The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
The Terrorist U.S.A.
oilgun:
Well I'm in the "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective" camp. Which is exactly what drones do, for example. Whole villages are terrorized when a drone flies overhead not knowing where it will strike.
So a drone might assassinate an intended, but non-tried btw, "target" but also his 'collateral damaged' family, neighbours, friends and innocent bystanders. If that's not terrorism i don't know what is.
Guantanamo and all the black sites: America takes people hostage, even minors, incarcerates them for decades, tortures them and all without charge. That also sounds like terrorism to me.
And yes, there is that body count of 100,000 civilian Iraqis...
milomorris:
--- Quote from: oilgun on June 01, 2013, 05:05:30 pm ---Well I'm in the "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective" camp. Which is exactly what drones do, for example. Whole villages are terrorized when a drone flies overhead not knowing where it will strike.
So a drone might assassinate an intended, but non-tried btw, "target" but also his 'collateral damaged' family, neighbours, friends and innocent bystanders. If that's not terrorism i don't know what is.
Guantanamo and all the black sites: America takes people hostage, even minors, incarcerates them for decades, tortures them and all without charge. That also sounds like terrorism to me.
And yes, there is that body count of 100,000 civilian Iraqis...
--- End quote ---
1. Any use of force is capable of creating a general climate of fear. German U-boats off the Atlantic coast of the U.S. certainly created a climate of fear, yet nobody called it "terrorism," it was just plain old war with new kinds of weapons.
2. Collateral damage happens in pretty much every modern armed conflict. This was not the case in earlier centuries when men had to fight mano a mano. But now that we have things like grenades, cannons, and bombs, people who are not directly involved in fighting are going to die. When we fire-bombed Dresden, there was lots of collateral damage. Yet nobody called it "terrorism," it was just plain old war.
3. The question of what rights to which enemy combatants are entitled is one which is still emerging. If the people detained at Gitmo had been uniformed soldiers fighting on behalf of a state, they would be considered P.O.Ws, and things would be much more clear. As it is, many of them are just some bozos on the bus who decided to get involved with enemies of the West.
4. I believe that the 100,000 dead civilian Iraqis is just a figurative number that makes good stories for the media. I don't think anyone really knows exactly how many there are. I also don't think anyone knows for certain that all of them were killed by Americans. How many of those people were killed by IEDs built by their own countrymen? How many of them were killed when a shell slammed into a building that was fired by someone from a Jihadist organization who was there to kill Americans? I don't think its possible for anyone to know for certain.
Just because you don't like a specific armed conflict, that doesn't make it terrorism.
Monika:
--- Quote from: milomorris on June 01, 2013, 04:16:08 pm ---I see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a traditional war over pieces of land. Yes, both sides might be generating some terrorist behavior, but the bottom line is about property. Conversely, the bombing at the Boston Marathon was simply to punish citizens.
--- End quote ---
I don´t know any of the details of the Boston marathon bombing, but bombings of this kind usually has to do with wanting to spread fear and the perpetratots believing they are part of a bigger conflict.
Yes, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is about land - and water and culture and ultimately survival - but so is a lot of other conflicts where one side has been seen as "terrorists" - for example the conflict between England and IRA. Of course, as with most conflict, who is considered a terrorist depends on which side you´re on. As the say ""one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"".
Someone struck me - perhaps a better definition of a "terrorist" is someone who specifically targets civilians.
Monika:
--- Quote from: milomorris on June 01, 2013, 05:23:58 pm ---
When we fire-bombed Dresden, there was lots of collateral damage. Yet nobody called it "terrorism," it was just plain old war.
--- End quote ---
That´s incorrect. The bombing of Dresden that killed up to 25 000 people was/is very controversial and caused a big post-war debate leading some to call it an act of terror and a war crime.
oilgun:
--- Quote from: milomorris on June 01, 2013, 05:23:58 pm ---1. Any use of force is capable of creating a general climate of fear. German U-boats off the Atlantic coast of the U.S. certainly created a climate of fear, yet nobody called it "terrorism," it was just plain old war with new kinds of weapons.
2. Collateral damage happens in pretty much every modern armed conflict. This was not the case in earlier centuries when men had to fight mano a mano. But now that we have things like grenades, cannons, and bombs, people who are not directly involved in fighting are going to die. When we fire-bombed Dresden, there was lots of collateral damage. Yet nobody called it "terrorism," it was just plain old war.
3. The question of what rights to which enemy combatants are entitled is one which is still emerging. If the people detained at Gitmo had been uniformed soldiers fighting on behalf of a state, they would be considered P.O.Ws, and things would be much more clear. As it is, many of them are just some bozos on the bus who decided to get involved with enemies of the West.
4. I believe that the 100,000 dead civilian Iraqis is just a figurative number that makes good stories for the media. I don't think anyone really knows exactly how many there are. I also don't think anyone knows for certain that all of them were killed by Americans. How many of those people were killed by IEDs built by their own countrymen? How many of them were killed when a shell slammed into a building that was fired by someone from a Jihadist organization who was there to kill Americans? I don't think its possible for anyone to know for certain.
Just because you don't like a specific armed conflict, that doesn't make it terrorism.
--- End quote ---
Oh I'm sure some people were appalled by the Dresden 'shock and awe'. I for one am also appalled at the Horishima and Nagasaki murders. Targeting civilians is not okay and I consider it terrorism.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version