Sure, but it would be equally incorrect to call it not a terrorist attack.
The evidence ain’t there in both directions.
Quark has provided us with a possible motive. By killing innocents, we can send a hard-line message to the terrorists. By bombing villages, we can send a warning to people even thinking about abetting terrorists.
And some might say that since Bush’s credibility hinges on the realness of international terrorism, he would have something to gain by creating new terrorists. As would his political party. As would his pals who benefit from the military-industrial complex. He has launched us into a war that has no foreseable end. If you were Haliburton or another big-time contractor, TWAT = never-ending supply of money. Yippee.
Yes, if the US were truly intent on killing civilians, we could do a more effective job (although 30000 doesn’t seem like peanuts to me). But wouldn’t we need to be subtle if we still wanted to come across as a squeaky-clean “good guy”? If we bombed up a whole town instead of a village, we’d piss off our friends, and the protests against this war would become more hysterical, contagiously so. But if we craft “accidents” that happen on a small scale, and we kill people no one cares about anyway (they were probably terrorists anyway, the bastards!), then we’ve got little to lose and lots to gain.
Do I believe what I just wrote is happening? No, not really. I’m cynical, but not that much. But I roll my eyes when people say our government has no motive to kill innocents. That just seems so naive and idealistic to me. We have plenty motive and even more plenty opportunity. We may choose not to believe that our government could be so evil, but that doesn’t mean we’re right.
Wow. That’s stunning. You really need to take a step back and think about that, John.
Three words: “Shock and awe”.
Now that’s something I *would * agree counts as terrorism. Caused terror. Caused terror deliberately. Terrorism.
Why? I can condemn this action, an I have done so, without calling it terrorism.
There are horrible, horrible things that happen in this world. One needn’t call all horrible things “terrorism”. If you think my comments are insensitive to the grief those villagers feel, you’re wrong. Just because one feels grief doesn’t mean one can change the definition of words.
Has anyone said there is no motive? If not, then that’s just a strawman. What people are saying is that there isn’t any credible evidence.
Yup. God knows, the language has gotten sloppy enough these past few years without creating yet another synonym for “bad.”
Well, in this very thread Revenant Threshold posted:
Revenant Threshold seems to believe that it wouldn’t make sense for the US to kill innocents. No, it wouldn’t make sense if our motive is kill terrorists. But if our government’s motive is to fight terrorists indefinitely, then it makes perfect sense to kill innocents.
I think it’s overly idealistic to believe that logic is driving our involvement in the Middle East in the first place.
It seems to me that people who say the incident can’t be called terroristic since the CIA said it was an accident-- a position you took earlier, John Mace–are also being naive. Would the CIA announce that it willfully bombed a bunch of innocents to scare the shit out of people, if that was indeed it’s motive? I don’t think so.
I’m cynical enough to believe that no amount of investigation would provide proof of terroristic intent that would convince the vast majority of Americans, even if the proof stood out in bold relief. Any evidence and testimony uncovered would be immediately dissected to oblivion by legalistic hawks , excused by the apologists, and denied by the willfully ignorant. Unfortunately, I can point to Gitmo, Abu Ghairb, black prisons, illegal wiretaps, etc. to justify my cynicism.
Quite so, it would be. What my post was saying, however, was that while there is no credible evidence for such a thing to be true, we don’t know for certain. The evidence all points to no - and logically, given the idea that the government’s motive is to stop terrorists, then again, this point to no - but we cannot know for certain. We have evvidence, and we can speculate based on those facts. The evidence all points to “No, the government is not purposely targeting innocents”.
If you want to make the case that the government’s motive is to fight terrorists indefinetly, you’re going to need some evidence before you speculate.
I imagine emotions have a part to play too, no doubt - no-one can think totally logically, especially in a warzone. But we have to use logic to understand what’s going on - otherwise we’ll just be guessing wildly. We need a base to build our speculation from.
I imagine that no, they would not announce this. But then they wouldn’t announce it if it weren’t true, either - so this is an unimportant point.
Perhaps so. I’m even more cynical than you, however - I think that while a vast majority of Americans could be shown enough proof to make them realise the US was committing terror, but that a significant contingent wouldn’t give a damn. There’s been posters in this thread and the last who’ve suggested terroristic tactics be used, and seem perfectly happy with this. I suppose as long as it’s you doing the terrorising, it’s all fine and dandy. :rolleyes:
No. He’s saying we have motive not to do it, not that we don’t have motive to do it. i know that sounds like a technicality, but there’s a big difference.
No, that’s not the argument I’m making. Even if we did it on purpose, that wouldn’t make it terrorism unless we did it in order to “send a message” to the survivors. The likely scenario is that someone made the calculation that killing some civilians was worth the tradeoff of getting al Zawahiri. You can call that callous, stupid, even criminal (as I said in either this thread or the other one), but it doesn’t amount to terrorism.
Which proves absolutely nothing. I will repeat-- what evidence is there that it’s terrorism?
None of those amounts to terrorism. In fact, a lot people went thru a lot of effort purposely to keep those secret. You don’t try to keep your terrorist acts secret-- that defeats the whole purpose.
My problem was with him saying it makes little sense for the US to kill innocents. Not in any objective sense is this true. My point is that it is foolhardy to believe otherwise.
Does the message have to be implicit or explicit? If everyone knows that a government will bomb the hell out of your neighborhood if a target is suspected of being there, isn’t that kind of a message?
I’m thinking of Israel’s policy of bulldozing the houses of the families of suspected suicide bombers. When they bulldoze a family’s home, aren’t they sending a message to both innocent and guilty survivors? Would this be terrorism?
I don’t think a message has to be broadcast on radio and TV in order for it to be present. I think actions alone can convey a message just as clearly as a formal announcement. People are smart enough to figure out intent without reading a press release. They did during the days of lynching in the South. No one equivocated when they called the OKC bombing terrorism without knowing who did it. I think we would still call 9/11 a terroristic act even if Osama had kept quiet.
It’s a likely scenario but I’m not in a position to say that it’s the most likely, even though I hope it is.
I guess you didn’t notice my use of the word “if”.
And you insisting that there’s no evidence does not lend support for your argument that the incident is not terroristic. I’m not arguing that it is; I’m simply saying it’s stupid to assume that it’s NOT.
I’m willing to bet your average Pakistani citizen has inferred a lot of messages from this incident. Most probably figure we’re just too pussy to get on TV and tell them the truth, like Osama did for us.
Revenant, I appreciate the explanation.
You have provided no facts, only convenient definitions cleverly designed to protect Bush from charges of terrorism.
I reject your limited definition of terror. Here is the real definition of terror (I get to say that, because you exercised absolute certainty in your definition):
To knowingly inflict terror on innocent civilians.
Bush knows that civilian casualties will result when Predator drones fire Hellfire missiles on civilian targets in civilian neighborhoods. It is an absolute certainty. The result is terror among innocent civilians.
That is the act of a terrorist. Ergo, Bush is a terrorist.
Yes, I agree.
Possibly, but not for the reasons you think. Firstly, causing terror is not the priority, here - it’s the side effect. In addition to this, however, Bush must also have made every effort possible in order to reduce such terror-causing. If he’s just said to himself, “Hmm. Some people will be terrorised by these attacks. Good, that’ll show them we’re powerful and in control here”, then yes, that attack would include terrorism. On the other hand, if he’s thought to himself “Hmm. Some people will be terrorised by these attacks. I must make every effort to insure that as many innocents as possible are unharmed, and that are not scared by this” then it wouldn’t be terrorism. I believe that that is the case here because it’s clearly bad for America if more innocents are harmed. I could be wrong; I don’t know what Bush is thinking.
I’ve said upthread (I think it’s in this one, but it could be the other GD on this) that I don’t think bombs should be used at all in civilian areas, or when intelligence is believed to be 100% accurate - because you run the risk of innocent deaths, and because it’ll make others more interested in terroism against the coalition forces. It is a callous, evil act. But it is not terrorism unless Bush is specifically targeting (or feels he has no option other than to also attack) innocents.
He’s cruel and callous. To judge him a terrorist, we need more evidence.
I agree, it was limited. I’ll correct it;
Terroism must include-
- The causing of terror, plus either/both of;
1- The intention to cause terror
2- Not limiting the causing of terror to the best of your ability, when terror is a side effect.
That was in 1993. Using Evil One’s logic, our policy toward terrorists was working just fine from 1993 until 2001, had a little glitch in 2001, and has been working fine ever since. We can only conclude that Bush temporarily changed some aspect of our policies in 2001 that made them stop protecting the WTC… what a bonehead move, right?
What rock have you been living under? No terrorist attacks since 9/11? Are you serious? Even your own beloved Administration begs to differ with you, citing 190 terrorist attacks worldwide in 2003 alone, 82 of which were specifically anti-U.S., up from 77 in 2002, in its “Patterns of Global Terrorism report,” which even the State Department had to come back later and admit was under reported! Cite.
And in 2004 terrorist acts more than tripled!
Have you forgotten the terrorist bombings in Madrid? London? Bali? Amman?
Let me find you a list of even just suspected Al-Qaeda terrorist acts since 9/11/2001. Ok, here you go. . .
[quote]
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html [ul][li]** 2002 (April):** Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia left 21 dead, including 14 German tourists.[/li][li]** 2002 (May):** Car exploded outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.[/li][li]** 2002 (June):** Bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.[/li][li]** 2002 (Oct.):** Boat crashed into oil tanker off Yemen coast, killing 1.[/li][li]** 2002 (Oct.):** Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, killed 202, mostly Australian citizens.[/li][li]** 2002 (Nov.):** Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 16.[/li][li]** 2003 (May):** Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.[/li][li]** 2003 (May):** 4 bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.[/li][li]** 2003 (Aug.):** Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.[/li][li]** 2003 (Nov.):** Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia housing compound, killing 17.[/li][li]** 2003 (Nov.):** Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked 2 synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.[/li][li]** 2003 (Nov.):** Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.[/li][li]** 2004 (March):** 10 bombs on 4 trains exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400.[/li][li]** 2004 (May):** Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22.[/li][li]** 2004 (June):** Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.[/li][li]** 2004 (Sept.):** Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed 9.[/li][li]** 2004 (Dec.):** Terrorists entered the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 9 (including 4 attackers).[/li][li]** 2005 (July):** Bombs exploded on 3 trains and a bus in London, England, killing 52.[/li][li]** 2005 (Oct.):** 22 killed by 3 suicide bombs in Bali, Indonesia…[/li][li]** 2005 (Nov.):** 57 killed at 3 American hotels in Amman, Jordan.[/ul][/li][/quote]
If you check the source, you’ll find that Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks have actually increased since 9/11/2001!
Indeed.
Hey, you’re the one making the assertion-- you’re the one who needs to provide the facts. You’ve provided nothing but your own opinion.
I took my definition word-for-word from the dictionary. If you think dictionary.com has “cleverly designed” that definition to “protect Bush from harges of terrorism”, you’ll need to prove that, too.
I’m pretty sure Evil One meant “No terrorist attacks on U. S. soil since 09/11/01.”
Which, in a way, makes his position even worse, and tends to strengthen Der Trihs’s accusation.
Personally, I find Der Trihs’s characterization of Evil One’s position to be at least somewhat overstated, but I can see that Der Trihs did not come up with his interpretation of that position in a vacuum.
Please explain what you mean.
I realize that I am in the minority on this board with my “you have to break a few eggs to make a security omelet” position. It’s much easier to trumpet your values to the heavens without worrying about real world facts. It’s easier to sit back and say the administration is doing everything wrong without having to come up with a credible alternative. Easier to blame GWB himself and believe he has a hand in every decision, so therefore they all must be wrong.
It’s a tragedy that the innocent Pakistanis died. It’s also a tragedy that foreign fighters who want to kill americans have entered the area and put them in danger. It’s a tragedy that the people we are pursuing for the WTC attack are choosing to hide among the very population that they purport to be going to “holy war” for.
The CIA hit those houses because they thought they had a valid target. They are working very hard to kill or capture those who would do another 9/11 tomorrow if they could. The very people you are vilifying and ascribing evil motivations to are the very ones that are risking their lives for your security. I realize that these facts are ideologically inconvienent, but they exist just the same.
If a mod would place the word “correct” underneath the quote in post 99 instead of in the quote box itself, I would appreciate it.