why I think that bomb attacks should never be used in areas with known innocents in, or when information on that area is known to be faulty - and why I believe if there’s a cock-up in intelligense they should rightly accept blame and be punished.
Bugger. Is there a version of Gaudere’s Law that states whenever someone posts about intelligence, they’ll always make a stupid mistake? :smack:
But there’s slop in that declaration. We don’t have a dichotomy here where something either is, or is not a terrorist act based on the available facts. Without knowing the administration’s motives in carrying out the attack, the assertion cannot be proved either correct or incorrect. It is undecidable.
We know that, at the least, their motives included reckless indifference to the loss of innocent life. Which satisfies ‘terrorism.’
I didn’t say that, nor do I think it.
I engaged in the classic internal debate that we all engage in here from time to time. Do I respond to a ridiculous post or simply ignore it? Both have their pros and cons. To respond gives the opportunity to set the record straight, but it also legitimizes to some degree. On the other hand, silence could be interpreted as a minor concession instead of deliberate indifference.
In reading your other posts, Der Trihs, I find that we are about as far apart as we could be on most issues. GD rules prohibit personal observations. So they will go unspoken.
Really ? You’ve certainly talked like it; you’ve done everything but actually say it in those words. Besides your rah-rah attitude towards this attack ( not to mention Hiroshima ), you make comments like this :
Bolding mine.
Again, bolding mine.
Your attitude has been quite bloodthirsty, and you’ve shown no concern for innocents - unless they are American innocents. I think I described your attitude quite well; you just don’t like me pointing it out.
True. We don’t know for certain whether the US forces were deliberately targeting innocents. I would suggest the evidence is high that they are not - because it would be a waste of materiel, and would cause more outrage in the region, potenetially triggering more terrorist attacks. Logically, it makes little sense for any attack on innocents to be done. Of course, it’s always possible that they are. It is indeed undecidable.
But even if we accept that, it would be incorrect to call it a terrorist attack, which is what the OP has done.
Seriously, though, if Bush was intent on terrorizing the Pakistanis living in that region, there would be a lot more dead than there are. It makes no sense to call it an act of terror unless there is actually some evidence of it being terror. The OP made the assertion. Let him provide some facts. All he has provided so far is a reference to the feelings of the victims.
I just want to back up what John’s said here. No matter how you, Americans, a terrorist, the innocents killed, or any of us think, this has absolutely no bearing on whether or not this was a terrorist attack. The only thing which would make it that were:-
- The causing of terror.
- The intention to cause terror.
If a situation fulfils those, it’s terrorism. If not, then it’s not, no matter what any of us think of it.