Cheese and Crackers: Comments
Terrorists are people too man! They need our understanding and dialouge. Maybe we can sit around, fire up a joint and sing Kumbyya. Blame BUSH!
;-P
CO
Totally meaningless unless you define the word 'terrorist'.
Terrorism:
The intentional use of or threat to use violence against civilians in order to attain political aims.
-Boaz Ganor
Terrorist:
One who engages in terrorism.
I think Jordan is well within his right both to applaud the Marine and rejoice in the killing of the terrorist which I have argued at my blog.
"Terrorism:
The intentional use of or threat to use violence against civilians in order to attain political aims."
So when, for example, Israel aims a missile at a PLO car, in full knowledge that there will be civilian casualties, this is then 'terrorism'. i.e. the intentional use of violence against civilians. Equally, so when the U.S. tortures civilians in a U.S. run prison in Iraq, this too is 'terrorism'. So this site is advocating that those individuals should be executed.
So the attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq is not terrorism by the above definition. They are not 'citizens'. They are part of an occupying force.
Not so simple, eh.
Notice to Terrorists!
Although I am an entertainer, please be aware that I am one of the 7 conservative entertainers on earth. Along with piano lessons lo those many years ago, I learned to bore my 44 Special hollowpoints and insert a bead of mercury inside before closing the round back up.
If you’re only wounded, you’ve still got mercury poisoning to contend with and after 9-11, I started coating the rounds in bacon grease. Plain and simple. You sick fucks gotta die!
signed
not a pussy "Anonymous"
JAMES HOOKER
And another thing Golson, thanks a friggin lot for introducing me to "allahpundit"!! I spent 2 hours in the friggen ER getting my side sewn back up!
Keep it up!
Hooker
Bandit-
It is simpler than you think.
As for blowing up the Palestinian terrorists that are using human shields-
Not terrorism. Not using violence against civilians, they are using it against the terrorist. Also not for a political aim, it is self-defense.
When a soldier torture or humilates a detainee-
Not terrorism. It is no less abhorent, and the soldier must be seriously punished, but it does not fit the definition of terrorism. (Terrorism is a specific kind of violence, not just a really awful act). There is no political aim to what was happening at Abu Graib, and those were combatants rather than civilians.
Attacks on US civilians in Iraq-
Terrorism. If they do not wear a uniform and/or carry a weapon they are not a legitimate target.
Attacks on US soldiers or armed security firm personnel-
NOT terrorism. You are sort of right on this one. Even if they use a suicide bomber, as long as the target is military personnel, equipment, or installations then it is NOT
I guess I will be a complete scumbag here and say that in certain instances, in a war-type situation between 2 entities, an embassy or consulate is not exactly a civilian target. It's sort of a mixture between civilian and military target. As a symbol of the nation one is fighting, surely it is a target. That embassy is the very representative institution of the state one wars with - it is the state - it's officials represent, work for, and pursue the policies and agendas of the state they represent. If you disagree with your government's policies in wartime, quit your embassy/consulate job. Most of them work for the CIA anyway. Yeh, embassies are neutral targets LOL. Since when?
To James Hooker: James, why do you call yourself "Not a pussy ANYMORE James Hooker". Just wondering. Is there a past you are hiding from us?
Hey Robert
I believe the word in my signiture, If you'd care to re-check, is "Anonymous" not "Anymore"
My distaste regarding people who sign their posts "Anonymous" is profound.
Wartime customs are strange indeed. I know this old coot who was interned in the Republic of Ireland after washing up on the beach. Spent the rest of the war there saying hello to German internees on the street. And embassies? You just didn’t touch ‘em. Home plate. Olly Olly Oxen Free.
Thanks
J. Hooker
I love the way you distort language in order to create definitions that suit your own political ends. When a PLO car is driving down the street and it is hit by an Israel rocket, suddenly that becomes 'using civilians as shields'. Right.
Wearing civilian clothes defines a 'civilian'. This is very convenient. No wonder the U.S. military uses contractors. They can say 'oh, they are supplying a direct service to the military' but they are 'civilians'. No doubt when French nationalists were directing attacks at German factories in WW2, they too were called terrorists. After all those Germans were wearing civilian clothes. Or an attack on the Vichy headquarters. That too was 'terrorism'.
You see you've just walked into another definition minefield. What constitutes a 'civilian'? Judging them by what clothes they wear rather than what they do is childishly simplistic in the extreme, but I do see that it does create a legal framework that nicely fits your own personal poli
... personal political agenda.
It worth remembering too that in the 1930's, Germany too created a legal framework that made all the atrocities committed against the Jews legal acts. It is no coincidence that most of the participants in the Wannsee Conference in 1942 were lawyers. They too started will a similar pronouncement: 'Kill all X'. Then, through manipulation of language and law, created a definition of X that is just what they wanted it to be.
Bandit - you did not read very carefully, I specifically addressed contractors. Are they "civilians"? No, they are combatants (see my above post where I defined them along with uniformed soldiers). Civilian clothes do not make one a civilian, one can still be a combatant.
If you are a terrorist in the Gaza strip plotting attacks on Israel, you probably should not be driving around in a car with your nephew and grandmother since it is liable to blow up! 
Seriously, Israel is targeting the terrorist, and the terrorist knows he is a target. Israelis would prefer that the terrorist would not hide behind non-combatants, but they will not let him get away. Is it just? That's certainly an interesting question. Is it terrorism? Not by the definition we are discussing here.
Not sure I follow the moral equivalence argument you made. So...are we are the Germans and the terrorists the Jews?
Are you afraid of a "terrorist holocaust" in which we start by forcing terrorists to wear little arm bands with the symbol of a ticking bomb, then move all the terrorists in to ghettos, then finally to concentration camps to be gassed as the "final terrorist solution"?
Hmmm...I just don't see a parallel. Jews in Germany could not chose to not be Jews, terrorism is a choice. So there is no parallel on definition.
As for the fact that a legal framework for action is useful today as it was in Nazi Germany, well can't that be said of anything?
Lincoln created a legal framework for ending slavery that nicely fit his own political agenda, and he was a lawyer!..."Germany too created a legal framework that made all the atrocities committed against the Jews legal acts. It is no coincidence that most of the participants in the Wannsee Conference in 1942 were la
...It is no coincidence that most of the participants in the Wannsee Conference in 1942 were lawyers."
And so we may conclude that Licoln was just like the Nazis! Or can we?
Robert Lindsay-
Your remarks about Embassies and Consulates show how little you understand about Diplomacy. Even the Nazis allowed the Ambassty staff to depart Germany at the onset of aggression. Also, FWIW those f who stay behind in dangerous places generally choose to do so in the hopes of defusing or aiding in the resolution of the situation. Cowards hide behind key boards and accuse of all the things they see in the movies.
"Not sure I follow the moral equivalence argument you made. So...are we are the Germans and the terrorists the Jews? "
The issue is totally how you define something. i.e. 'what is a terrorist?' Since you are advocating killing such people, and no doubt you respect the rule of law then more then ever, where 'execution' is advocated then you need to create a clear legal definition of what constitutes a 'terrorist'. The danger is that without this framework then such power is open to abuse, since politicians can frame the meaning of terrorist to be 'who we don't like'. Without this clear definition then statements like 'Kill terrorists' is simply meaningless. The Wannsee parallel was to show that even with rule of law such definitions can still be manipulated to achieve political evil ends. (hence the Lincoln comparison is a silly red-herring here).
Now an attempt has been made to define 'terrorist' but as we have seen (apologies for missing the contractor bit), it is
... it is fraught with difficulties.
What constitutes a civilian? Was Hiroshima terrorist act? Are bomblets terrorist weapons? Are civilian bystanders killed by targeted attacks (especially if they are inevitable victims of terrorism)? Is dropping In targeting a known 'terrorist', what is an acceptable level of civilian casualties (0, 1, 10, 100, 1000, 1000000??). Are Governments that shield wanted terrorists (ex. Taliban Afghanistan, USA) terrorist regimes themselves? Are people who donate to terrorist organizations terrorists?
Looking again at this definition:
"The intentional use of or threat to use violence against civilians in order to attain political aims."
According to this, Guantanamo Bay could be defined as a terrorism. Clearly, there is violence or the threat of violence occurring. Since the occupants haven't been legally tried, many are civilians. It clearly too serves a political aim.
Or had 9/11 hit an army barracks or the White House then by the above d
Or had 9/11 hit an army barracks or the White House then by the above definition it would not have been terrorism. Strange.
Defining 'terrorism' is a minefield which is why it has always been defined very simply by different governments over the ages: 'people we want to kill'. And so, "Kill all 'people we want to kill'" is in reality what pronouncements like Kill Terrorists really means.
To finish a quote:
"We have no interest in oppressing other people. We are not moved by hatred against any other nation. We bear no grudge. I know how grave a thing war is. I wanted to spare our people such an evil. It is not so much the country; it is rather its leader. He has led a reign of terror. He has hurled countless people into the profoundest misery. Through his continuous terrorism, he has succeeded in reducing millions of his people to silence. Their maintenance of a tremendous military arsenal can only be regarded as a focus of danger. We have displayed a truly unexampled pa
... We have displayed a truly unexampled patience, but I am no longer willing to remain inactive while this madman ill-treats millions of human beings."
(My definition)
Terrorist:
Someone who attempts to terrify a large section of the populace through specific targeted attacks on a comparatively small section of the populace.
"The issue is totally how you define something."
The problem with the Nazis was not how they defined "Jews" but the fact that they wanted to kill them! Jews should not have been persecuted regardless of how broad or how narrow/accurately Jews were defined. So your comparison of US pursuit of terrorists with the Nazi persecution of Jews is not relevant.
"Since the occupants haven't been legally tried, many are civilians."
Completely wrong. They are defined by our government as unlawful combatants. Even if you take the more liberal definition and call the "prisoners of war" they have no right to trial under international law. POWs do not get tried specifically because they are not civilians.
"what constitutes a civilian?"
A civilian is a non-combatant.
Your point that laws can be used to tyrannize as well as protect people is hardly a news flash. There are many examples of this today in our world that we may look to without having to invoke the dreade
There are many examples of this today in our world that we may look to without having to invoke the dreaded Nazi regime. Nobody claimed that all laws are just, and pointing out that unjust laws have existed is not evidence that any other particular law is unjust.
"[this definition of terrorist] is fraught with difficulties"
On the contrary, the definition I have presented here has clearly addressed every issue that you feel is ambiguous.
"Without this clear definition then statements like 'Kill terrorists' is simply meaningless."
I have offered a clear definition. You may object to it but it is clear, thus "kill terrorists" is meaningful, don't you agree?
"Are Governments that shield wanted terrorists (ex. Taliban Afghanistan, USA) terrorist regimes themselves?"
Ironic that you feel we can not define a terrorist yet you claim that the USA is shielding wanted terrorists! 
What terrorists? How do you define terrorist?
Are people who donate to terrori
According to the Bush Doctrine the US will "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
"Or had 9/11 hit an army barracks or the White House"
You mean to tell me you don't think hijacking a plane full of civilians is terrorism under my definition? What definition can you offer for terrorism that makes plane hijacking kosher? It meets my definition. (Violence... deliberate tageting of civilians... political aim).
A terrorist is not simply "people we want to kill." There are plenty of people we may want to kill who are not engaged in acts of violence and/or are not tageting civilians and/or are not trying to achieve a political aim. If you don't want to be considered a terrorist in the US, don't kill civilians at all just to be safe, Bandit.
Your final quote is Bush talking about Saddam Hussein. He meets all the requirements of my definition of terrorism. The first example that leaps to mind is
Your final quote is Bush talking about Saddam Hussein. He meets all the requirements of my definition of terrorism. The first example that leaps to mind is the gassing of the Kurds. Violence? Yes. Deliberately targeting civilians? Yes. Political aims? Yes.
I took an uncalled for, and poorly typed, shot at Robert Lindsey (above) with the line "Cowards hide behind key boards and accuse [others]of all the things they see in the movies." I was in a less than good mood when I read his comments.
Later in the day I checked out his blog and he deserves more respect than that- even though I think he is 100% wrong on this:
"an embassy or consulate is not exactly a civilian target. It's sort of a mixture between civilian and military target".
So Robert, I find your reasoning questionable, but offer my regrets for having expressed my self in the manner I did.
I feel better now...
Crap! Forgot to enter my data before-Robert, the apology is from Dr. Demarche.
I gotta get some sleep!
All killing is wrong if they are not in defense. If a police officer or military person kills someone if they are attacting someone who did not do wrong like a person smoking pot (illigal yes, wrong no). In Iraq, the citizens are defending themself from an outside force therefore, if they kill a usa army person, they are not in the wrong, if a usa army person kills a person, except when they are being shot at, that military person should be put in prison. As a world, we need to make war ilegal.
As a world, we need to make war ilegal.
Oh, that's just great. Make it against the law. And who, pray tell, steps up to the plate when someone breaks that law.....Jesus Harold Christ!.....people like you are going to get my kids killed!
Thx Doctor! I am checking out your blog right now. I like it a lot, although of course I do disagree with the Right. Personally, I prefer to confine my conflicts to the Right about ideology and not the individuals of the Right themselves, who are often fine people once you put aside their politics. Peace out, Doctor! In clarifying my comments, I suppose I am thinking in terms of assymetrical warfare. A state such as Germany or the WW2 allies had tremendous weaponry at their disposal and there was no need to attack a penny-ante embassy. Germany and the Allies both had massive forces that did tremendous damage and killed massive numbers of enemy soldiers. With a massive army, I think the rules are different. Guerrillas are very very weak and cannot be expected to play by the same rules as the big boys. In terms of guerrillas, I suppose an embassy or consulate is an ok target, since it is often quite hard for guerrillas to hit legit targets and cause any damage. So the guerrilla can
So the guerrilla can either play by the rules of the big boyz and get their butt kicked, or they can go assymetrical and stand a fighting chance. I would say that for the guerrilla nowadays, an embassy/consulate is sort of a cross between a civilian and military target. Note that the African Qaeda bombings in which 100's of mostly black African civilians were killed were reprehensible. If an embassy is successfully stormed, I think the proper thing for the guerrilla to do is to attack any armed hostile persons and capture everyone else. After the employees are captured, they can either be held hostage or released. If released, the guerrilla is free to destroy the embassy. If any of the embassy staff can be proven to be spies or CIA, they can be executed. I would not support shooting down embassy personnel hiding behind chairs or putting their hands up or running away. But consider....in many US embassies, probably a majority of Embassy staff are CIA - known fact.
Robert-
"in many US embassies, probably a majority of Embassy staff are CIA - known fact."
I think that is a serious overstatement. It is reasonable to say that there are probably CIA agents working out of almost all embassies, but since the majority of American Embassy and consulate staffs are not even Americans it is highly unlikely that many would be agents. What use would they be? I seriously doubt that the majority of the American dimplomatic corp is working for the CIA either.
In any case, I don't think it is OK for a group to bend the rules on attacking Embassies and consulates just because they are weaker. The rule has to apply to everyone and for a very good reason. There must be a safe space to conduct diplomacy, otherwise diplomats have no ability to end wars. Those are the guys without the guns, we need to give them anything they need to keep peace with words rather than bullets.
Embassies are civilian installations, it is wrong to treat them as mili
(cont).
Embassies are civilian installations, it is wrong to treat them as military targets.
Sorry I posted twice. I went over to your blog and checked it out. At first I thought you were Left, being from Berkeley and all and young at that. Well, you are from the Right. Ok, we can talk. Anyway, your blog is not bad. Response: You dispute that most embasssy empolyees are CIA agents. Well have you known anyone working at an Embassy. Depends where the Embassy is. I knew a fellow at a US Embassy in Central America in the early 90's. I was assured by his relatives that not only was he apparently an agent, but that he had confided that the majority of US employees there were. In fact, it was dubious if there were ANY US employees there who were not connected. As far as natives go, in present day Saudi Arabia, any non-American working at the US Embassy may be safely construed as working for the enemy. Sorry. I other nations, that's not the right response - Kenya for example. You say that guerrillas should not bend the rules because they are weaker. Well that's fine in a perfect wo
Well that's fine in a perfect world but still the guerrilla has a choice - play by the rules of war and get totally wasted by the superior force, or go assymetrical and stand a fighting chance. Most armies want to win, not be ethical human beings. Since powerful armies still do massive damage without going assymetrical, it seems to be more of a crime if they do not, as they really don't need to. They can kick massive butt simply playing by Geneva rules. Most "diplomats" in conflict zones are working with, for, or cooperating with, the CIA, DOD, DIA, etc. Intelligence operations are run out of most US embassies in the world. In wartime, an embassy is not a safe place to be.
If the "guerillas" don't play by the rules, then we should not either.
Jordon
I believe that was a three pointer!
Jordan,
There is a difference. We are a nation governed by the rule of law. By lowering our standards, we place ourselves at greater peril in the future if and when we face a conventional foe. Taking the "low road" is not the answer - especially when we are trying to engage more of the global community in the rebuilding of Iraq.
Just like "bring 'em on," your words are absurd when the reader realizes that you will never be in harms way to taste the brutal repercussions of your policy suggestions.
Robert-
Your point is well taken that an Embassy is not a safe place in a war, but I think that it should be.
In following your logic to its conclusion (losing side should resort to any means necessary) then there can be no rules of war. One side is always at a disadvantage, and by breaking the rules to gain an advantage, the other side must then break more rules to gain an advantage, etc. until there are no rules to break.
When the US was losing the war in Vietnam, would it have then been ok to drop a nuke on Hanoi in order to "stand a fighting chance"?
But of course the core of this question is whether the targeting of civilians is OK. I think that it is not (I assume you agree), and I don't think the presence of CIA agents in an embassy makes it a legitimate target. Here's a question, is an unarmed foreign national that is payed by the CIA a legitimate target in a war?
I have known people who worked in embassies, ironically they were all uniformed military. I hav
I have visited quite a few embassies handling passport stuff abroad though, and often the entire staff dealing were locals, not Americans.
Why would the CIA hire a 5'1" mother of three who works the visa desk shuffling paperwork for hundreds of visa applicants that are looking for a green card or to reunite with family? When a US embassy is bombed or shot up, she and the local visa-seekers are overwhelming the people who die.
During the Cold War there was little question about what the USSR embassy in DC was spending most its time on, same with the US embassy in Moscow. The garden of antennae on the roof of each embassy made it pretty evident they were spying. Why did we tolerate it? Because it was more important to have a means of diplomatic interaction in order to minimize the hot conflicts.
The majority of staff in almost every U.S. Embassy and Consulate in the world are indeed local hires-"Foreign Service Nationals" (or "Locally Engaged Staff" in the new PC lingo).
Commenting by HaloScan
