Sheesh, come in on your side for once and this is the thanks I get.
No, really.
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,
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.
Olentzero, my favorite nemesis 
Can you resolve that for me, please?
But there’s no blame here, I know. It shines right through.
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:
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.
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?
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…)
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’m with you there.
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.
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.
Sure. Having the skills necessary to fight a war doesn’t necessarily mean you’re actually at war with anyone.
Not sure what you mean by this. Care to explain?
: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Did I ask you to define ‘hence’? No, I asked you what you meant by “There’s no blame here”.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
I agree. Now the question is - what’s the threat? Is it Islam vs. Western values, or is there something more material and specific?
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, all right. Usually I’m over Dayton on my way to Chicago but if I ever do the land route you’re on.
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:
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?
I’m simply pointing out that sometimes guerilla warfare can turn to terrorism.
Guess I should have clarified-your point.