Rock the Casbah

Sorry, sorry, life has been busy. S. and I have finished our Save the Dates for our wedding, we've booked our Honeymoon (12 night cruise of the Mediterranean) and we even signed on for a 4 night trip to the Bahamas in the beginning of September.

Oh, and work has been a bear lately, too.

Speaking of work, last night I was recognized by the IT department here for everything I did for decommissioning the HOLEC unit we had here. Apparently we turned around and sold it on eBay.

I got a nice big raise too. Not too shabby couple of weeks.

Now, with that all said, I want to get back into the political stuff. I had an interesting argument with my coworkers via email a couple of weeks ago. The topics splayed out into a couple of threads. In this post I'm going to put up one of those threads. In a couple of days I'll post another one. Please post your comments and thoughts against these as I'm curious to see what other people think. The argument ends rather abruptly - there was a large distribution on this email and it was literally "nuked" by Tim, who started the whole damn thing. (He posted a pic of an A-Bomb going off into the thread.)

And now, without further ado, the first posting:

TIM:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nytom304834975jul30,0,3673590.story

or Black Tim…

MIKE:

I would not call it terrorism. It was simply sabotage.

FREDDIE:

Dunno. We weren't at war with Germany at the time. Though, it was a military target.

Could go either way.

MIKE:

We were the Arsenal of Freedom.

They used to sink our ships too which were delivering supplies to Britain, etc.

A act of terrorism is an act which is basically supposed to inspire and cause terror. This was an act of sabotage to prevent and interrupt munitions from be delivered to Britain etc.

Nothing more.

FREDDIE:

I know, that's my point. The US was employing Brinksmanship up until the sinking of the RMS Lusitania (British passenger and transport ship sailing from NY to Britain, secretly carrying munitions), at which point the US people rallied to declare war on Germany. So to the Germans, the US was basically in an undeclared war with them by providing supplies to their enemies.

So, technically, the only way this would be a terrorist action would be to take into account that there was no state of war between the two countries.

Oh, and Mike, sabotage is a type of terrorism. Placing a bomb on a jetliner is a type of sabotage. It may not be elegant, but it gets the job done.

Terrorism, as your definition of "to inspire and cause terror", is a valid tactic in war.

Refugees fleeing from war zones are frequently fired on by air. It creates havoc on the roads, blocking the movements of troops and supplies from reaching the front. This is a terror tactic.

The bombing of civilian targets (power generation facilities, bridges, damns and even their homes [Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, London...]) is part of "All Out Warfare". Whether done at a distance or up close by a saboteur, they're all terror tactics. They may serve other ends, but they ultimately impact the common civilian.

The term "terrorist" is a very politically charged one. The French Resistance were Terrorists to the German occupiers, but were Freedom Fighters to the Allies. The same way the current jihadists blowing themselves in terror operations are viewed as Terrorists to us and Freedom Fighters to their own people.

It's all a matter of perspective.

MIKE:

And my perspective (which is all that matters) on this matter is that it was SABOTAGE!!!

The explosion which Tom's article had a PURPOSE other than to cause TERROR in and around NYC, the NYC waterfront and NJ waterfront. It was meant to destroy war supplies destined to be used against Germany.

This was not a car bomb being exploded in Times Square.

These were munitions being destroyed before they could be loaded on to ships to be used against Germany.

We were the arsenal of freedom at that point and we were "unofficially" in the war.

SABOTAGE.

NOT

TERRORISM


Destruction of Munitions

NOT

A Car Bomb or a Plane being flown into the Empire States Building.

FREDDIE:

Out of curiosity, what would you call the bombing of the Marine's barracks in Beirut?

MIKE:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I will answer BUT it has NOTHING to do with the 1916 Bombing. Totally different circumstances and type of target and situation.

Terrorism. It was a suicide bomb targeting US Soldiers on a peace keeping mission.

They were using a form of terror (suicide bomb) to try and force us from the region.

T2:

But since it was a peace keeping mission, it can be considered an act of warfare. Can soldiers be targets of terrorism, when the mere presence of a soldier will strike fear and terror into some? Or is it an act of war since the military is designed to fight? Bombings against civilians = terrorism, bombings against military installations = warfare.

MIKE:

We were not at WAR with these LUNATICS.

T2:

What about all the “conflicts” we are in that the senate doesn’t declare a war? Are they all acts of terrorism?

MIKE:

Police Actions.

What are you, some sort of communist?

MIKE:

BTW

At least when we are in these other "conflicts" you speak of we do it with our military for all to see. We do not send in suicide bombers, hijack airplanes and fly them into skyscrapers, etc.

Feel free to move to Canada or Cuba anytime you wish.

FREDDIE:

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Mike, wake up and read the paper!

Hello? The CIA carries out assassinations and bombings all the time. We've purposely fed the USSR misleading information through counter-espionage which results in one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in modern times. We have secret camps where we are torturing the captives. You don't think the US has made people "disappear"? You don't think the US has made people out as scape goats to cover up their own blunders?

How about the whole concept of the suicide mission?

And, Mike, have you ever read the constitution. Government leads by the mandate of the people! It is a country "By the People, For the People". It is your CIVIC DUTY to call for change and responsibility in our government.

However, saying that, I think that there's a lot of people out there who, as I said before, have their blinders on.

Of course we're in the Middle East after oil. Duh. Our economy runs on it. Iraq is a way for us to get in the area. Why do we back up Israel? Because it gives us a foothold into the area. Why do we care about Korea? Because it jeopardises Japan, our foothold in the Far East, where much of our trade is with.

The purpose of the Government of the US is to take care of the US peoples. It can be very unscrupulous about this. People don't like to hear that. They think they are in a rosy story where everything is happy and nice. The world ain't nice, Baby. It's hard. The US economy is based on exploitation of resources. Oil is a resource. So is cheap labor.

Keep them down, the US economy is stable.

MIKE:

Yeah, OK Freddie. Iraq is all about us getting oil. How is that working out so far? Our oil is higher than ever. If we were just sucking Iraq dry oil would be dirt cheap.

Of course we back certain countries and allies for reasons that sought our proposes.

Read the paper? Do you believe everything you read in the paper?

Once again, if you think this country is so evil feel free to try and change or feel free to leave. Canada to the North, Cuba and Mexico to the south.

1916 - Sabotage
Bombing in Beirut - Terrorism

FREDDIE:

I didn't say it was working. You keep putting words in my mouth. My point is that the US gets involved in other places in the name of its own welfare, and it pisses other people off.

When you heard China was providing money to US diplomats to fund their campaigns, hoping to get pro-China politicians in office, weren't you a bit pissed off?

TONY:

Every other country looks after its well being also. The U.S. is different than any other country in one major aspect though. We are held to a standard that no other nation is.

FREDDIE:

Well, when you're the self described "Leader of the Free World" and your economy dwarfs the rest fo the world's economies, your military is the most advanced in the world and you have the capacity to get involved anywhere, people are going to watch you pretty closely.

HENRY:

All that and for the most part we let the world be as it may. Unless it attacks or threatens our livilhood..again..See the constitution of the US

FREDDIE:

Yeah. Iraq was about to invade us.

That "threatens our livlihood" is a really big blanket.

MIKE:

In theory they had Weapons of Mass Destruction would or could be used on us so we attacked them to prevent future 9/11's.

We also sit their people free from a nut of a dictator.

Unfortunately no one found these WMD's and the country and the region was way more stable with Saddam in power. Who knew?

HENRY:

Stable? There were probably more killings but by the government and never reported

MIKE:

What does stable have to do with killings by the government?

When Saddam was in power there was no terrorism. All of these different religious sects where not fighting amongst themselves.

There was peace and the other countries feared Saddam as well.

MARC:

The people fighting against us in IRAQ aren’t even the citizens of IRAQ. The insurgents are pouring in from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, IRAN, Saudia Arabia, etc.

We have opened up a breeding ground for terrorism in IRAQ. This Holy War the Jiihad has started with us will last 100 years. When we pull out of Iraq and it will happen inevitably whether we choose to or not the terrorists will have a state of their own and oil to fund their religious war against us.

TONY:

Let them all funnel into Iraq where they can be eliminated. It’s easier that way.

FREDDIE:

Okay, I think I have a good definition of Terrorism that we can all abide by:

Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, and personal demands. The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong. Terrorism is a type of unconventional warfare designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation or acquiescence, as opposed to subversion or direct military action. The broader influence of terrorism in the modern world is often attributed to the dramatic focus of mass media in amplifying feelings of intense fear and anger.

State terrorism more specifically refers to violence and threats of violence, embargoes and other forms of terrorism against civilians by the government of a state.

Given this definition, the Boston Tea Party was indeed a terrorist act as it used violence (destruction of property) to "bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological and personal demands". It was not directed against Parliament or the military, but rather to the merchants who were members of the society.

A further definition, per the US Department of State defines terrorism as "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

So, the attack on the Marine's barracks in Beirut was not a terrorist act. It was an attack on a military target. The method of attack (suicide bombing) was unconventional, but there is precedent. Were Kamikaze pilots terrorists or ultra-fanaticals using themselves as living guidance systems?

Same thing.

In the same breath, the sabotage of Black Tom was not a terrorist attack since, once again, the target was of a military nature.

Give a read to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Of, and if we think we need to continue with this discourse, I can set up an IRC channel for us somewhere so our inboxes aren't exploding. lol

TONY:

There’s a big difference between countries in a declared war (U.S. / Japan) and an international peacekeeping force (U.S. in Beirut) targeted by a group who was using a country as its surrogate base. The suicide bombing of the U.S. (and French) barracks in Beirut by Hezbollah (backed by Iran) was terrorism.

MIKE:

THANK YOU!!!

FREDDIE:

If you are a member of a militant group and you see US and French troops as being invaders (whether they are invited by your government or not is moot if you don't agree with the government), those troops are valid targets. It was not a facility full of diplomats. It was a barracks of military personnel.

Militants are not civilians. They are paramilitary personnel. You don't need a uniform to be in an army. Israel is currently at war with Hezbollah.

Per the US Department of State definition, this was not a terrorist attack because the troops there were on a "Peace Keeping Mission". It was a military mission to enforce order. It was not a bunch of guys handing out flowers to everyone and preaching love and understanding. It was a guy with a gun saying "Sit the hell down and shut up or we will shoot you."

A friend of mine has done a tour in Kosovo and another in Liberia on peace keeping missions. He's currently thinking of reenlisting if his country sends troops to Lebanon as a peace keeping force. He has been shot at. He has shot back. He's had friends injured and he's had people try to run him down with trucks (they didn't survive too long).

A Peace Keeping Mission is, by its definition, in a war zone. Those parties not interested in peace will fight against the Peace Keeping Mission.

The barracks in Beirut were legitimate military targets. The tactics used were merely unconventional, and highly effective. 2 drivers sacrificed themselves and killed 241 American personnel (plus a Lebanese custodian) and 58 French paratroopers (plus the wife of a janitor and their four children), for a total of 305 killed. That's a pretty good kill ratio, and it enshrined the suicide bomber mentality.

TONY:

Corrections:

In certain circumstances, militants ARE civilians or vice versa. That’s the problem with Hezbollah in Lebanon right now. Hezbollah blends back into the civilian population making it difficult for Israel to fight them. It’s the same in Iraq.

The Geneva Conventions outline criteria or “Conduct of War”. A couple of the many are noted below:

Article 44, paragraph 3, of Protocol I
In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: (a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Article 51, paragraph 7, of Protocol I
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

Therefore, aside from the more vile war crimes being prosecuted against Saddam’s regime, here are some others pertaining to conduct of war (vs terrorist actions). Whether they’re Iraqi or members of Hezbollah is irrelevant since I am using this as an example. I don’t think the suicide truck bombers were wearing their military uniforms or distinguishing themselves as combatants. They were terrorists

• Iraqi soldiers have violated the “principles of distinction” by disguising themselves as Iraqi civilians and concealing their weapons and military status, attempting to draw U.S. soldiers into an ambush.


• An embedded reporter traveling with Marines on the road to Nasiriya reported taking fire from Iraqi soldiers dressed as civilians on a bridge outside the city of Nasiriya. By disguising themselves as civilians, Iraqi soldiers blurred the distinction between soldier and civilian in an effort to limit the force of the American military response. As part of this effort, the Iraqi soldiers stockpiled weapons and other heavy military equipment in several houses and moved freely among the houses disguised as civilians.


• Iraqi officials have sanctioned the use of terrorist tactics to kill coalition forces. In several instances, Iraqi soldiers have disguised themselves as Iraqi civilians and then detonated concealed explosives. In one case, a pregnant woman pretending to be in distress lured three American soldiers guarding a checkpoint to her, and then the driver of the vehicle detonated an explosive device killing all three soldiers, the pregnant woman, and the driver.
  On April 3, a non-commissioned Iraqi Army officer posing as a taxi driver detonated an explosive device in his car at a checkpoint, seriously wounding four American soldiers.

You noted the following:

The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong.

The Hezbollah suicide bombing of the U.S. and French barracks falls into this exactly. If we wanted to have a continued presence in Lebanon, the bombing of the barracks was not going to stop us. The bombing and killing of the Marines was meant to sway American public opinion about our purpose there and therefore have our troops come home which is what exactly happened. Public opinion was not going to allow us to stay there.

If you want to draw a truce in our differing opinions on whether the Beirut bombings were legitimate military engagements or acts of terrorism, I’ll offer the following.

It was a terrorist action by militants.

FREDDIE:

My point is terrorism is a tactic. And whether someone employing it is called a terrorist or a freedom fighter depends on your point of view.

As for the bombing of the barracks and the wearing of uniforms and the Geneva Convention, I would just like to point out that the Geneva Convention is a treaty. Militant groups have not signed it. The big powers will blatantly ignore it if it serves their own ends The Allies targetted civilian population centers in WWII, a violation of the Geneva Convention, while at the same time observing the convention with the treatment of prisoners. I know the Axis did bombings too, but they didn't follow the treatment of prisoners bit either. Japan was never a signatory of the Geneva Convention.

You are also confusing civilian with non-combatant. If a member of Hezbollah falls back to hide among the civilians, that doesn't make him a non-combatant. It just makes him harder to find. That's a guerilla tactic, time honored. It may go against the "Rules of War", but, hey, War is Hell and if you survive it, who gives a damn.

So, yes. The attack on the barracks in Beirut was carried out by militants using a terrorist tactic against a valid military target.