I emphasize that the following is not an attempt to politicize a tragedy, but merely an observation about human nature based on some pretty indisputable facts.
Right now this country is reeling, trying to make sense of the senseless deaths of thirty-two innocent people who died due to the actions of a single obsessed, unhinged individual. We call this a national tragedy.
In Iraq, it’s called a Monday. Day after day after day, the populace of that wartorn country has to deal with losses as calamitous and pointless.
Now…what typically happens in a tragedy such as this? Well, in America, sooner or later, the search for blame begins. It’s human nature. You can’t blame the perp: He’s dead. So we search for someone still alive to vent our spleens upon. Someone to whom we can say, “If it weren’t for you, then this wouldn’t have happened.” When the Twin Towers fell, that blame played out in Senate hearings. The blame for Virginia Tech will inevitably play out as well, with leading candidates for excoriation being (a) the school, (b) the shooter’s parents, (c) anyone who advocates easy and legal access to guns.
With all that as a given, doesn’t it make sense that the Iraqis, being as human as us, would be looking for someone to blame for an environment where our aberration is their way of life? Who are they going to target? Saddam? He’s dead. Bombers? They’re usually dead after the attack as well. Who’s left?
Us.
And that anger manifests itself in the only way it can: More violence against those whom they feel were responsible.
Which is why anyone who thinks that there’s going to be an end in the cycle of violence against Americans in Iraq is betting against human nature itself. The blame will continue. The anger will continue. And the deaths will continue. We will try to expunge our sense of dismay and go back to a state of normalcy. For Iraq, death, anger, blame and revenge IS the state of normalcy.
That’s why they hate us.
In case you were wondering.
PAD
• 
Micha, I’m curious…if terrorism is defined…maybe too narrowly on my part…as military action directed and taken against primarily civilian targets, do you still feel that any situation can support such tactics?
Posted by: Bill Myers at April 24, 2007 03:33 PM:
“Micha: I know that terrorism is a sensitive issue for Israelis, who live with it on a daily basis.”
Unlike the Iraqis we do not live with terrorism on a daily basis. This is one of our successes: th ability to have a pretty normal life and vibrant life most of the time. We are more aware of the possibility of terrorism occuring and take daily measures to prevent it.
“But there are times when terrorism is justified.”
I think it is necessary to distinguish between terrorism and guerrila warfare. They are not the same. And I don’t believe terrorism, as in trying to terrorize civilians by random attacks in their cities in order to get them to submit, is a very respectable tactic, military or politically. (who was the guy that said that war is the continuation of politics with different means, or something to that effect?). I also think there’s a need to distinguish between different kinds of terrorism and guerilla. I am especially against the kind of terrorism that is mostly vintinctive, killing for the sake of killing, without any real thinking or realistic strategy behind it.
“Some African nations owe their independence to terrorism.”
Like I said, I don’t consider fighting a guerilla war against an army (even the Israeli) as terrorism. But whenever Africans used terrorism in the sense of deliberatly slaughtering civilians, I have no sympathy for them, even if those tactics were successful. Furthermore, I believe that countries that relied on terrorism to gain independence often end up with the violence staying with them after independence in the form of chaos and tyranny. And Africa is a good example of that.
“To be clear, I do not believe the Israeli-Palestinian situation is similar to that of African nations that had been colonized. Europeans in Africa had a homeland to which they could retreat. Israel is the Jewish homeland.”
I don’t believe that this is relevant to the discussion of terrorism in general. It is relevant in one sense. The Palestinians used terrorism partially because of its success in Africa. They perceived Israel as another European colony, and assumed that the same tactic would work. They did not understand the difference between Israel and those colonies. (I don’t want to get into the question about whetther Jews had a right to Israel and so forth, but there is no doubt that the attitude of Israelis toward their country is different than that of European colonizers toward their colonies).
“I do not want my words to be interpreted as a defense of groups like Hamas and Hizbollah.”
I don’t consider the Hizbolla as a terrorist group at present. It is a guerilla army. Although it does not even try to distinguish between soldiers and civilians on both sides of the border. However, although it is not a terrorist force, it is a force with a bad ideology that is waging war against Israel. And if there is one rule that is true for the US, Israel, guerilla groups and terrorist groups, it’s that war has consequences, so don’t start it for the wrong reasons. And their reasons were wrong.
The Hamas is a terrorist group. They were the ones who brought suicide bombing into vogue. Whenever there’s a suicide bombing anywhere, in New York, London or Bahgdad, remember to send a thanku note to them. They are the ones that said: “wel isn’t this a wonderful way to promote our goals.” What goals this method had gained them except being popular, I do not know.
Micha, my apologies: I’d thought Bill was quoting you when he was instead addressing you. Darn this pesky internet thing.
In any case, I still thank you for providing your more detailed thoughts on terrorist tactics.
And of course call to Bill’s attention my question…when do you feel terrorist tactics are called for?
In my mind, the only time they are acceptable is when there’s no possibility of compromise with your opponent, and you’d rather die than share oxygen with them. If we differentiate beween terrorist tactics…actions directed primarily against civilian/non-combatant… and guerilla tactics…hit and run as opposed to direct confrontation of military targets…are there any other conditions where terrorist tactics would be considered acceptable?
Micha: It has been said, however, that when you lead a successful revolt you are called a “General,” but when you lead a failed revolt you are called a “terrorist.” While that statement is something of a generalization, I believe it contains a kernel of truth and is worth thinking about.
That said, I want to make something clear: I neither support nor condone acts of violence deliberately carried out against civilian targets. I revile Al Qaeda and its ilk and want to see them brought to their knees or utterly destroyed.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 24, 2007 04:37 PM
In my mind, the only time they are acceptable is when there’s no possibility of compromise with your opponent, and you’d rather die than share oxygen with them.
Bobb, I think the problem with the above definition is that, frankly, it describes Al Qaeda: they don’t want to compromise with us and would sooner die than coexist.
I believe terrorist actions may — and I emphasize the word may — be defensible when a nation has been occupied without justification by another nation, when the occupier is vastly stronger than the nation being occupied, and when hit-and-run tactics are limited to the occupied nation’s own soil.
Is it wrong to target civilians under those circumstances? I don’t think the answer is simple. If the civilians are citizens of the occupying nation, then you could argue that by their very presence in an occupied country they are complicit with the injustice being committed.
I think the “occupying without justification” part is one of the most important tests. After World War II, for example, I think the U.S. occupation of Germany was justifiable. The Israeli occupation of lands it won in conflict with its Arab nations is a gray area; there are those who argue that Israel is acting as the oppressor, but I believe one must take into account that Israel acquired those territories as the result of wars started by its Arab neighbors. Colonizing a foreign land merely because it has resources you want, however, is reprehensible in the extreme. (One could argue, by the way, that that’s exactly what European colonists did when they came to North America.)
Do they really hate us????
I guess so many of you forgot what a dictator Saddam was to his people. Things of such unspeakable nature happend to thousands of Iraqi people at the hands of this despot. Do they really hate us? Or, is this what the liberal media would like us to believe?
I’m not going to say that everything is going as planned in Iraq, I know many of you will say what plan? I think it is time for the Iraqi people to step up and fight for their freedom. Many people in that region, want turmoil, want struggle and they want us to fail!!! We can’t let that happen!!
To this very day, they are still digging up mass graves, where many people that opposed a brutal dictator met their demise. I guess, it’s easier to complain about the way things are in Iraq rather than look at the way it was over there before we liberated the country.
I work with two people from Iraq and both of them have visited the country since Saddam’s removal. Both of them tell me that the country is better off and that we shouldn’t listen to everything in the news.
I’m sorry to say this, Mr. David, but your negative comments continue to fuel the liberal agenda and belittle what our troops have accomplished…
How quickly we forget how united we all were after 9/11? All it takes, is a couple of loud mouth liberals to stir pot and once again the country is divided!
Ole’ Greenskin
Bill, my apologies for setting you up for an “ah ha, gotchya” moment. Which isn’t really very much of such a moment, because I know you don’t condone terrorist tactics.
First off, “hit and run” tactics are not terrorist tactics…they are potentially sound military tactics that are most often associated with so-called guerilla style warfare. The daring infiltration and destruction of a bridge held and guarded by enemy forces is an example of hit and run…but not terrorist…tactics.
Suicide bombing of a crowded market square isn’t hit and run. It’s terrorist. The goal of the military operation isn’t tactical, it’s political. Scare someone to the point they go away.
But you’re absolutely right…my “accepted” condition for terrorist tactics does indeed describe Al Qaeda. It probably describes any group employing modern terrorist tactics today. Their viewpoint is such that only the total destruction of those not like them can be considered a win.
Note, I think this is the only condition under which you can actually get a group of people to adopt terrorist tactics. However, I don’t think such tactics themselves are every truly acceptable. Not to a so-called civilized society that recognizes and accepts the sovereign authority of other nations and Peoples.
Posted by: Harold Kayser at April 24, 2007 05:03 PM
I guess so many of you forgot what a dictator Saddam was to his people. Things of such unspeakable nature happend to thousands of Iraqi people at the hands of this despot. Do they really hate us? Or, is this what the liberal media would like us to believe?
A lot of them are trying to kill us. Many others publicly mourned Saddam after he was executed. So, yeah, I’d say a lot of them hate us.
Posted by: Harold Kayser at April 24, 2007 05:03 PM
To this very day, they are still digging up mass graves, where many people that opposed a brutal dictator met their demise. I guess, it’s easier to complain about the way things are in Iraq rather than look at the way it was over there before we liberated the country.
Saddam’s regime was brutal and terrible. No argument there. But more people are being killed in Iraq now than before we toppled Saddam. We’ve taken things from bad to worse.
Posted by: Harold Kayser at April 24, 2007 05:03 PM
I work with two people from Iraq and both of them have visited the country since Saddam’s removal. Both of them tell me that the country is better off and that we shouldn’t listen to everything in the news.
I give less weight to the anecdotes of two people than I do to the resounding message sent by the one million-plus Iraqis that have fled that war-torn nation.
Posted by: Harold Kayser at April 24, 2007 05:03 PM
I’m sorry to say this, Mr. David, but your negative comments continue to fuel the liberal agenda and belittle what our troops have accomplished…
Those one-million plus refugees fleeing Iraq are not doing so because they are reading the New York Times or watching CNN. The “liberal agenda” is not the problem here. The reality on the ground in Iraq is the problem, and all of the complaints in the world about the “liberal media” will not change that.
Posted by: Harold Kayser at April 24, 2007 05:03 PM
How quickly we forget how united we all were after 9/11? All it takes, is a couple of loud mouth liberals to stir pot and once again the country is divided!
You have a rather skewed view of recent history. Yes, we were united after 9/11. Then George W. Bush distorted intelligence reports in order to justify an invasion of Iraq, a nation with no ties to those responsible for 9/11. The invasion was poorly planned, and relied on bad assumptions rather than a sober assessment of what was going on in Iraq. We’ve paid dearly for those mistakes, which is why more than half the country is now opposed to the war.
Bush divided this nation by squandering a vast stockpile of political capital that no other president in recent memory has enjoyed. Blaming the “liberal media” makes about as much sense as blaming gremlins or the tooth fairy. Bush made mistakes and is paying for them.
Posted by: Bill Myers at April 24, 2007 05:21 PM
Saddam’s regime was brutal and terrible. No argument there. But more people are being killed in Iraq now than before we toppled Saddam. We’ve taken things from bad to worse.
*** Where do you get your facts? That just might be the most absurd statement you’ve made. The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentations on over 600,000 civilian executions. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal Campaign, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqi’s. (Source: http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html).
How’s that for facts?
Ole’ Greenskin
Here’s a another link for you Bill…
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242
Granted the article is from 2003 however, it does not seem to support your statements.
Ole’ Greenskin
Posted by Peter J Poole at April 23, 2007 03:04 PM
By the way… had Al Qaeda not attacked us on 9/11 we’d likely not have invaded Iraq.
Yes we would have, just as if the Japanese hadn’t bombed Paerl harbor, we’d still have gone to war in the Pacgrowind ific eventually.
Just as FDR and his cabal wanted to combat Japanese influence in the Pacific, so Bush Minor was determined to go to war against Saddam’s Iraq as soon as he could find an excuse from the beginning of his Administration.
Harold Kayser: “How’s that for facts?”
Uh…. Hows listing a group from Iran as a source and posting a link that doesn’t really go anywhere as facts? Kinda funny really.
But, if you want to talk about what Human Rights Watch reports, how’s this for facts?
hrw.org/english/docs/2007/03/12/sudan15471.htm
Iraq
The ongoing armed conflict and violence in Iraq has meant that the vast majority of Iraqis today live in virtually complete insecurity. The conflict has become increasingly sectarian in nature and Sunni and Shi’a armed groups target civilians from each other’s communities. Fighting between United States and Iraqi armed forces and insurgent forces has resulted in an unknown number of civilian deaths and injuries. In October 2006, a Johns Hopkins-MIT mortality study estimated that since 2003, 650,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war—600,000 of them in violent deaths; this figure was far higher than previous estimates. While the Iraqi government and the United States have announced several security plans to curb the violence and bring armed militias under control, including a decree imposing virtual martial law in Baghdad and a surge in US troops, respectively, little has been done to curb the abuses emanating from forces affiliated with the government. Evidence continues to implicate Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Defense personnel in systematically torturing and sometimes killing detainees in their custody; government investigations have failed to prosecute those allegedly responsible. In addition, new martial law provisions give military commanders authority to conduct warrantless arrests, monitor private communications, and restrict civil society groups in Baghdad.
______________________________________________
hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/17/iraq15720.htm
(Geneva, April 17, 2007) – Iraq’s neighbors are closing off escape routes to Iraqi asylum seekers, just as the international community has begun to respond to the 2 million refugees from the war, Human Rights Watch said in a briefing paper released today.
_______________________________________________
That’s just the numbers from the last four years. That also doesn’t include additions for the deaths from this year that happened after they compiled their stats.
Saddam was a bášŧárd, but this war has already topped his decades long body count.
Harold Kayser: “Where do you get your facts?”
Same place as you it seems, but we can actually read.
“How quickly we forget how united we all were after 9/11?”
I don’t think anyone’s forgotten that. Indeed, it is the horrific waste *of* that unity that is George W. Bush’s greatest failure as a president…that and running up the deficit.
“All it takes, is a couple of loud mouth liberals to stir pot and once again the country is divided!”
Nooo, all it takes is a president falsely presenting (a) himself as a uniter when he is in fact a divider, (b) a bogus invasion of Iraq over WMDs that never were, and (c) an increasingly dwindling, blindly loyal section of the American population to be oblivious to (a) and (b).
PAD
Wow, Harold… Your jokes just get better and better.
Gulf 2 started on March 20, 2003. Yet you feel that a write up from April of 2003 backs a point that you’re really not making very well now? I don’t know aboutyou, but I tend to think one month or less of observations on Iraq and the war don’t really stand up well to four plus years of observations on the war in Iraq.
But that’s just me.
I got the following e-mail from Harold Kayser today:
“Mr. Meyers,
“You should really check you facts before you make ridicules statements like you made on the board.
“I’m not going to go back and forth on whether Bush made the right decision on going into Iraq. However, you should at least take the time to research your statements rather than just talking out your *blank.
“This is a link that has tons of information about Iraq and it is from a reputable source, Stanford University.
“Thanks for your opinions and thoughts, that’s what makes our country the greatest in the world. We can all speak our minds and not get locked away for our views.”
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html
First of all, my last name is spelled “Myers.”
Second, the link you provided merely cites the number of people killed during Saddam’s 24-year regime, which is estimated to be 600,000. What it doesn’t mention — primarily because the information is from April of 2003 (look at the date at the bottom of the Web page you cited) — is that approximately 650,000 Iraqis have died in the four years since Saddam was toppled. That means the sheer number of deaths since the fall of Saddam has exceeded the total during his reign. More meaningful, however, is the fact that it only took four years to create a death toll that exceeds what was created under Saddam in six times that timespan.
I had my facts straight. You didn’t. But that didn’t stop you from sending me a šhìŧŧÿ little e-mail showcasing both your ignorance and your lack of manners, now, did it?
Time to man up and apologize.
By the way, it was pretty stupid of you to include your business contact information with that e-mail. Admittedly, it’s highly unlikely that I’d ever have need of services such as those your company offers. If I did, however, as a result of your rudeness, I’d be sure to send my business to your competitors.
I got the following e-mail from Harold Kayser today:
“Mr. Meyers,
“You should really check you facts before you make ridicules statements like you made on the board.
“I’m not going to go back and forth on whether Bush made the right decision on going into Iraq. However, you should at least take the time to research your statements rather than just talking out your *blank.
“This is a link that has tons of information about Iraq and it is from a reputable source, Stanford University.
“Thanks for your opinions and thoughts, that’s what makes our country the greatest in the world. We can all speak our minds and not get locked away for our views.”
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html
First of all, my last name is spelled “Myers.”
Second, the link you provided merely cites the number of people killed during Saddam’s 24-year regime, which is estimated to be 600,000. What it doesn’t mention — primarily because the information is from April of 2003 (look at the date at the bottom of the Web page you cited) — is that approximately 650,000 Iraqis have died in the four years since Saddam was toppled. That means the sheer number of deaths since the fall of Saddam has exceeded the total during his reign. More meaningful, however, is the fact that it only took four years to create a death toll that exceeds what was created under Saddam in six times that timespan.
I had my facts straight. You didn’t. But that didn’t stop you from sending me a šhìŧŧÿ little e-mail showcasing both your ignorance and your lack of manners, now, did it?
Time to man up and apologize.
By the way, it was pretty stupid of you to include your business contact information with that e-mail. Admittedly, it’s highly unlikely that I’d ever have need of services such as those your company offers. If I did, however, as a result of your rudeness, I’d be sure to send my business to your competitors.
PAD,
Let me ask you a question. Can you please clarify something for me about your statement, “(b) a bogus invasion of Iraq over WMDs that never were.” ? Bush mislead the American public about WMD, what about the Clinton Administration and the UN? Both of them stated that Iraq had WMDs. Why is it that you choose to rip Bush for this but fail to mention that most of the free world believed exactly the same thing?
Like you said above, …”in America, sooner or later, the search for blame begins. It’s human nature”; you have been in the blame mode for quite sometime…
My apologies for spelling your name wrong.
If you don’t want people to contact you then remove the link to your website.
What did you think was rude about my email. I respect the fact that you can say what you want. I even thanked you for your opinions and thoughts.
If, it was, your talking out your *blank statement that that ticked you off, I’m sorry.
However, I do think your facts are wrong and we can agree to disagree. Facts are facts, we can all pony up some link or website that supports our views.
My contact information that was in the email to you is automatically generated when I send out an email from work. Second, my opinions are in way associated with my place of employment. If, I’m bold enough to send you an email, I’m not going to try and hide who I am.
So, if I offended you… I’m sorry.
Harold Kayser, Ole’ Greenskin
My apologies for spelling your name wrong.
If you don’t want people to contact you then remove the link to your website.
What did you think was rude about my email. I respect the fact that you can say what you want. I even thanked you for your opinions and thoughts.
If, it was, your talking out your *blank statement that that ticked you off, I’m sorry.
However, I do think your facts are wrong and we can agree to disagree. Facts are facts, we can all pony up some link or website that supports our views.
My contact information that was in the email to you is automatically generated when I send out an email from work. Second, my opinions are in way associated with my place of employment. If, I’m bold enough to send you an email, I’m not going to try and hide who I am.
So, if I offended you… I’m sorry.
Harold Kayser, Ole’ Greenskin
My apologies for spelling your name wrong.
If you don’t want people to contact you then remove the link to your website.
What did you think was rude about my email. I respect the fact that you can say what you want. I even thanked you for your opinions and thoughts.
If, it was, your talking out your *blank statement that that ticked you off, I’m sorry.
However, I do think your facts are wrong and we can agree to disagree. Facts are facts, we can all pony up some link or website that supports our views.
My contact information that was in the email to you is automatically generated when I send out an email from work. Second, my opinions are in way associated with my place of employment. If, I’m bold enough to send you an email, I’m not going to try and hide who I am.
So, if I offended you… I’m sorry.
Harold Kayser, Ole’ Greenskin
Harold Kayser –
liberal media
liberal agenda
And this, my friends, is the sound of a broken record.
Posted by: Ole’ Greenskin at April 24, 2007 07:01 PM
If you don’t want people to contact you then remove the link to your website.
That’s like saying if you don’t want rude phone calls, you shouldn’t have a phone, or if you don’t want to listen to someone verbally abusing you in person, you shouldn’t have ears. I do indeed want people to contact me. I just want them do so with a modicum of civility. That’s not too much to ask.
Posted by: Ole’ Greenskin at April 24, 2007 07:01 PM
What did you think was rude about my email. I respect the fact that you can say what you want. I even thanked you for your opinions and thoughts.
If, it was, your talking out your *blank statement that that ticked you off, I’m sorry.
Gee, y’think that might’ve been it? Yeah, that’s what torqued me off!!!
Posted by: Ole’ Greenskin at April 24, 2007 07:01 PM
However, I do think your facts are wrong and we can agree to disagree.
I can’t agree to disagree about this. It’s like telling me that “two plus two” is five, and then when I prove to you that “two plus two” is in fact four asking me to agree to disagree. The fact is, more people have died in Iraq since Saddam’s fall than before it.
Posted by: Ole’ Greenskin at April 24, 2007 07:01 PM
Facts are facts, we can all pony up some link or website that supports our views.
You were okay with citing a Web page that you erroneously believed to support your views. That is, until Jerry and I pointed out that you were using numbers from April of 2003 to support your contentions about a war begun in March 2003. Now suddenly you’ve had a “deathbed conversion” and believe that statistics found on the Web are meaningless.
See, here’s the thing: when it comes to documenting facts, the Web ain’t no different than paper: it ain’t the medium that matters, but the credibility of the source. Jerry cited credible sources. Hence, the facts he cited are credible.
Posted by: Ole’ Greenskin at April 24, 2007 07:01 PM
My contact information that was in the email to you is automatically generated when I send out an email from work. Second, my opinions are in way associated with my place of employment. If, I’m bold enough to send you an email, I’m not going to try and hide who I am.
I never said you should hide your identity. But anytime you communicate using company e-mail or stationary or whatever, it reflects on the company whether you wish it to do so or not.
Posted by: Ole’ Greenskin at April 24, 2007 07:01 PM
So, if I offended you… I’m sorry.
I accept your apology.
God…I love this country.
God…I love this country.
God…I love this country.
However, I do think your facts are wrong and we can agree to disagree. Facts are facts, we can all pony up some link or website that supports our views.
That’s not a very effective argument. Bill provided evidence–more recent than yours–that puts the “facts” you presented in dispute. Well, dispute them, if you think reality is on your side. You are correct, facts are facts, and they don’t change just because we stop believing them.
It’s just a bit odd to send someone an e-mail giving them hëll for supposedly getting facts wrong and then just toss off a “we can all pony up some link or website that supports our views”. If the numbers he cited are wrong, if they are from a biased source, if there is some reason we should not accept them, then by all means tell us. But don’t come in here holding the Flag of Truth and then go all relativist on us.
“However, I do think your facts are wrong and we can agree to disagree. Facts are facts, we can all pony up some link or website that supports our views.
If his facts are wrong, then what does that say about yours? You pointed out that Human Rights Watch was one of the sites that had information backing your statement that Bill Myers was wrong. I went to their site to look and found that the information there actually shows that he is right. 600,000 deaths in twenty plus years of Saddam’s rule VS 650,000 deaths and counting in four years.
You also point out The Anfal campaign as though the actions of Saddam against the Kurds existed in a vacuum. They don’t.
Part of that situation involved the conflict in that region between Iraq and Iran. The Anfal area was where the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (or PUK from here on out) was at its strongest in membership and activity. At the time, PUK had ties to the Syrian government and Libya. They got in bed with Iran in 1986 with the stated cause of overthrowing Saddam’s Ba’th government.
Anfal was 1988. Much like the victims in Iraq now, many of those who died in 1988 died due to a conflict. Granted, Saddam was far less caring about whom he killed then we have been, but the outcomes were still the same. Our war has just led to more deaths at an even faster rate and has killed people other then just the Kurds in Iraq.
Oh, and the stuff that happened in Anfal and other places at that time? The U.S. knew about it and chose to let it slide because Saddam was one of our boys in the Middle East at that time. He was our tool against Iran.
So it was our tool against Iran that committed this crime you speak of against Iran’s tool against him. Does that make the U.S. leaders of the time guilty of the crimes against the Kurds as well?
Not if you believe that standing against Iran, Syria and Libya was a good thing. But if you’ll give Ronald Reagan a pass for his allowing and helping his tool against Iran doing these things, you do weaken your position of outrage a bit when it comes to Saddam.
Aint the Middle East such a great moral mess. The blame and the piles of s**t that can be uncovered from everyone’s playing in the sandbox just never end. It’s one of the reasons that this war is such a mess and it’s one of the reasons that so many, including some in Iraq, do hate us. Sure, we’ve got enemies over there that are just nut jobs with no real reason to hate the way they do, but our past actions over there haven’t endeared us to too many over there either.
We shouldn’t have gone in to Iraq, we shouldn’t have thrown away whatever good will we had that would have aided our fight against the terrorist that hit us on 9/11 or their supporters and we should look at the best way to get out of Iraq now before we waste anymore lives (ours or theirs) and dig the hole for ourselves even deeper.
I should point out that I’m no fan of what Saddam did, what we let him do while he was one of our guys or the body counts that have been racked up by everybody involved in this mess. But it does get to a point where you have to realize that continuing to make even more mistakes in a region or a country does no one any good in the end. And that’s what Bush’s mad campaign has been. It’s just one more massive mistake for the history books and for our less then great history of involvement in that region.
“Bush mislead the American public about WMD, what about the Clinton Administration and the UN? Both of them stated that Iraq had WMDs. Why is it that you choose to rip Bush for this but fail to mention that most of the free world believed exactly the same thing?”
Beeeecause whatever Clinton may or may not have believed, he didn’t feel the need to tell the rest of the world to go screw themselves while dragging the country into war. Beeeeeecause Bush was the one who told the UN weapons inspectors to get the hëll out of Dodge while he was preparing to cowboy up and drop a whole mess of bombs on Iraq. Beeeecause Bush and Bush alone blew the world-wide good will and sympathy we had post 9/11 in order to press a long-standing agenda to get Saddam.
“The rest of the free world,” with a handful of exceptions, begged Bush not to invade Iraq, and he did it anyway.
And now here we are. No WMDs. Iraqis dying at four times the rate they were with Saddam. Thousands of young Americans dead and tens of thousands injured.
All that at Bush’s feet and Bush’s alone.
The fact that you cannot see that is just sad.
PAD
Well, my point was missed (shock, shock) by some of you.
It’s irrelevant what YOU believe about 9/11. What matters over in the Middle East is what THEY believe about 9/11 and how that influences their politics.
Anyone over there can access the same information that millions of Americans here have accessed and draw their own conclusions. Do you folks honestly believe they’re just going to accept Bush’s explanation? I find that simply idiotic. They will seek out and exploit any loopholes, gaps, and inconsistencies that might exhonerate themselves. And guess what? It’s not hard to counter the “official” explanation.
If Bush would lie about Iraq, why wouldn’t they believe he would lie about anything? Why should a Muslim disregard his common sense? Who is he going to believe, Bush or his lying eyes…?
“Bush mislead the American public about WMD, what about the Clinton Administration and the UN? Both of them stated that Iraq had WMDs. Why is it that you choose to rip Bush for this but fail to mention that most of the free world believed exactly the same thing?”
This is what FauxNews, et al, hath wrought. A total loss of proportionality.
If Bush had merely said he “believed” Saddam had WMDs, he wouldn’t be bashed. No, the Bush Admin INSISTED it was factually true and that we were in imminent danger of Saddam giving those nukes to Al Qaida to kill us.
There is a monumental difference between Clinton and Bush’s positions.
And the “free world” also REFUSED to join Bush’s war because they–at least–know it’s a bad idea to invade a war based on an assumption. We don’t know what Clinton would have done if the inspectors had actually found WMDs. But we do know that he wanted proof, not “belief,” before he drenched the country in bloodshed (much of it our own). That is, by no means, “exactly the same thing” as Bush.
Apparently the discussion on terrorism was replaced by, amazingly enough, the original topic, Iraq.
Still, here are two answers.
“It has been said, however, that when you lead a successful revolt you are called a “General,” but when you lead a failed revolt you are called a “terrorist.” While that statement is something of a generalization, I believe it contains a kernel of truth and is worth thinking about.”
I don’t believe in that. The reason for the problem is that terrorist is used or perceived as being used as a way to make a a side in a conflict look bad instead of a technical term.
For me it is quite simple: a terrorist is a person using the tacic of terrorism, just as a cannoneer is a person who uses artillery. There success, failure or the nature of their causes are irrelevant. As you see, I live by that definition, and did not call Hizballa terrorists.
So, although I oppose the goal of ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and establishing a Palestinian State, I also oppose the tactic of terrorism used by Palestinians to promote that goal. (without getting into the question of whether they are fighting to end the occupation or end Israel).
And conversly, while I don’t have, as far as I know, anything against the tactics used by the US to conquer Iraq, I opposed the goal of this war. (It’s a little more complicated than that, but this is just to illustrate the point).
In the case of Al-Quaida I find their goal, tactic, ideology, and general attitude offensive.
“Is it wrong to target civilians under those circumstances? I don’t think the answer is simple. If the civilians are citizens of the occupying nation, then you could argue that by their very presence in an occupied country they are complicit with the injustice being committed”
Look, Bill. I oppose the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. I oppose the settlements, and the ideology of the settlers very strongly. Yet I would oppose a Palestinian going into a house and murdering a child in a West Bank settlement as strongly as I would oppose him doing it inside Israel proper (they have done both).
I find it hard to imagine a situation when terrorism (narrowly defined) is a justified tactic, but I believe we should judge case by case. Let’s put it this way, I wouldn’t consider it moral for a Jew during the holocaust to go into a civilian restaurant in Berlin, where children also eat, and blow himself up.
Also, if we agree that terrorism is meant to cause terror in the civilian population which would result in the government changing it’s policies, I think it is reasonable to assume that this tactic won’t work in totalitarian regimes in which the government doesn’t care that much about the citizens, and is not hesitant to retaliate very agressively. If the Tibetans started blowing themselves up in Beiging, they would leave a small impression on the government, and severe retaliation agaist the Tibetans. So this tactic is only effective with governments that care about the lives o it’s citizens, and also restrains its use of force against its enemies. It seems to me that in such cases there are better ways than terrorism to create change, that have an effect on the citizens of the enemy country without the harm caused by terrorism.
The ethnicity of the hijackers is based on the alleged content of one cell phone call. It is not proven that they were muslims or Al Qaida.
(Check out the documentary “In Plane Sight” for starters.)
My point is: Maybe “they” hate us because they believe they are wrongly accused.
Etc, etc, etc…..
Well, my point was missed (shock, shock) by some of you.
It’s irrelevant what YOU believe about 9/11. What matters over in the Middle East is what THEY believe about 9/11 and how that influences their politics.
And guess what? It’s not hard to counter the “official” explanation.
No, got your point just fine. You believe that Iraq hates us because we blamed the Middle East for 9/11 when it was actually planned and carried out by George W. Bush and his band of evil doers in order to do evil things. You point to a joke of a film to back your POV and you make statements about how Bush lied about everything else with etc, etc, etc…
Sorry, Rosie, just not buying it.
Posted by: Micha at April 24, 2007 10:12 PM
Apparently the discussion on terrorism was replaced by, amazingly enough, the original topic, Iraq.
The topics are interrelated. The rationale for going to war in Iraq was combating terrorism, and, ironically, the invasion exacerbated the problem of Mideast terrorism.
Posted by: Micha at April 24, 2007 10:12 PM
For me it is quite simple: a terrorist is a person using the tacic of terrorism, just as a cannoneer is a person who uses artillery. There success, failure or the nature of their causes are irrelevant. As you see, I live by that definition, and did not call Hizballa terrorists.
I am using the definition of terrorism provided by the Microsoft Encarta North American English Dictionary:
“violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes”
I do not claim that Encarta is the “last word” on the issue. I provide that definition merely to give us with some common ground upon which to arrive at some degree of mutual understanding.
Posted by: Micha at April 24, 2007 10:12 PM
Look, Bill. I oppose the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. I oppose the settlements, and the ideology of the settlers very strongly.
I brought up the West Bank to illustrate what I consider to be a moral gray area, not to berate Israel. Apparently, I didn’t make myself clear: in my view, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is NOT the sort of “indefensible occupation” that would justify terrorism as a tactic. There are too many factors that muddy up the waters, such as the fact that the territory was acquired as the result of wars of aggression initiated by Israel’s Arab neighbors. I only brought up the West Bank occupation so that I could contrast it with an example of what I consider to be an unambiguously immoral form of occupation — colonialism — and pointed out that my own nation was guilty of that at its inception.
Posted by: Micha at April 24, 2007 10:12 PM
Yet I would oppose a Palestinian going into a house and murdering a child in a West Bank settlement as strongly as I would oppose him doing it inside Israel proper (they have done both).
I, too, believe infanticide is repugnant and that there is no cause which justifies such an outrage. I am uncertain what gave you the idea that I felt otherwise.
Perhaps it would be best if I gave an illustration of what I was thinking when I wondered aloud whether targeting civilians could, under certain circumstances, be justified. Let’s say Big Powerful Country A has invaded and occupies Small Not-Powerful Country B. Country A has done so because Country B has resources worth exploiting.
Country B can’t wage an all-out war to liberate itself but can make life a living hëll for the occupiers from Country A. The rebels from Country B have observed that one of their nation’s own bridges — a piece of civilian infrastructure — also happens to serve as a critical supply line for Country A’s troops. Blowing up the bridge might serve the cause of getting Country A to finally leave, but doing so would result in civilian casualties on both sides because, again, it’s primarily a civilian target that happens to also be used by the invader’s military.
Is it wrong to blow up that bridge? Does it constitute terrorism? I believe there is no clear answer to either question. THAT’s the sort of thing I was talking about.
Bill, first of all,thanks for the personal E-mail. I only just saw it, which was why I didn’t acknowledge it before.
I in no way suspect that you support infantecide. I only brought this as an extreme but very real example to illustrate my point of why I don’t consider killing civilians, even colonists, legitemate.
The example you bring of blowing up a bridge is a good example of hitting a target for very good military reasons but having no way of doing it without causing some harm to civilians. You try to cause the least harm as possible, but in the real world there is no complete seperation, which is all the more reason to think hard before engaging iin military action.
As for the Israeli settlements in the west bank, I am clearly more critical of them than you, and therefore consider them as less legitimate and more similar to colonists (though not identical), and wy I am wary of legitimizing the killing of civilian colonists even in the most illegitimate colonization.
The US is a good example of something that started out as colonization, but whose legitimate existence should not be questioned nevertheless. Israel is like that too, whatever the sins of its creation. I know we agree about that.
I think we pretty much agree on everything on the subject of terrorism. It is more an issue of definition and some fine tuning.
For what it’s worth, my personal definition of “terrorism” is reflective not of the tactic, but who’s employing it.
If it’s a government deliberately striking at military targets, it’s acts of war.
If it’s a government deliberately striking at civilians, it’s war atrocities or war crimes.
If it’s a non-government deliberately striking at military targets or civilians, it’s terrorism.
But again, that may just be me.
PAD
Blowing up the bridge might serve the cause of getting Country A to finally leave, but doing so would result in civilian casualties on both sides because, again, it’s primarily a civilian target that happens to also be used by the invader’s military.
Blowing up the bridge would not be an act of terrorism, I think, since one of the major goals of this action would be to damage the enemy’s infrastructure.
To me, what terrorism is about is hinted by the very word. When the sole goal of a violent action is to create terror, usually a tactic used when destroying a (much stronger) enemy’s infrastructure would be too hard or even impossible.
One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.
And, in the end, lumping every Iraqi into the same ‘terrorist’ label, as this Administration has been wont to do, just continues to show how Bush & Co just don’t get it.
Nor do many of the people who argue that the Iraq War was a great idea in the first place.
We’ve created freedom fighters, we’ve created civil war, and we’ve created terrorists. And nobody cares to differentiate between them.
My, aren’t we talented.
“We’ve created freedom fighters, we’ve created civil war, and we’ve created terrorists. And nobody cares to differentiate between them.
My, aren’t we talented.”
Who says America doesn’t make or create anything anymore?
My definition of terrorism is rather simple:
Targetting a legitimate military target is a military action. Note that a military target could include something like a bridge if the enemy needs it to move their forces from point A to point B. It could also include a factory where weapons and vehicles for the miliary are being produced.
Targetting civilians is an act of terrorism. Simply point, the only reason to target civilians is to instill terror in the populace.
Targetting civilians is an act of terrorism. Simply point, the only reason to target civilians is to instill terror in the populace.
Ok, now lets add a few real world twists into the morality end of the debate. What if the targeted civilians in question are giving aid, shelter or supplies to your enemy because they like them and want to see you booted out of the country?
Do they become viable targets in and of themselves?
Does it change your perspective on the situation if the civilians are supporting the home team or if they’re supporting the foreign soldiers?
Do you hold yourself back from launching a hard attack against your enemy because they’re surrounded by a civilian population friendly to them?
Would attacks against civilian targets in order to limit their ability to support your enemy fall under the umbrella of terrorism or would it fall under tactics to disrupt an enemy’s supply line or, if the enemy is native, to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure?
Does it matter in the end if you’re not the one who gets write the history books, teach the history or claim the “necessity and nobility” of The Cause?
Those are some tough questions. There could be a fine line between giving aid to the enemy and actually becoming the enemy, so I would say that there’s no single, one-size-fits-all answer to many of them. I would say that using civilians as “human shields” might be an act of terrorism in and of itself.
And, of course, whoever gets to write the history books also gets to decide who were the terrorists and which causes were noble. To this day, there are still differences in the respect interpretations of the Civil War/War of Northern Agression, which often depend on where you went to school.
Posted by Peter David at April 25, 2007 08:01 AM
“For what it’s worth, my personal definition of “terrorism” is reflective not of the tactic, but who’s employing it.
.
.
.
If it’s a non-government deliberately striking at military targets or civilians, it’s terrorism.”
Hmmm…
World War II French Resistance fighters?
I don’t think any of us will come up with a real ‘one size fits all’ set of definitions.
Cheers.
[b]No, got your point just fine. You believe that Iraq hates us because we blamed the Middle East for 9/11 when it was actually planned and carried out by George W. Bush and his band of evil doers in order to do evil things. You point to a joke of a film to back your POV and you make statements about how Bush lied about everything else with etc, etc, etc…
Sorry, Rosie, just not buying it.[/b]
Yep, you missed it by a long shot.
First, you assume that I’m saying Bush was involved with 9/11 simply because I disagree with the Bush admin’s explanation. Don’t put words in my mouth, “Rosie.” I don’t believe Bush had anything to do with carrying out 9/11. Other than sweep the truth under the rug and exploit the hëll out of it for his and neocon gain. (Bush is, was, and will ever be nothing more than a stooge for his handlers.)
“In Plane Sight” is a valuable documentary for its footage alone (and that’s why I brought it up). The news cameras have recorded much of what puts a lie to the BA’s explanation. You can disagree with the Power Hour guys all you want, but the footage provides all the material a critic needs. And THAT is why all your apologies for Bush will not persuade Middle Easterners that they’ve gotten a raw deal from America.
Second, if you really got the point you’d respond to THAT instead of trying to shove your own words into my mouth.
Third, I guess you “aren’t buying” the truth about the Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin either…
There is no workable definition of terrorism that does not also apply to actions by America itself.
War is itself a gov’t policy. Any goal of changing any structure within society can reasonably be called a political goal.
Obviously, the U.S. policy of “regime change” in Iraq (by ANY means) is a political goal. (Which is strengthened by the attempt to create a replacement system of government.)
By our own definitions, America has engaged in its own acts of terrorism. Not that America sees it that way.
The REAL definition of terrorism seems to be contingent upon the word “them.” If it’s done to “them,” it’s self-defense. If it’s done to “us,” it’s terrorism.
If you are using In Plane Sight as a guide I hope you have a version that fixes some of the obvious mistakes the first edition had–mistakes so obvious that even other 9/11 conspiracy fans have called them out on it:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html
Frankly, I’ve never seen anything from the 9/11 conspiracy crowd that impressed me much. They seem a lot like the creationist gang, looking for any inconsistency and running with it. One witness that supports them negates 100 that don’t. And any expression of doubt instantly brings out the claws–fanaticism brooks no dissent.
If there really WERE a 9/11 conspiracy the most valuable part of it is the fact that those trying to reveal it make themselves look so poorly.
“One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.”
Again, it is necessary to distinguish between ends: such as freedom fighting, and means: such as terrorism (even if we can’t completely agree on the exact definition). That way we can make seperate moral judgements on the means and the ends instead of allowing the ends to justify the means.
—————
Dan, one thing many in the Arab and Muslim world share with Americans is the love of conspiracy theories. They really don’t need the help pf Americans in that regard, and are quite capable of coming with their own theories.
The idea that ‘they’ hate America because they believe in the conspiracy theory about 9/11 you seem to subscribe to, is reflective more of you than of them. ‘They’ have a large variety of reasons to resent the US, some better some worse, some prior to 9/11 and Iraq, and some came after. Your conspiracy theory about 9/11, or even their theories, is quite insignificant in their large variety of reasons.
PAD is certainly correct that making a mess in Iraq certainly did not cause the Iraqis, or Arabs, or Muslims to like the US.
some Iraqis may have been happy to see Saddam go, and lliked the Americans for a while. Some may still do, while others may now resent the US for the mess they created. And also, of course, Iraqis, arabs, Muslims, are not homogenous, and their attitudes vary from one person to another, based on politics, religion etc.
It should also be pointed out that there are many blogs on the net in English written by Arabs and Iraqis. They don’t represent all of Iraqi or arab society, but they do provide some significant insight. Al-Jazirra is alo available on-line in English, as well as the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram, and probably several other papers and channels.
Yep, you missed it by a long shot.
First, you assume that I’m saying Bush was involved with 9/11 simply because I disagree with the Bush admin’s explanation.
Well, I likely missed it because you did such a great (deep sarcasm) job of conveying it. You throw out stuff about the real story behind 9/11, how the Iraqis may hate us because we falsely blamed Middle Easterners for what happened that day and you make a totally false claim that the highjackers I.D. was based on only word of mouth from one phone call. Then you throw out a conspiracy laced farce that has all the credibility of three dollar bill as a great place for us to go to start learning the hidden truth of the vast conspiracy of 9/11.
Gee, I don’t know how I somehow lumped you into the nutjobs that claim that our government was secretly behind the events of 9/11. Just can’t figure that one out at all.
“In Plane Sight” is a valuable documentary for its footage alone (and that’s why I brought it up). The news cameras have recorded much of what puts a lie to the BA’s explanation. You can disagree with the Power Hour guys all you want, but the footage provides all the material a critic needs.
Yeah, right. I’ve seen the thing. The footage is garbage. Half of it is based on bad angles that cause optical distortions or optical illusions to make their point of something being there other then what really is there. Another good chunk of it is footage that starts and stops just where they need it to in order to make their point. Thing is, if it started a few seconds sooner or ended a few seconds later, their point would sink like a rock. There’s a bit in there where they use footage and still frames to “prove” that there was an explosive charge set at the base of one of the buildings. You see a rapid burst of smoke that looks just like an explosion. But in the real world rather then their make believe one, that’s not what went down. Prior to where they start the footage, you can see a fire burning and creating a huge ball of smoke. The wind catches the smoke and whips it around the building to create the “explosion” that they show. After the spot where they end it, you can see the smoke move on with no sign of their fiery tale explosion.
They even got called bad on that one and tried to weasel out of just admitting that they lied by later presenting a photo that they claimed backed their story. They pulled it when even the brain dead masses that regularly visit their site pointed out that, due to the fact that one of the towers was gone in the photo, that the photo was either from a different time of day or a really bad photoshop job.
News cameras did record a lot of what happened that day. They just took the footage and took a lot of liberties with it.
And THAT is why all your apologies for Bush will not persuade Middle Easterners that they’ve gotten a raw deal from America.
Oh, I make apologies for Bush. I’m a Bush apologist.
Well, with that one statement you just lost every shred of credibility you might have been tenuously holding on to with anyone here other then maybe Mike. There is no way that anyone that has been here for a while and read anything that I have ever said about this administration would believe that I’m a Bush apologist. I’ve got posts here that outline the lies of this administration that likely contain more paragraphs then you have years of life. But because I won’t drink the kool-aid of some conspiracy laden fantasy, I’m making apologies for Bush.
Yeah, you’re an idiot.
See, here’s something you may have missed. You talk about the people of the Middle East being able to get all the information that we can and how they can find the truth out so easily, but you’re poorly attempted point is full of it. Try leaving behind your conspiracy boards for a few hours one day and check out what the news in the Middle East reports. You may have to download a few language packs if you want to do anything other then stare cluelessly at Arabic on some of the sites.
Their news was reporting that OBL hit us. Their news was playing footage of OBL declaring his great victory. Their news showed people there celebrating the 9/11 attacks. Their news plays video and audio updates from Al-Qaeda leaders talking about their threats and their plans to strike at us again as they did on 9/11. Their news and the people of the Middle East don’t even buy into the conspiracy nuttiness that you’re telling us would be a good starting point to learn the truth from.
And let me tell you something else about news footage. I saw a lot of it that day and for a good chunk of the day I was with guys who knew a hëll of a lot about missiles, weapons and explosives. 9/11 happened in the second week of my time at police academy. One of my best friends was in that class. This was his first civilian job after leaving the U.S. Army a few months earlier. He saw combat in Bosnia. One guy in our academy class was starting in on his second career. He had a full retirement from the Army prior to joining his department. We had an ex-Marine (yeah, I know), a girl who did a stint in the Air Force and several guys who saw time in Gulf 1 in there as well. We watched what was happing in real time that day and every single guy from that class who had a military background has said since that the kool-aid drinking conspiracy people are full of it.
But I didn’t just take their words for it. I’ve looked at the mindless pap from the conspiracy nuts. I’ve looked up what they claim their stuff shows and 999 time out of 1000 their proof just doesn’t hold up. That 1 time it does? Usually on something that doesn’t apply to the conspiracy itself but some minor side point.
Sorry, Rosie, but I’m still just not buying it.
Reading over my last few posts…
Look, 9/11 conspiracy nuts drive me nuts. I’m likely going to be sarcastic no matter what. But if anybody (other then Mike, Kayser, Preston, “Me” or dan) thinks that I’m being a bit to harsh in my posting, please tell me. Got some stuff going on that might be making me a bit cranky this next week or two and, while I do love being a bit cranky with nutjobs and a lot sarky, I don’t want to go unloading both barrels on people right now if it’s not called for.
If some of the guys on here that I like and/or respect (Bill, Bill, Sean, Micha, Lynch, Ries or Weber being in the top of the list) see me getting a wee bit too harsh or nasty with some nutball, point out that I may need to take a breather and reign it in a bit.
Thanks.
Ok dan, lets start over for a second.
You don’t think Bush was behind 9/11. You don’t think OBL was behind 9/11. You don’t think that it’s been proven that they were Al Qaida or even Muslims. You seem to think that evrything that’s official about 9/11 is just another Bush lie. You seem to think that we’re in some way wrong in our belief of what went down that day and since then.
Fine. Enlighten us Tell us who you think did the whole 9/11 thing and what really happened. That way, we won’t so easily mistake your points with points that we think you’re making.
The class is yours.
I don’t know if it’s possible to be too harsh with most of the 9/11 nuts. Some of them are genuinely horrible people–I saw one interview with 2 of the big cheeses in the movement where they actually implied that one father knewdid have his young son on iy. Think about that. What kind of soul do you have to make an accusation like that?
But, by arguing the point you are simply part of the big coverup. Those guys and gals you were with? Coverup. Popular Mechanics? Coverup. Rosie O’Donnel becoming the public face of the 9/11 deniers? Coverup. Karl Rove black ops.
This thing goes way deeper than you know. Nobody is safe. Wait, there’s someone at the door, I have to