Actually, I think you have to be blind not realize that you don't make any of the distinctions you think you are making. Hezbollah was engaged in its own war: to drive the Israelis out of Lebanon, while replacing a government being propped up by US and Israelis with another one. That was its strategic aim. And whatever you might think about Hezbolllah, they succeeded in their aims. The attacks against the US embassy and later the marine compound got the US to leave Lebanon, and they later pushed out the Israelis as well. You are hopeless brain washed if you really believe Hezbollah bombed some targets just because it specifically wanted to "kill people". No more, but no less, than when US bombs what you have called euphemestically "strategic targets". So if anyone "gloats" they are terrorists. And if they don't, they are not? By that definition, how is Hezbollah a terrorist organization? I have you ever seen them gloating? On the other hand, I see a lot of "gloating" by conservative media and groups in the US when the US was doing "shock and awe". Yes. But apparently you missed the point: the US intentionally targets "civilians" when it wages war. Forget colateral damage cases. I have gone over it before, so I am not going to repeat myself. Whenever it is necessary to further American interests. Of course, since the US has a lot of power and more means to achieve its goals, often it might not need to use these tactics. But when necessary, it does it. It did on a grand scale in WWII in the firebombing of Dresden (goal was to lower enemy morale), dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in lesser scales during the Vietnam war and even the Iraq war. Unless you think the American government works on the basis of instructions from robots, I guess these things followed instructions from "people advocating targetting civilians". Of course, no one, not even Al Queda, uses those terms to explain its actions. Let me put it to you this way: during the entire cold war, the US response to a land invasion of Europe from the Soviets included the threat of using nuclear weapons. Additionally, the entire doctrine of MAD (mutual assured destruction) included targetting and killing the entire society of the enemy, civilians, dogs, cats, everything. Of course, as long as you are a superpower, you will often be able to kill your enemies more discriminately. But when necessary, you will target "civilians" as you have done in the past, and are discussing doing in the future when you debate how to "take out" Iran's "nuclear facilities".
Sorry if I am a bit slow, but could you list any examples where the US targeted civilians after WW 2? I realise many civilians died in the Tripolis bombing in 1986, but I always thought that was more due to bad planning than a planned intimidation. Still very bad of course. If you have posted a list before, just point me to previous posts.
The bombing of Hanoi to me was targetting civilians. Its real aim was to "convince" N.Vietnam to stop supporting the Vietcong. There are, of course, cases where the US targets civilians, but the purpose is not to "lower morale". I mean, in Iraq, there wasn't such great morale and fighting spirit among Iraqis to lower before Saddam was toppled! But still, when the US targetted various government ministries in Iraq, while some wanted teh US to even bomb the Al Rashid hotel because of Iraqi press conferences, the targets were often not the builidings. Nor anyone in the chain of command of the Iraqi military. The US, of course, is a superpower and has far more subtle means at its disposal and often relies on those more subtle means. But any society that refuses to rule out the use of nuclear weapons even against a non-nuclear state, and which was for many years threatening nuclear war in case of a land invaison of Europe by the Soviets, is ultimately as capable as any other to target civilians.
I am tired of answering the same question over and over again, so I will use this opportunity to answer something more pertinent. My messages aren't meant to say that the US is "evil". I believe war involves evil things; by nature, war is about killing people. People are people; even soldiers are people and often, especially conscripts, they are as innocent as any civilian. What I do not like is for some people, including many here, to engage in precisely the kind of pseudo moralisms that in turn "de humanize" some societies as a whole. By implying somehow that socities that produce these kind of "terrorists" are inherently less moral than those in the West. That kind of dehumanization often makes it easy to then perpetuate the kind of crimes that produce the cycle of violance I would like to see avoided. Now, I am not naive. Ultimately, within the nation-state system, war arises from one thing above all others: an imbalance of power. If there is any "challenger" to US preeminence, and that challenger is unable to forge some sort of an alliance to protect itself, if it is easier to subdue the challenger than to tolerate it, you will often find the dynamics tending towards war. This is especially true not that the Soviet Union does not exist. But while these dynamics are not ruled out by the nature of the ideology of various countries, I admit that the US ideology (unless it becomes totally corrupted) is less aggressive in some ways than many other ideologies if they had the power the US has. In other words, while I don't think the current imbalance of power is a good thing, I sure prefer the US to be the only superpower rather than say Nazi Germany. Or even the Soviet Union. And certainly, I would never want a demonic group like Al Queda to have any power, and do believe the world would be much better off if that ideology was wiped off. Yet, I don't think the US has been focused on fighting Al Queda so much as it has been focused on fighting Israel's enemeis. And, frankly, I find Israel's ideology to be repugnant as well. I do not want Israel's ideology to be mixed up with America's anymore than it has.
Not exactly sanctioned by anyone higher than a company grade officer, but, sure, if that amounts to "US targeting of civilians" in your mind, you have a winner.
Yeah, that's the same thing. Exactly. Your deliberate obtuseness on this thread is not helping. If I build a fence around my yard, its not turning the street into a ghetto. Its MY yard. Period.
Boy, if I had a nickel every time you posted something like this. Those zionist pigs are controlling everything and everyone. IM, just a warning, with a message like yours Mossad might be around the corner, they are looking for innocent, poor lost souls as yourself. Get out before it's too late. Oh oh, I heard some footsteps. RUN!!!!!!!!!!!
Hello IM, somehow in your reply you forgot answer these questions, almost as if you were avoiding them, so I'll go back to them.
Still the wall is being built inside the palestinian territories, Odessit. Anyone admits it. It's not like it's something uncertain. Can I also freely fantasize on who you don't care about?
you are very good at acting dumb... nobody here saying or implying America should ignore other nations geting destroyed or the evil deeds of the others.... but only showing reaction when such things are done to Israel or the close allies shows the very deep black hole in their flawed foreign policy.... I will give you examples so you can't avoid the facts this time.... if blowing up Israeli buses is wrong then blowing up the mosque in Iran is as bad... in both cases innocent ppl die... so the reaction from US should be at least similar in both cases... well America has shown in words and actions that they are not a fan of Palestinian terrorism.... BUT knowing MEK blew up the most important religious land mark in Iran causing death and devastation among innocent ppl, US didn't prosecute or hand MEK members to Iran when they had the chance after successful Iraq invasion.... that is the kind of double standards that strengthens the anti-American terrorism... in Iran's case it is financial not in term of units but still it's bad!!!.... you want more examples: Saudi Arabia being far worst than any nation when it comes to human right or terrorism (funding and breeding) but being the last place under the pressure, because they are the economical allies….. India and Pakistan having developed and reached far more dangerous state of WMD development than other countries which are under constant US pressure again because they are strategic (close enough to Russia, China and ME) allies….
No it's obviously not the same. But it looks like a petty discussion if all it takes to the supposed high moral grounds of one side to start targeting civilians is the strategic need of it. The more pertinent historical citation to prove that it's probably... Irgun? It was classified by British authorities as a "terrorist organization" but many regarded it to be a "liberation movement". Its political association with Revisionist Zionism rendered it a predecessor movement to modern Israel's "right-wing" Likud party/coalition. What do you think of Begin's decision to bomb the King David's hotel? Probably if hezbollah back in the 80's had the weapons to fight a successful conventional war they might have not tried to achieve their goal by also using terrorism. Going back to WW2 I have only to remember that my hometown was carpet bombed. Maybe you will argue how carpet bombing is not aimed to target civilians? You seem also unaware of the generalizations and labels IM is talking about. Now you surely won't deny that there's too dumb ppl around talking about a clash of civilizations, west vs islam. This attitude is nothing new. There are other "...isms" still alive, with different forms maybe, but still alive. These "isms" produce a lot of dead and suffering. By waging wars, supporting golpes etc. etc. One could even start to ponder if, for example, helping actively to subvert a legitimate foreign government is an act of terrorism. Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over their resources, labor, and often markets. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized. It doesn't help if some of the high moral ground nations embark in an imperial war, based on lies. Imperialism is a policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire. Sadly the "war on terrorism" looks more and more as a clash of different "isms" rather than a real fight against the al qaeda galaxy. This because there's a convergence between terrorists, colonialists and imperalists. They all share the strategic goal to fuel and widen the conflict. I also would add that anyone who uses "fear" as a tool is somehow making terrorism. A kind of terrorism who doesn't make less victims. Let's suppose that State A wants to invade State B and starts telling LIES aimed to play with the fears of his own public opinion in order to deceive them into supporting the war. Let's suppose that the outcome of the war was 100.000 civilians dead. The fact most of the west denies it, doesn't help. We are so used to regard us as being morally superior that we don't really pay attention on our nations foreign policies. This mindset makes it so that while anyone should be endlessly outraged because of US citizens being held hostages no one should be outraged by the fate of Mossadegh's Persia.
Why do you keep mentioning Iran, I am not happy we are not going after the Saudis or Pakistanis. Iran is just one more nation to sponsor a terrorist group. If it was Brazil that sponsored hezbollah, I say go after them. I hate the double standard of US not going after our supposed "allies" in the war on terror like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Iran at least is very straightforword when it comes to that. So forget Iran, i don't care about it. So in this case i agree with you, go after the other nations that sponsor terrorists
Well, since you know so much about this subject maybe you can also tell me this, you must know that Haganah or the initial IDF webt after and killed and arrested members of Irgun and Lechi Etsel. I am sure then you know about a ship by the name of Atalena which the Haganh destroyed that belonged to Etsel. SO you see, no one was saying they are a not a terrorist group and the army actually helped British fight them. What are those ME nations doing right now, and don't tell me the saudis and Pakistanis are helping in this fight.
What does Israel have to do with a straightforward question about Iran? Whoever said Israel is blameless? (Nor will I go into a discussion of the warnings Irgun issued about the attack, but whatever.) You are the second person to completely fail to answer Richard's question. Why is that?
Why stop there? Remember that terrorist Guy Fawkes? Tried to blow up parliament, and got a holiday named after him? http://www.theholidayspot.com/guy_fawkes_day/history.htm A holiday to celebrate the terrorists failing. And to burn some catholics in effigy (and in real life sometimes). Keep the catholics in their place, wot wot. A smashing idea! (er..no I'm not serious...just joking about how demonizing an entire religion can be fun for the ages)
Well, somehow the company grade officers in the region were all infected with the same disease... My Khe, Co Luy...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/11/london.attacks/ death toll at 52 now, and its expected to get higher
I answered all your questions in my post. Read what I wrote again. The only one I avoided, I avoided because I don't think the answer is appropriate for me to give. I will only say that obviously Lebanon was in a state of war: it was in the midst of a civil war, compounded by foreign invasion by Israel. And, equally obviously, Hezbollah was one of the groups engaged in fighting that war. Indeed, in some ways, Hezbollah came out one of the big winners from it.
Well, actually Syria invaded Lebanon first and Israel went in to respond to that and to put an end to constant mortar attacks and border incidents of PLO. So actaully Syria was the foreign invader
Nope. No you didn't. You avoided them completely by going off at avague tangent to try and hide the fact you couldn't give an answer, much like you did with this answer below.... You see, I asked "what's your viewpoint? Do you think it was justified or not? (the 63 murders at the US embassy)", to which you replied.... Now try as I might, I can't find either an admission or a denial about whether you think blowing up an embassy staffed overwhelming by civilians, when doing so would achieve no milatary or strategic objective what so ever, was justified or not. Clearly by any standards it was a terrorist act, so do you agree with it? Yes or no. It's not a trick question. I'll post the other two again to give you a chance of a quick recap. Remember, yes or no will suffice. a) yes b) no OK, this can't be a yes or no, but tell me where you have seen Americans/British taking delight in civilians being killed - shock and awe? No. Nobody was celebrating the death of civilians. I'm talking about cases where only civilians died - take the bombing of the restaurant where Saadam was supposed to be eating for example. Did you see a single person at all who thought killing all those civilians was a good thing? While we are here, how did you feel about Hezbollah's kidnapping of western hostages, such as Terry Waite. Did you feel that was justified. Again, not a trick question, yes or no will suffice. How about the more recent hostages in Iraq, all civilians, who have had their heads hacked off because their governments wouldn't bow to their demands. Do you think those actions were justified? Yes or no? Do you think they were terrorist acts, yes or no?
The foiling of Guy (Guido) Fawkes was a huge PR operation by the supporters of James II. James II actually had a catholic background and was King of protestant England. By foiling the secret Catholic plot it demonstrated to the English that James II was to be trusted and helped to silence his critics who claimed he was secretly a Catholic sympathiser. By celebrating bonfire night it strengthened the power of the current King James II. Political spin was still taking place even back then.