posted
BB, Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator, but I think "terrorist"in this context refers to people who use asymmetric warfare tactics rather than people who are in power.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator, but I think "terrorist"in this context refers to people who use asymmetric warfare tactics rather than people who are in power.
Hussein used violent retribution as a means to invoke terror in the hearts of those who might oppose him, as well as persuade those who supported him that he was firmly in control.
A person who employs terror in his work is a terrorist.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I can confidently say that your definition does not correspond to the one used by the President in that declaration or by any of the players on the world or U.S. political stage. It's amazingly broad.
You may think it makes sense, but it doesen't fit with how anyone else talks about it. Here is a wikipedia page on the various definitions officially recognized.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it is a strict interpretation of terrorism that makes people think that Bush placed Hussein and Al Qaeda in bed together when he speaks of both of them as terrorists.
I'm glad both of you think that the majority of Americans (or world players for that matter) agree with you, but I do not think your definitions that you have yet to state are any better then mine.
Mr S: Perhaps you could elucidate what is wrong with my definition. Is there some element outside of the use of terror that makes somebody a terrorist?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the headlines today, famous author Stephen King was picked up today on charges of being a terrorist.
Said one DoJ spokesperson, "We kept hearing about this 'King of Terror' living right in the United States. So we conducted an investigation into him and I got to tell you, The Shining scared the living bejebus out of me. We knew right then and there that we needed to remove the threat posed by this dangerous terrorist. Right now, we are...persuading him to give us information about the other suspected members of his cell, like Peter Straub, Dean Koontz, and Danielle Steel."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
vonk: you can argue with Mr. Dictionary if you want.
Terrorist,
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
Haunted House employees do not build their haunted houses on top of people while they are sleeping or going about their business. If they did they would be terrorists. edit: By that I mean terrorists worth dealing with.
Yes News Anchors can be terrorists, why don't you watch some of the terrorists news broadcasts.
Life Insurance Salesman? Hey there are some life insurance sellers who sell policies to suicide bombers so that they know their families will be taken care of after they are dead.
MTV's Scared Straight? I am not familiar with the show.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr S: Sure you can call Mr. King a terrorist, but he is not a terrorist that is a threat to the United States, or even to the people around him.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: Perhaps you could explain how your definition handles people like Augustus Caesar, Salla, the colonial British in India, the Americans when handling the North American Indians, the German army's use of Stuka dive bombers to invoke terror in the civilian populace, the British retaliation (when they did the same), and Truman's drop of the nuclear bomb in order to end World War II.
All these groups "employed terror in their work". Which ones would you define as terrorists and why?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bb, Terrorism (in a nutshell) is a classification of asymetric warfare carried out by non-state (or non-official state) entities in order to affect the governments and civilian populations of their targets through violent means that inspire fear.
It is not just anyone who uses terror as a tool.
There are actually official definitions of the term. For example, it's actually considered a crime in the U.S.
I have gotten a smile out of the way you've been trying to apply it, so that's a plus, but honestly, it is increasingly difficult to take you seriously with this one.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that is the definition of terrorist that we are using than I wholeheartedly do not support the war on terror. I love my nephew and do not want him sent to prison, regardless of how he treats his younger brother. My point is that the definition of terror and terrorist is too broad, and can be used to justify acts that, IMO, should not be justified.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
quote: Main Entry: ter·ror·ism Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m Function: noun : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary
posted
I am not aware of the British retaliation to the German Stuka bombers. But as for your other examples,
I would say they were all Terrorists by the definition. Soldiers on both sides of any conflict are killers, but that in of itself is not important, what aims and motivations are what make us condemn one side from the other.
If Trueman had continued to drop nuclear bombs or even continue to threaten Japan with nuclear bombs after they had surrendored he would have been the most evil terrorist in history. edit: In retrospect I can think of worse people so disregard that.
Perhaps instead of trying to poke holes in my definition, why don't you supply your own definition and we can compare the merits of each.
I don't see anyone else suggesting a better one.
edit: I good suggestions while I was writing this, I must read them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. If Truman had dropped bombs on civilian populations after Japan surrendered, I'd say that made him a psychopathic murderer, not a terrorist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Hm. If Truman had dropped bombs on civilian populations after Japan surrendered, I'd say that made him a psychopathic murderer, not a terrorist.
In retrospect I agree with you.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, the U.S. State Department keeps an official list of what hey consider terrorists. If we're going to put the President's statements in context, it should be noted that neither Stephen King nor Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government ever showed up on this list.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look my definition is broad, but clearly I do not believe overtly so.
If my wife intentionally steps on a spider I do not call her a murderer even though by a loose interpretation she fits the bill.
There are more apt words to describe what she did.
But in the case of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda the only difference is that one is the official head of a state, the other is an organization that is not based in any one country. They both employ the exact same means to get what they want, or in Saddam Husseins case, "employed" and "wanted."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Also, the U.S. State Department keeps an official list of what hey consider terrorists. If we're going to put the President's statements in context, it should be noted that neither Stephen King nor Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government ever showed up on this list.
I was not aware of the latter, though fully of Mr. King . Also I doubt the list is entitled, "People who are scary or use fear to do things."
I need to see the official title of this list that does not include Saddam Hussein or his governmental regime.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:* Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA defines "terrorist activity" to mean: "any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:
What Saddam did was not illegal in Iraq as he controlled it and decided what was and was not legal.
For the purposes of that list it would not be useful to list other states as terrorist organizations.
That is not my full answer. It is also subject to modification.
I need to take a moment to think things over, also I have alot of work, I'd rather not waste anyone's time with answers I have not had time to evaluate, but so far I stand by what I have already said.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:** Section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."
Look, we're having a conversation right now that, to me, is equivilent to arguing about whether an airplane is a bird because it flies.
I am completely confident that there is absolutely no way, in this context, that anyone of the players understood the term the way you are presenting it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, You may have missed this part:
quote:** Section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."
Look, we're having a conversation right now that, to me, is equivilent to arguing about whether an airplane is a bird because it flies.
I am completely confident that there is absolutely no way, in this context, that anyone of the players understood the term the way you are presenting it.
OK Mr S: to avoid further semantics.
Why would you say Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist? Or would you say that a stable democratic government in Iraq would not be a blow to terrorism in the middle east?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist because we have specific definitions for terrorism that exclude state actors. He was a brutal, autocratic tyrant who committed atrocities against his own people. Using terrorism as a description in this cases dilutes the meaning of the word and blurs extremely important distinctions.
Also, he is not a terorrist because there is no chance that in his official letter to Congress, President Bush intended him to be understood as such nor that any of the members of Congress did either.
---
As for it being a blow, not necessarily. Democracy is not a magic elixir. Look at Palestine, for example.
This is an extremely complex situation, which, I think, is also modified by there being a vanishingly small chance that the Bush administration could ever achieve a stable, democratic government in Iraq in the way they went about it.
---
Getting back to a point I was expecting to hit before the terrorist thing, you seem to be saying that the Bush administration regarded Iraq as a largely separate issue from al Queda. Would that be a correct summation?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I am not aware of the British retaliation to the German Stuka bombers. ...
Skipping the semantics, for the record I'm referring to events such as :
quote: Hitler had already made one bad mistake, when he'd switched his tactic to focus on the bombing of British cities, just at the time when he was winning the air battle over England. Invading Russia was an even worse blunder. And the Luftwaffe that attacked Russia was not the Luftwaffe of 1940. The RAF had seen to that.
Strangely, though, the British did not immediately learn from their victory. In retaliation for the German bombing of British cities, instead of recognising that it was not a productive tactic, the RAF began a limited bombing campaign against German targets, using similar medium, two-engined bombers such as the Wellington. Attempts at precision attacks were so ineffective that Bomber Command then switched to 'area bombing'. Only when the big four-engined bombers - such as the British Lancaster and the US B-17 'Flying Fortress' - came in, from 1942, did Allied bombing start becoming effective.
quote: Getting back to a point I was expecting to hit before the terrorist thing, you seem to be saying that the Bush administration regarded Iraq as a largely separate issue from al Queda. Would that be a correct summation?
Seperate in that they were not in bed together, the same in that they were both dangers to the US and they were both located in the same region of the world.
kmbboots: Sorta like how American revolutionaries seeking to oust the British in the short term brought MORE British officials/soldiers to our lands.
Terrorism is a worse problem in Iraq now because that is where the front line is right now. Terrorists brought it there, they shipped their soldiers down there. You can find Serbian terrorists, Malaysian terrorists and everything in between, all in Iraq right now. Of course there are far more terrorists in Iraq then when we first got there.
Mucus: That was very interesting.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, Here's what Colin Powell had to say in the speech to the U.N. that I'm always harping about:
quote:"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. . . . From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. . . . We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. . . . A detained al-Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies . . . . Some believe, some claim, these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and al-Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al-Qaida together, enough so al-Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that al-Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction." Source: Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations (2/5/2003).
I can pull out dozens of other quotes of the same sort.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a fun one from then Asst. Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (from here):
quote:BBC: The President has actually now put Iraq central stage rather than al Qaeda in this global war on terrorism --
Wolfowitz: You can't separate them. In fact al Qaeda has put Iraq center stage. I think Zawahiri in his latest tape says that. They're al Qaeda people. They've been in Iraq before the war, they were there during the war, they're there now, and they see any opportunity to kill Americans, to defeat Americans, as part of their war.
posted
Powell's statements of things currently WERE is entirely accurate.
Would it have been so impossible for Saddam and Osama to have in the future colaborated? Hussein was certainly doing NOTHING to stop Zarqawi. But Ill admit we have no evidence that they were in the midst of colaborating and since we invaded we probably never will get such evidence.
Its my opinion but I seriously doubt Hussein had any intention of getting in the way of Al Qaeda operatives had they trained or setup shop in Iraq, so long as they did not threaten him.
Hussein was a threat by himself. Removing him also removed the possibility that he could, should he ever decide to, provide advanced weaponry to Al Qaeda operatives.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, they weren't. In particular, these were either false or misleading:
quote:Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. . . . From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. . . . We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Here's a fun one from then Asst. Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (from here):
quote:BBC: The President has actually now put Iraq central stage rather than al Qaeda in this global war on terrorism --
Wolfowitz: You can't separate them. In fact al Qaeda has put Iraq center stage. I think Zawahiri in his latest tape says that. They're al Qaeda people. They've been in Iraq before the war, they were there during the war, they're there now, and they see any opportunity to kill Americans, to defeat Americans, as part of their war.
Like I said, Al Qaeda moved their front line to Iraq when we invaded, they became inseperable.
I will admit one thing. It seems that Al Qaeda was hoping for us to invade Iraq, so that we could be in just the predicament that we have found ourselves in now. They instructed their operatives to lie under interogation and insist that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked and that Saddam planned on giving WMDs to Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
They want us in Iraq where they can get all like minded men to fight us there, where sectarian violence can be easily summoned, and once our media and people scream at us loud enough to leave, they can say to themselves, "See See! Americans are gutless, and we can beat them, we are after all Allah's soldiers!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No, they weren't. In particular, these were either false or misleading:
quote:Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. . . . From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. . . . We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida
Iraq doing nothin to stop Al Qaedsa is all it takes to "harbor" them.
I am not sure how long Zarqawi operated in Iraq with Al Qaeda assistance. I might agree that "decades" in this instance is inaccurate.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, According the "senior intelligence officials", there was a White House briefing on Sept 21, 2001, where they laid out that they had no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Queda.
Also, there is no evidence that al Queda was in the Iraq before or during the war.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr S: Yes at the time there was likely no strong links, not even weak ones perhaps. But Saddam was an example of us not waiting for a threat to come to fruition before acting.
Do you really think Al Qaeda as we stepped up pressure on Iraq decided to just sit at home and watch on their televisions?
quote: Also, there is no evidence that al Queda was in the Iraq before or during the war.
During the war I assume you mean the gulf war. There is ample evidence that Al Qaeda came to Iraq after we did. They are there right now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...if I'm following you...Iraq wasn't harboring Al-Qaeda before the invasion, so we claimed they were because, if we invaded, they would?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So...if I'm following you...Iraq wasn't harboring Al-Qaeda before the invasion, so we claimed they were because, if we invaded, they would?
Not exactly,
Iraq was a threat in of itself as well as a potential empowering agent for Al Qaeda. It was reasonable to assume that if we announced that we were moving into Iraq, Al Qaeda would respond by sending agents and fighters there and that Hussein at worst would tolerate them and at best welcome them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sorry...I'm still not understanding how that is different.
OK, when the first reports of talks about going into Iraq took place what date was it? Because before we even got there Zarqawi supervised the transfer of Al Qaeda operatives into Iraq via Syria.
Nobody in the administration said pre invasion, we know for certain there are Al Qaeda strongholds in Iraq. We simply have no evidence and could not conclude either way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They never said there were Al Qaeda strongholds (though that's hardly a clear term) for certain in Iraq (well, I should check Cheney's quotations. He might have), but they certainly said there were high level collaborations, that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda operatives, and that their 'affiliates' were operating freely in Baghdad, all without qualifying statement.
There were unqualified assertions of strong ties.
edit: oh, and even the asserted interactions of Iraq with terrorist organizations were less than the actual interactions of many other countries in the region. After the fact, it turns out those interactions were less than some of our 'friends' in the area.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not just the 'decades' statement, every statement made there has been found to be untrue. There were no high level collaborations. There was no training of al qaeda operatives. There was no free operation in Baghdad.
There are records of operations against terrorists who were operating in Iraq (not out of altruism, the terrorsts' operations were sometimes against the Iraqi regime, which Al Qaeda was known to strongly dislike).
Any argument that constructs the Hussein regime in Iraq as a threat based on some potential to aid terrorists must explain a history of contrary behavior and deal with why it matters with Iraq when even the highest level of operation of al qaeda in Iraq was less than typical operation of terrorist groups in numerous surrounding countries.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Not just the 'decades' statement, every statement made there has been found to be untrue. There were no high level collaborations. There was no training of al qaeda operatives. There was no free operation in Baghdad.
There are records of operations against terrorists who were operating in Iraq (not out of altruism, the terrorsts' operations were sometimes against the Iraqi regime, which Al Qaeda was known to strongly dislike).
Any argument that constructs the Hussein regime in Iraq as a threat based on some potential to aid terrorists must explain a history of contrary behavior and deal with why it matters with Iraq when even the highest level of operation of al qaeda in Iraq was less than typical operation of terrorist groups in numerous surrounding countries.
Sorta like how China aided Vietnam while we were there fighting the viet cong and then upon us leaving, promptly attempted their own invasion?
My history teacher said some very wise words to me once,
"Politics makes for strange bed fellows."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you be more explicit how you think that analogy is appropriate?
Yes, politics makes for strange bedfellows, but this is an observation, not a justification for a policy decision.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hussein was a threat by himself. Removing him also removed the possibility that he could, should he ever decide to, provide advanced weaponry to Al Qaeda operatives.
How was he a threat? There were neither WMD in Iraq nor any hope of them getting WMD under the pre-war treatment.
Where does this threat come from?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. Also I doubt the list is entitled, "People who are scary or use fear to do things."
