posted
i was listening to Bremer's comments this afternoon and it got me thinking about his characterization of the violence in iraq as terrorism.
i'll just say that this is not intended as an apology for those causing the violence, but rather to point out some spinning.
back in the day a lot of discussion was going on about the difference between guerilla war and terrorism, and so far as i can remember the general consensis was that the same actions could constitute either; that it was the targets which distinguished the two. in other words, the 9/11 attacks were terrorist actions because the INTENDED victims were innocent civilians. had they been in the military, or had they been involved somehow in the direct repression of those carrying out the attacks, the word guerilla would be more appropriate.
well in at least some cases, the violence in iraq is being targeted at the military, at an occupation force no less. how can we refer to this as terrorism? obviously innocent people are dying, but why are such deaths given secondary significance when we initiate the use of force by being termed "collateral damage", while they are given primary signifcance when we're the object of such violence by being termed "victims of terror".
i'll also say that i wouldn't expect anyone in the US government to refer to the violence in any other way, i'm simply pointing out the hypocracy. it is clearly in our best interest to downplay any ideas that there is a politically motivated resistance force in iraq, especially as it become (seemingly) more coordinated, efficient, and determined.
as a side note, am i the only one who sees a parallel between our position in iraq and israel's position with the palestinians? obviously there are extreme differences, but in the sense that every day we hear about bombings and people dying, to the point that it starts to fade out of our consciousness?
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
just kidding. You actually make some very good points, though I don't really see anything but a fight coming out of this thread.
"obviously there are extreme differences"
Yeah, for one we're not colonizing Iraq. Also the Israelis aren't even claiming do be doing what they're doing for the Palestinians 'own good.'
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See my definition of terrorism is based on whether the alleged perpetrators are a military force or a secret society. I guess Guerilla would be a grayish area in between, where they aren't the military of a recognized government but their actions are supported by the public. In the pooka-verse.
I thought attacks on Israeli military by palestinians were considered terrorism. Also, the terrorist attack of 9/11 was in part directed at the pentagon.
If the attacks in Iraq are by Iraqis, then it may be guerilla warfare. But if they are non-Iraqis, it is terrorism. In my opinion.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Terrorism is when you attack without recognition that you are a soldier or with any real stratigic uses. Terrorism is, by definition, trying to cause fear and confusion. It doesn't matter if its civilian or military.
Gurerilla warfare has actual soldiers doing actual startigic assualts on an enemy. They may be secretive about what they do, but they cirtainly don't hide behind anynimity (sic) or blow themselves up one at a time for going to heaven browny points.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's with the "(sic)"? Did your backspace key get damaged? I'm not kidding, the dash on my PC is busted and it's really hard to remember that is what goes there.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Terrorism is, by definition, trying to cause fear and confusion.
Would that include our 'shock and awe' campaign, which the government explicitly stated was designed more to provoke fear and confusion among the Iraqis than anything.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
exactly. terrorism can't really be confined in such terms. it's odd that we feel the need to divide something as horrible as war into acceptable and unacceptable categories. if we are going to do so then, i would still argue that it will always be the intended victims which define terrorism vs. "conventional" warfare.
how can you differentiate between a "military force [and] a secret society"? parts of our military behave much like a secret society, the CIA for example, and many secret societies behave like the military, militias(?) for example. i think this is a dangerous definition of terrorism because it makes it easy for us to define terrorists as other people (those in secret societies) and the good guys as ourselves (the military) de facto.
as for "without recognition that you are a soldier or with any real stratigic uses", many of the members of al qaeda probably consider themselves soldiers, the issue then becomes one of which groups of militant combatants we consider legitimate. as for strategic uses, i think even that can't be accepted as the definition of terror. the 9/11 attacks seemed to have a strategic purpose; to incite a religious war between the west and the arab world. any action taken for a reason has a strategic purpose, the question of what all that strategery is intended to accomplish, and how.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pretty problematic to define anything without a scope of reference. My husband has been saying the Israeli military is more terrifying for years.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guerilla warfare is the use of military and paramilitary forces against military targets. It avoids pitched battles, instead using harassment tactics. These can including snipings, bombings of military bases and supplies, attacking logistics situations, booby-trapping, etc. The warfare is generally conducted by individuals against an invading force and retains high respect for civilians. Examples include: American Minutemen in the American Revolution, raider groups and blockade runners in the US Civil War, French and Soviet partisans in World War II, the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War, the Mujahadein in the Afghan/Soviet conflict.
Terrorism differs greatly in its selection of targets. While it can attack military targets, civilian targets are often attacked as well in an effort to sow terror and fear among a population. It is not strictly confined to a war zone and is also used purely by civilian or paramilitary forces. Its intent is not to inspire fear in an occupying force but in the general populace as a tool for political change. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the Irish Republican Army and the Provisional Military Groups in N. Ireland, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, the Tamil Tigers, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the PLO and Islamic Jihad have proscribed to the acts of the terrorist.
In Iraq, we're seeing both guerilla warfare and terrorism. Hardline Baathists and hold outs from the Saddam Feydayim (sp) could certainly be considered guerilla fighters. On the other hand, groups attacking civilian aid agencies, mosques and other important Civilian targets would have to be classified as terrorists.
Sadly, one of the failings so far in this war has been the government's inability to acknowledge: 1) that while a guerilla force still exists, major combat is NOT over; 2) there are at least two, possibly more different groups doing the bombings and attacks; 3) that we are fighting both guerilla opponents AND terrorists, requiring a combination of tactics; 4) you can't allow every Iraqi household to retain one AK-47 and not expect any of them to ever be used against the US forces; 5) that winning the hearts and minds takes time.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if it is possible for us to win the hearts and minds. We are too aligned with Israel (for them to believe that- I'm not saying our alignment with Israel is a general problem. That is a whole 'nuther can of worms). Why don't they have an Arab at the head of the provisional government?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Contrary to the threats made by our politicians, our "Shock & Awe" campaign was very well targeted and aimed at concrete military targets.
Terrorism by looking at the word, is the attempt to govern by Terror. A Terrorist is someone who tries to rule by Terror.
It is not the attack or the target that is the goal, but the ultimate control of a population that is the point.
Arafat wants to use fear to control his population and Isreals government.
Al Queda used fear to control Afghanistan, its people, and tried to control much of the rest of the world through its application.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why don't they have an Arab at the head of the provisional government?
Possibly because many Iraqis aren't Arabs. There are people of Persian descent, as well as Kurds, that make up a fair portion of the population.
Arab is a bit of a misnomer anymore, being that it most correctly deals with many people from the Arabian Pennisula. However, it is generally applied to all North Africans/Middle Easterns. Most folks think of Arabs and get the idea we see from movies, those of the Bedouins. While it's romantic and easier to think of people in that area as being of that stock, it's like calling all Asians Chinese.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:
1. It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage. 2. It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order. 3. It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops. 4. It is carried out by subnational groups—not by the army of a country.
Based on the definitions used by the US state department and CIA, the attacks against coalition forces in Iraq are not terrorism. Even the attacks against non-military targets have all been attacks against foreigners who at least appear to be collaborating with the occupying armies.
Iraq is currently being occupied by a foreign army. We believe that occupation to be benign but they do not. Under international law, they have every right to resist an occupying army whose actions are in violation of international law.
The UN has yet to come up with a final definition on terrorism, the key points they agree on are as follows.
quote: 1. must be illegal, violating national or international law; 2. must intend to harm the state for political reasons; and 3. must be capable of generating a state of fear in the general population.
The draft report covers both "private terror" by non-state actors, and state terrorism that can be internal or external.
By this definition, it can be argued that we are the terrorist in Iraq not the Iraqi resistors.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, I disagree. Terrorism is not concerned with ruling by terror. Terrorism is concerned with engaging in conflict to overthrow the existing state and / or social order by violent means intended to create terror. This is in contrast to military action which, whether directed against "military" targets such as army bases or "civilian" targets such as power plants and telephone exchanges, is concerned with strategic and tactical victory against the attacked state.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So would you call a campaign described as intended to create "Shock and Awe", as tactical or terrorist?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Terrorist. I am not a supporter of US government approaches to foreign policy or foreign intervention.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shock and Awe was a very tactical approach. It struck at command and control centers in a successful attempt to freeze Iraqi military assets in the field. The vast majority of the Iraqi military forces never, ever got involved in the fray.
So yes, very tactical. Terrorist? Only if you are of the sort to decry every form of warfare as a terrorist act.
And Rabbit, what about the attacks that have been perpetrated against Iraqi hospitals and police stations by the insurgents? Don't those qualify as terrorist attacks? What about the attacks on the UN compound and other international aid agencies? Did you forget about those or quietly let them slip by to better make your point?
It's a crying shame when it is so easy to point your finger at your own country and make accusations rather than to actually try and look at the situation rationally.
You may oppose this war, and you may oppose war in general, but when a person begins making accusations with little regard to the facts, that's really beneath contempt.
Are you really ready to take the step and say that Saddam was better than the US? That Iraqis have a worse shot at a better life than they did before? That the people there will have the chance at living a decent life free from fear of a monster like Saddam destroying everything they have or everyone they know?
Would you have felt the same about peace in 1941 had you known what the Nazis and Japan were really doing to people? Were the Allies the terrorists because of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or did the liberation of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Mukden and other hell holes absolve us of those sins?
posted
First of all, I don't think that one act absolves another ever. Both acts are simply there. A good act can not absolve sin, only repentence can bring absolultion from sin. Repentence requires that we first recognize the sin, then confess it, make restitution for it and resolve never to repeat the mistake.
The fire bombing of Dresden took place after the Allied victory over Germany was assured. It played no tactical role in the liberation of the concentration camps. The question is not whether winning the war justified the destruction. The question is whether we could have won the war without inflicting so much destruction. If we could have, we should have. We should admit our error and resolve in the future to do better. As much as we should be proud for opposing the Nazi's and ending their reign of terror, we should be ashamed of the excesses and crimes we committed during the war. It is only by such introspection that we become better humans.
I am apalled at the Iraqi's use of violence against aid workers. I oppose violence in general. My statements were not intended to justify their actions, they were only intended to indicate that their actions are no more clearly terror than ours.
If the goal of the Iraqi resistence is to drive foreign occupation from their country, then attacks on foreign aid instillation are tactical (which is not to say I think they are just).
When the Bush administration chose the term "Shock and Awe" they were admitting that their goal was to defeat the Iraqi's not only tactically but through terror.
The lines are not clear, that is why the US and the UN have been unable to agree to a working definition of terrorism. Anyone who claims this is a black and white issue is living in a fantasy world.
[ November 13, 2003, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
just kidding. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
