It's not terrorism if Bush does it?

[crowmanyclouds]

@Revenant Threshold

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…

If OBL (or a representative of AQ) had said on 9/12,
“We flew planes into the WTC, a symbol of American economy and power. We did not intend to kill innocents. They’re deaths were a regrettable accident. Terror was not intended to be caused”.
Would that have made 9/11 not terrorism?

[Stonebow]

It was touched upon earlier in this thread, but I would like someone to explain the fine distinction between instilling ‘terror’ and ‘shock and awe’ when it comes to military strategy.

[Merijeek]

@Stonebow

It was touched upon earlier in this thread, but I would like someone to explain the fine distinction between instilling ‘terror’ and ‘shock and awe’ when it comes to military strategy.

At a wild guess I’d say that one was aimed at civilians while the other was aimed at the military.

Any other definition breaks down way too quickly.

-Joe

[Revenant_Threshold]

@crowmanyclouds

If OBL (or a representative of AQ) had said on 9/12,
“We flew planes into the WTC, a symbol of American economy and power. We did not intend to kill innocents. They’re deaths were a regrettable accident. Terror was not intended to be caused”.
Would that have made 9/11 not terrorism?

No, it would have been a lie.

Clearly their deaths were not an accident - unless they planned to make the planes hit at such an angle that would have destroyed only the CIA offices, but with two planes, that’s very unlikely. If OBL or a representative of AQ had said a month or a few weeks before 9/11, “We’re going to fly planes into the WTV, a symbol of American economy and power. We do not want to kill innocents - so, please, could it be made sure that all innocents are not in or around the towers at that time.” then it would be less evil, but still terrorism. The terrorism comes from attacking the symbol, in this case. The extra added evil comes from not caring about the innocents in the building.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Stonebow

It was touched upon earlier in this thread, but I would like someone to explain the fine distinction between instilling ‘terror’ and ‘shock and awe’ when it comes to military strategy.

I personally (as I think I said upthread) see no difference between instilling “terror” and instilling “shock and awe”. Those, to me, are the same thing. That’s not to say that instilling terror or “shock and awe” is necessarily a terroristic act - but they do both cause terror to innocents, and thus to me both are equally bad.

[Merijeek]

@Revenant Threshold

No, it would have been a lie.

Clearly their deaths were not an accident - unless they planned to make the planes hit at such an angle that would have destroyed only the CIA offices, but with two planes, that’s very unlikely. If OBL or a representative of AQ had said a month or a few weeks before 9/11, “We’re going to fly planes into the WTV, a symbol of American economy and power. We do not want to kill innocents - so, please, could it be made sure that all innocents are not in or around the towers at that time.” then it would be less evil, but still terrorism. The terrorism comes from attacking the symbol, in this case. The extra added evil comes from not caring about the innocents in the building.

That seems a little overly convenient. A given non-nation group (say, Al Queda) has no symbols all their own, do they?

-Joe

[Revenant_Threshold]

Sorry about the third post in a row :smack: I really should read the whole of the thread i’ve missed before posting.

@tagos

Sorry - by ‘people’, I mean general apologists, not you. Apologies.

Don’t worry about it. As long as you understand where i’m coming from.

Operation Phoenix and its ilk in Vietnam was…<snip>…(Go us.)

Yeah, we do all have a pretty bad history ourselves when it comes to terrorism.

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.

Ah, ok. That’s not why i’m doing it, because to me, defining an act as “terrorism” does not automatically give it 10 extra evil points. A thing is either terrorism or it is not - but whichever it is does not necessarily (sp?) mean it’s worse than a non-terrorism action.

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.

I love this argument. “We’re not as bad as Saddam!”. Well done, if you’re not. Having your arm cut off is worse than just having your hand cut off - so hey, present your arm and i’ll get the axe. I’m with you on the annoyingness of this argument.

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

Yeah, I too don’t like this at all. What makes their lives worth less than US troops? At least the troops are at war, they have a reasonable expectation (though an unpleasant one) to be killed.

, 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.

Mm. I wouldn’t say they’re worse because they’re being done in your name - the WTC attack was done in AQ’s name, for example. Worse in American eyes, maybe, because it paints a picture of “Oh dear, we seem to be as bad as them”.

I expect swivel-eyed fanatics to perform evil acts.

Swivel-eyed? Not snarking on you for racism (though it may be a little bit so) but I’ve never heard that term before. Is it an American one?

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.

Yeah. Current US foreign policy scares the hell out of me. You’re not just acting for the US, you’re the superpower, you’re acting on behalf of the world, and what the US does will affect the entire world. The current foreign policy…ack.

@Merijeek

That seems a little overly convenient. A given non-nation group (say, Al Queda) has no symbols all their own, do they?

Sure they do. A non-nation group can still have their own flag, HQ and such (for example, a lot of the current and past irish terrorist groups). AQ don’t have a flag (as far as i’m aware) but they do have symbols which represent them - for example, OBL himself is a symbol - look at all his tapes urging his people on.

[Der_Trihs]

@Revenant Threshold

Swivel-eyed? Not snarking on you for racism (though it may be a little bit so) but I’ve never heard that term before. Is it an American one?

If it’s a racial reference, I’ve never heard it. It sounds more like a variation on “wild eyed”, as in “a wild eyed fanatic”.

[tagos]

@Revenant Threshold

Swivel-eyed? Not snarking on you for racism (though it may be a little bit so) but I’ve never heard that term before. Is it an American one?

Hi

I’m British (my degree was in politics with a specialisation in International relations, US politics and society and I grew up with Vietnam on TV every night) and this is a colloquial term for squinting generally applied to ‘fanatics’.

It’s in common usage and has nothing to do with race.

Example: These are no swivel-eyed xenophobes

Like a lot of left Europeans I love the ideals of the US, I want it to be the ‘shining beacon on the hill’ that it never was and is further away from being. I love the culture and I’ve not met an american I didn’t immediately like. To see the US placed in such dirty hands and acting as it does it painful and disappointing.

[Merijeek]

@Revenant Threshold

Sure they do. A non-nation group can still have their own flag, HQ and such (for example, a lot of the current and past irish terrorist groups). AQ don’t have a flag (as far as i’m aware) but they do have symbols which represent them - for example, OBL himself is a symbol - look at all his tapes urging his people on.

Then by your definition, once the US military manages to land a cruise missle on OBL, that will, after all these deaths, finally have been an act of “terrorism”?

-Joe

[Revenant_Threshold]

@tagos

It’s in common usage and has nothing to do with race.

Ok, i’m sorry for suggesting it did - i’d honestly not heard the term before.

@Merijeek

Then by your definition, once the US military manages to land a cruise missle on OBL, that will, after all these deaths, finally have been an act of “terrorism”?

Potentially, yes. He’s not just a leader (or a figurehead) but he’s a symbol, too. Killing him would undoubtedly make terrorists in AQ fear. On the other hand, for it to be terrorism, the causing of terror must be an important intention - so if the US wants to cause terror by killing him (as, in this case, I think they would) then yes, i’d call this terrorism. I’d support it, though.

The difference between why I’d support terrorism in this case is that in the other examples so far it’s been suggested as terrorism against innocents - which is not good (at least in my moral standard). Terrorism against the people you’re actually fighting against is fine. Psychological warfare.

Unless they killed him with a cruise missile. Bombs don’t discriminate between terrorists, insurgents, and innocents, much as that would be good. A sniper or Delta team-type affair? Fine by me.

[Merijeek]

@Revenant Threshold

The difference between why I’d support terrorism in this case is that in the other examples so far it’s been suggested as terrorism against innocents - which is not good (at least in my moral standard). Terrorism against the people you’re actually fighting against is fine. Psychological warfare.

That’s kind of silly. If Al Queda considers all of the West to be “the people they’re fighting against” then they aren’t performing acts of terror because there are no innocents.

You can even expand this into WW2 territory by pointing out that the people killed on 9/11 were enablers, allowing The West to produce bombs, guns, and generally influence over the Middle East indirectly through their contributions to the US Governement. Whether that’s as direct as working for the CIA or as indirect as paying taxes.

What would you think if the US dropped a bomb on a house where IEDs were being made? Justified, right? Act of war.

Now what if it was actually the house of the guy who was delivering the parts to make the IEDs? Is that still justified?

What if it’s discovered that the delivery guy gets his car fixed at Achmed’s Tire and Lube? Is Achmed a valid target?

How about the junkyard where Achmed buys his parts? How about the people whose cars get junked at that junkyard? How about the car dealer that sold THOSE people their cars?

If you try to draw a specific line (ie. “symbols”) you’ll find yourself a hypocrite pretty damned quick. Which is why a “War on Terror” is a load of horseshit.

-Joe

[crowmanyclouds]

@Revenant Threshold

…Clearly their deaths were not an accident - unless they planned to make the planes hit at such an angle that would have destroyed only the CIA offices, but with two planes, that’s very unlikely…

This exposes my problem beautifully.
At what point can’t you claim the deaths of non-combatants as accidental?
Assuming the CIA offices are a legitimate target, then destroying the WTC is illegitimate overkill.
At what point do US actions become overkill (and by some definitions terrorism)?
Dropping a Daisy Cutter (BLU-82B) to get one terrorist in a populated civilian area is illegitimate overkill, but is using anything more than a sniper terrorism?

@Revenant Threshold

…The terrorism comes from attacking the symbol, in this case. The extra added evil comes from not caring about the innocents in the building.

So if they didn’t give a reason (the WTC, a symbol of American economy and power) or claimed they were only targeting the CIA offices, would using two planes still be terrorism? Does overkill in and of itself make it a terrorist act?

Is firing two (or according to the OP’s link up to six) Hellfire missiles (AGM-114 ) aimed at killing one man, in an area with civilians, an act of terrorism?

[

An AP reporter…saw three destroyed houses hundreds of yards apart.

](http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack_19)Sure don’t sound like we cared about the innocents in the buildings.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Merijeek

That’s kind of silly. If Al Queda considers all of the West to be “the people they’re fighting against” then they aren’t performing acts of terror because there are no innocents.

Not so, they’re not fighting against Western people, but Western ideals - and the encroachment of Western ideals and society on their own culture.

You can even expand this into WW2 territory by pointing out that the people killed on 9/11 were enablers, allowing The West to produce bombs, guns, and generally influence over the Middle East indirectly through their contributions to the US Governement. Whether that’s as direct as working for the CIA or as indirect as paying taxes.

Nope, sorry. Unless the decision whether to commit terrorism is in their hands, then it isn’t their fault. How was that expanding into WW2 territory?

What would you think if the US dropped a bomb on a house where IEDs were being made? Justified, right? Act of war.

No, I don’t think bombs should ever be used if there is a likelihood of innocents in the area or uncertainty with intelligence. Not a justified act of war. Plus you’d destroy all the evidence, which is just plain stupid.

Now what if it was actually the house of the guy who was delivering the parts to make the IEDs? Is that still justified?

Same. Plus he may be an innocent - we don’t know, which is why it might be a good idea to try and go into his house and find him alive, because then we have a lovely non-blown up house with potential evidence in to find the people he’s delivering to.

What if it’s discovered that the delivery guy gets his car fixed at Achmed’s Tire and Lube? Is Achmed a valid target?

Same, and this guy is an innocent, too.

How about the junkyard where Achmed buys his parts? How about the people whose cars get junked at that junkyard? How about the car dealer that sold THOSE people their cars?

…yeah, I think you may be drifting into Hyperbole County there, mon ami.

If you try to draw a specific line (ie. “symbols”) you’ll find yourself a hypocrite pretty damned quick. Which is why a “War on Terror” is a load of horseshit.

Point out my hypocrisy. But yes, a “War on Terror” is a complete load of shit - especially when you’re causing terror yourself trying to stop it.

@crowmanyclouds

This exposes my problem beautifully.
At what point can’t you claim the deaths of non-combatants as accidental?

I think that quote sums up your post quite well.

You may only claim the deaths of non-combatants as accidental when a) your intelligence said there were none, and b) you were very 100% certain your intelligence was correct. If your actions lead to the death of non-coms given those things, then you may claim it was an accident.

Now, we come onto “acceptable losses”. Your position seems to be that attacking a target in a method that also kills those around him is a terroristic attack. This *may * be the case, but only if the intention to cause terror is there on your part. If not, what it is is callous and uncaring.

Basically, overkill by itself is not terrorism - unless the intent to terrorise is there. Otherwise? The word for it is callous - and i’d like to make the point, as i’m having to quite a lot in this thread, that it not being terrorism does not make it any more nor less evil. A non-terroristic attack may be much more evil and a deliberately terror-causing one. Please stop attacking me for “letting people off”.

[flickster]

@flickster

It seems a little premature to be able to rule one way or the other. Is this story based on one AP reporter’s interaction with the villagers? What was his question, “Are you associated with Al Qaeda?” What do you think the response would be?

It could have very well been a miss and instead hit innocent people and if that’s true it certainly is a disaster. However, due to the Region’s close ties to Al Qaeda I’ll withhold my judgement until a more thorough investigation takes place.

Well it appears my wait and see attitude is sounding more and more like I was correct in not jumping to conclusion like so many here do. I fully realize the investigation is still ongoing, but something tells me by the way this story is starting to fall off the radar screen with the mainstream press the results are no longer fitting their agenda.

Terrorist Killed in US Strike

Wazir said two Muslim clerics had invited 10 to 12 foreign militants to the dinner.

U.S. sources have told CNN that the remains of about 12 bodies, including as many as eight foreigners, were quickly retrieved by a group of men after the air strike, and taken elsewhere for burial.

Something tells me that doesn’t happen when the bodies are just your Pakistani version of “average joe” .

[crowmanyclouds]

From flickster’s cite,[

Pakistani provincial authorities said Tuesday four or five foreign terrorists were killed…Eighteen residents, including women and children, were also killed in the strike, the provincial government said Tuesday…In the first official confirmation by Pakistani authorities that militants were killed, the administration of Pakistan’s semiautonomous tribal regions bordering Afghanistan said in a statement that the four or five bodies of “foreign terrorists” were taken away “by their companions.”…There have been conflicting accounts from Pakistani officials and witnesses over who, if anyone, reclaimed bodies from the missile strike scene.
Damadola residents say that all the victims were area residents, and that they buried them all. One Pakistani official told The Associated Press on Saturday that bodies had been taken away for DNA tests, but it wasn’t clear by whom.{ al-Qaida and Taliban geneticists? No wonder we keep killing Al-Zawahri he’s a goddamn clone! :eek: hmm AQ’s #2, maybe we should send John Drake after him)}
The statement by the provincial authorities, citing the chief official in the Bajur region where the Damadola is located, said its findings were from a report compiled by a “joint investigation team” but gave no specifics on who was on the team.

](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack)
Next time could ya quote from your cite, or cite your quotes?

[Sam_Stone]

Abu Khabab al-Masri Killed in Pakistan Strike

The strike on the compound in Damadola, Pakistan, where Ayman al-Zawahiri. al-Qaeda’s number two in Command, was believed to be attending a dinner to celebrate a Mulslim holiday, has netted at least one high-level al-Qaeda operative. Pakistani intelligence has confirmed that Abu Khabab al-Masri, al-Qaeda’s chief bomb maker and chemical weapons expert. Counterterrism expert Dan Darling reported that Masri ran al-Qaeda’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Program, known as “Project al-Zabadi” and was likely involved in the foiled Amman WMD attack.

…

It is indisputable that Abu Khabab al-Masri was a high level al-Qaeda operative and leader, and a dangerous man with intimate knowledge of explosives and al-Qaeda’s WMD program. Claims the airstrike in Damadola only killed innocent villagers can now be laid to rest.

I personally think it’s a good thing that the head of al-Qaida’s WMD program is dead. YMMV.

[Fear_Itself]

@Sam Stone

I personally think it’s a good thing that the head of al-Qaida’s WMD program is dead.

No question about that. But what we are debating is whether it is worth the deaths of innocent women and children as well? How is this different from Saddam indiscriminately killing the inhabitants of that village where the attempt on his life occurred? He may have gotten the conspirators, but at the same time, murdered innocent people. The end does not justify the means.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Fear Itself

No question about that. But what we are debating is whether it is worth the deaths of innocent women and children as well? How is this different from Saddam indiscriminately killing the inhabitants of that village where the attempt on his life occurred? He may have gotten the conspirators, but at the same time, murdered innocent people. The end does not justify the means.

Exactly.

[Merijeek]

@Revenant Threshold

Not so, they’re not fighting against Western people, but Western ideals - and the encroachment of Western ideals and society on their own culture.

Come now. Those ideas aren’t in the ground or in the water. Those ideas are in the heads of those Western people. But on this we’re kind of beyond spitting hairs, so it’s kind of silly.

@Revenant Threshold

Nope, sorry. Unless the decision whether to commit terrorism is in their hands, then it isn’t their fault. How was that expanding into WW2 territory?

No, I don’t think bombs should ever be used if there is a likelihood of innocents in the area or uncertainty with intelligence. Not a justified act of war. Plus you’d destroy all the evidence, which is just plain stupid.

Same. Plus he may be an innocent - we don’t know, which is why it might be a good idea to try and go into his house and find him alive, because then we have a lovely non-blown up house with potential evidence in to find the people he’s delivering to.

Same, and this guy is an innocent, too.

…yeah, I think you may be drifting into Hyperbole County there, mon ami.

Sure was. At what point did I get into such country? If won’t even say that destroying a bomb-making factory (that guy’s house) is justified, then what is? It seems you’ve reached a point where the only time it is justified is when a guy is actively committing a terrorist act. Certainly making the bombs for those carrying out the acts is only one step away from actually doing the deed.

Anyways, may have been some confusion here, since I tend to agree with you. I just think it’s sad how far we’ve fallen.

-Joe