It's not terrorism if Bush does it?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Evil One

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.

Read the posts, mon ami. Who’s said that no innocents may ever be killed? I for one am simply saying that all best effort must be put into making sure innocents are not killed - but I accept that sometimes there are “acceptable losses”. I would merely much rather have the least amount of “acceptable losses” possible.

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.

There’s been alternatives suggested already. And I don’t think the US has done everything wrong - some things they’ve done have been very good, in my opinion.

Easier to blame GWB himself and believe he has a hand in every decision, so therefore they all must be wrong.

He does set the general policy. If we found out tomorrow that a Captain or someone had organised a torture unit in Iraq without the knowledge of his superiors, that would be his fault. If a soldier shoots an innocent Iraqi who has his hands in the air and obviously poses no threat, then it is that soldier’s fault. If, however, it is the policy of the US forces to torture Iraqis or to just kill them (and i’m not saying it is - this is just an example) then Bush could be blamed, as he sets the wide policy. The top US army chiefs would also take some blame.

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.

I agree with both these things. But the second one is an understandable tragedy.

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.

If you’re sure they’re there, then yes, it is. It’s also a tragedy when it becomes routine for high “acceptable losses” to become the norm.

The CIA hit those houses because they thought they had a valid target.

They did indeed. They were wrong, and I hope the gatherers of that information were rightly punished.

They also (presumeably) chose to hit those houses with bombs. I don’t think that’s acceptable in this case - should it be discovered that all the village were terrorists, then yes, that would be fine. So far, it isn’t - a significant portion are innocents - and so I belive a solution causing less innocent death could have been enacted.

They are working very hard to kill or capture those who would do another 9/11 tomorrow if they could.

They are. Their methods, though, ensure that these people will continue to be around for a very, very long time.

The very people you are vilifying and ascribing evil motivations to are the very ones that are risking their lives for your security.

Didn’t you just claim further up this post that I was solely blaming Bush? And now i’m blaming the troops?

Just because they are risking their lives for my security, does not mean they are doing it right. Hey, North Korea could pose a threat to our security - i’ll just pop over there and bomb their capital! To protect our secruity, of course, i’d be risking my life. Do you think that act, noble of me as it was, would help the situation with NK at all?

I realize that these facts are ideologically inconvienent, but they exist just the same.

Which part was factual? Looking at your post, I see “The CIA thought they had a valid target”, I think is the only fact you have up there. The rest is your own opinions, mixed with a bit of glurge, and a hyperbolic exaggeration of other poster’s opinions.

[kaylasdad99]

@John Mace

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.

One somewhat troubling detail in the dictionary definition is the prominent inclusion of the word “unlawful.” It could be argued, given the current Administration’s apparent decision to establish that U. S. law is the only law to which the President will be subject, that the dictionary definition does, in fact, insulate Bush from charges of terrorism.

I’m not really too comfortable with that outcome, myself. I do think that “intent to cause terror” should be supplemented with “reckless disregard for the lives of innocents” in a definition that I would sign on to.

While, we’re on the subject of the word “reckless,” may I ask that we agree to revert to the orthodox spelling? If there’s anything that doesn’t describe the situation in the Pakistani village, it is “wreckless.”

[Revenant_Threshold]

@kaylasdad99

I’m not really too comfortable with that outcome, myself. I do think that “intent to cause terror” should be supplemented with “reckless disregard for the lives of innocents” in a definition that I would sign on to.

Definite agreement from me.

[John_Mace]

@monstro

And you insisting that there’s no evidence does not lend support for your argument that the incident is not terroristic.

Why not? How else would one determine if it were an act of terror other than seeking evidence that it is? Since no one has presented any, the reasonable conclusion at this point is that it is not. If that changes, and if someone comes up with some good evidence, then I’ll change my mind.

I’m not arguing that it is; I’m simply saying it’s stupid to assume that it’s NOT.

I’m not assuming anything. I’m making a conclusion based on the evidence presented so far-- which is nil.

[kaylasdad99]

@Evil One

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Which, in a way, makes his position even worse, and tends to strengthen Der Trihs’s accusation.

Please explain what you mean.

I’ll try. By my reading, Der Trihs accused you of having a tribalistic attitude about which deaths matter, and which merely fall under the rubric of “eggs that were broken to make a security omelet.” Your benchmark for success for the “War on Terror” as prosecuted by the Bush administration was given as “no terrorist attacks since 09-11-01.” Shayna cited an increase in acts of terror since the Bush administration began its prosecution. That you neglect these, apparently on the grounds that they did not occur on U. S. soil, tends to support Der Trihs’s characterization of your motivations as tribalistic.

The rest of the post to which I am replying, is not, to my eye, pertinent to what you have asked me to explain, so I will not bother with it here. Preview suggests that Revanant Threshold has dealt with it sufficiently, anyway.

[Shayna]

@kaylasdad99

I’m pretty sure Evil One meant “No terrorist attacks on U. S. soil since 09/11/01.”

@Evil One

Correct

Oh yes, it was completely predictable that that’s what he was going to claim after he was called on his bullshit assertion, which is why I was very careful to show that, regardless of the geographical location of the attacks, that plenty of anti-U.S. terrorist attacks have occurred around the world, killing hundreds of Americans since his magical cut-off date. Remember:

@Evil One

If innocent Americans die in the pursuit of a guilty one, I feel bad.

@Evil One

To not use every advantage we have to protect American lives would be foolish.

That Evil One is apparently only concerned about the deaths of Americans is despicable enough in and of itself, but that he implies that their deaths only count if they’re attacked and killed on U.S. soil is beyond vile. Worse yet, he actually seems to believe that because no Americans have lost their lives on U.S. soil since 9/11/2001, that that means this ridiculous “War on Terror” is working, in spite of a rise in terrorism worldwide!

[Ms2001]

@kaylasdad99

It could be argued, given the current Administration’s apparent decision to establish that U. S. law is the only law to which the President will be subject, that the dictionary definition does, in fact, insulate Bush from charges of terrorism.

Have you missed the whole domestic spying scandal? The administration’s position seems to be that the president isn’t even subject to U.S. law. That means nothing he does is unlawful, so Bush wouldn’t be a terrorist even if he strapped dynamite to his chest and blew up a cafe.

[kaylasdad99]

@Mr2001

Have you missed the whole domestic spying scandal? The administration’s position seems to be that the president isn’t even subject to U.S. law. That means nothing he does is unlawful, so Bush wouldn’t be a terrorist even if he strapped dynamite to his chest and blew up a cafe.

I keep telling myself that it would just put Cheney in the chair officially…

Tasteless riffs on lèse majesté aside, I am aware of George the Lesses’s apparent belief that he is above even U. S. law. I guess I should have considered that nuance before I posted. My larger point, ISTM, does not suffer when the distinction is insisted upon.

[tagos]

@Monty

Not that I’m an apologist; however, I’m curious about one thing. Are you saying that Bush intentionally and knowingly attacked a civilian family to kill them?

They fired missiles into civilian houses. Whether civilians were intended targets or not is irrelevant, their deaths were inevitable. The difference between not caring if innocents die and not deliberately targeting them but knowin g you’re going to kill them anyway is wafer thin.

OBL claimed the WTC was a legitimate target because there were CIA offices there. That in no way makes 9/11 anything other than a terrorist act.

Dead is dead and terrorism is terrorism.

This was undoubtedly a terrorist act. Or State Murder if you want to play definitions.

[Evil_One]

@kaylasdad99

I’ll try. By my reading, Der Trihs accused you of having a tribalistic attitude about which deaths matter, and which merely fall under the rubric of “eggs that were broken to make a security omelet.” Your benchmark for success for the “War on Terror” as prosecuted by the Bush administration was given as “no terrorist attacks since 09-11-01.” Shayna cited an increase in acts of terror since the Bush administration began its prosecution. That you neglect these, apparently on the grounds that they did not occur on U. S. soil, tends to support Der Trihs’s characterization of your motivations as tribalistic.

@Shayna

That Evil One is apparently only concerned about the deaths of Americans is despicable enough in and of itself, but that he implies that their deaths only count if they’re attacked and killed on U.S. soil is beyond vile. Worse yet, he actually seems to believe that because no Americans have lost their lives on U.S. soil since 9/11/2001, that that means this ridiculous “War on Terror” is working, in spite of a rise in terrorism worldwide!

I have focused on the 9/11 attacks to the exclusion of others in this post for a couple of reasons. First of all, the current hunt for the perpetrators of that act led directly to the missile attack that is the subject of this thread. Also, it was out of the norm from other terrorism attacks for two reasons…its large scale and the fact that it occured on U.S. soil. When I reference protecting “American lives” it is within the context of the history of 9/11, not because I consider all other lives beneath consideration. The only lives I consider in that regard are those of the terrorists themselves. An innocent life is an innocent life…whether they live in New York City or a village in Pakistan.

I am also aware of worldwide attacks on American interests since 9/11 and that none of them have taken place inside the U.S. I don’t know the reasons behind the target selection. You would have to ask the terrorists that. Are they trying to show their power by attacking other countries? Hurt the U.S. effort against them by targeting allies of that effort? Taking advantage of softer targets that don’t require as much planning and effort to attack? Who knows? Maybe some of all of the above and another dozen different reasons.

The U.S. accepted terrorist attacks overseas as a price of doing business for twenty years before 9/11, treating them as a law-enforcement issue. They didn’t stop. Bin Laden became emboldened by our half-hearted responses to the embassy bombings and the Cole attack. He saw us cut and run from Somalia. And now here we are.

Shayna calls the War on Terror “ridiculous” and adds sarcastic quotation marks around the phrase to show her distaste. I would ask her how she would be responding to the events of the past five years if she was in charge.

To summarize…please don’t attempt to make me out to be a bloodthristy xenophobe. I am not. I am sorry that innocent people died in the attack on the Pakistani village…and I blame their deaths on the organizers and followers of AQ that caused this mess in the first place.

[Evil_One]

@tagos

This was undoubtedly a terrorist act. Or State Murder if you want to play definitions.

And how would you handle the search for Al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden if you were in charge?

[John_Mace]

@tagos

They fired missiles into civilian houses. Whether civilians were intended targets or not is irrelevant, their deaths were inevitable. The difference between not caring if innocents die and not deliberately targeting them but knowin g you’re going to kill them anyway is wafer thin.

OBL claimed the WTC was a legitimate target because there were CIA offices there. That in no way makes 9/11 anything other than a terrorist act.

Dead is dead and terrorism is terrorism.

This was undoubtedly a terrorist act. Or State Murder if you want to play definitions.

Emphasis added.

But Dead ≠ Terrorism.

The problem with your analysis is the same problem with Fear’s attempt to define terrorism in post #93: It would mean that all acts of violence resulting in death are terrorism. If that is the case, then the word “terrorism” loses any distinguishing meaning.

[tagos]

@Evil One

And how would you handle the search for Al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden if you were in charge?

Not that the one pointing out how stupid and counter-productive an action is has to come up with a better one.

Apart from overthrowing the Taliban I’d treat the whole issue as an international policing problem and not as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with the issue, thereby providing an incentive and training ground for insurgents.

I would have caught them at Bora-Bora by not sub-contracting the job to a bunch of ‘being paid by both sides’ war criminals. I would also have stayed around to put Afghanistan back together and not got side-tracked with personal obsessions.

I would not adopt a ‘better a hundred civilians die than one evil-doer has a square meal’ policy so as not to create more terrorists.

I would not bomb targets in allied countries. I would not torture people etc.

I would insist that whatever was done was done according to the highest ideals my country professes to stand for, including imposing a just peace on Israel/Palestine that results in a viable and contiguous territory with water and resource rights palestinian state.

And if it was a choice against doing nothing and doing something counter-productive i’d do nothing.

The way to win against terrorists is to drain the sea they swim in - winning over Islamic opinion with foreign policy, foreign aid while vigourously pursuing terrorists through international cooperation.

I would certainly not risk the overthrow of an allied govt, particularly a nuclear armed one, on the off-chance a few bombs might hit a bad guy among all the civilians.

And if the chance came to kill either without bystander casualties i’d do it. In this instance I’d expect to have joint US/Pakistan Special Forces teams permanently in the air able to go in and extract targets.

It simply is not acceptable to slaughter civilians on the off-chance of hitting a bad guy. Neither the USA or the UK would accept the boot being on the other foot.

[tagos]

@John Mace

Emphasis added.

But Dead ≠ Terrorism.

The problem with your analysis is the same problem with Fear’s attempt to define terrorism in post #93: It would mean that all acts of violence resulting in death are terrorism. If that is the case, then the word “terrorism” loses any distinguishing meaning.

I don’t particularly care about the meaning of words, I care about the murdered civilians. Civilians were deliberately targeted and killed for political ends (and yes, if you fire a missile into a house full of civilians you deliberately targeted them, as ‘magic’ evil-doer-only seeking weapons are not yet in existence).

Sounds like terrorism to me.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@tagos

I don’t particularly care about the meaning of words, I care about the murdered civilians.

If you don’t care about words, why are you stubbornly clinging onto the word terrorism? It’s been agreed that it was quite likely a callous, evil act. Not terrorism, though.

Civilians were deliberately targeted and killed for political ends (and yes, if you fire a missile into a house full of civilians you deliberately targeted them, as ‘magic’ evil-doer-only seeking weapons are not yet in existence).

No, terrorists were targeted. Civilians “just happened to be there”, and the US command decided that they would be “acceptable losses”. Again - a cruel act, but not terrorism. If, however, the US command felt that there were other, just as good options that would result in less innocent deaths, and chose instead to use this bombing method, then it would be extra callous. If you take that and also add in that the US wanted to strike fear into the survivors/families of survivors, then it would be terrorism.

I’m actually interested to know why, in your opinion, civilians being killed deliberatly would be good in political terms? Surely “Innocents killed in US bomb attack” cannot be described as “good” in any political context?

[John_Mace]

@tagos

I don’t particularly care about the meaning of words,

That’s becoming obvious.

I care about the murdered civilians. Civilians were deliberately targeted and killed for political ends (and yes, if you fire a missile into a house full of civilians you deliberately targeted them, as ‘magic’ evil-doer-only seeking weapons are not yet in existence).

No, not for political ends. We’re not trying to get someone elected here, we’re trying to kill or capture al Qaeda leaders.

Sounds like terrorism to me.

That’s because you don’t care about the meaning of words.

Calling this terrorism when there is no evidence to support that claim is simply an appeal to emotion, which is a logical fallacy. The debate should be about whether this type of action is wise or ethical. I don’t see that it is either. Calling it terrorism is like calling Bush a Nazi-- it only serves to shut down debate, not advance it.

[Fear_Itself]

@John Mace

The problem with your analysis is the same problem with Fear’s attempt to define terrorism in post #93: It would mean that all acts of violence resulting in death are terrorism.

No it doesn’t. Targeting a mountain hideout cave is not terrorism; reckless firing of missiles into residential homes is.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Fear Itself

No it doesn’t. Targeting a mountain hideout cave is not terrorism; reckless firing of missiles into residential homes is.

So close! That would fulfil two of the premises needed for it to be terrorism - the killing of innocents, and the causing of terror. But i’m afraid terrorism still requires that you have the intention of causing terror. Recklass firing of missiles into residential homes would be criminal, murderous, morally repugnant, and callous. But not terrorism.

Targeting a mountain cave could be terrorism, actually. If there’s innocents there, terror is caused, and terror was intended to be caused, then it would be.

[tagos]

@John Mace

That’s becoming obvious.
No, not for political ends. We’re not trying to get someone elected here, we’re trying to kill or capture al Qaeda leaders.
That’s because you don’t care about the meaning of words.

Calling this terrorism when there is no evidence to support that claim is simply an appeal to emotion, which is a logical fallacy. The debate should be about whether this type of action is wise or ethical. I don’t see that it is either. Calling it terrorism is like calling Bush a Nazi-- it only serves to shut down debate, not advance it.

There’s deliberately targeted dead civilians and the pursuit of obl is a political task.

Terrorism is a perfectly reasonable term for it.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@tagos

There’s deliberately targeted dead civilians and the pursuit of obl is a political task.

Terrorism is a perfectly reasonable term for it.

Surely targeting *dead * civilians is a bit redundant?

The pursuit of OBL has, at this point in time, absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq occupation. To prove this, let me ask you this: OBL is found tomorrow. Do US troops immediately pull out of Iraq, and let them all get on with it? Thought not.