It is a country that we know has supported terrorism

[FluffyMcDeath]

There is nothing particularly surprising about this. In point of fact almost all states (and I only say almost just in case it can be shown that there is one that has not) support or have supported terrorism. I am not excusing or condoning terrorism based on who or why it was done, on the contrary. I denounce all terrorists and hold that they should all be condemned equally. Unfortunately that is merely an ideal and is not the world we live in. In real life it matters who you kill for.
[youtube:11wj24ej]6gW6Dyr1qBU[/youtube:11wj24ej]

 

[Robert]

His case has long shown the hypocrisy of the rhetoric we're fed on a daily basis.

 

[faethor]

It's been said that our 'Freedom Fighters' are simply terrorists that meet with our approval.

 

[Glaucus]

War is terrorism. The allies bombed Dresden and killed 50,000 people. I'm pretty sure being on the receiving end of that was pretty darn terrorizing. Shock and Awe in Iraq was also terrorizing for those who had bombs falling around them. Some may argue that the US uses precision strikes and does all it can to protect civilians. That can be countered by the fact that some terrorist groups do in fact call the police and inform them of a bomb so as to clear the area before it goes off (very common in Greece and Spain, and I personally witnessed it when a bomb went off in a hotel next to mine, which was evacuated and surrounded by police - still, very terrifying for me).

Perhaps part of the problem we have with this new buzz word is that for years the powers the be have been trying to clean up war's image. Vietnam gave war a pretty ugly face, as that war allowed us to experience the full horror of war in our living rooms. And guess what? We didn't like it. Since then a campaign has taken place to improve war's image - and it has worked brilliantly. The Gulf War in '91 and the bombing of Kosovo helped change the attitude we have with war. Thanks to modern technology, war is surgical and precise, or at least that's what we're told. Talk about it that way long enough and mistakes like bombing the Chinese embassy or a bridge just before a civilian train was to cross it can be easily overlooked. War is no longer presented as an act of primal violence but as a well orchestrated police action. Surely witnessing war is no now more terrorizing then witnessing someone being arrested. Now, enter the terrorists who do about as much killing but choose to shove the violence in your face. No attempt at all to keep things clean and sanitary, in fact they do all they can to make the biggest mess possible. This now troubles us deeply. And that's not necessarily a problem - we should be troubled by terrorists. The problem here is that we forgotten that war is also terrorizing, and for me that's the real problem.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

War is terrorism.

That's exactly the phrase that was going through my head last night while I was listening to a news item on "the drone wars". Fly in, bomb people, fly out and no personal risk at all. Suicide bombers have so much more on the line.

That can be countered by the fact that some terrorist groups do in fact call the police and inform them of a bomb so as to clear the area before it goes off

Not only that but attacks involving the car bombing of police stations or when a suicide bomber blows themselves up on a bus full of off-duty soldiers are clearly attacks against state organs of power. It's standard military doctrine. You need to replace their security regime with yours and if you can't co-opt the security apparatus you have to destroy it - at least to the point that they agree to work for you rather than who they were working for before. Of course, what state actors have over rebels and small armed resistance is the ability to provide better bribes by taxing their own subjects - and a clearly more terrifying destructive capability.

Perhaps part of the problem we have with this new buzz word is that for years the powers the be have been trying to clean up war's image.

Image management has been very important. It's just one more reason that the establishment laments the internet. It was the only way that any of us were able to see the victims of US actions in Iraq, for example, and the internet helped drive the unraveling of the Private Lynch propaganda theatre.

and mistakes like bombing the Chinese embassy

That wasn't a mistake. That was a crime of opportunity under cover of war. The US doesn't need China around while it's fighting a war, plus it's an opportunity to give them a poke in the eye. The US doesn't need Al Jazeera or any other journalists it doesn't control poking around digging up uncleaned stories.

Getting rid of a hostile powers embassy is a way to prevent them from getting real intelligence from the ground and limits their ability to operate influence.

Killing off uncontrolled journalists helps limit unflattering war coverage from escaping the theatre.

 

[Robert]

Some may argue that the US uses precision strikes and does all it can to protect civilians.

Indeed and those "some" who parrot such insidious rubbish fall into two categories: bloodthirsty liars or gullible fools.

If the US (or any other military) really wanted to protect civilians it wouldn't bomb them in the first place.

 

[Glaucus]

Not only that but attacks involving the car bombing of police stations or when a suicide bomber blows themselves up on a bus full of off-duty soldiers are clearly attacks against state organs of power.

Technically, police officers are considered civilians as they are not military. At least in most Western nations although highly authoritarian nations tend to blur that line. Still, if the US dropped a bomb on an Iranian police station, would you consider that fair play? It's quite different from dropping a bomb on a navy ship or army barracks as these are designed to defend such an attack or at the very least know they are being attacked.

As for off duty soldiers, I'm not sure how to classify that. Usually off duty soldiers aren't on buses, unless it's a civilian bus. But being off duty doesn't just mean they're not in combat, it also means they're unarmed and without any direct line of command. When I think of off duty soldiers I think of guys in bars or restaurants or with their family. In other words, very similar to civilians. If we say that killing soldiers in this kind of setting is ok, then where's the problem with drone attacks which target militants hiding amongst civilians? And in fact, one could argue al-qaeda style militants are really never off-duty as their primary weapon is fear and thus always dangerous. Also how about nations like Greece which draft all males at a certain age to potentially defend the nation if need be. Since all Greek adult males are considered army reservists, are all Greek males fair targets? Personally, I'm not sure that off-duty soldiers should be considered fair game for a military or terrorist strike. However, key leadership personnel may be the exception as taking them out, even on Christmas while visiting their family, can potentially alter the course of a war and even save lives elsewhere.

That wasn't a mistake. That was a crime of opportunity under cover of war.

Yes, there was much speculation about that, but for the sake of the argument I was making, that wasn't really important. Either way, it was seen as an accident and people forgot about it is what I was getting at.

 

[Glaucus]

Some may argue that the US uses precision strikes and does all it can to protect civilians.

Indeed and those "some" who parrot such insidious rubbish fall into two categories: bloodthirsty liars or gullible fools.

If the US (or any other military) really wanted to protect civilians it wouldn't bomb them in the first place.

Slightly off topic, but have you seen the movie "The Battle for Haditha"? I highly recommend it. I believe it's a British made film and it's pretty gritty.

 

[Robert]

If we say that killing soldiers in this kind of setting is ok...

I don't think that is quite what Fluffy meant. At least, that's not how I read it.

 

[Robert]

Some may argue that the US uses precision strikes and does all it can to protect civilians.

Indeed and those "some" who parrot such insidious rubbish fall into two categories: bloodthirsty liars or gullible fools.

If the US (or any other military) really wanted to protect civilians it wouldn't bomb them in the first place.

Slightly off topic, but have you seen the movie "The Battle for Haditha"? I highly recommend it. I believe it's a British made film and it's pretty gritty.

The name rings a bell but I can't say for sure. I'll try to check it out. (Bit busy for movies just now - got some other stuff on the go. Maybe later tonight.)

 

[cecilia]

Perhaps part of the problem we have with this new buzz word is that for years the powers the be have been trying to clean up war's image. Vietnam gave war a pretty ugly face, as that war allowed us to experience the full horror of war in our living rooms. And guess what? We didn't like it.

yup. war is UGLY

and remembering that fact should keep people properly revolted by it and resistant to doing it

I'll do my part to remind people

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Technically, police officers are considered civilians as they are not military.

In international military on military conflicts this is normally the case at the start. The military are the international enforcement of state authority and therefore at the international level these forces engage in peer to peer conflict. If all goes smoothly for the victors they generally leave the police intact and merely take them over. If the police are uncooperative or considered untrustworthy they will subsequently be dismantled and replaced.

In an internal conflict both the army and the police enforce the central authority and so are both legitimate targets.

As for off duty soldiers, I'm not sure how to classify that.

All conscripted populations are legitimate military targets. Heck, all factory workers in munitions plants or the general population of manufacturing cities are legitimate military targets. That argument has been made and acted on by many victors who are then free to justify it afterward and say how it accelerated the end of the war and thus actually saved many lives.

However, what you target depends on your ability to hit your target. If you can get to the generals then hit them. If you can get to high level intelligence operatives, like the suicide bomb in Afghanistan that took out several high level CIA, then good for you. Was that suicide bombing a terrorist attack? It was precisely targeted, highly effective and hit an important asset.

On the other hand, if all you can get to is off duty soldiers it's still worth reducing the number of soldiers in an area. If all local males are conscripts then they are targets. In fact, militaries though history have regularly rounded up all fighting age males when taking territory, the US included. Taking out a major financial center of a country that depends on and rules by finance makes for a military target. Warfare is about winning and anything that you can hit to help you win is a target. Your capabilities dictate your targets. Terrorists greatest crime is poor capabilities. They are militarily impolite and lack the PR machine to smooth things over.

If an Iraqi detonates his vest and blows up a general then it's terrorism. If the USAF drops a few thousand pounders on a hospital then it's just "It's a war. Sh!t happens".

 

[Glaucus]

Well, I think we agree that there's not much difference between a targeted missile strike and a targeted suicide bombing. Terrorism is just a weapon of war. I think something many governments would like us to think is that terrorism is only when people try to kill innocent civilians and war is only when governments try to kill the enemy.

As for killing police and off duty soldiers, well it all depends if you're talking about Geneva conventions or the reality of war. Obviously, if desperate enough, there are no targets or weapons off limits. However, the fact that it happens doesn't mean it's morally acceptable. One of course could argue that morals don't really count when survival is on the line. And in fact it could even be argued that the Geneva conventions only help improve the image of war, thus making it more likely. Regardless of one's views I would expect to see some consistency. If one argues that all reservists are fair game, then all fighting males are equally fair game when fighting against an insurgency. If blowing up soldier recruits in a crowded street is fair game, so is dropping a bomb on an insurgent's wedding party.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

However, the fact that it happens doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.

This is where the fun is. The propaganda departments are all about moving this line around. It's an important part of fighting a war. Once you have left "responding in self defense to an immediate threat" behind it's all about spin and might.