Why terrorists will ultimately fail...

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 00:13
VIEWED: 9344
PAGE 10 of 14

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:40 PM

Quote:
What if, in some fictional fantasy stroke of magic, we could waltz into Iraq and kill “Saddam and his top military people” without any collateral damage, which resulted, as it likely would, in a civil war in which thousands of innocent people died. Would that be okay? Or what if the US simply left sanctions in place and thousands of innocent people continued to die. What that be okay? Or what if we just increased trade with Iraq? And Saddam killed thousands of innocent people while we were doing nothing but fattening out economy on Iraqi trade?

Oh quibble, quibble, whine, whine.

What if we imposed tarrifs that would be lifted for "good behavior"? What if we retained the "no-fly" zones? What if we expanded inspections? What if we placed area nations in charge of inspections in various regions? What if we used increased trade and the attendant increased presence of foreigners to infiltrate Iraq? What if Finn stopped shooting himself in the foot?

Oh wait... that would be impossible!

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
BTW I notice you're drifting into the SignyM/Rue mode of gratuitous insult. Please be sure to check with them before you start using any nicknames, though. Wouldn't want to get caught in a copyright infringement.

I didn't insult YOU at all. I said what you were saying was drivel and you need to open a history book if you think the actions of the Allies are synomonous with the actions of the coalition with respect to Iraq. I stand by that, the two are completely dissimilar, and it isn't an insult to say so.

So if I were to say "You're full of sh*t, Citizen." You would just take it as "I respectfully disagree" and not consider it personal? Cool.

Quote:
In fact both Vietnam and Korea were both attacked, remember that the Vietnam war was a war much like the Korean war, a conflict between North Vietnam and her allies (namely the PRC and USSR) and South Vietnam and her Allies, principally Australia, Korea and the USA.

Sorry but defending you allies is a whole lot different to 'pre-emptive' action undertaken on false evidence.

OK. So we're refining the definition of a terrorist a bit more: a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes (Note - the phrase "political purposes" has yet to be defined), except for reasons of self-defense or defense of allies.

Still a bit of wiggle room there. Suppose the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade blows up a bus of Israeli civilians to break up an IDF ambush of a Hamas leader. They're killing civilians to defend an ally, hence they're not terrorists.

Looks like the definition needs a bit more work.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Was Vietnam "terrorism" on our part?

Absolutely.

This is an absolute fact. No one on this board can justify what was done there, and if they could, I'd like to see them try.
(I like a good sh**storm, apparently)

Chrisisall

Having seen firsthand what the Viet Cong did to innocent civilians on a daily basis, I agree, there is no way to justify what they did.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FLETCH2

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch- you should feel ashamed of yourself. Here you're given a shiny brain and you fail to use it.

.

You have functional ears but you refuse to listen. I suspect that makes us even.

To be truthfull I didn't even notice your fascile "SWAT" analogy, and instead was talking to you as an adult rather than a teen with a TV cop show fetish. Ok if you want something more entertaining I'm game.

In "SWAT World" your scenario is more along these lines.

Some guys take hostages in a building. Before SWAT gets there 4 hostages are killed and 50 taken captive. The police cordon off the area and attempt to limit the people going in and out. The "mayor" (UN) gives the SWAT team general orders authorising security but for political reasons doesnt authorise an assault. Some of the hostages, knowing the cops are outside decide to do a "Flight 93" style rebelion against the gunmen. They are murdered immediately and after that no more hostages try anything.

The Mayor, not wanting bloodshed turns off the electricity to the building intending to sweat the gunmen out but for humanitarian reasons deliveries of food and water are provided. They wait, and weeks turn to months. It becomes clear that the gunmen are taking the bulk of the supplies for themselves and hardly suffering at all. Over time though heat and malnutrition work on the hostages and they start to die. The press covers every death. Since they know the mayor won't authorise an assault the press starts to feel that maybe the cordon around the building should be lifted and the gunmen allowed to escape rather than have more hostages die. SWAT knows that if the gunmen get away they will do the same sorts of things again and kill more people. They suspect some in the press have done deals with the gunmen for "exclusives" if they escape.

Then another group of gunmen attack two downtown office blocks and kill everyone inside. The city is paralysed by fear and the SWAT captain thinking fast starts to tell the press that the gunmen inside the building had all kinds of weapons going in, maybe they still have them? In which case if they are allowed to get away they could do far worse than wipe out two office buildings. Public support backs the captain, because folks in the city are scared. He uses the opertunity to order an attack without the mayor's blessing, citing one of the mayor's original orders and claiming an iminent threat. Most of the gunmen are eliminated and the hostages rescued. However some of the gunmen escape and start killing SWAT officers, former hostages and newcomers to the building out of revenge......

Roll credits.

Back in the real world you still haven't faced the point I put to you. Yet me explain it very simply this time.

It's the pottery barn principle --- if you break it you buy it. Except Iraq wasn't broken in 2003, it was broken in 1991 after Gulf War 1. We did that and then we put on sanctions to make sure it stayed broken. That left us in the following situation.

1) we had sanctions that combined with Saddam's neglect were killing thousands of Iraqis a year.

2) We had two no fly zones which limited Saddam just enough that he couldn't act with force against the Shiites or the Kurds.

3) We had substantial political pressure on the UN to lift sanctions some of which we now know was paid for by Saddam using Oil for Food money.

That puts us in a crap position as follows. Let's look at our options.

Plan A
------
The status quo, keep sanctions and the no fly zones. This has the following effects.

1) Thousands of Iraqi's starve to death each year.
2) US and UK aviators risk being shot down daily patroling the no fly zone, so there are risks of allied dead.
3) To provide troops for the no fly zone US troops have to stay in places like Saudi. This pisses off folks like Bin Laden. The Iraqi deaths continue to piss off the Arab street. We are seen as the bad guys.
4) If the US keeps vetoing the lifting of sanctions at the UN there will be diplomatic repercusions

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:16 PM

Finn, you make more than a few good points, but let me try to go outside the box for a moment.

After 911 it was my idea that we should have spent the time we needed gathering the precise intel, then sent teams after the terrorist strongholds, taken out Bin-Laden, and as many of his goons as possible, and then focus on destroying Iraq's defensive capabilities; all WITHOUT a formal declaration of war, and all as quickly and quietly as possible.
(This is all under the assumption that Saddam HAD to be taken out when he was, I still say that that should have been done during the Gulf War, and the necessity of the Gulf War is assuming we couldn't have seen the attack on Kuwait coming- big assumptions, I think...)

After all, the schoolyard punk punches you, you don't formally declare a defensive strike; you hit 'em.

But in the end, there is no totally bloodless way out...

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Having seen firsthand what the Viet Cong did to innocent civilians on a daily basis, I agree, there is no way to justify what they did.

They certainly performed their part, and we kept up with them, did we not?

Chrisisall

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Having seen firsthand what the Viet Cong did to innocent civilians on a daily basis, I agree, there is no way to justify what they did.

They certainly performed their part, and we kept up with them, did we not?

Chrisisall

I'd probably disagree with you there, but that's outside the scope of this thread.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So if I were to say "You're full of sh*t, Citizen." You would just take it as "I respectfully disagree" and not consider it personal? Cool.

Not only did I not say that, my statements can't be construed as such. I said you trying to equate the current situation in Iraq is drivel, Too put it on a level with what you have just said to me: at that moment you were talking shit, which is a wholly different thing to saying you are full of shit. One is saying your wrong, the other is an insult directed at you.

In fact the way I see it to construe what I said as a personal insult means one of three possibilities:
A) You are quite possibly the most over-sensitive person around here.
B) You're trying to pull the 'stop insulting me' card in order to discredit me.
C) You think someone pointing out your 'point' is absurd is a personal insult. Actually see A) for that one.

So which is it? Personally I'm leaning to B), considering you've not actually hit on any of my points and merely going with the "You're insulting me, waa!" line. Stop playing the hard done by thing, it doesn't impress.

Oh and the only person who's done any obvious insultin' here would be you, I'm not full of shit, I await your apology for the unsolicited personal insult.

Quote:
OK. So we're refining the definition of a terrorist a bit more: a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes (Note - the phrase "political purposes" has yet to be defined), except for reasons of self-defense or defense of allies.

Still a bit of wiggle room there. Suppose the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade blows up a bus of Israeli civilians to break up an IDF ambush of a Hamas leader. They're killing civilians to defend an ally, hence they're not terrorists.

Looks like the definition needs a bit more work.

I didn't define anything, you're having that conversation with SignyM, do try to keep up please. I said the situations of WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and hell the first Gulf War bear no relation to the current situation in Iraq.

Here's a hint, there is but one parallel between those wars and the current situation in Iraq, American Troops are doing some of the fighting. There the similarities begin and end.

But since you want to drag me in too the "Is Bush a terrorist?" argument, for whatever reason I don't know:

A terrorist is someone who specifically TARGETS civilians in order to produce fear in a civilian population to bring pressure to that populations governing body, in order to satisfy a political end.

Simply put Bush doesn't need to be a terrorist. If the IRA or Al qaeda had the resources of the American Military they wouldn't be Terrorists either.

Think about it if Osama had a military to rival the US he could just tell the US to get bent, and there would be Sweet FA ya'll could do about it. He wouldn't need too fly planes into buildings to satisfy his political ends, he'd just have to rattle his Sabre ever now and then.

Is Bush a Terrorist? I don't think so, for a start he lacks the subtlety (yes it requires a degree of subtlety) and intelligence to operate a terrorist network. Secondly the coalition forces aren't specifically targeting civilians, though that having been said the coalition forces have attacked civilians, whether this is a case of mistaken identity or actual targeting of civilians, or whether that puts the coalition in the realm of 'terrorists' is something I'll leave to the reader to decide.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

GEEZER

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So a terrorist is someone who kills non-combatants in order to be able to create and enforce laws.

How's that for a first cut?

So that makes Lincoln a terrorist? He killed many non-combatants during the sieges of several Confederate cities, all so he could enforce his laws of Federalism and abolition of slavery. So we still need some work.

But maybe we can simplify. Let's go back to good old Webster's II for a moment.

Terrorism - Systemic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

There's no specific definition of "terrorist", just a note under Terrorism that its the noun form. I guess that makes it:

Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

And that's really no help, because anyone who conducts a military campaign uses violence, terror and intimidation. Looks Like Webster's let me down this time.

But lets throw your "non-combatants" into the mix and see.

Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation against non-combatants to achieve an end.

Closer, but still could apply to, say, strategic bombing as part of an overall military campaign. Need even more emphasis on the non-combatants.

i]Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation, primarily against non-combatants, to achieve an end.

So. Does this get us any closer to agreement on what a terrorist is? I think we still have to determine if there should be more detail in the "...to achieve an end" part. Is there any end which justifies the use of violence, etc. primarily against non-combatants? But maybe we can at least have a start.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 28, 2006 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation, primarily against non-combatants, or one who supports, directly or indirectly with full knowledge, such a person or organization, to achieve an end.

I'd go with this.

Chrisisall

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE