Bin Laden be Dead

Hey EL, hope you don't mind if I disagree with you on this a bit. You wrote:

Some say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  I disagree.  There's a core difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter:

Like any real soldier, any real freedom fighter would primarily go after military and government targets.  Civilian casualties could happen, but would be incidental to striking the true target. In a larger real war, crippling industry, communication, and transportation can also happen, but the enemy's military should still remain the primary focus.  On the other hand, a terrorist will usually take the coward's way by deliberately going after civilian targets because they are easier to get to and will create more fear in the general public.

The difference you are addressing seems primarily one of power, not of choice. Who would strap explosives to his or herself with the assured outcome of blowing themselves to pieces if they could just pilot a drone remotely and take out military targets?

Sadly, the desperate resort to desperate measures. Palestinians, for example, don't have tanks or helicopters. I'm fairly confident that if they suddenly found themselves armed with tanks and fighter jets… the "terrorism" would stop.

It strikes me that "terrorism" may, in some instances, just be the way the underdog fights back against a major power, having no other way to fight and nothing left to lose.

As for taking out civilians, in the war on Iraq the number of civilians killed (@100,000) was roughly equal to the number of military. Even though so many civilians were killed in an unnecessary and opportunistic war (significantly the most protested in history, and before it even started), it seems too great a rhetorical leap to see those responsible as "terrorists." This isn't a problem of fact, but of perception.

The real reason, I think, that "terrorists" are so feared is that they actually struck people in America, where we felt we were invulnerable to attack. Even if only 1.5% as many American people were killed as people were subsequently killed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, and less than the number of American soldiers also sacrificed in those wars, it's just a question of who killed who, and not even about civilian or military. Further, military personal are people too and the unjustified killing of them is no better than killing civilians. So, if you destroy a country and kill roughly 200,000 of it's people are you a "terrorist"? If not then it's really just a question of who did what to who, and not what they did.

I also think the term "terrorist" is used to not only make people automatically wrong, but to dehumanize and demonize them. For example, the term "Eco terrorism" is used for groups that take matters into their own hands to protect the environment, when it would much more accurately apply to the big polluters who destroy the environment. My concern is that the powerful will be the ones to define their own enemies as "terrorists" while themselves inflicting more terror and devastation on people and the planet.

Just add another example, and that's Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two bombs combined killed more than 200,000 people in the first few months, more than half of whom were civilian. From what I remember of what I've read, Japan was willing to surrender before than but not to depose it's king, which would make the bombings unnecessary (consider they followed conventional bombing attacks including one on Tokyo that claimed more than 90,000 lives). Terrorist attack or vengeance or just plain old warfare?

If one just looks at the act and the consequences, and not at WHO does them, everything's much clearer. The enemy isn't the person demonized as "terrorist" necessarily, but the act of killing and inflicting terror whoever does it. Osama's guilty of terrorist acts for sure, and so is Bush.

Terorism:"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
hmmm "unlawful" sez who?
"organized group" as in government?
any thoughts?

"With regret we have to inform you that your topic - Bin Laden be Dead - has been reported as:

Should the Ministry receive any information relevant to your topic you will be informed."



 


 

Terorism:"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
hmmm "unlawful" sez who?
"organized group" as in government?
any thoughts?

In theory a government has the approval of the people whereas terrorists do not

I think Bin Laden's death will prove a momentous event for a number of reasons.

Some would argue that the

A columnist pointed out that al Qaida has been increasingly marginalized in the Arab world, even among the most alienated countries.  Iraqis got sick of the bombings; the Taliban are a purely Afghani entity; Fatah hates Israel and perhaps America, but appreciates Europe's sympathy; and everywhere Arab people are taking to the streets against their own governments.  Al Qaida blow people up- everyone's sick of it.  Their Islamist revolution is passe.

So when I hear that the nuts are calling for revenge, I fail to find any footage of demonstrations or condemnations... apart from Pakistan, the most embarrassed country in the world right now.  Bin Laden, as the writer put it, was already Yesterday's Man, and now he's dead.  And they're vowing revenge attacks?  They already were; they've been waging a ten year campaign.  

President Obama is being feted as a hero; he'll get a few months of public support, and if he can put through a few reforms and get some job creation help form the ecunomy, he may well win reelection.  He's now untouchable on his international record; now for the domestic front.

AFGHANISTAN:  President Karzai is having a field day.  "I TOLD YOU SO!!! I TOLD YOU SO! WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?  TIME TO GO HOME!"  And let's think about that: the Taliban just want power within their country.  It was said by Obama himself, a YEAR ago, that a political compromise with Taliban elements would be necessary for a permanent peace.  So, with the link between Afghanistan and 9/11 now severed...

... why ARE we there?  What do we want to achieve?

Finally, the simple act of turning the page can open our eyes to just how much the world has changed in 10 years.  How much the issues have changed.  How much common consciousness is increasingly NOT being ruled by fear.

Yes, I think Bin Laden's death will yield great things, not because he got justice- although the pigfucker more than deserved it- but because the world, and America most of all, can wake up and start contemplating what kind of century we want to build after a lousy start.

Hmm...well, if we are going to be all theoretical, has anyone wondered how a crack SEAL team could not shoot the terrorist without killing him and bringing him to trial? I mean, aren't the days of "Dead or Alive - preferred dead" supposed to be over? I am all for killing bad people, especially mass-mudering fanatic douchebags...but still...is it even right for another country to go in to a country and assassinate someone, no matter how bad they are? They did not assassinate Carlos the Jackal, nor Arafat or Gaddhafi, all notorious terrorists before Bin Laden arrived on the scene. I am throroughly over-joyed the man is dead...but it seems to me that SEAL's should be able to subdue an old, weak dialysis patient without using deadly force....who was also unarmed, acording to what I just read...I mean criminals, whether they be car thieves or Peter Kurten are still subject to juris-prudence, aren't they? Saddam, Mussolini, Caucescou (sorry for spelling that one wrong), the top NAZI's, all got a trial....Just questioning the theoretial legality of the action...but don't get me wrong, the man is hopefully frying in a lava-pit.

al-qaeida were always marginalised. totally agree that he was already over tho.

just a point of fact eric, Gadaffi and Arafat were both recognised leaders so different to bin Laden

I'm really glad that they just offed him, a trial or anything would be a nightmare. I think treating him like a combatant was the right thing to do. I don't know if that's right or wrong morally, just my feelings

Yees...recognized leaders...so was Saddam, who was not an Al-Qaida supporter nor had MWD's lying around...did not stop them from invading his country and hanging him...
I don't think Osama's demise will change anything...not the wars, not the terror alerts, nothing...Oh, they killed him, but to other terrorists that just makes him a martyr and, oddly enough, the victor...he managed to make America so afraid the President had to sanction a special night-time raid...All around the world little terrorists are jumping up and down pointing at the TV screen plastered with Osama's name saying "I want that too"...Chop the head of a hydra and two more grow out....It's a sad, sad world...

The reason they didn't bring him to trial was that then they would have tried to kidnap civilians and hold them at ransom in exchange for his release, something we have seen a hell of a lot of over here.That is a situation you don't wanna be in,believe me.

Worse than that, could you imagine if it turned out like the Barry Bonds fiasco and for SOME reason, he was not convicted?

Well, wouldn't that exactly have been the problem? OBL master-minded the 9/11 attack, we know that as sure as we know Sichuan food is spicy, but the law pays no mind to what we know, it wants proof. To come up with another example, Charles Manson and his rag-tag group of misfits killed several people, yet Manson is alive and well...From what I understand, because although he was behind the whole thing he never killed anyone himself and therefore could only be charged with conspiracy to murder. I don't think kidnapping civilians and hostages being taken ever entered into the Am Govt mind (they are also rather famous for having a no-negotiation policy with terrorists)..I think the SEAL team was told to shoot to kill no matter what, as a trial could have blown up in their face simply because, even though there is no doubt that OBL master-minded the attack, when it comes to tangible, irrefutable legally admissible evidence to support it, there may be somewhat of a lack. I do hope they do not release any pictures of his dead body. The last thing they should do is create an icon under which his remmaining rag-tag group of severely deluded mis-fits can gather.

I guess they didn't need to interrogate him for some reason, though they've kept other guys holed up in Guantanamo for a decade.  I can't figure it out.

Speaking of Manson being still alive, there was only ONE person who's death sentence George W. Bush stopped as Governor of Texas, out of 130 (he commuted it to life imprisonment). That was Henry Lee Lucas, the prolific serial killer who had killed his own mother and violated the corpse, just to get the ball rolling, and is thought to have been involved in more than 300 murders.

If you're going to spare just one person, why does it have to be the most despicable one imaginable.  I can't figure this one out either.



Oh well, don't want to get accused of veering from the topic. 

Back to freedom fighter vs terrorist.

I knew a very lovely woman from Pakistan.  When she was in high school, she and her classmates were trained to use suicide bombs as part of their formal education.  Surprisingly, this wasn't any sort of terrorist training.

The reason:  India and Pakistan have these occasional wars.  At the time, India had superior numbers of tanks (I haven't checked - no clue which side has more armor now).  My friend and her classmates were trained to suicidally blow up enemy tanks.  Unlike a simple landmine, this made her and her classmates into "smart" weapons that would be unlikely to damage their own tanks and troops.  I think this was a heroically stupid way to plan to fight a war, but would not call the suicidal defense of one's country to be terrorism.  Happily, she was never called on to serve her county in this way (would have been a little hard for her to have told me about it after doing it ).  The last time I heard from her, she had a US Government position in Washington D.C.  I guess they never bothered to translate her high school transcripts.

Palestinian terrorists, on the other hand, have been known to heroically go after areas where children are playing.  The one time someone in one of their groups strapped on a pair (as opposed to strapping on an explosive vest) and arranged to rub out a high ranking government official, the payback sent the brave terrorist leaders scurrying back to their rat holes to plan heroic attacks on restaurants, shops, and other softer targets.

BTW - There were other reasons for getting rid of Saddam.  Just how much of that Oil for Food money went towards big reward payments to the families of those Palestinian suicide bombers while the people of Iraq went hungry?

Osama started out his career in violence as a freedom fighter against the Soviets in Afghanistan.  He seemed pretty happy going after military targets then and didn't feel the need to commit mass murder against civilians in Moscow or Leningrad to make his point.  Later, Osama's stated goal was the removal of US troops from what he considered to be sacred soil.  He did achieve some successful attacks against military targets in the region.  For those operations, he wasn't acting as part of any formal government, so couldn't be called a soldier.  Still, he was engaging another country's military for a specific purpose, so could, conceivably, have been considered to be a freedom fighter.  When he chose to spend his time, energy, and money deliberately going after civilians, that placed him firmly in the category of terrorist.

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.  Osama was a bad terrorist, but the SEALs made him into a good terrorist.

Speaking of Manson being still alive, there was only ONE person who's death sentence George W. Bush stopped as Governor of Texas, out of 130 (he commuted it to life imprisonment). That was Henry Lee Lucas, the prolific serial killer who had killed his own mother and violated the corpse, just to get the ball rolling, and is thought to have been involved in more than 300 murders.

Yes, but does he have a TEFL qualification? Oh, hold on, sorry. Wrong thread.

Exactly,EL, any person who can train 16 year old Palestinian girls to strap on explosives and walk into a neighbourhood supermarket (NOT in occupied territory) and kill a 16-year old Israeli girl cashier is a very very sick bastard.The problem is that the masterminds and engineers of these deeds get away with it.( and sometimes then become politicians like Mohammed Def and Khaled Mash'al)