You’re putting an awful lot of trust in the uncorroborated word of a “Pakastani official.”
What is the definition of a “militant,” by the way?
You didn’t say it wasn’t a heated conflict. You said we’re “just going around bombing the shit out of people who can’t fight back.” That’s ridiculous and insulting to the soldiers who put their lives on the line, to say nothing of those who have died while fighting.
And what difference does it make if the conflict is heated? If we assume that you did not mean what you said, but instead meant “we’re bombing the shit out of people [with whom we are fighting a not very heated conflict],” then your argument doesn’t make any sense. Are we not allowed to bomb enemies if the conflict isn’t “heated” enough? Do we have to have thousands of casualties before we can use bombs?
And how is Iraq not a part of the War on Terror? Even if we assume that deposing Hussein had no bearing on terrorism – a point that I’m not willing to concede, but not willing to argue here – we’re certainly fighting terrorists and terrorism there now.
I don’t know what “terrorism” means. We were trying to chase down a few specific criminals who commited a major crime in the US. As far as I’m concerned, that’s all we ever had the right to do. It should never have been treated as a military operation and we sure as hell don’t have the right to kill any civilians while we’re pursuing a criminal grievance. That village in Pakistan never did anything to us.
In vengeance there is a continuum of responses by the US. At one extremity is measured targetting of the surviving individuals and their network. Further along that continuum is violence to persons with a general sympathy to Al-Quaeda, then further still, those hostile to the US.
Islamic people as a whole then, at the end of the continuum is action against non-American, non-Christians and anyone at all the victim of US military action under this administration.
Educated people, the law and reasoning people and the majority of this board appear to support the mild end of the continuum and are appalled by much motion further along it.
By contrast President Bush derives a wide corps of his votes from those near the Hawk end of the continuum. His duty to feed their appetite in these ways and this news has met with delight.
No, I’m not. I don’t necessarily believe or disbelieve him. But if we’re going to believe him when he says that the attack didn’t kill Zawahiri, that civilians were killed in the attack, that Pakistan didn’t authorize the attack, and that the US is being called to answer for the attack, then I suppose we should place the same amount of “trust” in his characterization of who was killed in the attack. And frankly, I’m not sure why someone who thinks the attack was bad would then lie about a mitigating factors. Seems to me that you’re only trusting the Pakistani official to tell the truth about the facts that you find convenient, and saying that he’s untrustworthy when you like his facts.
It’s not my word. You might want to ask either the NY Times or the Pakistani official. But if I had to guess, I’d say it’s a military person or person otherwise engaged in fighting.
We are? I thought we were fighting an insurgency. I find the application of the word terrorists to be facile and self-serving. Iraq represented an illegal invasion and occupation which is being unsurprisingly met with violent resistance. It’s a resistance which never would have occurred if we hadn’t invaded in the first place and there isn’t the slightest reason to believe that any of the insurgents ever would have been a threat to the US if we hadn’t attacked them first.
I just want to add that I don’t believe the Iraqi insurgents are a threat to the US even now. They are a threat to US soldiers who have been betrayed by their civilian leadership and put into harm’s way for no reason, but they are not a threat to the US itself. We’re going to be fine. The Iraq war has never had anything to do with the defending the US.
:rolleyes: Are we going to play this game with every word used? I have a feeling you know exactly what the word “terrorism” means. But on the off chance you don’t, here’s yet another link to dictionary.com.
That was not my understanding, nor do I believe it was the understanding of the vast majority of people who supported the war in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. The point was to chase down the people who committed criminal acts, dismantle their organization, and takes steps to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. I believe we had a right to do all those things.
Ugh. Nor did the city of Berlin ever do anything to us, and yet we bombed it in World War 2.
But then again, that’s probably due in part to the fact that cities are merely areas of land inhabited by people, and thus incapable of actually doing anything. The issue isn’t whether the village has done anything to us, but whether the people in the village have or will do anything to us. We believed Zawahiri was in the village; and Zawahiri has most certainly done things to us.
What do you make of “al Queda in Iraq,” the name of Zarqawi’s “insurgent” group? Can we agree that they’re terrorists?
I think “terrorist” is a meaningless word.
I think it means “one who engages in terrorism.” (I don’t mean that to be snarky, just obvious.)
And if I may be allowed to guess where this is headed, dictionary.com defines terrorism as:
I think that definition is incomplete insofar as I believe terrorism implies the use of guerrilla tactics (as opposed to head-on conflicts with military forces), necessarily involves political or ideological motivations, and perhaps most importantly, requires the targetting of civilians for purposes of achieving its political or ideological goals. It also frequently implies the lack of a state actor. Thus, the OKC bombing was a terrorist act; the bombing of London in World War 2 was not.
Naturally, there will be circumstances in which the word is abused beyond its true meaning, and there will be circumstances that do not clearly fall within or without its boundaries. But that doesn’t mean the word is meaningless.
but the people in the german cities were part of a NATION that was at WAR with us, like I said.
What part of contiguous land mass inhabited by an enemy with internationally recognized jurisdiction over area and a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within the described boundaries?
I suppose you are untroubled by the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia.
What if Zawahiri were 'reported" to have been at your neighbor’s house and ( you can see where this is going, can you not?)
Why does the extrajudicial execution authority hve to stop at our borders, if Pakistani villages re fair game for having (maybe) a high value target passing through, how about Brooklyn?
Under that definition, the US has been engaging in terrorism for basically its entire existence. WWII included some particularly massive and deliberate attacks on civilians.
I’m afraid that you have laid it out pretty accurately. One asks oneself how many muslims the repugs would be willing to kill, if they defined that “coalition of the dangerous” at it’s widest (cf. japanese internment–that was a whopper of a wide definition…)
If you have a strong stomach, you can go over to Little Green Snotballs and find widespread enthusiasm for a nuclear (final) solution to “:our” muslim problem…
yes, but they are OUR terrorists…
When Come Back, Bring Foil; Abu Musab Al-zarquai, Agent Provacateur
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=301027…
nday, January 15, 2006; Page A01
KABUL, Afghanistan, Jan. 14 – Pakistani officials said Saturday that a U.S. missile strike intended to kill al Qaeda deputy Ayman Zawahiri had missed its target but had killed 17 people, including six women and six children.
Can we agree that the children, whether or not foreigners, whether or not from rural villages, were not "people who help al quaeda( "by eating dinner with them)?
Once again what if we believed zawahiri was on a particular block in brooklyn, on atlantic avenue, where he was surrounded by muslims and likely to be warned if a dragnet were tried…?
OK to use a predator on the apartment building he’s in?(or they THINK he’s in, cause, after all, they do make mistakes…
Pakistan is (justifiably…)on FIRE
This ass-scratching cracker president has possibly blown off Musharraf-He’ll never survive this, anymore than Bush could survive an alliance withFox if Mexico dropped a bomb on some neighborhood in Brownsville. The people would not stand for it. What makes us think the Pakistani people will?
Airstrike by US Draws Protests From Pakistanis
New York Times, United States - 2 hours ago
Pakistani tribesmen marched Saturday near Damadola to protest the airstrike. Local officials in the region, the Bajaur district, said …
Sure, that might be true under dictionary.com’s definition (although I’d quibble with whether the bombing was “illegal”). Hence, my alterations to the definition. And my equivocation in this part of my post:
I’m sure you’re aware that there is currently a debate about what constitutes a planet vs. an asteroid or a star. Does that mean we shouldn’t try to land on Mars?
And courts are constantly dealing with whether certain individuals are “mentally competent” to stand trial. Does that possible disagreement mean we shouldn’t allow that defense?
The fact that people can debate about whether or not certain activities fall under the definition of “terrorism” doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to eradicate it when we can agree on the definition.
One-off criminal act?
Diogenes,why don’t you take a look at this timeline which started in April 1983: Beirut, U.S. Embassy Suicide car bomb 63 killed Radical Shiite Muslim group takes credit.
Warning: It’s a LONG list.
http://www.simplytaty.com/broadenpages/terrorism.htm