I do not accept this convenient definition of terrorism. Knowingly causing the avoidable deaths of innocent civilians is terrorism, regardless of your good intentions.
Who said there had to be good intentions? And why, exactly, is it convinient? I’m saying that Bush and US command are callous and reckless with innocent lives - how am I letting him off at all, here? I’m simply pointing out that it isn’t terrorism - your seeming need to see any who disagrees with you as being a rabid pro-Bush apologist looks to be working against you, here.
So, outside of my rabid anti-Bushism, you accept my basic definition; that knowingly causing the avoidable deaths of innocent civilians is terrorism?
Not on it’s own. But yes, it can be a component of terrorism.
I wonder if the next time an act of large-scale violence happens (a building is blown-up, suicide bomber detonates at a mall, etc.), people will parse the meaning of “terrorism” with the same deligence as they are doing here.
I’m asking a sincere question now.
If someone were to bomb the Whitehouse so that they could kill Bush and Cheney and Donald Rumsfield, and they only ended up killing a bunch of lower-level secretaries, administrators, and janitors, would it be hysterical and foolish for people to call this a terroristic attack? Because you know people would call it that. I know I would. Would simply calling it callous and wreckless aptly describe the situation?
I’ve done some perusing on-line to find out more about incidents like this, and I’m very troubled by what I’ve uncovered. No doubt some Dopers will find the following cites unpalatable and unbelievable for ideological reasons, but if only half of what’s written is true it’s still mind-boggling:
US Warplanes Said Now to be Targeting Civilians
Civilian Victims of US Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan
Afghan victims of US bombing demand compensation
US carpet bombing kills 150 civilians in Afghan town
I think we have to ask ourselves if there is really a difference between intentionally inflicting terror and doing it “accidently” repeatedly. I think that’s the heart of what the OP is getting at. Even if we were aren’t calling ourselves terrorists, should we really scoff at the notion that our actions betray our words? If the US were dropping bombs on us as willy-nilly as it’s doing in other countries–countries we aren’t even at war with–wouldn’t we feel that SOMEBODY was trying to communicate something to us? Wouldn’t we be intimidated, possibly coerced to move or do something differently? Would it have to take a signed statement delivered to us in the mail for us to “get the message”, or couldn’t we figure it out on our own?
It’s confusing to me, John Mace, that you can accept that this is callous, wreckless, maybe criminal, but goodness no! It cain’t be terrah-ism! That would be down-right foolish to believe sump’n like that! Does a charge of terrorism require more evidence than one of criminal activity? Why is it objectively more foolish to presume terrorism than it is to presume wrecklessness, if an act occurs over and over and over again?
I don’t think Pakistanis care a whit if Americans, sitting on their cushy couches with their feet propped up, believe this incident to be terorrism. They and thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis are experts on a kind of violent act that cannot be pigeonhold by an internet dictionary. Americans should be caring what these people think, if we ever want to get out of Iraq. But unfortunately, we have already discounted these people’s opinions because they aren’t “objective” enough. Ha! Like we are beacons of reason and truth!
Then I guess we cannot agree. To make intention the fulcrum upon which the determination of terrorism balances, is a far too pedantic way to avoid being accused of the same horrific acts of the enemy. By that definition, 9/11 was not terrorism, because the CIA had offices in the World Trade Center, and the 2,800 other lives were just collateral damage.
I would even accept the far simpler definition offered on Merriam-Webster
Even if you could argue that coercion was not the intent, this defintion is sufficiently broad (“especially” is a non-exclusive modifier) to include the repeated (systematic) acts we have seen committed on rural villages by Predator aircraft.
Ok, i’ll try to make a sincere response.
Depends if it was meant to cause terror. I’d suggest that a direct attack at the leaders of your country would be meant to inspire fear in the American populace. I suspect further that it would indeed cause that terror. So yes, that’d probably be terrorism.
I’d most likely call it terrorism too. Callous and reckless depend on whether or not the attack was made at a time when the least amount of innocent staff were in the building, and whether as much innocent deaths as possible were (attempted) to be averted.
They are indeed disturbing cites. Again, i’m afraid i’m going to say that again, the actions depicted within are not terrorism - but cruelty. If the US command intended such fear to be created, then yes, terrorism.
No, we shouldn’t. Which is why in this thread i’ve been repeatedly saying how callous, evil and cruel these acts are. Why is it that that is a necessarily a lesser charge than terrorism?
Quite so - we may indeed feel as though it were terrorism. But what we feel about the matter has no bearing on whether or not it is terrorism - the only part in which innocents are involved in the definition of terroism is if they are terrorised. That’s still just one part of it - the terrorising has to be intentional. No matter what the terrorised feel about it, if it’s not intential, it’s not terrorism.
Excuse a foolish Brit, but what accent was that? No snark, just interested.
More evidence? I wouldn’t say so. If we’re to judge by the US courts, all cases require that the charges be proved beyond “reasonable doubt”. That’s the burden of evidence in all cases - in the US, anyway, and as it’s the US doing these acts it seems to be important to judge them by their own standards (as well as everyone elses).
Interesting point. Normally, it would not be more foolish - because it would suggest the US command are either 1) morons or 2) uncaring, and i’m more certain that they have brains than hearts. But look at it this way - a campaign of terrorism on the part of the US forces would create yet more terrorists, yet more insurgents, yet more hatred of America in the region. A campaign plagued by recklessness would have the same effect, but would be accidental. Now, I personally don’t think that the US command are stupid enough to want more terrorist/insurgent activity. Thus, it seems wiser to suggest that these actions are not terrorism - but still just as reckless, cruel and uncaring.
I agree. They will make up their own minds, as we all do.
…Yes, it can. It can be defined. Terrorism is a word, is it not? To suggest terrorism cannot be “pigeonholed” into a definition is to say that it does not matter what words we use. By this standard, every killing in self-defence is a murder. Every friendly punch on the arm is an assault. Every stealing of a candy bar is grand theft auto. You see why we have definitions?
Couldn’t agree more. If you don’t care about public opinion (as many do not) then you’ll just engender more hatred towards you.
I do hope you’re not talking about us discounting their opinions. Not so. I’ve stated upthread and in this very post that understanding people’s opinions is a vital task if we want to end this sooner, and with more people happy with the solution. If we just try and do it our way and not care about their opinions, we’re going to be screwed for years to come.
Do we need to go back over the definition of terrorism again? Terror was caused. Check. Terror was intended to be caused. They flew planes into the WTC, a symbol of American economy and power. They killed innocents, when they could have used a different method that killed less (for example, flying a smaller light plane into the towers). Terror would work to their advantage, as it would show they were not to be taken lightly. I think it’s safe to say terror was meant to be caused, then. Thus, yes, terrorism.
Ah, this is actually a good point - it cuts out the part of my argument you were having trouble with. This definition merely states that terror must be being used, and how or why it was created plays no part in it. So ok, i’ll bite. Under that definition, if US forces are indeed actively using the terror that they create, then that’s terrorism.
So - how are they using that terror?
I think I’d ask myself what the motive was of the suicide bomber. In the case of suicide bombers, terrorism is a possible motive, but it isn’t a certaintl. Maybe the guy was just nuts and thought he was told by God to blow up the mall. At any rate, it’s not productive to speculate about a hypothetical bombing without knowing any details about the bombing. I don’t find it to be a useful debate to speculate about how people might react to this, since we not only don’t know, but we can’t know. Besides, even if you’re right about “people”, you’re not right about me. I can’t speak for “people”, and I don’t intend to-- I can only speak for myself.
You’ll note that everytime there is a plane crash, the usual line from the responsible, mainstream media is that we don’t know if it was terrorism or not until an investigation shows otherwise. Yes, some “people” are quick to jump to the conclusion that terrorism was involved, but I think you and I would both agree that those “people” are wrong in that case.
Depends. If they were really only trying to kill the prez, then I don’t think we could call them terrorists. If they were hoping to kill some civilians, too, just to teach us a lesson, then yes they would be terrorists. Is assasination of political leaders, by definition, a terrorist act? I don’t know; maybe. That’s a different debate, though.
You’re a scientist. You know that you can’t assign any probability to the veracity of these cites because we don’t know anything about the integrity of the journalism. Saying “if only half” of them are true is a meaningless statement. We don’t know if any of them are true.
Yes, I agree 100% that we should consider whether or not other people think we’re just bombing willy-nilly. We should be concerned whether or not people think we’re terrorists. That’s one reason I don’t support this type of activity. But that still doesn’t make those people right in labeling us terrorists.
Because you can see the immediate result of this (seriously pissed-off people, protests, and anger from an allied government) and see that it was wreckless. You can’t do that for terrorism. Terrorism, by defintion, means you have to have some insight into the intent of the person comitting the act. Terrorism is a very specific form of a criminal act. If someone is killed, it’s likely that a criminal act has taken place-- whether it’s manslughter (of whaterver degree) or murder depends on the mindset of the individual who did the killing. Same with terrorism. In that sense, yes, terrorism requires more evidence than one of criminal activity.
I’m not discounting their opinions any more than anyone else’s opinions. I’m saying that the opinions of the victims don’t determine if something is terrorism any more than your opinion or mine. What determines that is the intent of the folks who committed the act. It’s potentially true that people feel terrorized everytime they are victims of violence, but that doesn’t make all acts of violence terrorism. If it does, that that word has no distinguishing meaning.
But you’re right. We should be debating what the effects of these actions are. That’s why I object to the OP-- it isn’t doing that. The OP is just jumping at the chance to call Bush a terrorist.
I don’t know if what CNN, BBC, the AP, or Reuters says is true either. We can’t establish the integrity of anything, including what the CIA says, what the Whitehouse says, or what the Pakistani Intelligence Agency says. At this point, I’m willing to discount everything I hear from the mainstream press and listen to people who get shouted-down all the time.
Do you really think what I posted are all lies, John? Is what I posted that hard to believe that you can just readily dismiss it?
Although it may not seem like it, I actually agree with the both of you, John and Revenant, that “terrorism” isn’t the right word to describe this situation. Not in any objective sense. I just disagree with the dismissal of the idea with words like “foolish” and “hysterical”, because the fact of the matter is terrorism may be at work here.
That’s a good question. I guess it’s because we’re fighting a war against terrorism, not cruelty. We’re all being inculcated with the idea that the ultimate evil is terrorism. Every day on the news we’re bombarded with propaganda about terrorists and their evil activities. It just seems very bad indeed that we’ve excused the callous, evil, and cruel acts happening on our side with the notion that we’re fighting the real baddies, the terrorists. Terrorism isn’t a worse crime than plain-out cruelty, but we’re being told that it is through the excusal of our own horrible actions.
Of course I can. And I can also see how over-relying on definitions can completely stifle discussion, sympathy, and action. The prime example of this was when the US weasled out of helping Rwanda because the violence there didn’t match “our” definition of genocide. Relying on definitions is good, but it is possible to parse words too much, either intentionally or unintentionally.
I’m not saying that you or John Mace would do this, but I worry what would if happen if Bush actually did authorize a questionable action. Let’s say he authorizes the bombing of a mosque that intelligence officials believe provides financial support to the widows of killed insurgents. I worry that a lot of Americans–especially legalistic, semantic-types–would say this isn’t an act of terrorism because the mosque was assisting the insurgency and therefore it could be seen as military target. But wouldn’t it be more than just a military action? Wouldn’t Bush be trying to coerce organizations through violence? Wouldn’t he be sending a message to innocents as well? To me, that would fit the bill of terrorism to a scary “T”, but I can see how he could weasle out of it with nary a scratch. I can envision a lot of well-intentioned but self-deluded citizens helping him to do just that.
I don’t think the line between terrorism and not-terrorism is always clear cut. And the fact that we’re fighting individuals rather than governments (not to mention the fact that we’ve declared war against a concept rather than state) makes it soooo easy for legalistic definitions to continually save our ass when we are doing bad things. That’s what I don’t know like at all about this war. We’re not only setting up all the rules, but we’re also the only ones doing the refereeing.
Drunken southern? It was just the first accent that came to mind. Hope John Mace wasn’t offended.
In the context of this message board, I think we have to agree on some level of journalistic gravitas (for lack of a better word) before cites are accepted. I don’t know anything about those sources you listed, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that your average poster here would.
I don’t so much have concern about the actions reported, but the analysis given to it. Here’s the first paragraph from your first cite (emphasis added):
Yes, I find it hard to believe that we are dropping bombs on civilians simply because we want to get rid of excess ordinace. Do you find that plausible?
Hey, I’m a drunken northerner. Get it right next time! Ayuh?
Apparently so. Intent is not required to qualify as a terrorist act.
Instilling = using. Let’s not get into semantic nitpicking about the what the meaning of “is” is.
…monstro’s first link, “US Warplanes Said Now to be Targeting Civilians”, is written by Rahimullah Yusufzai, a distinguished Pakastani journalist who was one of the few people to interview Osama Bin Laden. He also reports for TIME magazine and ABC News. Ironicly in the context of this thread, he was a source that helped to prove that USA Today journalist, Jack Kelley, was writing false stories about al-Qaeda, etc.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-19-kelley-pakistan_x.htm
http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990111/osama1.html
The second link, “Civilian Victims of US Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan”, has 90 footnotes, with largely mainstream press as the principal citations. Sure, you could argue with the authors conclusions, but the principal sources are there if you want to check.
The third link, “Afghan victims of US bombing demand compensation”, came from the AFP, about as mainstream a source as you could find. The article is pretty straightforward, and largely uncontroversial.
The fourth story, “US carpet bombing kills 150 civilians in Afghan town” was written by written by Justin Huggler, a writer for the Independent. This Google News Search show that he is pretty prolific. The article was written for the British Newspaper the Independent, which, like most British Newspapers, has its biases, however it is a mainstream source.
I agree with you, citations should have gravitas (great word!) before they are accepted. But with respect, the veracity of monsto’s cites could have been checked with a one minute google search. With the exception of the “dossier”, the original source for the stories were posted in the header.
To be honest, I never got past the first link and the first paragraph for the reason I explained in that post. Do you think it’s credible that US servicemen are dropping bombs on civilians simply because they want to get rid of them (the bombs)? And like I said, I don’t necessarily dispute the facts that are reported, but the analysis of the facts. Same thing in this thread. If ABC leads it’s news story about this bombing tonight with: US Commits Terror Attach Against Afghanistan, then maybe those cites given aren’t so biased afterall…
Apropos of nothing, probably, but do military aircraft carrying bombs typically land with their payloads still on the rack? I’m specifically wondering about conventional HE bombs, such as are dropped out of a bomb bay, rather than nuclear bombs, which, presumably would have to be armed, a la Dr. Strangelove, or self-propelled ordnance, such as missiles.
Anybody know?
Where did Iraq come into this, beyond the fact that the Coalition military is engaged in widespread terrorist acts there too, like Fallujah and all the other indiscriminate assaults on cities, the neverending stories of civilian families in cars being slaughtered because someone didn’t approve of their driving etc etc etc?
Do we not think large segments of the population aren’t terrorised by these actions?
IMHO State Terrorism or whatever you want to call it is a heinous act. This bombing and the others like it are war crimes and instead of quibbling about the meaning of words we should be condemning actions carried out in our name.
If a Cuban jet bombed a Miami Hotel where some of the US’s tame Cuban counter-revolutionaries are holed up and ‘accidentally’ killed other guests - is that terrorism? Yes. The same as the WTC was, the same as Operation Phoenix in Vietnam was, the same as arming the Contras was and the same as the callous acts highlighted in this thread are.
It’s not as if either the UK or the USA do not have a long and ignoble record of using and supporting terrorists and performing such actions themselves.
Quite. There are no good intentions when you deliberately kill civilians to maybe, if you’re lucky, get a terrorist too. You absolutely intend to kill them. And in doing so you terrorise other civilians.
But if people want to use the ‘we’re not terrorists, just indiscriminate callous murderers’ then knock yourself out. While you’re playing dictionaries our acts are sowing the seeds of more terrorists like dragons teeth.
Sorry, that was a pretty stupid thing of me to say. In my defense, I hadn’t slept the night before and was still doing coursework. But yeah, stupid. Apologies.
All example of further callousness. I don’t think a soldier shooting a car he believes has terrorists in is thinking “Great, i’ll kill these guys and terrorise the population!”. More like “Oh, shit, kill them before they kill us”. Even if they are not terrorists - and there’s been a disturbingly large amount of killings such as the checkpoint car example - the coalition forces believe them to be.
I think they are, very much so, which is why i’m against the use of bombs as a weapon in cases where intelligence is uncertain or where innocents are suspected to be. And I agree the the coalition forces are causing a lot of terror in the population by not just doing what they are, but hell, being there at all. A squad in uniform or a tank rolling down the street aren’t going to fill you with confidence.
My quibble is that these actions are not done to cause terror - terror is a side effect. A bad side effect that stems often from the uncaring of coalition troops/command, but it isn’t the focus, here. And it would be foolish to try and cause terror - because that will create more terrorists, in turn - thus what motivation do the coalition forces have to cause terror? It’s just going to cause worse problems.
Yes. War crimes? Definetly. If it can be shown that the US (or any other countries’ forces) are either deliberatly harming innnocents, or not taking the best option to not kill innocents, then someone needs punishing. And if it’s a troop-wide policy, then the commanders need bringing up on war crimes charges. As i’ve said many times, these things are evil, shortsighted, and heinous. And they need stopping. But they’re not terrorism, because terror is not the aim.
Well, if you’re talking about the leaders of these counter-revolutionaries, then yes, because then they’d be attacking a symbol as well as people - and that would indicate their want to cause terror, attacking a faction’s symbol being a good way to do that. No, it would be an evil, uncaring act of multiple murders.
The WTC attack was evil, but also terrorism because they were attacking a symbol of America - a symbol of it’s prosperity, and wealth, which islamic fundamentalists are particularily pissed off by. The other two examples you gave i’m not entirely familiar with - apologies, non-American upbringing - but i’ll take your word for it that they were. Could you use one of them in an analogy to what’s happening today, please?
True. And while that does indicate a trend, it doesn’t mean we can know that these new actions are terrorism - imagine a trial. You can present evidence of all the past murders a person has done, but unless you have evidence that they performed this new one, you’re stuck. It would suggest guilt - highly suggest guilt - but not beyond reasonable doubt. Trends (even trends such as this) do not always allow us to claim they’ve continued further.
What the hell? Please don’t tell me you’re taking my position as “it’s not terrorism, therefore it’s all good, all fine!”. I am **not ** saying that.
To use an analogy of a trial, you seem to be misrepresenting my position as “This person has not commited murder, by definition. Set him free”. My position is more like “This person has not committed murder, by definition. He has committed rape, attempted murder, GBH and many assaults. Send him down for life”. I’m not saying they’re in the right. I’m saying they haven’t done this particular form of wrong - they’ve done plenty of other wrongs, however, and they should be punished for that.
Sorry - by ‘people’, I mean general apologists, not you. Apologies.
Operation Phoenix and its ilk in Vietnam was a covert and extra-judicial assasination policy aimed at suspected Viet-Cong that neutralised in one way or another tens of thousands of suspects, people with the same name, people fingered as part of a feud etc etc.
(Go us.)
I guess i’m labouring the point because apologists (not you, but this board is full of such moral cripples) are continually playing word games to minimise the dreadfulness of the acts of the Coalition as if so long as there is wriggle room in the definition of terrorism there is nothing at all wrong with the careless and indiscriminate slaughter of civilians. Usually found in conjunction with the ‘at least we’re not as bad as Saddam so stop bloody complaining about torture (which it isn’t anyway cos we’ve redefined the word)’ gambit.
For myself I believe acts like the attack on Iraqi cities in an ineffectual attempt to ‘clear out’ insurgents, the ‘better a dozen innocent Iraqi’s die than expose ourselves to assault’ actions of US troops, the seemingly endless stream of bombed wedding parties, bombed villages etc etc are acts worse than the WTC because they are being done in our name. And they just make things worse.
I expect swivel-eyed fanatics to perform evil acts. I, despite my knowledge of history, still expect us to act the good guys. After Vietnam, the ‘we never saw a dictator we didn’t like or a democracy we did’ US foreign policy, and the bare-faced lies that got us into Iraq I don’t know why.