[mike777]

Ya, that was the excuse we used as our bombs fell on civilians 95% of the time, we knew it and did not stop.

Yes we used firebombing and killied tens and tens of thousans using the same excuse. Lemay later said he would have been tried and convicted as a War crime criminal for his bombing in Japan if we lost.

Of course let's not forget as Russia swept into Prussia(west Poland) and eastern Germany they raped millions of men, women, boys and girls and pillaged at will.
Not sure if that is a terriost attack or what, but when the women complained to higher Russian officers, the officers raped them again. Gang rape was very common.

[mike777]

Would anyone agree that the USA, at times, used terrorists tactics against the Indians.

How about Canadians against their native peoples or did they just buy Canada from them?

Spainish and Mexicans aganst their native peoples, I doubt they bought Mexico?

[pbleighton]

"Would anyone agree that the USA, at times, used terrorists tactics against the Indians.

How about Canadians against their native peoples or did they just buy Canada from them?

Spainish and Mexicans aganst their native peoples, I doubt they bought Mexico?"

Yes.

Your point is?

Peter

[mike777]

Civilians who support their government should not be immune to the fighting and horror. They are not innocents. If you pay someone to fight for you, you are not an innocent. I hope that is clear enough, I thought it was the first ten times I said it.

[pbleighton]

"Civilians who support their government should not be immune to the fighting and horror. They are not innocents. If you pay someone to fight for you, you are not an innocent. I hope that is clear enough, I thought it was the first ten times I said it."

Agree.

Bring back the draft, include 55 year old armchair generals

Peter

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 16 2007, 01:48 AM, said:

Would anyone agree that the USA, at times, used terrorists tactics against the Indians.

How about Canadians against their native peoples or did they just buy Canada from them?

Spainish and Mexicans aganst their native peoples, I doubt they bought Mexico?

As I noted before, I believe that the central characteristic that defines "terrorism" is that terrorism is a political act. Terrorist acts are designed to affect the political will of some external entity. To some extent, Terrorism is an artifact of the modern world. Terrorism becomes much easier as governments become mroe responsive to their people. Furthermore, mass media (arguably) increase the power of terrorism.

I don't believe that the United States Army (or private groups of US citizens) were conciously engaging in terrorist activities. From what I can tell, out primary goal was to displace Native Americans as quickly and cheaply as we could. Typically this mean slaughtering them until they retreated onto reservations. We were engaging in genocide, but I wouldn't call our actions "terrorist".

In a similar fashion, I'd argue that the the behaviour of the Soviet army which invaded Germany qualifies as a War Crime. However, I don't believe that the individuals who commit these crimes were conciously attempting to shape the political behavior of the German people. I think that the Soviets were lashing out in hatred.

[Winstonm]

I think it not easy to define terrorism, but I would think it would first start with a massive imbalance in the abilities to make war - an underfunded group with no military industrial complex or support of a military industrial comples, who has to rely on available products to cause the most sensational damage possible, whether against civilians or an army. The reasons behind the attacks are political, wanting changes; the attacks themselves are the tactics used to generate new supporters and garner publicity to the cause, not so much to cause a city, country, or region to live in fear of the next attack. The primary motivation of attacks is disruption of the status quo, and the weapon of choice is sensationalism.

I think Richard is pretty much dead on right in his views in the differences among terror, war crimes, and genocide - these terms should not be used interchangeably.

I believe it has been shown that this is the most accurate description - that terrorists are politically driven - because groups that in the past would have been defined as pure terror groups have reduced or even eliminated their terrorist actions when incorporated into the politico - the IRA, PLO, and Hezbollah come to mind in these regards.

[mike777]

I think Richard has sharpened the discussion on a very difficult and sensitive discussion. At the very least he has tried to narrow the definition. Always a tough thing to do and to be applauded.

War is a political act or an extension of politicals. Forcing ones will upon the enemy or other side is certainly a goal. Terror was applied against the Indians in the form of torture, scalping, raping and the display of multilated bodies.
The goal was to sap the fighting will, energy and to force a political solution.
It is difficult to imagine a war being fought with the goal to win without terror, many terror tactics being used as harsh, cruel and ugly as that sounds.

Of course the winning side will complain about all the horrible war crimes, terrorists evil acts will probably be just as guilty. One the hand we need the activitics to point out our faults and errors but at the same time the comments seem naive, selective and hypocritical.

One the one hand in no way do I want to condone torture, war crimes and our terroist acts, on the other I know in a long bloody war we will engage in them before day one. I suppose at best a goal would be to do a better job than the Russians did upon entering Germany but know it will be far from perfect.

Just as we all know much worse goes on in every country's prisons, we do nothing and turn a blind eye or make an occasional protest and move on. Rape, torture, abuse, on a daily basis, year after year and yet we worry about Abu Grav.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 16 2007, 05:18 AM, said:

Just as we all know much worse goes on in every countries prisons, we do nothing and turn a blind eye or make an occasional protest and move on. Rape, torture, abuse, on a daily basis, year after year and yet we worry about Abu Grav.

"We" worry about Abu Ghraib because once upon a time the US stood for something better. There is an enormous difference between accepting that we can't control the behaviour of brutal dictatorships and sinking to their own level.

The United States government is deliberately torturing prisoners in our care. We're beating people to death with pipes.



We are an active participant in activities that any other civilized country would condemn as a crime against humanity. The Argentine government refused to meet with the US Attorney General because of his position on torture. The Argentinians consider our behaviour unacceptable.... Do you understand the irony?

This is why some of us worry about Abu Ghraib.

BTW: As to your bullshit claim that stuff like this happens in every country's prisons: I would LOVE to heard some comments from some of the Europeans about just how people the guards murder each year.

[Winstonm]

I applaud your response, Richard. You have hit on the heart of the matter.

The United States used to stand out to the world as unique and a shining light, a nation that guarded jealously its freedoms for individuals, and put the rule of law above the petty insecurities of man.

We are no longer that country. It really is that simple.

[mike777]

I stand by my assertions.
1) We were never a shining light of pureness. We were never that country. Better perhaps than others but we have plenty of sins in our past despite people thinking otherwise.
2) Prisons in all countries are cesspools of mass rapes, torture and cruelty meted out by inmates and guards. If Europe claims otherwise they have their heads in the sand. See European Russia for starters, but there are plenty in other countries.
If France or Germany or the UK think there are not mass rapes in their prisons they are naive.

You guys seem to have dismissed this sentence by me, oh well. I tried.
"One the hand we need the activitics to point out our faults and errors but at the same time the comments seem naive, selective and hypocritical."

[jtfanclub]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 15 2007, 05:43 PM, said:

When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the victims were not terrorized but perhaps the next potential victims were indirectly?

Oh Lord. It took hours, weeks, in some cases years for people to die of the radiation poisoning. It really did make 9/11 to look like a house fire.

I can't imagine how anybody could consider 9/11 to be terrorism but not Hiroshima.

[mike777]

"..I can't imagine how anybody could consider 9/11 to be terrorism but not Hiroshima."



ok...me.....one vote out of 6 billion.

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Feb 16 2007, 01:00 AM, said:

I can't imagine how anybody could consider 9/11 to be terrorism but not Hiroshima.

ok, here was my definition from a previous thread:

my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-propulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed

hiroshima would not apply

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 16 2007, 07:51 AM, said:

I stand by my assertions.
1) We were never a shining light of pureness. We were never that country. Better perhaps than others but we have plenty of sins in our past despite people thinking otherwise.
2) Prisons in all countries are cesspools of mass rapes, torture and cruelty meted out by inmates and guards. If Europe claims otherwise they have their heads in the sand. See European Russia for starters, but there are plenty in other countries.
If France or Germany or the UK think there are not mass rapes in their prisons they are naive.

You don't seem to be able to understand a very basic distinction: I will readily agree that United States prisons are far from perfect. Prisoners mistreat and kill each other all the time. There are undocumented instances of sadism and cruelty commited by individual guards.

What happend in Abu Gharib and Gitmo is very different. Here, the United States government deliberately adopted torture as policy. Waterboarding, freezing conditions, sleep deprivation, and god knows what else were official policy. On those occasions where more extreme measures were desired we outsourced the cutting and the burning and the electrodes to the Egyptians and the Syrians.

Not only did the Bush administration knowingly implement these policies, they jumped through an incredibly convoluted set of hoops to try to give them legal cover. International law prevents us from treating soldiers like this. US law prevents prisoners from being treated like this. So the Bush administration created a new legal category called an "emeny combatant" and stashed the people that we wanted to torture in Gitmo.

This is very new and very different behaviour for the US. Is facile to try to compare this to the policies adopted by previous administrations.

[mike777]

Well you almost understand my point. Perhaps if I say we define "official policy" as decades of turning a blind eye to torture, rape, and massive inhumanity in our prisons and in every other countries prisons we can agree. "Deliberate Official policy" can be unwritten if it goes on for decades if not centuries. Just look at corporations, most "adopted deliberate official policy" believe it or not is unwritten.

The scalping of Indians by US soldiers was certainly common and accepted if an unwritten policy of the Army.


Freezing conditions, sleep deprivation are certainly common in USA prisons for 100's of years. Torture, in the broad sense of the word, in one form or another has been official unwritten policy in many countries and I think it is fair to say in the USA also.

As I said this is terrible and we need people to speak out loudly as they do. What disturbs me is the level of naivete and selectivity as if this is new. Yes, in many ways our military has been better than many countries but that means many many other counties are much worse and it is much more common and accepted.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 16 2007, 04:46 PM, said:

Well you almost understand my point.  Perhaps if I say we define "official policy" as decades of turning a blind eye to torture, rape, and massive inhumanity in our prisons and in every other countries prisons we can agree.  "Deliberate Official policy" can be unwritten if it goes on for decades if not centuries. Just look at  corporations, most "adopted deliberate official policy" believe it or not is unwritten.

I'm going to post a quote that I've always associated with Sinead O'Connor. (in Googling it I found out that its predominatly associated with AA)

God grant me the serenity to
accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference.

As I said earlier, I'm well aware of the abuse that take place in the US prison system. Unfortunately, I also accept that there is a lot out there that I can't change. To a large part, I think that pieces of ***** like you are a major part of the problem and prevent these systems from being improved.

Hence I find it incredibly infuriating to see you using imperfections in implementing well intentioned policies as an excuse for deliberate and systematic torture.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Feb 16 2007, 01:58 AM, said:

"..I can't imagine how anybody could consider 9/11 to be terrorism but not Hiroshima."



ok...me.....one vote out of 6 billion.

Me too, obviously. A declared war between defined combatants with clear objectives. An act of war is a terrible thing but one that only terrorizes by its nature and not by its intent. A terrorist has the intent of terrorizing up front and very personal.

[mike777]

I do not excuse torture, I think it is terrible and people need to speak out, thought I said that a hundred times, oh well.

[Al_U_Card]

hrothgar, on Feb 16 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

I'm going to post a quote that I've always associated with Sinead O'Connor. (in Googling it I found out that its predominatly associated with AA)

God grant me the serenity to
accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Seems the poem Desiderata rings a bell there.