Terrorism under Clinton/GWB/Obama

[JVides]

Ask dolphantom if the Fort Hood attack is terrorism.  I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you that you're wrong (at least, when a Democrat is president)..

Yeah, I don't know what to call that!  I guess it is whatever supports someone's argument.  I certainly wouldn't call it combat, so I would lean terrorism.  However, the larger point I'm trying to make is that laying these things at the feet of sitting presidents is foolhardy, no matter who is in office.  That damned FDR could've prevented Pearl Harbor!!

But honestly, I don't see it as ambiguous.  I specifically did not include people who died in combat against the Iraqi military.  However, those actions had ceased by the time Bush declared Mission Accomplished.  So every single American that has died in Iraq since then was not killed by an opposing nation's military, but by rogue radicals trying to frighten and demoralize us.  This is the definition of terrorism.

Well, sure, if "frighten and demoralize" enters into the definition, then all warfare is terrorism.  Fire bombing Dresden wasn't exactly the height of strategic planning.  I don't think Nagasaki was exceptionally important, from a strategic standpoint, either.  That's why I say it's a thin, blurry line.  I also wouldn't put much stock in "Mission Accomplished", as even Bush admitted that was an error (and seriously, when have you ever heard George Bush admit to mistakes?  Not his thing.)

[dolphantom]

  you can sit here and say this and that.  debate all day long. play the blame game . statistics or not. left or right, it does not matter. the government will always justify thier actions to do whatever they want. to think otherwise is just plain naive. all i'm saying is watch what they do, not what they say. these politicians have us pinned against one another, meanwhile they fulfill thier own agendas at any cost. bush, obama, clinton... are all the same animal.  they all want personal gain. debating politics is like shoveling shit against the tide.  a no- win battle. you'll never completely prove any one event wrong or right no matter the how many facts are presented. because in the end its all how you, the individual, choose to interpret those facts.

[Spider-Dan]

yeah , including the author of the post. dont hurt yourself there spider.

Wow, I'm disappointed.  You throw out all these supposed facts and statistics, but with the tiniest pushback you immediately retreat to single line responses devoid of content.  I thought you'd have a little more substance to your argument, or I wouldn't have bothered making this thread.

edit: Oh, I guess there is this:

you can sit here and say this and that.  debate all day long. play the blame game . statistics or not. left or right, it does not matter. the government will always justify thier actions to do whatever they want. to think otherwise is just plain naive. all i'm saying is watch what they do, not what they say. these politicians have us pinned against one another, meanwhile they fulfill thier own agendas at any cost. bush, obama, clinton... are all the same animal.

So we've went from "Obama has been worse in one year than Bush was in 8" and "Clinton caused 9/11 and two wars" to "left vs. right doesn't matter, Clinton/Bush/Obama are all the same animal" that quickly?

I had such high hopes for you.

[Spider-Dan]

Well, sure, if "frighten and demoralize" enters into the definition, then all warfare is terrorism.  Fire bombing Dresden wasn't exactly the height of strategic planning.  I don't think Nagasaki was exceptionally important, from a strategic standpoint, either.  That's why I way it's a thin, blurry line.

The difference is that in your cited examples, the United States of America was in a declared state of war against the nation of Germany and the empire of Japan.  While I would be willing to accept that the U.S. was in an actual war against the nation of Iraq, such a war (by any reasonable definition) was ended when we took over their government.  Any attacks after that time were perpetrated by terrorists.

[Phishfan]

Any attacks after that time were perpetrated by terrorists.

This is terminology I disagree with. They are not terrorists, they are insurgents. Terrorists may make up a percentage of the group but as a whole they are not terrorists.

[JVides]

The difference is that in your cited examples, the United States of America was in a declared state of war against the nation of Germany and the empire of Japan.  While I would be willing to accept that the U.S. was in an actual war against the nation of Iraq, such a war (by any reasonable definition) was ended when we took over their government.  Any attacks after that time were perpetrated by terrorists.

I can agree with that, I suppose.  But then again, the French Resistance would tell you that they conducted warfare against the Nazis -- who had taken over France and overthrown its government --  not acts of terrorism.  It all lies in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.  From our perspective, I would agree with everything you wrote.  From a global perspective, "guerrilla warfare" and "terrorism" are usually the same act called different things.  

[Sunstroke]

^^^ Labels are often based heavily on perspective, and when it comes to wrong/right, good/bad issues, you should always expect the person to use the label that paints him (or the side he supports) in the most positive light.

[Spider-Dan]

I can agree with that, I suppose.  But then again, the French Resistance would tell you that they conducted warfare against the Nazis -- who had taken over France and overthrown its government --  not acts of terrorism.  It all lies in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.  From our perspective, I would agree with everything you wrote.  From a global perspective, "guerrilla warfare" and "terrorism" are usually the same act called different things.

From Britain's perspective, the rebellious American colonists might have been terrorists.  But as the saying goes, history is written by the victors.

I will say that I do see a definite distinction between persons who attack the U.S. (or U.S. interests) in foreign lands with the goal of driving the U.S. out, and people who attack targets inside the U.S. with the hope of breaking our will to participate in global politics.  I'm not saying that they are the same thing, but one of the original premises of this thread was the claim that overseas attacks in foreign nations "count" as terrorist attacks.  If those are the rules of engagement, then everything that has happened in Iraq since we deposed their gov't must also count.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

From Britain's perspective, the rebellious American colonists might have been terrorists.  But as the saying goes, history is written by the victors.

I prefer the following definitions.....

Targeting a military force by a uniformed force - war
Targeting of civilians by a non-uniformed force --- terrorism
Targeting of a military force by a non uniformed force - asymmetrical warfare
Targeting of civilians by a uniformed force - genocide. 

By these definitions the attack on the Cole, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and almost all of the attacks in Iraq, the minutemen at bunker hill, the french resistance in wwii and the bombing of an ROTC center are asymmetrical warfare.

The WTC, the abortion clinics, Oklahoma city, and the olympics bombing are terrorism. 

Hiroshima, the German rocket attacks on London, Dresden and the firing on protestors at Kent State are all genocide.

Instead of looking at whose politics you agree with look at who is attacking who.   

[MaineDolFan]

I'd call those acts of warfare, for the most part.  Suicide bombings in crowded places = terrorism.  Gunned down by a combatant with an AK-47 = warfare.  Thin, blurry line... I know.

I am not sure where I fall in this debate.  But I will say this - the level on convential warfare deaths versus death via IED on the side of the road is severely tilted.  While there are certainly a lot of lives lost in gun fire battle, I believe a large majority of deaths in either war are not due to a convential "we know who we're fighting" manner.

In other words...there are no real "front lines" here.  Both situations, Iraq and Afghanistan, are unlike any combat situation we've ever faced.

And seeing that both countries are "goverened" by friendly to us units, and the enemy is (more or less) one of a guerrilla force, I would lean towards agreement with Spider on how to classify the war dead.

When the invasion started, no.  Now?  Yes.

My two cents, anyway.

[MaineDolFan]

Instead of looking at whose politics you agree with look at who is attacking who.   

How would you classify the ass whippin' the Ravens laid down on the Pats? 

[Guru-In-Vegas]

I would classify it as pale in comparison to the intellective ass whipping Spider laid on Dolphantom. 

Nice 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

How would you classify the ass whippin' the Ravens laid down on the Pats? 

War.  Both sides were in uniform.   

[MaineDolFan]

I would classify it as pale in comparison to the intellective ass whipping Spider laid on Dolphantom. 

Nice 

Word.

I think we all have been on the wrong side of a Spider-Dan bitch slap from time to time.  It ain't fun!  I know.

If you get into it with S-D you better damn well have your facts straight.  If you don't, he'll chew you up and spit you out.  That said, I've seen him admit when he's not right.  He won't stick to a point just for giggles.  If you get him, he'll admit it.  Always classy, always on target, never personal.

Hands down one of the most articulate and intelligent posters in the history of TDMMC.

[bsmooth]

yeah , including the author of the post. dont hurt yourself there spider.

I am quite sure the Spider's inner thesaurus is far greater than the average person educated in this country.