So, Mgtman, by this
you are saying that
a) The US Armed Forces are terrorist organizations, or
b)Al-Qaida and their ilk are legitimate armed forces and thus cannot be called terrorists.
So, how about you tell me which one is right, and further, define exactly what terrorists are, because I sure don’t want to fight the terrorists if I am one.
Hmmm. Hamsters ate my post. Basically what i said in reply to Steven was this:
Frankly, that’s bullshit of the tallest order. There’s a huge difference between THEN and NOW. The U.S. has done terrible things in the past, nobody is denying that. Over time, our society has evolved to the point where we now say “Hey, those were terrible things to have done, they were wrong. We’re not going to do them anymore”. and THAT is the moral high ground we hold, not in spite of the atrocities commited in the past, but because of them.
Quixotic said:
If you got the impression that I was saying that terrorists “blow shit up just for the hell of it” then you’re wrong. I know they have reasons for what they do. Anti-choice loonies who bomb abortion clinics have a reason for doing so. In both cases, however, what you have is a minority of extremists attempting to impose their will upon a majority who dosen’t agree with them and using methods that are anathma to most of the rest of the world. That’s what makes them terrorists. If the Palistinians outfitted an army, invaded Israel and occupied it that wouldn’t be a terrorist act, it would be an act of war. Selected Palistinians blowing up busses is not an act of war, it’s terrorism. See the difference?
Forgot the part in italics. Sorry.
Okay, fair enough. I think you’re changing your stance somewhat, but I won’t quibble about the particulars. More likely, you’re just expressing yourself differently, and now we’re starting to think more along the same lines.
**
That’s an interesting quote when juxtapositioned with this other one of yours:
**
I’m not about to push this into an Israel-Palestine debate, but I think the bottom line should be pretty much what Mtgman has been elucidating: it’s all well and good for Dubya to exhibit the kind of simplistic thinking I decried in my last post… but it ain’t right. These situations are extremely complicated, and Dubya’s logic is dismissive and harmful to efforts to solve the underlying issues.
If ‘refusing to listen’ means responding to your saying, “I never said X”, by producing a quote where you’ve recently said X in lavish detail, then you’re right, I’ve been refusing to listen to you.
My deepest apologies, and I’ll try to avoid such conduct in the future. 
And feel free to open the door and break wind; it’ll keep your house from smelling too, um, fragrant.
Well, that’s the kicker, isn’t it?
As long as nobody has cause to bomb your C3 facility, it really doesn’t matter if it’s next to a hospital or not. That’s the relevance of the WMD reference in Demostylus’ post, at least as I read it.
That our entire justification for war was a pack of lies means it doesn’t matter how they embedded military targets amongst civilian neighborhoods and facilities, in terms of our justifying such ‘collateral damage’.
Invading and conquering another country is obviously the most extreme possible sanction, and you just don’t do that sort of thing without the strongest possible justification. The Bushies made up the whole WMD threat that was their justification for going in. Hence any blood spilt is on their hands, by virtue of our having had no business invading in the first place.
Hope that helps.
Actually, I don’t care for the term “terrorist” when referring to organizations or individuals. I guess it is closest to your choice “B” although I would quibble with it(I’m not sure self-appointed militias are “legitimate” military forces. They tend to fight for their own goals instead of actually representing the nation like a true military does). I apologize for not clarifying this earlier. I did repeatedly use phrases like “used terrorist tactics” and put “terrorist” in quotes when speaking of individuals. Still I should have been more clear. The label of “terrorist” being applied to individuals or organizations is a function of opinion(as Weirddave correctly notes). Thus the “One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter” adage. I prefer to call individuals and organizations engaged in warfare, regardless of the tactics they use, “combatants” and then mark them up or down based upon if they commit atrocities or not.
To me the word “terrorist” should be like the phrase “guerilla warfare”. It is a set of tactics, one of many which can be adopted by forces/individuals/combatants at war. It is a particularly offensive type of tactics and it scares the heck out of civilians because, unlike most other tactics, it explicitly goes after “soft” targets, which includes civilians. Many post-war courts would prosecute combatants who used terrorist tactics as war criminals and I don’t object to this prosecution. If “terrorism” is wrong, then it should be a prosecutable offense no matter who commits it. Enshrining combatants who used terrorist tactics during the Revolutionary war on the Dollar and with statues/memorials, etc seems hypocritical when pursuing a “war on terrorism” against other combatants using tactics of this type. Weirddave seems to claim we’ve “evolved” since those days. I call that bullshit. If you juxtaposed the citizens of the US with the Palestinian people, or the Afghani people during the Russian occupation, or the Chetchens, I bet the rate of “de-evolution” to the point where some of our own would adopt these tactics in a desperate attempt to do some damage to their oppressors would break a good many speed records.
All this bickering about the morality of each side is pretty pointless from a realist’s perspective. They’re fighting the war as best they can with the tactics they feel will be the most effective given their resource constraints and they’re keeping an eye on not alienating the larger group(the disenfranchised peoples of the MENA region for the most part) to the point where, even if they win, they’ll end up on trial for atrocities. We are doing the EXACT SAME THING. We’re fighting the war the best we can, using the tactics we feel will be most effective given our resource constraints and keeping an eye on not alienating the larger group(the enfranchised Americans and most of the Western World) to the point where, even if they win, they’ll end up on trial for atrocities. The difference between the combatants right now is that one of them has the ability to fight fair and still be effective without generating a huge public backlash. The other hasn’t got the infrastructure, the cash, or the capability to take on the US military, and their popular support, the current of sympathy they get from people who are oppressed and in whose name they fight, understand the limitations placed on this group of combatants. They don’t appreciate the use of terrorist tactics either, but they’re willing to forgive it as the lesser of two evils that the combatants were forced to choose between because of their lack of resources.
I appreciate the efforts of the US military to minimize civilian losses, and I actually appreciate individual servicemen for doing a hard, and thankless, job very well. I’m not willing to support a shift in tactics to include things like carpet-bombing, or more civilian casualties at this point. If I were a Palestinian, or an Afghani living in a refugee camp, I’m not sure I would value the civilian lives in the homeland of the opposing forces more than I would value the hope given to me by the combatants whose goal would alleviate much of my suffering.
Bullshit. “We’re not going to do them anymore”. Absolute bullshit. You have no way what the American people would do if they were pushed. I say they WOULD resort to exactly the same type of tactics the “terrorists” are using. We’re not doing them now, that’s a good thing. “We’re not going to do them unless we have to” wouldn’t get much of an arguement out of me, but to somehow think Americans are fundamentally different from the groups providing support and which the “terrorists” are recruited from is simply bullshit. Disenfranchise enough Americans in the manner that Palestinians, Afghanis, Chetchens, etc have been disenfranchised and I guarantee some will stand up and fight against those they percieve to be their oppressors, even against a nation they have vanishingly small chance against. Some might even be bright enough to use underhanded tactics to increase their effectiveness.
We’re all humans Weirddave. We’re all capable of distressingly atrocious things if we’re pushed. America may have the high ground right now, but to somehow claim we’ve evolved into a moral nation is simply bullshit. We can afford to be humane, we’ve got pretty secure borders and we’re the worlds only superpower at the moment. If that changes, expect the gloves to come off. I repeat myself
Try to focus on that bit of realism.
Here’s another bit of realism, to help further destroy this BS about America having “evolved”. Even in a country where the average citizen is an enfranchised and free as the average US citizen is, we still manage to produce Unabombers and the odd Timothy McVeigh. Abortion clinic bombers too. We’re no better than they are, we’re just in the situation where we, as a nation, can afford to pick and choose our weapons and we choose the ones which won’t get us the dirty looks from our peers and our own citizens. If we were the low man on the totem pole we’d grab whatever weapons we could reach and use it as best we could. There is nothing intrinsically better about an American than about a Chetchen, Palestinian, Afghani, or any other human being on this planet.
Enjoy,
Steven
OK, RT, I’ll try to put this in small words.
As far as I was concerned, deposing Saddam was plenty of justification for the war, WMD or not. WMD was the excuse Bush used to try and get UN cooperation and to offer a broader justification, which was stupid if he knew there weren’t any, but that’s neither here nor there because even if Iraq never posessed a single WMD, ever, we were still justified in deposing him because he’s an evil man. Now, I realize that you already lean so far to the left that your earlobe draggs on the ground, so I might as well knock you all the way over. I would support the U.S. ( hopefully in conjunction with a UN that gets off it’s ass and realizes that talk is not action and usually acomplishes little ) doing the same in other parts of the world depending on the exact situation in each specific case. Is that clear enough? Syria? no. Iran? no. Congo? Damn straight, they’re reverting to cannibalism down there and the UN has 700 troops in the area that can do nothing but sit in their compound and watch the atrocities. Rowanda? I don’t know enough about the situation to say.
The point is that Globalization is the brightest hope for the future of this sorry ass world, and the first world countries need to start kicking some ass and standing up to say “Enough! No more torture, no more terror, ALL people have the right to live their lives in peace”.
>>>we were still justified in deposing him because he’s an evil man<<<
I, for one, would like a cite on this little gem that keeps getting bounced around.
Dave: how in the fucking world could you draw a parallel between cannibals in the Congo and the Baath Party of Iraq?
Mtgman, you seem to have a special ability to read what you want to see into my posts. Nowhere did I declair that Americans were in any way, shape or form “morially superior” to anyone else in the world, where on earth did you dig up that bit of racist tripe?
What I said, and what I maintain, is that American- and by extension Western- society as a whole offers it’s citizens a much higher degree of personal security and freedom than other, less developed parts of the world. There’s a reason it’s called the first world, the standard of living is higher, life expectancy is longer, general health of the populations is better. There’s no difference in the people- if America was occupied by Israel I’m sure plenty of home grown terrorists would step forward to harass the occupiers- but there is great difference in simple living conditions between Rhode Island and Rowanda. This may be the pinacle, we may revert in our attitudes and actions down the road, or we may advance to the point where Havana is a prefered vacation destination and sub-saharan Africa is a paradice, but in any event, we can say, NOW, that some things that we did in the past are no longer acceptable. I hope we can go upward from here, but I realize that it’s not inevitable.
Dave: I also would probably have supported regime change in Iraq on humanitarian grounds. I know people who wouldn’t have though. Your vote and my vote aren’t enough by themselves. The war in Iraq had ~50% approval rating when Bush delivered his “48 hours” speech. That speech was based upon using force to enforce the Gulf War I UN resolutions and eliminate WoMD. Replace that with a speech based on “liberation of Iraq” and if you’re still over 50% then you can go ahead saying we’re still justified in knocking him over. But knocking him over when you’ve misled the nation as to WHY you’re knocking him over is flat out wrong.
As for your views on Globalization. I share many of them as well. I think your idea of how to go about it is utter shit though. No one ever had their mind changed by an ass-kicking.
Enjoy,
Steven
First of all, that’s totally irrelevant to what I said. I didn’t bring up WMDs, and I didn’t bring up the causes of the war.
This is from a strictly military standpoint. A military is there for the purpose of waging war. For some nations it’s a matter of waging war to defensively, for others it’s a matter of waging a war offensively. For most, it’s whatever the present administration feels like doing at any given moment.
Either way, a military’s assets are in danger from said nation’s enemies. Intentionally placing those assets near civilians is (and let’s be honest here) just daring the other side to hit it.
Cynically WANTING the other side to take out an extra couple hundred of your people, just to make them look bad, is wrong.
And that’s why they did.
-Joe
>>>American- and by extension Western- society as a whole offers it’s citizens a much higher degree of personal security and freedom than other, less developed parts of the world. <<<
Yes, and with that freedom we can live here in bliss in our truly Ivory tower and watch as the rest of the “uncivilized” world goes through its torment.
You’re positioning the US as the good cop, when we’re really just Peter Keating toiling endlessly under the Zionist Toohey.
If we’re really the standard-bearer of civilization and freedom, how come we’re not in the Congo after all? Why are we not pushing for regime change in the Ivory Coast?
So that whole “we’ve evolved” bit didn’t intend to convey a difference between the morality of American society and the morality of societies who produce combatants who use terrorist tactics? Sure as hell looked like it.
Enjoy,
Steven
Oh, and there was that whole bitching at Ben for his “revisionist history” of imposing 2003 morality and values on 1943/Vietnam/etc actions while simultaneously demanding that the disenfranchised peoples of the MENA and other regions currently producing “terrorists” live up to 2003 Western morals and values. Sounds pretty much like you think 2003 Western morals and values are/should be universal. Your views on the western world/Europe going out and “kicking ass” and imposing our morality on the rest of the world sounds pretty much like elitism as well.
Enjoy,
Steven
Finally! A kindred spirit! I know that I am on the next flight to Kinshasa. I want to get me a slice of pygmy while there is still some to get, cultural imperialism be damned!
That is the single most repulsive post I can recall.
Is “congratulations” the right word?
holy shit
See, I knew that phrase “kicking ass” would get me in trouble but I was late and had to leave, I didn’t have time to really explain what I meant. What I mean is that in countries like the Congo, where rule of law has completely broken down and basically you have anarchy, it is entirely apropriate for first world nations to militarily occupy the territory and impose order, allowing that societry to reemerge as a society of law- the occupying (probobly UN) forces would then leave. How to actually pull this off is another question, one for which I have no easy, across the board answer, but I am not opposed to using superior force to run bandits off and protect innocent civilians. Notice that at no point have I advocated imposing our set of laws onto these other countries, but I feel that basic freedoms must be guaranteed in the formation of the new government. Every individual on the planet should be guaranteed freedom of religion and the right to “life, liberty and the persuit of happiness”. If the people want a theocracy, a monarchy a socialist state or a democracy, that’s up to them, as long as basic individual freedoms are protected. If you view that as “imposing western values” upon the world, well, I can live with that. The only “value” I am “imposing” is the right of individual human beings to be free. Assuming that is the case, anything goes.