Posted on 02/12/2009 5:08:03 PM PST by george76
The TV and the written press keep referring to the attack on the USS Cole as having been a “terrorist” attack.
Any definition of the word “terrorist” insists that the attack described be against a civilian target with an aim of resulting in a political change.
I do believe that this word is being used so as to elicit sympathy and, to some, fear and therefore urge the public be skeptical when they come across it in the press. Recently, I came across the use of “victims,” referring to crew members on the Cole that were killed, instead of “casualties” or as the “dead.”
After some thought on the above, I may be wrongly criticizing the written press, as these examples may have indeed come from TV.
Richard B. Veit
Carbondale
I’m sure these fine young men were in uniform and working for a country that signed the Geneva Convention. Or, were they murderous thugs who declared war on America and were mindless followers of a false and fanatical cult-religion who never heard of Geneva no have knowledge of convention.
The Cole attack was closer to guerrilla warfare than terrorism. The word “terror” and “terrorism” sell advertising hence their overuse.
Following the logic of the writer -- such as it is -- one is forced to conclude that, if it's not a "terrorist attack", it must then be an "act of war".
In which case, the United States is fully justified in visiting hell on the perpetrators -- be they in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen or wherever.
Somehow, I don't think he thought it through that far...
OMG.
What planet do these people live on?
Okay Freepers.... who is Richard B. Veit from Carbondale?
Someone must have a handle on this fellow’s carbon footprint!
Mr Veit, I urge you to not stray too far from the sidewalk on your Birkenstock shod lunchtime walk to Bean Sprouts R Us lest you become a pedestrian "casualty" or worse yet "dead" after being struck by some ditto head listening to Rush instead of paying full time and attention to driving his Hummer.
Google...Richard B. Veit - a scooter seeker
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/shame-liberty
http://www.aspentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/LETTER/102220015&template=printart
http://www.postindependent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030620/LETTER/306190045
http://spiderbites.nytimes.com/pay_1948/articles_1948_09_00002.html
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080823/LETTER/113847/1020/AE&parentprofile=
I would like to meet the author of this vomit in a dark alley some night.
Take another it on that doobie, man, I can still understand you.
terrorism |ˈterəˌrizəm|noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
What I don’t get is the phenomenon of liberals trying to make us feel badly because - unlike them - we use “common sense,” which to them is obviously quite the opposite: Rare (or even nonexistent).
Redefinition of the word “terrorist” in its happening.
Richard B. Veit is today’s STUCK ON STUPID award winner.
OK, first off that was from Aspen Daily Snooze. So consider the gene pool of the readers of that paper.
I wonder what the obtuse Mr.Veit thinks we should make of the Sept. 11th attacks? Would he say that the Twin Towers were attacked by terrorists, but the Pentagon was not? How about Flight 93 that was ditched with the help of patriots before it could hit the White House? Were they not terrorists when they were headed for the White House and then they were terrorists when what they accomplished was killing a plane full of citizens?
OK, first off that was from Aspen Daily Snooze. So consider the gene pool of the readers of that paper.
I wonder what the obtuse Mr.Veit thinks we should make of the Sept. 11th attacks? Would he say that the Twin Towers were attacked by terrorists, but the Pentagon was not? How about Flight 93 that was ditched with the help of patriots before it could hit the White House? Were they not terrorists when they were headed for the White House and then they were terrorists when what they accomplished was killing a plane full of citizens?
Made me so angry, I double posted.
Ladies and gentlemen, meet historical revisionism before our very eyes.
I’d laugh if this weren’t such a tragic example of bedwetting liberalism and the affect they have not only on our modern world, but the way that history will judge us.
Terrorism is acts of war or political violence carried out by those with no legitimate, recognized right to do so. They are not governments. Governments which violate the rules of war commit war crimes. They are not even recognized quasi-government political movements like the Viet Cong (which had a shadow government and even a kinda-sorta parliament). Such conduct guerrilla war, and are supposed to be held accountable to the laws, uses and practices of war. Terrorists are individuals, perhaps small factions, even political parties, who may or (usually)may not wear uniforms, use only ‘approved and accepted weapons’, strike at military targets only, and hold their members accountable for their actions; usually they do none of these.
Under the usages and conventions of war in the 19th Century, such parties were equated with pirates, and could be summarily executed if caught bearing arms. I do not know what the current international law on them is, and I am afraid that the American government's legal position on terrorism is - shall we say - not a model of clarity and applicability.
VietVet
Before all of you go off on a rant you need to understand the reasons for a specific and limited definition of terrorism, as well as other forms of violence for political ends - and why the distinctions are important.
I am halfway through a course on terrorism in the Middle East at the local University. It is taught by a part-time visiting professor of sociology from Israel - part-time because he is also an IDF infantry major, on the command staff of the Northern District of Israel (facing Hizbollah in Syria and Lebanon).
Israel is a small country with a very capable armed force, but it is small compared to the giants. The senior officers know each other, and during their military careers have worked in most of the different areas of military service. So Major Chodoff has more experience with both counter-terrorism and guerilla warfare than almost anyone you could mention.
First, the definition. Terrorism consists of violence or the credible threat of violence, committed against non-combatants but targeted for a larger audience, for the purpose of effecting political change. The targeting is indiscriminate - not aimed at specific individuals, although frequently at a group or class. And it is ALWAYS committed by a non-state entity.
This kind of an attack committed by one state against another is no less than an act of war, and terrorism is an inadequate word to describe it.
Assassination differs in that it is aimed directly at the political establishment, whether that is the ruler, military, police, or civil government. Tyrannicide has an ancient history, but it peaked in the 19th and early 20th centuries in the anarchist movement. By the way, how do you organize an anarchy? Two of the most famous victims were President McKinley and Archduke Ferdinand.
The problem lies in our general approval of personal freedom and antipathy toward repression and dictatorship. We tend to view movements of national liberation in a positive light, even when they engage in violence to achieve their ends. The mistaken notion that, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” makes a specific and exclusive definition of terrorism essential if we are to decide whom to support and whom to oppose.
Consider our sympathy for the victims in Darfur, Kurds in Iraq, and currently for some on this forum, the Palestinians, who pay NO HEED WHATSOEVER to the Geneva conventions. For instance, Israel had know for months that the Gaza headquarters for Hamas were located in the basement of the main hospital in Gaza City. That ENUMERATED war crime automatically made EVERY HOSPITAL IN GAZA a legitimate military target according to the Geneva convention, without regard to any “collateral damage” to civilians within. But of course, Israel did NOT attack that or any other hospital during their incursion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.