The War on "some" Terrorism

[KafirChobee]

Curious, I was hoping the news media would become more involved in this story - rather than the one day 2 minute span it was given. Then again, it wasn't as important as Michael Jackson or a follow up on Schiavo's autopsy.

No, instead it is about our president considering giving "ass"ylum to a known terrorist. Then again, as I suggest, maybe we are only at war with some terrorists - others being OK if they work along the ideological lines we like or oppose those in our disfavor.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050518/anticuban_terrorism_is_still_terrorism.php

Now, one doesnot have to agree with the source (look for other sources in the main stream if you like), but it is as good as any for now.

Luis Posada Carriles, was responsible for the Oct, 1976 airlines bombing that killed 73 persons. Including members of a teenage fencing team. He was caught by the Venezuelan police and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. Carriles escaped in 1985 - and was totally unrepentant for his actions. [actually he was quite proud of them]

In 1991 he tried to assassinate a head of state - Castro (it is in our laws btw that it is illegal to condone such a thing, let alone protect an assassin).

He openly admits involvement in a series of hotel bombings in Cuba - "to keep the tourists away". One such bombing killed an Italian tourist, and many others were injured by them.

Now this guy has filed for asylum in the USA. To even imagine a president considering such a move is preposterous. I mean, the guy is here illegally anyway - give him up to the nations he has injured and be done with it. Why should he be given any more consideration than the combatants held at Gitmo (and other points around the globe where torture is condoned)?

Turn the slime bucket over to Castro, let him deal with it. After all the man is a known terrorist, and proud of it. Or, are we just in a war against some terrorist?

:balloon2:

[PanzerJaeger]

I think your definition is much more accurate than the one the president uses. Of course presidents have to dumb things down a bit.

The truth is that we are only fighting some terrorists.. those that have declared themselves our enemies.

As others have said on this board - terrorism is a form of warfare, not a person or group.

We are fighting AQ and the other islamic extremists who hate us, but its much easier to simply say we are fighting all terrorists.

As for the cuban - as far as i know he was once working for us via the CIA. We should never turn over our former agents to the enemy they worked against. That would undermine our credibility and intelligence even more than it already is.

Imagine what our agents in Syria or Iran would think if they saw us turning over a former agent to the government he helped us work against. Its ridiculous. :dizzy2:

[sharrukin]

I think your definition is much more accurate than the one the president uses. Of course presidents have to dumb things down a bit.

The truth is that we are only fighting some terrorists.. those that have declared themselves our enemies.

As others have said on this board - terrorism is a form of warfare, not a person or group.

We are fighting AQ and the other islamic extremists who hate us, but its much easier to simply say we are fighting all terrorists.

As for the cuban - as far as i know he was once working for us via the CIA. We should never turn over our former agents to the enemy they worked against. That would undermine our credibility and intelligence even more than it already is.

Imagine what our agents in Syria or Iran would think if they saw us turning over a former agent to the government he helped us work against. Its ridiculous. :dizzy2:

And what about the terrorists that other countries are working with? Do they adopt the same policies as the United States? What about Osama Bin Laden who the United States was working with in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation? If he is caught in Venezuela or Cuba, what then? Do we really want to establish this as a precedent because these things have a tendency to return and haunt us in later years. Osama Bin Laden sounded like a good idea at the time as well.

We should wage war against all terrorists wherever they are and whoever supports them.

[PanzerJaeger]

I dont expect for a second that Cuba or any other nation would hand over any of its former agents to us.. so there is no precedent to be made.

Your definition of terrorist and mine are probably different. We should focus on fighting the people that hate us, not the tactic they use.

[sharrukin]

I dont expect for a second that Cuba or any other nation would hand over any of its former agents to us.. so there is no precedent to be made.
Libya did!



Your definition of terrorist and mine are probably different. We should focus on fighting the people that hate us, not the tactic they use.

My definition of terrorist is a paramilitary or civilian who targets civilians rather than military targets.

That kind of logic gave us Osama Bin Laden! He was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, so he was of use to us, and it only made sense to use him as a tool against the Soviets who were our enemies. We did the same thing in Kosovo with much the same result. How many times will we create, fund and train the very groups that murder our own people? Who exactly is the enemy then?

[Tribesman]

We should focus on fighting the people that hate us, not the tactic they use.
So its OK if you put bombs on civilian airliners and murder tourists as long as you are a friend of the US governmnet . :dizzy2:

[A.Saturnus]

Well, I think the president is just exhibiting what some people usually call "moral relativism".

[Al Khalifah]

Other notable terrorists might include George Washington. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's a nasty consequence of modern warfare and geo-politics where major nations cannot openly engage one another and so they have to resort to special combatant units who can often be branded as terrorists.
Terrorists are convenient simply because they can be discarded and knowledge of their actions can be so easily denied by their operators. Unfortunately when terrorists are left for dead, either because they have become a political embarrasment or their cause no longer equates to others or they are succesful in their goals, they can easily turn against their former controllers.

[Don Corleone]

Well, other than to make a dig at Americans, there's no reason to call George Washington a terrorist. Using that kind of moral equivalency, I could say (AND I AM NOT) there's no difference between Nazi Germany and Imperial Britain. You could say that George Washington was a partisan, but partisan does not equal terrorist.

Why wasn't George Washington a terrorist? Because his attacks focused exclusively on military targets. Show me one verifiable instance of him attacking loyalist civilians without military value and I'll stand up and loudly proclaim him a terrorist. Until then, I think you ought to keep that sort of rubbish to yourself.

[Franconicus]

Even though rebels/freedom fighters are called terrorist as well they are different to what AQ did. AQ killed innocent people. For what? Just hate :thumbsdown:
I think for the Brits George was a kind of terrorist. Guess they would have sent him to Gitmo if they could ~D
Maybe they'd call him illegal combatant :laugh3:

[CBR]

Even though rebels/freedom fighters are called terrorist as well they are different to what AQ did. AQ killed innocent people. For what? Just hate :thumbsdown:

AQ have a political purpose for their terror just as most other terrorists have.


CBR

[PanzerJaeger]

Libya did!

And Im sure that undermined their intelligence and their agent's trust in the government.


My definition of terrorist is a paramilitary or civilian who targets civilians rather than military targets.

Where the British and American bomber pilots who torched Dresden terrorists?


That kind of logic gave us Osama Bin Laden! He was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, so he was of use to us, and it only made sense to use him as a tool against the Soviets who were our enemies. We did the same thing in Kosovo with much the same result. How many times will we create, fund and train the very groups that murder our own people? Who exactly is the enemy then?

I never said we should continue to fund or support terrorists - only that we should focus on our declared enemies, not some vague tactic.

[PanzerJaeger]

So its OK if you put bombs on civilian airliners and murder tourists as long as you are a friend of the US governmnet .

Theres no need to put words in other people's mouths.

You seem to have missed the point. If we were to start handing over our former agents to the governments they helped us work against, it would seriously undermine our intelligence gathering abilities as no one would want to put their neck on the line just to get sold down the river at a later date.

I dont like what this guy did, but for the time being its better that America demonstrates it doesnt betray its agents than hand him over to Cuba.

By the way, for someone so outspoken about the need for the Gitmo detainees to get fair trials, you dont seem to concerned about the "justice" this guy would get in Cuba. ~;)

[Franconicus]

AQ have a political purpose for their terror just as most other terrorists have.


CBR
What is the political purpose? I think it is more about hate and revenge. But maybe it would be a good topic to discuss the purpose of AQ.

[CBR]

Well basically you can consider them to be Arabic nationalists and in their struggle they face corrupt local governments that are supported by the West/USA.

Their conclusion on how to win this struggle is to focus on removing this outside support and thats done by using terror to make the West go away. Earlier the focus was more local but thats been stopped pretty good by the local governments like you see in Algeria or Egypt.


CBR

[Al Khalifah]

Well, other than to make a dig at Americans, there's no reason to call George Washington a terrorist. Using that kind of moral equivalency, I could say (AND I AM NOT) there's no difference between Nazi Germany and Imperial Britain. You could say that George Washington was a partisan, but partisan does not equal terrorist.


Other notable terrorists might include George Washington. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I think my second sentence pretty much invalidates your criticism. I wasn't calling him a terrorist and I don't believe him to have been. I was stating that as a contemporary or historian you could/can do so - in much the same way as you quite correctly point out that it can be argued that Imperial Britain was just as evil as Nazi Germany.


Until then, I think you ought to keep that sort of rubbish to yourself.
Completely unnecessary.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Their conclusion on how to win this struggle is to focus on removing this outside support and thats done by using terror to make the West go away.

Well when they say that they want the west to go away they mean entirely like the arabs mean when then say they wish Israel would go away.

[A.Saturnus]

Where the British and American bomber pilots who torched Dresden terrorists?


In this case we speak of war criminals instead of terrorists. The difference is rather rhetoric though.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Where the British and American bomber pilots who torched Dresden terrorists?

Yes.

[CBR]

Well when they say that they want the west to go away they mean entirely like the arabs mean when then say they wish Israel would go away.

If you mean to wipe us all out then no I dont think many of them mean that. Thats just standard Arabian rhetorics, they just love a good shock and awe speech ~:)


CBR

[KafirChobee]

Theres no need to put words in other people's mouths.

You seem to have missed the point. If we were to start handing over our former agents to the governments they helped us work against, it would seriously undermine our intelligence gathering abilities as no one would want to put their neck on the line just to get sold down the river at a later date.

I dont like what this guy did, but for the time being its better that America demonstrates it doesnt betray its agents than hand him over to Cuba.

By the way, for someone so outspoken about the need for the Gitmo detainees to get fair trials, you dont seem to concerned about the "justice" this guy would get in Cuba. ~;)


1. WAS connected to the CIA (as in all trained for the Bay of Pigs). Regardless, I would have to say he became a rogue, therefore, no longer deserves our loyalty. Especially since he murdered innocent people for a abstract political vendetta - he hates Castro and thinks his demise will end his regime's form of governement (so Cuba can go back to the good old days of political corruption). Carriles is no hero, he's a murderer. (period)

2. He betrayed our "moral" line - by killing the innocent out-right. What do we owe this scumbag?

3. He already had a fair trial, in Venezuela. Carriles is an escaped fugitive. OK, don't send him to Cuba. Send him back to prison in Venezuela.

The idea that giving this creep up will somehow affect our agents elsewhere is bogus. Unless of course the CIA is telling agents to commit acts of terrorism - in which case a moral line has been crossed that makes us no better than al Qaeda (or any other organization labeled as "terrorists").

If we lower our standards to theirs, then we have lost the war already.

If we redefine who or what a terrorist is by political definition, or religious preference - we have lost the war.

There is no moral high ground in seperating one terrorist from another, because of "why" they killed innocent people. To attempt to redefine the term is to lessen the act of terrorism to a political justification, that both sides can use. Something either is an act of terrorism, or it is not. Creating an acceptable middle ground that supports some acts, but not others by saying only the ones directed at us are bad - all others are good - deminshes us and demonizes us even further to those that oppose our way of life. It all but justifies their actions.


:balloon2:

[As for Dresden and Tokyo, I agree, Lemay should have stood trial as a war criminal. But, we won the wars - and the victors give their war criminals medals and accolades. Never punishment.]

[Ironside]

Well when they say that they want the west to go away they mean entirely like the arabs mean when then say they wish Israel would go away.

I would actually want to see a quote on that one. Otherwise we're on suspicions on what thier purpose is and that is about the same as talking about the American people going into Iraq for oil. Take Osama's attemt to make a gap between US and Europe when claiming that countries like Sweden was safe and that he only wanted to fight US. This would contradict your statement.
Now we don't know if it was a 100% lie or not, but simply labling them "radical fanatics with the intent to destroy the western world, and introduce wahabism (sp?) in the entire world" based on nothing isn't effective. Now if the are recruiting based on the thing above then you're correct.

Now is this necessary only from the "understanding your enemy" purpose as they are dangerous terrorists, that needs to be stopped in any case. But knowing your enemy is an advantage.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I would actually want to see a quote on that one.

Well they do leave us an option. Convert to Islam. Do you doubt me?

From Bin Laden himself in his demands on America



(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.


Now yoy may think hes joking but those who died on 911 may dissagree.

[Steppe Merc]

Washington wasn't a terrorist. Some of the "freedom fighters" were, like those that tar and feathered loyalists, as well as the Tea Party people. But not Washington, as far as I know.

And we should not give this guy asylum. He doesn't deserve it, he's killed innocents. End of story, for me.

[Tribesman]

By the way, for someone so outspoken about the need for the Gitmo detainees to get fair trials, you dont seem to concerned about the "justice" this guy would get in Cuba
Yes Panzer "fair trials" , since this person has already been convicted , and is an escaped convict who entered your country as an illegal immigrant wanted for international terrorism I would have thought that you would be glad to get rid of him , since he seems to fit all of the criteria of persons who you feel are major threats to you .
As he has gone on record several times admitting his guilt (just in case you were in any doubt) then any trial would just be a formality .

for the time being its better that America demonstrates it doesnt betray its agents
Maybe it would be a better demonstration if America didn't support terrorists in the first place .

[Don Corleone]

Perhaps I should remind everyone I think they should proceed with turning this guy over to Interpol, or some other 3rd party that, if they decide to give him to Castro, with his human right's record, then at least it's not on our hands. Asylum should not be an option for somebody who went around blowing up children, Cuban or any other variety.

And Al Khalifah, your 2nd sentance invalidates nothing I said. You said:


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

A freedom fighter, or partisan, is a non-regular soldier that attacks military targets of an opposing force. A terrorist is one who specifically targets civilian targets. If you think the two are morally equivalent and cannot see a difference, I suppose the conversation ends here.

[Don Corleone]

In this case we speak of war criminals instead of terrorists. The difference is rather rhetoric though.

As were the British and American generals that designed and ordered the strike. I'm deeply ashamed of what happened at Dresden. It is a stain on our national honor.

[Don Corleone]

Simply amazing. I didn't think Khafir and I would ever agree on anything. Very eloquently put. ~:cheers:

[Ironside]

Well they do leave us an option. Convert to Islam. Do you doubt me?

From Bin Laden himself in his demands on America


So either he contradicted himself or was running on a very thin line (that this is only for the US and not for the western world).

Good to know.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So either he contradicted himself

Where did he contradict himself. Coonverting to Islam is just the first of his demands and there not limited to the US. This is what many of you fail to realise that its the goal of radical Islam to convert the world . Its also the the goal of moderate Islam if there is any such thing.

[Steppe Merc]

Gawain, isn't it the goal of every religion to convert the world?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain, isn't it the goal of every religion to convert the world?

Does the bible call for Jihad?

[PanzerJaeger]

3. He already had a fair trial, in Venezuela. Carriles is an escaped fugitive. OK, don't send him to Cuba. Send him back to prison in Venezuela.

That works for me. My only concern is that our foreign agents dont see us handing a former agent over to the government he worked against. That undermines confidence.

[sharrukin]

My definition of terrorist is a paramilitary or civilian who targets civilians rather than military targets.



Where the British and American bomber pilots who torched Dresden terrorists?

Canadians as well. My opinion is that the men who ordered it were war criminals, but not terrorists. I cannot see any value in murdering German housewives any more than I can see any legitimate purpose to murdering American secretaries on September eleventh. I do understand that during wartime civilians die despite what you might do to prevent that. What I do not understand is the deliberate targeting of civilians by military forces with little or no gain for the war effort. The raids were called terror raids and were in fact a form of terrorism that has never been proven to work. The same effort concentrated on any other military target like oil, rail, roads, etc would have resulted in far greater returns.



I never said we should continue to fund or support terrorists - only that we should focus on our declared enemies, not some vague tactic.

If terrorism is just some vague tactic what so bad about it?

[Al Khalifah]

I cannot see any value in murdering German housewives any more than I can see any legitimate purpose to murdering American secretaries on September eleventh. I do understand that during wartime civilians die despite what you might do to prevent that. What I do not understand is the deliberate targeting of civilians by military forces with little or no gain for the war effort.
Its a common tactic of total warfare to target enemy civilian targets as well as military and industrial targets. Attacking civilian targets greatly demoralizes the enemy populace, reducing their willingness to continue the fight. Without support from the civilian population the Germans could not have continued the war. Think of Sherman in Atlanta.
Also, attacking the civilian population reduces the enemy production capacity. A dead or incapacitated worker is unable to work in a munitions factory, treat wounded enemy soldiers or grow crops to feed the enemy army. Without these logistical components, an army cannot function.
The British bombing raids on German cities also caused Hitler to target the Luftwaffe away from the British air and ground defenses and onto British civilian targets. The British defenses were nearly completely spent just prior to the end of the Battle of Britain, with insufficient pilots and planes to continue the war indefinitely. By forcing the shift of German offensives to targets that by comparison they could afford to lose, their armed forces were able to recover and the Germans lost the initiative.

[Franconicus]

Its a common tactic of total warfare to target enemy civilian targets as well as military and industrial targets.
Then total war is crime.
After the German attacks on Warzaw and Rotterdam President Roosevelt warned all countries and told them that bombing of cities is not acceptable for any reason.
And think of the military ethos before WW1. No officer from Germany, France or GB would have thought of attacking a citiy just to kill the civilists. This is abhorrent.

[Al Khalifah]

Some examples of total warfare before the First World War that featured attacks on civilian targets:
The Punic Wars
Caesar's Gallic Campaigns
Zhànguó Shídài
French Revolution
American Civil War - Sherman's March to the Sea
Taiping Civil War

In addition, attacking of other nations maritime interests during wartime has been common throughout history. This form of attack on civilian targets was very common during the Age of European Expansion and the American War of Independance. Private and military vessels would be given free reign to attack civilian ships on the official grounds that they hindered the enemy war effort. It also had a major revival during the First and Second World Wars.

Almost every war also involves attacking the food supply of the opposition army. Ultimately this will lead to civilian casualties.

During city sieges (especially in the 16th - 19th centuries), civilian populations were starved out as well as the armed forces occupying the settlement. If these cities were captured by the aggressor storming the city, mass civilian casualties would insue as well as great damage to property.

I'm not saying that all the generals involved were attacking or besieging the cities in order to kill the civilian population or were guilty of intentionally doing them harm, but they must have been fully aware that their actions would result in extensive civilian casualties.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Attacking civilian targets greatly demoralizes the enemy populace, reducing their willingness to continue the fight. Without support from the civilian population the Germans could not have continued the war.

Actually for most of the war it just pissed them off and made them more determined to win. Same for the Brits when the Germans bombed them. Japan wasnt about to give up even with B-29s destroying their cities everyday until we nuked them. It can and many times does work in just the opposite fashin that you described.



Then total war is crime.

THat it is and there are conventions and laws against it now.


Its a common tactic of total warfare to target enemy civilian targets as well as military and industrial targets.

It may be common but its still a war crime. Bombing military targets and industrial targets is fine. If a guys working in a factory thats suppying things for the war and he gets killed thats the way te cookie crumbles. But to target large residential areas is nothing short of murder and fits to a T the definition of terrorism.

[Steppe Merc]

I'm with Gawain and Franconicus. Total war is most deffinetly a crime. Anyone that targets a non combantant is a criminal, IMO.

[sharrukin]

I think Gawain said most of it for me. I would add that the resources that are often used against civilians would generate far greater results against industrial or military targets. For example, the thousands of bombers that were used in the terror raids could have made a substantial difference in the anti-submarine campaign from 1939 to 1942. It was only later than significant numbers of bombers were given to Maritime Command and it should have been done much sooner.

The same number of men, material and money could have been turned to fighter bombers like the Mosquito, B-26, B-25, etc with a much higher accuracy for bomb delivery as well as generally higher survival rates for the crews. The crippling campaign in northern France by these same aircraft against a variety of targets showed what could have been done if they had been thinking more clearly.


Its a common tactic of total warfare to target enemy civilian targets as well as military and industrial targets. Attacking civilian targets greatly demoralizes the enemy populace, reducing their willingness to continue the fight. Without support from the civilian population the Germans could not have continued the war.

Except that they did continue the war, and they were more than willing to fight! The Volksgrenadier divisions were largely composed of newly recruited civilians, so the tactic doesn't seem to have produced much in the way of results.



Think of Sherman in Atlanta.
By the fall of 1864 the CSA had lost the war. Regarding Sherman in Atlanta when was Atlanta recaptured by the Confederacy? My understanding was that it remained in Union hands. What purpose was served by attacks on civilians and the destruction of Union held property?



Also, attacking the civilian population reduces the enemy production capacity. A dead or incapacitated worker is unable to work in a munitions factory, treat wounded enemy soldiers or grow crops to feed the enemy army. Without these logistical components, an army cannot function.
The British bombing raids on German cities also caused Hitler to target the Luftwaffe away from the British air and ground defenses and onto British civilian targets. The British defenses were nearly completely spent just prior to the end of the Battle of Britain, with insufficient pilots and planes to continue the war indefinitely. By forcing the shift of German offensives to targets that by comparison they could afford to lose, their armed forces were able to recover and the Germans lost the initiative.

As you point out it was a godsend to the British that the Germans began to concentrate on civilian targets. Attacking civilian targets is rarely cost effective for modern armed forces.

[PanzerJaeger]

I dont believe Germany would have lost WW2 if German cities and areas that civilians inhabited were left unmolested.

[Steppe Merc]

About Sherman, I think he should have been tried and locked up for a very long time for his war crimes. And don't give me anything about different time different mroals, because the Union tried and I believe executed war criminals on the Confederate side.