Wolfowitz's Hotel Is Attacked in Baghdad

Well yeah, when your enemy knows where the Pentagon's #2 in command is staying and launches rockets into his hotel, you have a problem.

What bugs me about this is the use of the term "terrorism" to describe this attack by Wolfie:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/26/sprj.irq.hotel/index.html

I'm sorry, but an attack on government and military officials is not terrorism. It's just a war. When Palestinians blow up a city bus, that's terrorism. Wolfowitz is a legit target in a war, and if he doesn't like the tacits used to go after him, tough shit. If this is terrorism, then Israeli efforts to destroy homes with Hamas leaders that lead to collateral damage are also terrorism.

At this point we might as well rename the Vietnam War the "Vietnam War On Terrorism".

 

Communism was the ism of the latter half of the 20th century. Terrorism is the ism of the twenty-aughts.

 

How about an attack on a hotel where innocent civilians are also staying? Is that terrorism?

 

And both are evil--one was (mostly) destroyed, and the world is a far better place for it; the world will be an even better place when the other is destroyed.

As for the whole "terrorism" issue, this is a bit of a grey area--in theory I agree that directed attacks against military/government leaders aren't terrorism, but as Ian pointed out there were innocent civilians staying in the hotel as well. On one hand, I'm not inclined to call this terrorism any more than I would call bombing a building that we think Saddam is hiding in, terrorism--but on the other hand, if one extend's obie's argument, you could say that an al Qaeda operative setting off a suitcase nuke in Washington DC wouldn't be terrorism either, when in that case the label would certainly apply IMO.

 

When the US blows up a restaurant in a residential neighborhood where Saddam was supposedly seen, and fails to kill Saddam but takes out a bunch of civilians, is that terrorism?

When Israel drops a one ton bomb on an apartment building in a densely populated area because one of its tenants is a Hamas leader, is that terrorism?

If not, care to explain the difference?

You can define the term "terrorism" any way you like. But it seems like anyone whose definition includes this attack also must consider the US and Israel to be authors of terrorist attacks.

 

Again, if you consider this terrorism, then you have no choice but to consider the IDF attacks on housing complexes where Hamas leaders live terrorism as well.

Are you willing to call Israel terrorists?

 

The difference is the target. The al-Rashid is being used exclusively by military personnel and Americans working in Iraq. It's a key site for US planning. Wolfowitz, US soldiers, and US government officials in Iraq are all legitimate targets under traditional rules of war. Someone who sets off a bomb in the middle of DC with the idea that "somebody important is bound to get hit" doesn't have a real target.

 

Easy.

Saddam=Murderous Bad Guy, who raped and pillaged his people for 30+ years.

USA=Good Guy who tries to kill Murderous Bad Guy to stop him from wreaking havoc any longer.

Hamas=Murderous Bad Guys who try to make a point by blowing up buses filled with civilians.

Israel=Good Guy who tries to kill Murderous Bad Guys to stop them from wreaking havoc any longer.

 

Can't really disagree with the rest of your post, but are you sure about this? There's no journalists, UN officials, etc living there?

 

After further review, the play stands!

Scrumptious target is definably between caretakers and inhabitants. The caretakers are ones with intiative and inhabiters seldom leaves. In general, utilitarianism is sought through terror and war (Heathens and Heros says mother). Figurative demonstration, by the power invested in me; is through country and organization upon an country. Us meaning United States of America. We might create terrifying stituations but we are not terrorist. All includable effortlessness fighting killing nor breaking common law without definition of targets. This is not "What organization claims to be?" The situation is evidently clear of multinationalism upon signature. This term struggles of middle class. Up side is power and the downside is starvation. Power is given out by country through citizenship and the country starves. When objective is met by aspiration, you know. Once terror is finished, americans probably ex-military. We must build billion things over Rhemish Testament. Dollars make for tax free income and sensibility rings of death!

 

Lots of sources, but one decent one here:

It's not a civilian hotel; it's a military target.

 

Destroy the village to save it.

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031027/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

Paul flees the seen. Wow he's brave.

 

In other words, you think that whether a particular tactic qualifies as "terrorism" or not has absolutely nothing to do with the tactic itself and depends entirely on the moral character of those using it. That's completely ridiculous.

 

No, it's not. Do you view the Hiroshima and Nagaski bombings in WWII as terrorism? In other words, was Harry Truman a terrorist?

 

Hey, nice topic dodge. So you agree that Wolfie should not use words like "terrorism" to describe acts against himself?

 

Wolfie is a lying, chicken hawk. See him fly away. There is tons of evil in the world. Some of it works in the Bush administration.

 

Well, he was a Klansman, that's not much better.

That aside, according to you, is there ANY way at all people of Iraq can resist this invasion of their land that wouldn't make them terrorists?

 

Damm, they missed him.

 

I wish that guy had better aim. Death to traitors!!!

 

The last thing we need is Bush with a martyr to avenge.

 

So I guess that plane that hit the Pentagon is not a terrorist attack according to your theory.

 

Look up the concept of "combat zone" and then get back to us.

 

But that is not what he said. His statement was "I'm sorry, but an attack on government and military officials is not terrorism" . He never added that caveat.