This is really quite unbelievable. I refer to the comments on my previous post, offered by my friends Tlaloc, James Elliott, TVD, and LA. As I understand the general trust of their view, aggregated crudely, it is that the distinction between "terrorists" and "insurgents" is driven not by their tactics but instead by their objectives and by someone's dictionary.
I'm sorry, but this is sophistry, pure and simple. Attacks intended to murder civilians by the score (or more) constitute terrorism, regardless of whether the murderers are locals or immigrants, regardless of their goals (even if they can be discerned), regardless of the particular groups to which they do or do not belong, ad infinitum. Or do my friends want to argue that, say, the IRA attacks in London in the 1980s did not constitute terrorism? By the way, I did not put words into Tlaloc's mouth; I merely quoted him.
9 comments:
Dr. Z, I did mean to add that "insurgents" and "terrorists" aren't mutually exclusive. In Iraq, the former are also the latter.
It does seem untoward to refer to the terrorist insurgents as simply "insurgents," because it sanitizes them. Sort of like calling Saddam a bastard without putting "mass-murdering" in front of it.
Dr. Zycher, did this really warrant an entirely new post? It breaks continuity to spread it out over multiple threads.
The original document does NOT say that the allies were targeting water facilities. There is nothing about military strategy or any other kind of action by the allies advocated in it at all. It's a completely objective, factual report on Iraq's water situation. You can read it yourself, through the link in the Sunday Herald article cited in the article tlaloc mentions here.
I truly do not understand where all this outrage comes from, Dr. Zycher. Do you feel the same ire rise in your gorge when Israeli soldiers shoot Palestinian children, or when US warplanes destroy Arab weddings and hospitals?
You are engaging in a semantic game to no end other than to fulfill some deep-seated need to be constantly angry at those who do not fall in lockstep. Nowhere has anyone implied that the tactics are any more acceptable whatever label is applied to the perpatrator. The labels are applied only to delineate allegiance and goals. There is nothing wrong with this, however much you may wish it otherwise.
We cannot begin to combat our enemies until we actually understand them. Until the roots are dug up, we will only be fighting the symptoms.
Your passion is an asset. Don't let it blind your intellect. Now go take a few deep breaths. The human body isn't really meant to handle this much stress. Go do some yoga or something, man, before you burst a blood vessel.
Drawing a distinction between the insurgents and the terrorists is important. There are terrorists in Iraq. Indeed, there is an al-Qaida element in Iraq. There are those who have come in to the country to attack the U.S.
But, a goodly number of the foreign fighters are Syrian. Non-dissident Syrians are Baathists. The government we overthrew were Baathists. The Syrian fighters are aiding the insurgents - loyalists to the old regime who are resisting an outside imposition of regime change using tactics of terror. Let's put it this way: Ever hear of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade? Ever read Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls?" I know the comparison will drive you nuts, but that doesn't diminish its efficacy.
Why are they attacking Coalition troops? BECAUSE THE COALITION TROOPS ARE THE POWER BEHIND THE GOVERNMENT. It's really not a hard connection to make. They're also blowing up Iraqi troops and policemen. Attacking civilians has the goal of undermining and intimidating them away from their support for the current government.
I've said it before. Playing these semantic games in some perverse need to be right all time doesn't serve anything other than ego.
I would argue the old Soviet Union engaged in terrorism even though it was the government of that nation. Lenin wrote enthusiastically of the uses of terror to crush dissent.
Nice strawman there. I never implied that semantics were unimportant. The games being played with them, however, are.
You just can't compare the U.S. and the Soviet Union in this game. We weren't knocking on doors and summarily executing people with no due process of any kind. The difference may be of degree rather than of kind, but if so the difference of degree is extreme.
I missed that one Rain Deity. You'll either have to link it so I can read for myself or inform me.
Post a Comment