From the AP:
The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was “heading toward annihilation,” just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a “permanent threat” to the Middle East that will “soon” be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.
“Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation,” Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. “The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.”
Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be “wiped off the map.”
On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: “If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?”
The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, “will be freed soon.”
He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: “Believe that Palestine will be freed soon.”
Well, he may not have said how, but I can take a guess that it won’t be by way of invasion by Iranian ground troops.
Of course, Ahmadinejad being a Persian Brown Person™ and all, we need not take him at his word. Because you know how those people are—all bark and no bite. Besides, the threat from al Qaeda has been consistently overblown by the current fear-mongering administration; in fact, statistically, you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning or attacked by a hammerhead shark than you do dying in a terrorist attack.
Unless of course you happened to be at the top of one of those Towers nearly 5 years ago. Or working below deck on the USS Cole. Or, evidently, if you live near a port that the UAE was hoping to use the free market to manage. Then the calculus changes a bit.
But that’s all beside the point. Because the fact is, Iran is probably years and years and years away from a workable nuclear weapon anyway (unless of course this is true)—and even if they DO get a bomb, so what? First off, they aren’t likely to use it, because that would make Kofi Annan angry—and when Kofi furrows his brow and raises his voice a notch, Champagne flutes rattle and the consommé grows cold. Secondly, keeping the nuclear bomb as a deterrent to US imperialism so that Iran can control Iraq and keep the rest of the middle east in line is a far better option—the kind of thing a rational actor like Ahmadinejad would almost certainly do.
Which is all perfectly fine. How Iran runs its country is no business of ours, anyway. Above all else, one must avoid the unseemly spectacle of being thought of as a hegemon.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go feed my unicorns and see if I can’t get the minotaur to mow the lawn. And if he ain’t around, perhaps Seymour Hersh would be willing to lend me a hand.
Together, perhaps Seymour and I can talk the grass into cutting itself.
(h/t Muslihoon; for an opposing view, see High Clearing, where, as Sanity Inspector notes, “Jim Henley […] thinks these seeming threats are being taken out of context, and that the U. S.’s scaring talk about “dealing†with Iran is the real threat”)
****
update: Allah sends along a link to The New Republic proving that not all liberals are burying their heads in the sand and pretending that leaving their asses exposed when they doubt Iran’s potential for following through on its clear proclamations is a form of sophistication (link requires free registration). A synopsis of the piece can be found here.
Jim Henley over at High Clearing thinks these seeming threats are being taken out of context, and that the U. S.’s scaring talk about “dealing” with Iran is the real threat. Click here and scope the comments.
Disclosure: This is technically link whoring, since I myself posted a few times to that thread.
Turing = lived, as in Historians of the future will wonder how anyone could have lived with a nuclear jihadist state nearby.
Oh no worries here. The UN has its best man in Iran right now working out these little problems.
If only we could impeach Bush the world would no longer have to fear the real evil in the world that springs from the USA.
…..sigh
After you feed the ‘corns and get the lawn taken care of you might see if you can rouse that land lobster from the recliner, pry him into the leotards, get him shod, put on the “Dirty Dancing” sound track and spin him like a top to get him started.
Dear Israeli Air Force,
The order you have requested for 5 KC-135 Stratotanker aerial refueling tanker aircraft, 1500 bunker buster bombs, and full air space clearance through Iraqi airspace (don’t worry about Jordan, they won’t bother you) has been unconditionally approved.
Happy hunting!
Sincerely,
The United States Military
Kofi Annan doesn’t get mad. He gets deeply troubled.
Sanity Inspector,
I guess it just comes down to: do you believe the Iranians mean what they say or not. I guess to justify not believing them you have to twist yourself in knots trying to discern “context” and “nuance” from plain spoken threats to destroy Israel. That Jim Henly (or any else) believes Rafsanjani or Ahmadinejad directs their speach writers to write speeches that ostensibly threaten Israels destruction but which when “analyzed” for “context” indicate something else really amazes me. Why would Iran make threats like that if they didn’t believe it? They only serve to make it more likely that us or Israel will eventually attack their nuclear facilities. Of course that question makes the same error Jim and friends is making, imputing rational thought processes that mirror their own to an irrational enemy.
He’s just pissed because an ancient Persian emperor got a good looking Jew babe, and he’s got no good looking Jew babe.
I was also reminded of the movie “The Mouse That Roared”. Maybe he looked at Vietnam and compared it with Germany and Japan and said “Ya know, starting a war with the U.S. isn’t such a bad thing, as long as you make sure you lose.â€Â
I thought Iraq was sovereign. I don’t know if they like Israelies flying over them.
Good arguments, Jeff. I think you left just one out:
Who the hell are we, the U.S., to say that Israel can have nukes but Iran can’t? Is that fair, I ask?
Jeff,
You have characterized in this post the attack on the USS Cole as a “terrorist attack.”
But the attack on the Cole was a an attack on our military. It was, by definition, NOT a terrorist attack.
Or do you believe otherwise? I’d like to hear your thoughts on this matter.
(You may judge my bona fides with respect to terrorists by what is written on my blog. I’m seeking here a serious comparison of attacks against our military – and whether or not such attacks can be considered “terrorist attacks.”
JPS,
We never told Iran they “couldn’t have nukes.” We are telling them there will be CONSEQUENCES that are associated with those actions that will make them wish they hadn’t tried to acquire them.
A subtle difference, perhaps, but … well, there it is.
Is that h/t Muslihoon, who also blogs here? Wondering if its the same guy.
Dear Senor Manshake Von Jabotinski,
The Iran pill will be harder to swallow than you seem to believe…but with Gargantuan Wilsonian fools with nukes still calling the shots in Washington, anything can happen!
Basically the Neocons are now trying desperately to rebuild the Arab/Iranian geopolitical balance that they had deliberately destroyed in the first place by toppling Saddam´s secular regime.
I guess that’s what self-proclaimed ´universal fascists´ such as Mike Ledeen call ´creative chaos´ whatever that means…
Faster please!
Turns out we haven’t missed you here, Vic. So I’m going to send you and the manshake thing packing. Don’t come back, okay?
Actus,
Whatever gave you the idea that Iraq was sovereign?
Let me disabuse you of that notion. A good definition of the word includes the following:
“autonomous: (of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces.”
The United States of America controls Iraq (you certainly do not like that inconvenient fact, but, well, there it is.)
Rightnumberone —
It was a terrorist attack insofar as it was an attack by terrorists on the US military. It was also causus belli for war. But I wasn’t trying to draw any subtle distinctions.
Jeff,
That’s what I thought you meant, however the term “terrorist attack” is most usually associated with an attack by a non-governmental group against a civilian population.
Just wanted to point out the distinction.
The attack on the Cole was carried out by people who are otherwise also engaged in carrying out terrorist attacks, but that attack itself wasn’t a “terrorist attack.”
I realize I’m drawing a fine distinction here, but I thought it was an important one.
Attacks on our military cannot be considered terrorist attacks (or, for that matter, a very good fucking idea).
By the way Jeff,
I just wanted to say thanks to you for having the fortitude to actually engage in a conversation with your readership. It’s what separates this blog from many other perhaps more trafficked ones, and is what keeps me coming back day after day.
So, rightnumberone, what would you call “an attack by a non-governmental group” against our military personnel in ostensibly friendly territory? Just wondering.
This sort of stuff
But maybe it was all liberal media BS.
I don’t agree with that conclusion. I certainly consider the attack on the Pentagon a terrorist attack. I would consider an attack on any of our military or civilian assets as a terrorist attact unless it was instigated by an identifiable military.
rls,
I agree that the attack on the Pentagon was a “terrorist attack” in the sense that innocent civilians were used as part of the weapon and that it occurred as part of a broader attack on civilian populations unconnected to the military.
But true terrorist attacks have the goal of terrorizing the civilian population into affecting government policy.
To illustrate my point: suppose that the only attacks by Al Queda so far had been against our military. Would we have invaded Afghanistan or even Iraq? I don’t think so.
In that sense, I don’t agree that the attack on the USS Cole was a terrorist attack. It was an attack conducted by people who ALSO use terrorist attacks in their arsenal.
But, perhaps it’s too fine a point to draw.
Oh, yes! I’m sure we would have. I think any attack on US assets under Bush would result in overwhelming military response.
Actus,
You make the mistake of allowing other people’s innocent misuse of a word stand in for common sense.
Iraq cannot be sovereign as long as we control it. And although our ultimate goal is what you desire (and I’m going waaaaay out on a limb here and assuming that you desire the sovereignty of Iraq that ONLY the United States can provide to it rather than just a purient interest in seeing the US Military defeated) … that hasn’t happened yet.
actus: actually, Iraq would not say anything as the Kurds have indicated their willingness to let Israel use their airspace. Sure, the Sunnis and Shiites might object, but I doubt the Kurds are going to care much.
As far as sovereignty is concerned, Iraq is, technically, sovereign. Our military presence in Iraq is by invitation of the Iraqi government. But the operative word here is “technically.”
I am not comfortable with statements that say that the bigger threat is how we react strongly to Iran. I understand such a position, though. Nevertheless, Iran needs to be taught that when a state makes a statement, there are consequences. Iran must learn how to behave according to the rules of the international state system. This is crucial for all states, to ensure a more harmonious and stable existence. One cannot, even for shock value, say another sovereign state will be wiped out.
History has taught us to take all pronouncements seriously. This is not to say that we must react with excessive force to each statement but that we must never dismiss any statement. That Iran is willing to state such things publicly says a lot against the regime.
tee bee: Yep, that’s I.
That’s gotta be one creaky, shaky limb you’re on there.
I’m not sure what to make of it, but the DoD does include the Cole attack (October 12, 2000) on it’s Timeline of Terrorism.
Sean,
Kinda feels like the only handhold I have is a leaf.
Heh.
Sean,
Kinda feels like the only handhold I have is a leaf.
Oscar,
I grant you that the military considers attacks on it as “terrorist attacks” but that doesn’t make it so. There is the propoganda aspect of it (and yes, Actus, the US Military is capable of generating propoganda designed to elicit its support by the mostly unconnected populace – not altogheter a bad thing – but we here are smart enough to see the nuance.)
Er, “its”, of course. Caught it, tried to fix it, and nearly double-posted it instead.
So sorry.
It never occurs to you that Ahmadinejad is trolling to be attacked. The question doesn’t cross your mind why he should never miss the opportunity to make provocative statements at a time your imbecile in chief is jonesing to attack. He’s crazy, right? As you race to react predictably, it never dawns on you he’s playing the propaganda role you have for him against you. Is he stupid as well as crazy? Why I bet you really think he believes the Holocaust didn’t happen. The fact he’s smarter and knows more about his situation than the pack of you combined doesn’t enter into your calculations. Nope, it seems you are determined for Iran to beat America again. This’ll be the third time, right?
Ali,
Has it never occurred to you that we know he’s trolling for an attack … and that’s why one hasn’t occurred yet?
Nobody here believes his rhetoric. We believe only his actions. And Iran hasn’t made any strategic moves since it got its ass handed to it in the war with Iraq.
Iran took on Iraq in an 8-year war, and could barely hold its own borders. Even attacks on oil tankers ceased the day the Soviet Union and the United States flagged all significant tankers operating in the region.
Do you really think that Iran has any military significance in the world?
You should read up on Teddy Roosevelt: “Talk softly, but carry a big stick.”
My prediction is that Mr. Ahmadinejad is carrying a “stick” about 6.5 inches long.
And that’s all he’s carrying.
rightnumberone:
The definition does seem to be disputed:
(found here.)
The State Department seems to to include the Cole bombing in its definition, too.
Thank you, rightnumberone.
I’m still paranoid, but I believe what you have written: we won’t act unless he acts, and he hasn’t done anything to suggest he may act on his words. Good point.
Oscar,
I think that general definition is probably the most accurate. (Lone killings of off-duty or otherwise idle military personnel would be, in my judgement, considered “terrorist attacks,” whereas the USS Cole attack, or even the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, would not be.
Muslihoon,
Do not misread my words.
We are currently “acting” against Iran. However, we are not doing so out of some paranoia that Mr. Ahmadinejad has the capability to impact our lives.
He is playing checkers. We are playing chess.
And we are winning.
And it is worth noting that the United States does not hold the Iranian people responsible for the actions of its Islamic dictators.
As we act, we do so with that full knowledge and with the belief that the Iranian people seek the very same freedoms that the United States has provided to the people of Iraq.
A small point on MAD theory that seems to be missed by some- MAD does not only rely on both sides being rational…it relies on the other guy flintching and it relies on luck. It’s as if MAD has ascended to the realm of scientific law- a certainty that deterance is as inescapable as gravity. But at the most threatening moment of the Cold War, rational men called for escalation- they called for nuclear war. Castro (who I think I can safely say has at least demonstrated himself as more rational [not partuclarly less disgusting] than the leadership of Iran) begged Kruschev to launch. Party hardliners called for Kruschev to challenge the blocade. And American military advisors called on Kennedy to attack Cuba. In the end it was Krushcev flintching, a diplomatic move so odd it sounds like it was stolen from a ‘40 English farce, and just a tad of faith that saw us through those nights.
Aside from asking whether or not Ahmadinejad is rational, shouldn’t we be asking if he’s the type (or the Mullahs, for that matter) to flintch?
But the attack on the Cole was a an attack on our military. It was, by definition, NOT a terrorist attack.
rightnumberone, an attack on a military target is not ipso facto not-terrorist. You’re making a profoundly idiotic argument, here.
Guy (In Chicago)
We don’t have to make Mr. Ahmadinejad flinch if the people SURROUNDING him do.
There are many ways to skin a cat – or a checker’s player.
Brett,
I never said that an attack on a military target was “ipso facto non-terrorist.” I said that the attack on the USS Cole, specifically, was, by definition, not a terrorist attack.
You are grasping here with your loose term “military target.” Could you define that?
For example, is a factory that makes milk for general consumption, but also sells powdered milk to the military, a “military target?”
Some would definitely argue that the milk factory was, by its providing material support to a standing army, a “military target” and yet, if someone drove a truck bomb into that plant and detonated it, I would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would call this anything BUT a terrorist attack.
I must say, I quite like that statement.
Jeff,
I heard Seymour Hersch on Terry Gross’ program “Fresh Air” a few nights ago and wished you had been interviewing him instead.
He did bring up the interesting point that the power of the Iranian president is constrained by the Ayatollahs, but that pushes the question back only one or two remove e.g., “How much control do they have over him” and “Do they agree with him?”
This is all so complicated. If you and Seymour could just clarify it for us (maybe the unicorn would act as umpire), I would be grateful.
HCT
Oh, not only is it sovereing, its also federal. Ok. Great!
rightnumberone:
I’m sure that you’re move conversant on this topic than I am, but I was surprised to learn that DoD, DoS, and the U.S. government (since 1983) have used a broader definition of the term than the one that I’ve grown used to be hearing in recent years (which is close to the general definition that you use).
That’s all. I didn’t mean to start any arguments.
Teadood,
Let me posit an answer:
The Ayatollahs put him there. Do you think they can’t remove him if he puts them in a position that is threatening to the continued pursuit of their goals?
As long as Mr. Ahmadinejad is ADVANCING the goals of the Ayatollahs, he will remain President. The moment they begin to believe that he has become a THREAT to their goals, he will disappear into the night, the victim of a pernicious Russian “cold.”
And so, the next logical question is: What are the goals of the Ayatollahs? And the answer to that question is the same answer that it always and ever shall be: zakah
Or, in western terms: Follow. The. Money.
rightnumberone, true that. But don’t underestimate the Judenhass.
Oscar,
No problemo: This is a topic that interests me, and so it’s not really an argument. I enjoy the competing opinions.
But, I think if you read closer Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d), you will see in that context that the attack on the USS Cole cannot be properly defined as being a definitional “terrorist attack.”
The US Marines (and the other branches), I’m quite sure, consider ANY attack on it by non-traditional combatants to be a terrorist attack, especially if it is committed by those groups who are primarily otherwise engaged in such attacks. There is a propoganda value in classifying these types of attacks as “terrorist attacks” in that such classifications tend to make the general (non-combatant) population feel an empathy with the military.
We civilians, however, see attacks on our military as part of their solemn duty, and one that I hope we all appreciate. The military exists and was created to absorb attacks that would otherwise be directed against us, the non-combatants.
For that, we should be forever humble and grateful.
SI, I stand in amazement at Henley and company.
Here we have an Iranian state on the verge of being nuclear-capable, led by apocalyptic loons who are pining, if not openly calling for, the nuclear annihilation of Israel. And Henley says, to people concerned about this, “Aw, you’re just a bunch of girly-men jumping at shadows. Look at the context.”
Meanwhile, Sy Hersh proffers unconfirmed reports that the nuclear option is on the table with respect to Iran. And here’s Henley screeching about the COMPLETE INSANITY OF THE MERE SUGGESTION of any kind of military action against Iran, never mind a nuclear strike.
It says quite a lot about the Henley’s political imbecility that he (a) doesn’t seem to consider a nuclear-armed Iran saber-rattling about Israel’s destruction to be a threat worth worrying about; and (b) has more faith in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s capacity to be a measured, reasonable, and responsible steward of a nuclear arsenal than he does in George W. Bush’s. You’d think that the Big-L Libertarian, antiwar.com fools would stop gibbering, once in a while, to contemplate why the American electorate steadfastly refuses to let them sit at the political Big Kid’s Table.
I said that the attack on the USS Cole, specifically, was, by definition, not a terrorist attack.
The only way this statement makes any sense at all, RNO, is if you are defining “terrorist attack” in such a way that the term does not apply to attacks on military targets such as the Cole.
Which, as I said, is a profoundly idiotic argument. The nature of the target has absolutely no bearing on whether an attack should be categorized as a terrorist attack.
Pablo,
Zakah is the 2.5% of all income that Muslims pay in addition to income taxes, generally to either the Mosque, or some other Imam-specificed “charity” that he usually controls and takes a significant “management fee” from (if you get the hint.)
The Zakah is one of the (very convenient, from the Imam’s point of view) five pillars of Islam, the other four being:
1) The Shahada – Belief in Muhammad and God as one.
2) The Salat – Prayer and its related customs
3) The Sawm – Fasting (during Ramadan)
4) The Hajj – The pilgrimage to Mecca
Brett,
Maybe it would be easier if YOU proffered a definition of “terrorist attack” rather than just attacking mine.
I’m genuinely curious as to what you would propose.
On the other hand, Iraq and Iran haven’t exactly been best buddies, either. Maybe they only like Israelis flying over them before bombing the shit out of Iran.
Don’t forget the khums, and extra tax that Shiites usually pay.
Being a mullah can be quite lucrative.
Actus,
About your question on Iraqi sovereignty. There’s one telling of the Israeli raid on the Osirak reactor that has the King of Jordan on his yacht in the Gulf of Aqaba as the flight of F-16s roared past. He called his air defense chief, the story goes, but they’d been too low to pick up on radar.
This is almost too satisfying to be true, but suppose it’s apocryphal: I don’t think King Hussein’s public posture was that the IAF could overfly Jordanian airspace (which they most certainly did do) to set back Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions, but (a) his private posture may have been different and (b) there wouldn’t have been a hell of a lot he could do anyway, presented with a fait accompli.
Personally, I distrust the scenario where Israel strikes suddenly at Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Too deus ex machina for me; I’d love to believe it’ll happen, but I suspect we’ll have to deal with Iran some way, and it won’t be pretty.
If they did, however, I suspect that we’d know nothing about it in advance; and that we’d convince the Iraqis, in advance, not to know anything about it either. We might even encourage them, after the fact, to publicly express their outrage at this violation of their airspace. Maybe to take it up with the UN, which will express its stern disapproval.
RNO:
On our need for humility and gratitude, we certainly agree.
However, I still do not see (perhaps due to ignorance) how the last sentence I quoted above, said to be from Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d), would exclude the Cole attack:
While that sentence may have been included due to the attacks’ propaganda value (I recall an event it Lebanon in 1983), it’s still our government’s definition, right?
In any event, thanks for your thoughts.
Muslihoon,
Not to mention the tax that Dhimmis pay.
It is one you will find we resist quite a bit more than anything those lightweight Democrats might think to throw at us.
Oscar,
The USS Cole was attacked while refueling in at a port in Yemen (an almost totally Muslim country).
Since nobody on board could be in any way considered an unarmed non-combatant even in the absence of a declared action (such as a war), this was most definitly NOT an attack on what we would classically term a “civilian population,” nor similar to an attack on a couple of GI’s sitting in a bar, off-duty, as most of the incidents cited in note (1) of the definition would seem to suggest would be included in the definition of a “non-combatant.”
I am not a lawyer, but I don’t think one needs to be to make this distinction.
rightnumberone, thanks, but I already know more than I ever wanted to about Islam. My point is that while the Mullahs most certainly exploit the trappings of heavenly sent thugocracy, I think there’s still a big streak of batshit, Jew-hating-because-Allan-told-me-so” crazy at the top of that particular totem pole.
How better to command the respect, or even the reverence of the Ummah than to be the one’s who finish Allan’s work with the elimination of the Zionist entity?
Power trips aside, I think they’re relatively serious about that bit. I’m afraid that if they had the tools to do it, they just might, Western politics be damned.
Oscar,
To clarify: I think that the classic definition of a “terrorist attack” has 3 elements:
1) an attack on non-combatants, almost exclusively CIVILIAN non-combatants (but that might include off-duty military personnel eating in a restaurant, and such) … by
2) Unallied forces (non-governmental entities or armies) that has as its purpose …
3) The desire to force the non-combatants, through the fear of additional future random attacks, to change the policies of the government, and through the government, the military, to somthing the terrorists desire.
By this definition, I’m not convinced that attacks upon on-duty military ships count as “terrorist attacks” even if the group that performs the attack is usually engaged in classic terrorist actions.
…on the Arabian Peninsula, which we’d been warned out of in 1998, as far as al-Q is concerned. The Cole was just another in a series of attacks on American interests there, and it’s been a pretty clearly marked battlefield for some time.
It also wasn’t simply a political play. They wanted to sink our fucking boat, and they damn near did it. I agree that it was not, by definition, terrorism.
RNO:
I a not a lawyer, either. The definition that you give immediately above would certainly seem to exclude the Cole bombing. If that definition is somehow “better” than the one in the U.S. Code, then the Cole discussion should cease. If not, though:
I’m pretty sure that the docked Cole and her crew would fall within “military installations or [] armed military personnel”.
And, as I understand it, we had a fairly long-standing agreement to use the port in Aden, so I don’t think that we were (then or now) in a state of military hostilities with Yemen.
It is for these reasons that I think the attack would have fit the definition in the U.S. Code.
If I’m correct, but you disagree with the government’s definition, I’m fine with that. If I’m reading things incorrectly (or irrelevantly per you and Pablo), I would like to know that, too.
Thanks again. I will definitely check back in a little later.
Pablo,
Couldn’t agree more.
One wonders why they hate the Jew so much. I think it may be purely economics. After all, one cannot be a Muslim and charge interest on loans (see: Follow. The. Money.)
That has profound effects on economies, which in turn has profound effects on quality of life, and thus, self-esteem. But it is outlawed by the religion.
If I could change one thing about Islam it would be this: Muslims should be able to charge interest on loans.
In one fell swoop, it would solve ALL of the problems in the Middle East (my, admittedly, high-school educated view.)
Think about it this way: The United States was discovered by (some would have it) Christopher Columbus in 1492 … just over 500 years ago. It was found largely empty save scattered populations of natives.
Iran, formerly Persia, was established roughly 600 years BEFORE CHRIST, or, roughly 2,600 years ago.
Quite a head start they blew, no? Imagine if you were on the team that blew that lead and how it must affect your self-esteem.
Oscar,
No, I think you have it about right. I disagree with the military’s abuse of the term “terrorist attack” and find that this abusive definiton is sneaking into everyone else’s thinking – insidiously.
Terrorists attack civilians for the purpose of creating fear that leads to pressure on the governors of the governed. The military should not be calling the attack on the USS Cole a “terrorist attack” and we shouldn’t either.
Besides, that’s about as many typos as I allow myself to make in one night.
It may be time to adjust the resolution on this new monitor.
And again, let me say to Jeff Goldstein that it is this conversation that we are having that keeps me (and many others) coming back to this blog.
My apologies for “hijacking” the comment thread. I hope I’ve been a good guest.
de-lurking for a moment –
RNO sez:
“My apologies for “hijacking†the comment thread. I hope I’ve been a good guest.”
No, you haven’t. You’ve been tiresome and pedantic. And in the context of a discussion of terrorism, “hijacking” was either an unfortunate or overly precious choice of words.
This is to notify everyone that you must use rightnumberone’s dictionary or you cannot post. This is an official act. Violation of this rule will be grounds for being ridiculed by rightnumberone and his dictionary staff, that is, by rightnumberone. That is all.
This “Allan” guy sounds like a real anti-semitic nutjob, Pablo.
The USS Cole incident was a terrorist attack.
This is the first I’ve heard of Allan. Forget about bin Laden, lets get this Allan dude and the whole thing is over. And since his name isn’t middle-eastern all the better. No racism involved!
Nonnie,
I have two words for you bub:
Tee.
Hee.
And To The BlogCop:
That’s:
Ete.
Ehe.
It’s at least nice of you, RNO, to try to be so respectful, whether we agree with you or not.
Besides, I really liked your checkers/chess analogy.
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, propose to the international community that the state of israel is moved to Europe, particularly in Germany and Austria, continent and countries where from originates the majority of the inhabitants of israel, rather than the middle east, its current location, where obviously, it never has been integrated with the local populations.
This proposal stands to reason and contrasts with the insane idea to establish a Jewish state in the middle of Arab populations. One would have liked that it was considered a few tens of years behind, at the time where the situation with the middle East was not as degraded as it is it now and where the plan of occupation of the Palestinian territories (colonization) was less advanced. It would have been possible to organize the return of the Jews in their countries of origin as returned the other deportees of Europe there. One cannot sees indeed why the Arab populations of Palestine must support the Israeli occupation whereas the persons who caused Jewish persecutions are not originating in these regions! It is completely absurd and unjust and the argument of the Iranian president is from this point of view, unstoppable.
Now, the conclusions he draws from that are debatable, to wish the end of israel is not the solution, as to wish the end of Palestinian by colonizing them is not either. His remarks have the merit to draw the attention on the slow genocide of the Palestinian people. The occident believed it could get rid of the Jewish problem by putting it on the back of arab populations. What a historical error! Even if arabs living after the war were more flexible than those nowadays, it were certainly the worst idea of the century to establish them in an environment which was to them in all points foreign.
Then, is it possible to put things in order and to put an end to this population transplant against nature? Undoubtedly, one will need a voluntarist policy of the international community which must act confronted to the failure of the state of israel. Counting on the deterioration of the situation does not lead to anything, one does not make people bend when they defend their territory, the Israelis learned it at their expense and American in Iraq too.
The Israelis are in front of a wall, they created places of concentration for the Palestinian population to control the one they could not deport, and don’t know what to do now. A situation which should be familiar for them but that they seem to discover each day so much the improvisation of their actions is striking, without pun. They cannot from now on live any more without their enemy. The enemy is necessary. He justifies the use of the force, he legitimates the expansion of the colonies, he replaces any discussion. There never was negotiation between israel and Palestine, only confrontation, the invasion of Palestine carried in germ a final tragedy, and it will be tragic.
Invasion of Palestine? Hooo boy!
A genocide so slow that the birth rate outpaces it by an order of magnitude.
Patrick EMIN, do us a favor and don’t use words you don’t understand the meaning of, OK?
Lew Clark sez:
“There is no guy but Allan, and Moe is his agent.”
Say that 3 times and you’re in!
One suspects that the “Patrick EMIN,” he is how you say, not one who is the one who he is acquainted with the English grammar or he is not the familiar with the, how you say, history of the Middle East in the last 150 or so years.
LOL, Patrick EMIN!!!1!
RNO sez:
It only muddies things, like the de-defining of the word torture to include naked twister and panties on the head and of the word genocide to mean whatever the hell it’s supposed to mean now other than slaughtering an entire ethnic group in a given area. It also gives the jihadis and their fellow travellers license to say idiotic things like “George Bush is the world’s greatest terroist!” with some authority when we’ve used it to describe acts against a military force.
It also does nothing for us, aside from assigning a victim status to our Navy. Personally, I want people to make in thier pants at the thought of a visit from our Navy. I don’t want them feeling either sympathetic or victorious when they think of the USN.
The attack was still an attack on our interests, which is reason enough to find every responsible party and kill them, along with anyone who looks like them. But it wasn’t terrorism any more than Pearl Harbor was terrorism.
So Israel is an Arab homeland and the Jews are interlopers? Well, this changes everything!
I saw an “analyst” on the Newshour last night who was actually claiming that it wouldn’t be a problem if Iran dropped a bomb on the desert in Israel if no one got hurt. You know, a message.
I wonder what he would think if Israel dropped one on Iran, like say tomorrow, as a message?
BTW, your drawing semantic morons out of the woodwork and its boring reading clapped out lefties trying to sound intelligent. (that may make me a terrorist).
RNO, I simply cannot let this go unanswered. “The military exists and was created to absorb attacks that would otherwise be directed against us, the non-combatants.” Bullfeathers.
I never signed up to be a target. The military exists to defend our country against its enemies. Or as Patton put it. Our job is not to die for our country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his. To transpose Clausewitz, the military exists to impose our will after the failure of diplomacy.
Patrick,
Then we send the African Americans to Africa, and the Mexican Americans to Mexico… Well, nobody will care about Israel because it’s just the Jews.
Are you serious? Congratulations on the most outrageous comment I’ve ever read on this site.
Please admit you’re not serious. Because that is the dumbest argument I’ve ever read.
I’m not quite following you, Patrick. Usually when I get a message like yours it contains instructions on where to send my bank account number so the funds can be transferred from the secret Nigerian account. But all I’m seeing here is a bunch of crapola about the Jews.
Wow, rightnumberone is in the dock for a severe bit of spanking.
Attacks on military personnel, military equipement, and military infrastructure (airfields, depots, hospitals, barracks) are allowed under the rules of war. BY. OTHER. MILITARIES. And only some of the time, even then.
If military personnel surrender, you cannot attack them. If they wear the Red Cross, you cannot attack them. After you have won in battle, you must assist them. Nor can you just bomb chow halls, base chapels and goddamn barracks just because you feel like it. There are some rules to that, too, that savages with bones through their noses ignore consistently.
And you can do precisely ZERO of even that if you are a member of plain-clothed opposition.
The attack on the Pentagon WAS a terrorist attack. The attack on the Khobar Towers was a terrorist attack. The attack on the Cole was a terrorist attack. The attack on the Marine Barracks was a terrorist attack. The suicide bombing of a chow hall in Ramadi, terrorist attack. 90% of the attacks that happen in and around Iraq, Afghanistan, and Jord-Gyptia* are terrorist strikes.
You don’t lose your basic human rights if you put on a uniform, just as not every Israeli is a legitimate target because they have and will serve in the IDF.
Terrorism is a tactic above all, like the ambush, airstrike, bombardment, armored thrust, envelopment, carpet bombing and surgical strike. You would have us hyphenate these: oh, a civ-ambush, civ-strike, civ-thrust, a civ-carpet bombing, as these are just oh so different from their military counterparts.
*ie Palestine
Down with Bush.
Let’s trade Gitmos for Wacos.
The Enemy is white, christian capitalists. Together the Left and the so-called “Islamists” can overthrow the Man and install social justice.
Let’s begin now! Trade Gitmos for Wacos.
Trade Gitmos for Wacos. (And that’s Waco, TX, for you GOP nazis in the unreality community)
Not true, Pablo.
By definition, a war against terrorism brings soldiers into play against terrorists. Even through the military, the target is still the same; to intimidate the civilians and the government.
But we are not legitimizing terrorism by attacking them. Terrorists do not get passes to attack military targets, instead of civilian targets.
Terrorists have no rights at all, not even to exist. Sadness at even civilian terrorism is misguided. Rage is better.
Yeah, I guess that whole Promised Land crap with Jews being in Israel for a few millenia just sort of slipped on by, huh? Jerusalem has never been Jewish and I have no idea where these names “Israel” “Judea” “Samaria” or any of those came from.
If anyone is an “invader” or “colonist” it is the Arab. He wasn’t around until post 7th Century AD. Shouldn’t you be talking about a right of return for Romans? Macedonians? Phoenicians (no, no that one…)? Philistine rights! Caananites against colonists! Up the Hittites!
Rightnumberone  Was it an attack by the uniformed military of one sovereign nation upon another? No? Then it was a terrorist attack.
So the GOP Nazis are being blamed for WACO now?
There’s a new one.
Jeff  You’re not listening: Our Moral Betters Have Spoken
Terrorism is simply a strategy of war, most commonly adopted by the very weak who wish to engage the very strong and survive the engagement. Over time, the very strong will always overwhelm the very weak, therefore the only way the very weak can prevail is to convince the very strong to give up the fight.
Towards that end, the terrorist foe avoids what is strong and attacks what is weak. He hides and evades, and gathers only where he cannot be attacked. He strives to be invisible, forcing his opponent to divide his forces. He continually tries to confuse his very strong foe, to slow his movements, and to frustrate him in things large and small, to create fear and uncertainty within his ranks so that he behaves hastily and unwisely.
When victory on the battlefield isn’t an option, one’s foe must seek his victory elsewhere, thus all of these tactics have a single goal: to make the strong disengage by what it believes to be it’s own will.
yours/
peter.
Verc sez;
Verc, are you defing terrorism, or war against terrorism?
What I mean by what I assume you’re responding to is simply that if we call everything the jihadis do “terrorism” including attacks on military targets, we cause two arguments to be played against us:
1) We’re terrorists. After all, why aren’t we? We kill people and blow shit up just like the jihadis do, so we’re no better. Of course, this is bullshit, but it grows legs when we start including things in the definition that don’t belong in it, like attacks on the machinery of war.
2) Terrorism is legitimate, because we just label everything they do terrorism, therefore we rhetorically strip them of any and all forms of “resistance” by labeling anything but their surrender as terrorism. Or in other words, we’ve rendered the term meaningless.
two more:
1) al-Q sees themselves as a miltary force, and state sponsorship is also arguably present.
2) Your argument correctly defines the rules of war, but the question isn’t whether it’s legal, but whether it’s terrorism.
There are obviously plenty of competeing definitions of terrorism. But let’s ask this: When we were doing battle with the Taliban (or even now, where remnants exist), were their counter/defensive attacks terrorism? Why or why not?
terrorist attack = attack by terrorist
terrorist defense /= attack
terrorist = non-uniformed personnel engaged in terror tactics
uniformed personnel engaged in terror tactics against the rules of war = war criminals
American Military = Americans in the Military
RNO = purveyor of meaningless distinctions
klrfz1 = keep it simple, stupid
tw: I am not running.
Pablo, your last:
Begs the question, “Is everything terrorism?â€Â
Like I said, terrorism is a tactic like an air strike, an ambush, or an armored thrust. Terrorism has a bit of low-level strategy about it as well: stabbings, hijackings, snipings, bombings and suicide bombings, poisonings, etc. can all be terrorist activities. IF it serves the same purpose, it can fit in the same class of terrorism.
To be overly technical, we can say that the mode may differ. Munich is like Beirut as OK City is like 9-11. Or like aerial bombing, we can have surgical strikes and carpet bombing, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and air support, using cannons, Gatling guns, rockets, missiles, bombs, including cluster, fuel-air, precision, and HE munitions. Considerable variety exists.
If the Taliban acts like a regular military force, on that occasion the Taliban does not perform terrorism. To say that the Taliban is 100% terrorism, all the time, would be as silly as saying all American soldiers put panty-turbaned Muslims into naked pyramid.
Then again, there is no terrorism delousing powder: the Taliban can be 99% non-terrorism related and still be a terrorist organization.
And so the answer is that the Taliban is a terrorist organization, it lost a (reasonably) standup fight and its preferred methodology is now back to its very essence.
* Heh.
Misc. Points:
Terrorism is often state-sponsored, true, but so is the ACLU (tax-wise). The ACLU does not have the authority to make arrests, to prosecute criminals, to incarcerate the judged, even when subsidized by its own government and made legal. Even if terrorists won control of a particular area through force of arms, they lack any ability to administer government.
Terrorists do not fit into traditional, and brutal, resistance movements because their mode does not feature holding terrain or establishing a government over that terrain, or administering to that population, or any number of things that go with war, even brutal war and blood-soaked revolutions.
Terrorism is a separate breed of animal.
Some poignant cosmic irony is that experience and common sense show that terrorists set up governments that are illegitimate even when they succeed. By Just War clauses, the battle continues.
There are provisions for armed resistance, including insurrections and resistance movements that the military recognizes. For example, the American revolution, the Bolivar revolutions, and others fought wars that were not terrorist. Even the North Vietnamese, brutal though they were, were not terrorists…all the time. All war is brutal, but not all war is terrorism.
And on matters military and civilian…
I. What is the difference between bombing a shopping mall and bombing a PX? Not much. Both are terrorism.
II. What’s the difference between a SpecOps raid or ship seizure and a terrorist hijacking and assault? Quite a bit, actually.
I agree with all of that, but let’s drill it down. Let’s say the Taliban launches a suicide attack on the gate at Bagram. Terrorism, or just a really shitty military offensive?
Now you’re getting after it. For whatever it’s worth, the USS Cole was an al-Q SpecOps mission against an occupying force.
The same action against, let’s say a ferry, would be terrorism. But these guys were looking to hurt our power, and mitigate our projection of power, to show us that they could beat us and that we could not remain on “their” turf without great losses. It’s not like they were slaughtering civilians to see if we can bear the bloodshed, although they’ve certainly done plenty of that as well. Just not in that instance.
I also agree with that, which is why I prefer the definition that limits “terrorist” attacks to those that target civilians, and are launched solely to instill fear or create terror among civilians.
Terrorism.
We’re occupying Yemen? Um, no. And SpecOps as in special ed, maybe. During the bad Clinton years, we’d pull into port and rarely have ammunition to man the guns (it was a risk that we might shoot people and cause an international incident).
That aside, a question for you:
Can a regular, uniformed military ever commit acts of terrorism?