# War on Terrorism? Shut down the School of the Americas! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 26, 2001, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959 "2001-09-26T18:45:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/61 "2001-09-27T14:54:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > **Olent, can we PLEASE leave the communism/capitalism out of it?** Sheesh, come in on your side for once and this is the thanks I get. No, really. ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/62 "2001-09-27T15:13:18Z")
I think we need to define Terrorism. I’ve never considered any act by a uniformed soldier to be terrorism. A war crime perhaps, but because a soldier is identified with a military unit with military objectives, improper acts of war are not terrorism, at least not as I define it. It is a question of semantics, but it needs to be resolved. The US does not give training or aid to groups that engage in what are viewed as the traditional forms of terrorism such as car bombs, hijackings, and suicide bombings. Bribery, torture, and population control are all unsavory parts of fighting a guerrilla war. (Incidently, Gadarene do you know if those wire reports you quoted came from SOA Watch? I simply don’t trust their version of what the Pentagon has admited to.) Olent, > [@](#): > > Finally, Blackclaw said: > > > [@](#): > > > > The school simply doesn’t teach terrorist tactics. It teaches guerrilla war tactics. > > Which are then taken home and used against civilian populations by people who were already fighting that same civilian population. Ergo, by RickJay’s definition > > > [@](#): > > > > most terrorism is just applying MILITARY acts to CIVILIAN targets > > the SOA trains terrorists. No, it trains guerrillas. This is part of our semantic problem. If a guerrilla unit mows down a village with machine-gun fire, it’s a war crime. Not a terrorist act. And how to kill off villagers isn’t something anyone that knows how to operate a machinegun needs to go learn. I think your arguement would be better served by saying we shouldn’t have given them that machinegun. As far as your commie diatribe, I and a whole bunch of folks would violently oppose a change in the class system so to bring it about would require an armed struggle using exactly the type of tactics that you are accusing the SOA of teaching. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/63 "2001-09-27T15:17:05Z")
**Olentzero** , my favorite nemesis 🙂 > [@](#): > > Soldiers and terrorists come about because they have been trained in the mindset of war and **have been taught to seek out an enemy** to fight. > [@](#): > > Most soldiers **don’t see themselves at war** with much of anything unless there’s actual fighting going on. Can you resolve that for me, please? > [@](#): > > The US has been fucking around in the Middle East just as badly as it has been in Central America. Hence the bombings of the WTC in '93 and of American bases and embassies throughout the Middle East. But there’s no blame here, I know. It shines right through. > [@](#): > > If another country were the tallest poppy in the field - England, Russia, hell, even Sweden if they’d been successful in building an empire - they would be acting the same way. It’s the logic of the capitalist system itself rather than any cultural or political reflection of the country at the controls. Classic, **Olen** , but be careful not to let any of your Red friends know you just implied that capitalism makes a country number one 😉 :eek: > [@](#): > > Rapists come about because of a specific set of psychological and emotional factors, among which are being brought up to view women as inferior, an unhealthy prioritization of sex as a goal in personal relationships, and finally an overwhelming feeling of powerlessness such that desperation to exert any sort of power becomes a goal. In this last point I’d argue terrorists and rapists have something very much in common. You are perilously close to coming to the understanding I have, there, **Olen**. Be careful we don’t end up agreeing. I have been arguing that the only thing that makes America a target to terrorists is that we are a superpower; or, as far as the factions are concerned, a relative superpower. > [@](#): > > Am I missing something here? It seems to me an accurate summation of this paragraph would be “Torture is against the Geneva Convention, but torture involves force, and force must be used to elicit cooperation from the source.” (Source of what, by the way?) > Is this not the same thing as saying torture should be used? Um, no? Torture is a subset of force. Knowing that we are using an element of all things forceful in no way implies we are torturing people. Do you agree? I just want to say that the pit, as of late, has really become a subset of GD. Has anyone else noticed this? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/64 "2001-09-27T15:22:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > > **Olent, can we PLEASE leave the communism/capitalism out of it?** > > Sheesh, come in on your side for once and this is the thanks I get. > > No, really. \*\* Sorry, but if you’re going to defend the SOA and then bring in communism/capitalism…it’s kinda like defending Hitler by bringing up Stalin. (NOT saying you’re doing that, just that there’s plenty of holes in it…) ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/65 "2001-09-27T15:25:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > **If a guerrilla unit mows down a village with machine-gun fire, it’s a war crime. Not a terrorist act.** I’d disagree with you there. It’s not like the folks in nearby towns aren’t going to hear of it, and it’s certainly not going to leave them unaffected when they do. It’s gonna scare the shit out of them, and they’re going to wonder if/when they’re next. Terror. War crimes are terrorism in my book. > [@](#): > > **I think your arguement would be better served by saying we shouldn’t have given them that machinegun.** I’m with you there. > [@](#): > > **As far as your commie diatribe, I and a whole bunch of folks would violently oppose a change in the class system so to bring it about would require an armed struggle using exactly the type of tactics that you are accusing the SOA of teaching.** Well, that’s the nature of class struggle - which doesn’t suddenly come about in a revolutionary situation. The class struggle is an ongoing thing, and these civil wars in Latin America are part of it. Moreover, a really organized working class that takes power for itself won’t need to resort to violence to make the revolution - but it will need to violently defend it. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/66 "2001-09-27T15:41:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*Sorry, but if you’re going to defend the SOA and then bring in communism/capitalism…it’s kinda like defending Hitler by bringing up Stalin. (NOT saying you’re doing that, just that there’s plenty of holes in it…) \*\* Maybe for you. From my point of view, I can’t advocate shutting down the SOA without trying to examine why the US feels it needs an SOA in the first place, and how that ties in with the socioeconomic system we’ve got right now. If it bothers you _that_ much, I can bow out of the thread and let you handle your opponents by yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/67 "2001-09-27T16:02:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Soldiers and terrorists come about because they have been trained in the mindset of war and _have been taught to seek out an enemy_ to fight. > > > [@](#): > > > > Most soldiers _don’t see themselves at war_ with much of anything unless there’s actual fighting going on. > > **Can you resolve that for me, please?** Sure. Having the skills necessary to fight a war doesn’t necessarily mean you’re actually at war with anyone. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Hence the bombings of the WTC in '93 and of American bases and embassies throughout the Middle East. > > **But there’s no blame here, I know. It shines right through.** Not sure what you mean by this. Care to explain? > [@](#): > > **Classic, Olen, but be careful not to let any of your Red friends know you just implied that capitalism makes a country number one 😉 :eek:** :rolleyes: In a system based on inequality there must be someone at the top of things. Otherwise there wouldn’t be inequality, would there? Yeah, so the US has emerged as the richest and most powerful country in a capitalist system. That doesn’t somehow crown capitalism with the laurels of Best Socioeconomic System Ever And Don’t You Forget It Nor does my acknowledging that this happens in any way imply an endorsement of capitalism. My “Red friends” are actually smart enough to understand that, including my co-worker who’s probably following this debate now 'cos I told him about it. > [@](#): > > **You are perilously close to coming to the understanding I have, there, Olen. Be careful we don’t end up agreeing.** No, that would actually mean we’re probably thinking through our arguments and finding some common ground. Shouldn’t happen between supporters of capitalism and supporters of communism, nuh uh no way. What the hell _is_ it with you and this black/white, “never-the-twain-shall-meet” attitude? I’m not gonna go commit Red harakiri just because I found a possible point of agreement with someone who generally opposes me politically. > [@](#): > > **I have been arguing that the only thing that makes America a target to terrorists is that we are a superpower; or, as far as the factions are concerned, a relative superpower.** No, there’s more to it than this “tallest poppy” viewpoint. The US hasn’t been sitting quietly in its own little corner minding its own business, causing no offense to the rest of the world in its daily affairs. It’s actively asserted itself as the Big Man on the Globe, and often viciously so. > [@](#): > > **Torture is a subset of force. Knowing that we are using an element of all things forceful in no way implies we are torturing people. Do you agree?** In and of itself, no it does not. But there’s the actual physical evidence of torture and brutality in Central America, so the abstract relation of torture to force as one of its subsets becomes moot. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/68 "2001-09-27T16:32:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Soldiers and terrorists come about because they have been trained in the mindset of war and _have been taught to seek out an enemy_ to fight. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Most soldiers _don’t see themselves at war_ with much of anything unless there’s actual fighting going on. > > > > Can you resolve that for me, please? > > Sure. Having the skills necessary to fight a war doesn’t necessarily mean you’re actually at war with anyone. But that isn’t what you said! You said, “Soldiers and terrorists… _have been taught to seek out an enemy_ to fight.” Can you rephrase this so I understand that you aren’t both equating terrrosits and soldiers AND so that you see how a soldier doesn’t “seek out someone to fight.” > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Hence the bombings of the WTC in '93 and of American bases and embassies throughout the Middle East. > > > > But there’s no blame here, I know. It shines right through. > > Not sure what you mean by this. Care to explain? Sure; “hence” being a vocal operator indicative of “due to the previous evidence, the following thing follows naturally.” “hence,” “thus,” “thusly,” “therefore,” all these are indicative of causality. Tell me again that you aren’t blaming the US? It is starting to sound even more hollow. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: In a system based on inequality there must be someone at the top of things. …Yeah, so the US has emerged as the richest and most powerful country in a capitalist system. That doesn’t somehow crown capitalism with the laurels of Best Socioeconomic System Ever And Don’t You Forget It Nor does my acknowledging that this happens in any way imply an endorsement of capitalism. Wasn’t supposed to be, but for someone who has been harping so hard on the “empirical evidence of terrorist training” I think “the empirical evidence of the greatness of capitalism” should be just as obvious. Unless, of course, you only see what you want to see. I don’t think you do that, but I am at a loss to draw other conclusions. Perhaps I shouldn’t assume consistency? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **You are perilously close to coming to the understanding I have, there, Olen. Be careful we don’t end up agreeing.** > > No, that would actually mean we’re probably thinking through our arguments and finding some common ground. Shouldn’t happen between supporters of capitalism and supporters of communism, nuh uh no way. What the hell _is_ it with you and this black/white, “never-the-twain-shall-meet” attitude? I’m not gonna go commit Red harakiri just because I found a possible point of agreement with someone who generally opposes me politically. Hmm. I didn’t realize I said that. It was simply that, in these threads about terrorism/WTC, in threads about economics, and in threads about natural versus constructed languages (fer chrissake) we always seem to be opposed to each other. It is a rare debate that we see even close to eye-to-eye. It has nothing to do with communism vs capitalism, except in so much as you have brought that to this particular debate. Shall I return it to you? “What the hell is it with ‘everything is a class struggle’ on trick pony-ism? Can’t you think outside of that construct?” I think you can, but I see little empirical evidence of it, so by your rationale you must not be able to. Oh well. Good thing we do disagree so much. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **I have been arguing that the only thing that makes America a target to terrorists is that we are a superpower; or, as far as the factions are concerned, a relative superpower.** > > No, there’s more to it than this “tallest poppy” viewpoint. It isn’t “the tallest poopy” viewpoint! GAH. It is that two factions are butting up against each other. One far overpowers the other. The one who is overpowered isn’t _jealous_, they aren’t _hoping_ to be number one. They are simply outmanned, outgunned, and out-and-out fucked. Their primary tactic left is the terrorist strike. I think it is a very natural response to such a perceived threat. I don’t think they are jealous of me, please. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **Torture is a subset of force. Knowing that we are using an element of all things forceful in no way implies we are torturing people. Do you agree?** > > In and of itself, no it does not. But there’s the actual physical evidence of torture and brutality in Central America, so the abstract relation of torture to force as one of its subsets becomes moot. Just so long as you warn me ahead of time when you are going to abandon logic so I can be sure not to try and use it to understand what you’re saying, ok? ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/69 "2001-09-27T17:38:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Having the skills necessary to fight a war doesn’t necessarily mean you’re actually at war with anyone. > > **But that isn’t what you said! You said, “Soldiers and terrorists… _have been taught to seek out an enemy_ to fight.” Can you rephrase this so I understand that you aren’t both equating terrrosits and soldiers AND so that you see how a soldier doesn’t "seek out someone to fight."** Poor phrasing there. Soldiers won’t seek out the enemy unless they’re told there’s an enemy to seek. They’re not taught or programmed or whatever to regard every situation as a combat situation. But once they have been shown there’s an enemy to fight, they’ve been taught to seek the enemy out. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Not sure what you mean by this. Care to explain? > > **Sure; “hence” being a vocal operator indicative of “due to the previous evidence, the following thing follows naturally.” “hence,” “thus,” “thusly,” “therefore,” all these are indicative of causality.** Did I ask you to define ‘hence’? No, I asked you what you meant by “There’s no blame here”. > [@](#): > > **Tell me again that you aren’t blaming the US? It is starting to sound even more hollow.** I blame the US. But that’s not the same thing as saying those people in the Pentagon and the WTC had it coming to them or that they deserved it. > [@](#): > > **Wasn’t supposed to be, but for someone who has been harping so hard on the “empirical evidence of terrorist training” I think “the empirical evidence of the greatness of capitalism” should be just as obvious.** The two bloodiest wars humanity has ever seen, fascism, almost continuous civil strife in developing and impoverished regions, hunger, the continued spread of easily preventable diseases, environmental catastrophes… yeah. Real freakin’ great. :rolleyes: This is not to say that none of this existed before the rise of capitalism. The problem is that capitalism created the potential to end most, if not all, of the world’s major problems - but it’s organized so that it can’t and/or won’t. > [@](#): > > **Hmm. I didn’t realize I said that. It was simply that, in these threads about terrorism/WTC, in threads about economics, and in threads about natural versus constructed languages (fer chrissake) we always seem to be opposed to each other. It is a rare debate that we see even close to eye-to-eye.** “Be careful we don’t end up agreeing.” That’s not just saying it’s rare we see eye-to-eye, you’re saying that actually doing so is a problem for our individual points of view. Therefore at least one of us isn’t staying pure and true to our ways of thinking. That whole “don’t tell your Red friends you implicitly endorsed capitalism” shtick seems to back that interpretation up. > [@](#): > > **Shall I return it to you? “What the hell is it with ‘everything is a class struggle’ on trick pony-ism? Can’t you think outside of that construct?” I think you can, but I see little empirical evidence of it, so by your rationale you must not be able to.** I can - I just don’t think discussing such important events as these is the place for thinking outside that construct. Hanging out having a beer, watching a play or a movie, making love with **Valkyrie** - there’s no real place for discussing the class struggle or Marxist politics there. Examining the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, asking why someone would do such a thing, and discussing the possible causes and sources of terrorism in general - yeah, that’s a place for putting out Marxist ideas. > [@](#): > > **The one who is overpowered isn’t _jealous_, they aren’t _hoping_ to be number one. They are simply outmanned, outgunned, and out-and-out fucked. Their primary tactic left is the terrorist strike. I think it is a very natural response to such a perceived threat.** I agree. Now the question is - what’s the threat? Is it Islam vs. Western values, or is there something more material and specific? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > But there’s the actual physical evidence of torture and brutality in Central America, so the abstract relation of torture to force as one of its subsets becomes moot. > > \*\*Just so long as you warn me ahead of time when you are going to abandon logic so I can be sure not to try and use it to understand what you’re saying, ok? \*\* What good is it to assert “Force doesn’t imply torture” when torture is actually occurring? What good is it to say the SOA’s latest manuals say “Torture is against the Geneva Convention” when its graduates are practicing torture at home? What purpose does it serve to quibble over an abstract relationship when reality renders it unimportant? Where’s the illogic in that? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/70 "2001-09-27T18:12:53Z")
First, I must apologize-- but I could have _sworn_ that you had mentioned you weren’t seeking to blame the US for the attacks, which is why I responded the way I did, citing that “hence” would imply a place for blame. Now I am just in shock. allow me to recoil for a moment, I don’t think I will respond to that in this post. > [@](#): > > Poor phrasing there. Fair enough, I just wanted to be clear at was a pretty shocking accusation. Now, if I may ask for more clarity, once called into action, is there _still_ a difference between a terrorist and a soldier to you? If no, why? If yes, then we agree so no need to fill in the details, I think. > [@](#): > > The two bloodiest wars humanity has ever seen, fascism, almost continuous civil strife in developing and impoverished regions, hunger, the continued spread of easily preventable diseases, environmental catastrophes… yeah. Real freakin’ great. _sigh_ We’ve heard similar views about the former Soviet Union, Stalin, and Lenin, and the terrors of China. How is it we look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions? (rhetorical, unless you really have an answer that makes sense and isn’t pure flame) > [@](#): > > “Be careful we don’t end up agreeing.” That’s not just saying it’s rare we see eye-to-eye, you’re saying that actually doing so is a problem for our individual points of view. Therefore at least one of us isn’t staying pure and true to our ways of thinking. I don’t know what to tell you. I retract the phrasing; I didn’t mean to seriously imply that either of us are disagreeing with the other for no reason other than to disagree with the other. > [@](#): > > [W]hat is the threat? Is it Islam vs. Western values, or is there something more material and specific? Neither, IMO. They probably _say_ it is Islam. It may even be their interpretation of Islam. But if we are looking for a majority perspective here, I don’t see that it is Islam versus the West. Material concerns are certainly part of any problem when poverty is a statisticalyl significant factor. Seeing as we are talking about terrorists, “statistically significant” can be a startlingly small number. However, it is, I think, a matter of perception problems on the side of the terrorist leaders, and misinformation on the part of the followers and supporters, rather than a strict layout of cauality (re: we eliminate this economic concern, and this problem here will go away). I know you aren’t making it so simple (at least I hope you aren’t) but again, I see that material concerns can only serve to aid people who were already interested in their own agenda of power. This makes perfect sense for the so-called “puppet” dictators, it makes sense for American policy-makers, it makes sense for our political foes-- and to me it makes sense for terrorists too. People can be driven to evil, yep. I do not feel America is to blame for driving these particular people to evil. I haven’t seen a demonstration of it yet that I agree with, so either I’m willfully ignorant, no one has demonstrated it yet, or no one can demonstrate it (because it is false). > [@](#): > > What good is it to assert “Force doesn’t imply torture” when torture is actually occurring? Plenty when the accusation was “the SOA trained people to be torturers/terrorists/dictators/etc.” If that weren’t the accusation, then I would agree that an abstract analysis of torture will not aid in the stopping of torture, much like the abstract analysis of terrorism will not aid in the removal of terrorism. It is a simple concept that seems to be arbitrarily and inconsistently applied, here. ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/71 "2001-09-27T21:41:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > > **If a guerrilla unit mows down a village with machine-gun fire, it’s a war crime. Not a terrorist act.** > > I’d disagree with you there. It’s not like the folks in nearby towns aren’t going to hear of it, and it’s certainly not going to leave them unaffected when they do. It’s gonna scare the shit out of them, and they’re going to wonder if/when they’re next. Terror. War crimes are terrorism in my book. > \*\* If an opposing military force attacks military targets near a civilan population center or even threatens to do so terror is created. Witness the millions of Afghan refugees fleeing the cities. Under your broad definition of terrorism the US is a terrorist nation without having fired a shot. Terrorism must be defined more narrowly than simply, the causing of terror, else every nation that has ever engaged in an armed conflict is a terrorist nation because war brings terror no matter how justly or unjustly it is fought. Under your definition, my dog is a terrorist for everytime she’s startled my cat. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/72 "2001-09-27T22:03:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > **If an opposing military force attacks military targets near a civilan population center or even threatens to do so terror is created. Witness the millions of Afghan refugees fleeing the cities.** Exactly. Afghani citizens, who had nothing to do with the attack of September 11, are now fearing for their own lives should any sort of retaliatory attack come from the United States. > [@](#): > > **Under your broad definition of terrorism the US is a terrorist nation without having fired a shot. Terrorism must be defined more narrowly than simply, the causing of terror, else every nation that has ever engaged in an armed conflict is a terrorist nation because war brings terror no matter how justly or unjustly it is fought.** Actually, that’s pretty much spot on how I feel about the subject. War is the military means of promoting national interests at the expense of the interests of other nations, and civilians invariably get caught in the middle. The use, or threat of use, of military - no, let’s say destructive, since the attacks in NYC and DC weren’t military - force against civilian targets and the civilian population is terrorism. > [@](#): > > \*\*Under your definition, my dog is a terrorist for everytime she’s startled my cat. \*\* I dunno about _that_. I wouldn’t think your cat is living in constant fear of its life because of the dog, but I couldn’t say for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/73 "2001-09-27T22:33:09Z")
Well really the cat is just worried about being stepped on. I totally disagree with everything you’ve said in this entire thread. If you’re ever in Dayton, drop by and I’ll buy you a beer. ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/74 "2001-09-27T22:38:46Z")
Guin, I’ve decide my initial post to you was unfair. Well, ok so I still think your OP was leftest drivel. But I don’t actually wonder if each of your postings is going to turn out to be leftest drivel. I disagree with your politics, but I see your occasional moments of brillance. I was going to just email you this cause I hate it when a pit thread turns into a group bunny hug. But I figure it only fair that I publicly acknowledge that I don’t consider you an idiot. And since I’m still insulting your OP I figure my fellow pit fiends will let it slide. I’m sure the excitment of it all will cause you to go running out into the street. Or not. ---
**Author:** ![Nietzsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8dc957/32.png) [@Nietzsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nietzsche)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/75 "2001-09-27T23:12:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Nietzsche \* > > **We’re talking about instructions on crowd control and coercion. How to respond to an insurgency is _NOT_ the same thing as teaching someone self defense skills.** > > Folks here have already posted many quotes from these manuals that state the use of force is not the way to deal with the local population. \*\* But as I mentioned in my earlier post, I don’t think that is a viable defense for what unintended consequences we may have to face in the future. I may _tell_ you that it’s bad to use such a tactic on civilians. I may also tell you that force doesn’t work as well as negotiations against civilian populations. But that’s not something we can control once the graduate leaves SOA. If we teach them enough about crowd control, we’ve unintentionally done our part in making them stronger dictators. An organization like the SOA is akin to Russia selling nuclear weapons to potential terrorist supportive states. Sure, the people they sell it to _swear_ it’ll never be used in a malicious fashion, but who’s to say for sure? The potential that it _could_ be misused is enough to garner international condemnation (particularly on the part of the US). Well, let’s do our part to make sure that we aren’t making potential terrorists stronger in other ways. Once again, our “war against communism at any cost” may need to be re-addressed in the post cold war world. The terrorism that we faced 15 years ago was apparently a small price in comparison to our losing the war on communism. However, since today the focus has shifted, maybe the concept of having an organization such as the SOA needs to be re-addressed as well. > [@](#): > > I can’t say that this is a “terrorist training school” but it can easily be a “potential terrorist training school.” > The school simply doesn’t teach terrorist tactics. It teaches guerrilla war tactics. There IS a difference. Yes, but only one of semantics. The difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism is that one is state sponsored and sanctioned, the other one is not. One is required and bound by certain international regulations regarding warfare and may (or sometimes may not) follow those guidelines. The other side (the terrorists) are against what the state sanctioned “guerillas” are fighting for. Therefore, it’s likely that they will not follow some of those same rules. They don’t have state sponsorship. So they may break lots of international warfare regulations and make any move which will help further their cause. > [@](#): > > Now if you don’t think the US should be training guerrilla war tactics where they might be used in war zones like Columbia, that’s an arguement I can understand. But I feel it’s inflammatory rhetoric to label the US as a terrorist sponsor because of this school. Well, let’s not get lost in the verbiage used. If we set aside our respective political viewpoints and just focus on what may lead to future problems, we can probably achieve more. If we agree that training warriors can potentially come back to hurt us (i.e. Bin Laden) then we should immediately focus our attention on reducing (potentially) making more Bin Ladens. There aren’t as many communists to worry about today as there were before and we should adjust our foreign military policy accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/76 "2001-09-28T03:02:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > \*\*If you’re ever in Dayton, drop by and I’ll buy you a beer. \*\* Yeah, all right. Usually I’m over Dayton on my way to Chicago but if I ever do the land route you’re on. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/77 "2001-09-28T12:54:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nietzsche \* > Yes, but only one of semantics. The difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism is that one is state sponsored and sanctioned, the other one is not. > One is required and bound by certain international regulations regarding warfare and may (or sometimes may not) follow those guidelines. That is not the only difference, sheesh. Guerilla warfare is hit-and run/stealth/booby-trap attacks on military targets or routes. In can involve subverting a population; regular infantry, none-the-less guerilla soldiers, don’t have the time, desire, or firepower to eliminate whole villiages. Man. Only one of semantics? Sure: ice cream and bread only differ in semantics :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/78 "2001-09-28T16:36:29Z")
Actually, many of the people trained there DID take out entire villages. And look at My Lai. ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/79 "2001-09-28T17:18:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*Actually, many of the people trained there DID take out entire villages. And look at My Lai. \*\* And my least favorite quotes of yours always start with “Look at…” because it is typically followed by a weak attempt at linking in another historical event without any explanation. So do you have proof that the US soldiers involved with My Lai attended SOA? And if so where in the handy dandy manual does it instruct them to massacre villagers? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2001, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959/80 "2001-09-28T17:27:19Z")
I’m simply pointing out that sometimes guerilla warfare can turn to terrorism. Guess I should have clarified-your point. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-terrorism-shut-down-the-school-of-the-americas/83959.md?page=5)