Terrorism? is it really?

Remove all ads!

You've all heard on the new; radio; newpaper or what ever, all of these terrorist attacks. You've all heard about USA declearing a war on terrorism.
Well what dawned on me the other day was that most of these "terrorist" attacks aren't terrorist attacks.

Is this saying that the USA bombing bagdad (spelling?) is a terrorist act? I know there are people out there who will think so and people who wont (the last group thinking i'm a completely idiot for even thinking this).

First of all to decided if its a terrorist attack or not we have to look at the definition.
Is it an unlawful attack. Unlawful meaning not complying with in the bounderies of the law. And if i remember right USA went to war against UN law thing. USA's attacks (or so they say) is for the better of the people of Irqa and is against its fomer government. Which fits directly with their own FBI definition.

So I ask are the USA they terrorists them selves?
And if not why not?

Is it because they are at war and there fore their attacks arn't terrorist attacks?
If so nor would the attacks of the Al-Qaida or Iraq becaues USA has decleared war against them so they are at war if USA are.

Is it because they are not attacking civilain targets?
Dream on. I'm sure you've all heard of the bombing of the TV and radio centres in Bagdad.

So once again. Is the USA commiting terrorism?
Are the Al-Qaida or Iraqi people commiting terrorism?

And why do you think this way?

Thanks

[ May 15, 2003, 06:56: Message edited by: Ruler of the Known Universe ]

 

I think that Israel is as much terrorists as Palestina. They got the country as an excuse for the WWII but no-one listened on the Palestinians. Meaby they should have.

And if Al-Quaida isn't a real state, then the USA can't declare war on them.

 

Not officially, obviously, but they can make a concerted effort to treat them as international criminals and bring them to justice. The "War on Terrorism" is merely a term, just as the "War on Drugs" was and is.

As for the terrorism definition, terrorism can only exist outside of a declared war situation, and tends to deliberately target civilians to the exclusion of the military. Now, the US was very clear and gave the Iraqis lots of warning that they would be waging war, and they made more effort than has ever been made before to target only military targets and exclude civilian ones. That doesn't mean that civilians were not hurt, but I defy anyone to find an example of an offensive strike that was planned so carefully to minimize damage to the civilians.

 

@BTA
resolution 1441 did not provide enough justification. I bet if you call that enough justification there would be dozens of things you could invade USA on. USA have also violated or gone out of agreements they have signed.
@Depaara
If you've got a problem with the definition argue with the FBI not me.
I wounld not call a few months lots of warning. How would you like to be told by a doctor that you only have a few months to live? you'd ask why you didn't have more notice that your going to die (and if in USA sue the doctor).
As i said in my previous post they purposely bombed the TV centre thingy in Bagdad. This is not a military target. It may have been used by the military but most things in Iraq were.

Which brings me back to what i said before. If resolution 1441 is a good enough reason to invade Iraq then USA bombing the TV thing in bagdad is a good enough reason to invade USA. In some international law (i think its the ginevor (spelling?) convention) people are prohibited to destroy/disable media sources.

 

First of all USA did not officially declared war to Iraq. And this according to the international law is breaking the law not supporting him. And because they did not declared a war now the USA are not justifying their presence in Iraq.
And please you call the palaces of Saddam Husein which were in civilian areas as military targets; Because they targeted them and some missiles managed to hit them some others ended up on some poor guys homes and destroyed their homes and killed their families.
As for terrorism i think that the definitions are ok but we must not forget that these definitions take various forms as it suits the powerfull. That is the only way i can explain the calling of Palaistinians as terrorists since for many other countries besides USA and Israel they are freedom fighters (a little extreme freedom fighters but they are) Not to mention the calling of Kurds as terrorists too because they want to have their own nation and Turkey does not want to.
Or Talibans are called as terrorists because they didn't bend over when the USA demanded Bin Laden. Ok and now Afganistan is once again tormented by warlords and the heroin production ,which during Taliban's administration was almost shut down, is going sky high again.
Or the Zapatistas who only want a future for their race (indians) and the poor of their country are called terrorists because this doesn't fit the WASP goverment of Mexico. And i can go on for pages

 

Bombing a televisionstation CAN be justified, since it was being used to spread militairy propaganda. There are no such things as soaps and quizzes in Iraq to bore the people with, it was only being used for the glorification of Saddam.

Therefore as a target, it was legitimate in time of war.

@ Ruler of the known universe

Invade the US ? Who would be capable of doing that you think ?

And how far do you think they'd come ?

I think it would be fun to watch though. Go ahead, try and invade.

 

Who said American taxpayers weren´t supporting terrorists??

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Coorperation

Anti-WHISC

 

@BTA

No matter how many times this point is made on these boards (you have made it several times as have I and others) it gets ignored.

Ignorance can be (and is often) selected.

On topic:

You are implying that the TV and radio stations in Bagdad were civilian. They were government, which makes them legitimate targets.

 

According to Amnesty International a tv station is not a military target even if it serves propaganda purposes.

URL: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140462003

 

Then I guess that the same applies for BBC, CNN,FOX etc. Of course, if iraqis had attacked any one of them, then it would be a terrorist act against innocent civilians, right?

Human Rights Watch Organisation states the following:

http://hrw.org/press/2003/03/iraqtv032603.htm

[ May 15, 2003, 23:41: Message edited by: BOC ]

 

TV stations are civilian unless:
they are run by the military on military ground

even if they spread propaganda (or tell the people to worship the devil or to commit crimes (which might be ileagal but dos not change their status)).

so although i totally agree that it helped the us/uk troops to bomb them, it was still a war crime.

what bothers me most is that a lot of americans fail to see that they are not the "good" ones.
fighting someone evil (like sadam is without doubt) dos not automaticly make you the good one.

this war was against the internatial law (for a lot of reasons) which was created mainly due to the effort of the US after WW2. in a Just world they would be put on trial and fined for their crimes (since international law dosnt punish people but the whole contry in such a case (although they did otherwise in nurnberg)).

of course i know that wont happen but at least the american people should realize that they are not waging war for the good of the world or the iraqi people but for their on gain (economical or in terms of security (which is ridiculus in the case of the iraq)).

not that i expect that any americans agree with me on this
but its driving me nuts to see some americans pride themselfs for the "noble" cause they are sending their fellow citenzens to death.
when it only benefits some huge companies and a president hoping for reelection.

i guess i cant blame them i had the chance to view some "fox news" and read the "wall street jornal" and i didnt know if i should laugh or cry...
those tv stations in iraq cant be much worse

 

As i said before first and foremost USA did not declared war against Iraq. In order to declare war officially there is a paper called DoW that must be given to the attacked country and to the UN in order to offically declare war on another country. Thus the "war" the USA waged upon Iraq was by all laws illegal. Secondly IMHO military targets are the places were military personnel works and not anything else.
So were there any military personnel in TV station of Bagdad no then what are we talking about. Not to mention the incident of Palaistine hotel were two reporters were putting their camera and someone "thought" they were snipers. We all know the rest of story.
And please there were no cease fire agreement between Iraq and USA. There was a disarmament agreement between Iraq and UN and as i remember this was resolution 1441.
So why do you believe that USA was justified to attack Iraq against the will of the UN and who thinks that it ok to have an occupation of Iraq by USA.
I know that many americans don't like it but this is the truth, their goverment has screwed up the whole thing and by doing this has just justified and prove right Bin Laden who said that USA is the greatest enemy for the muslims.

 

I think BTA's wording is very correct : It can also be argued that. I think BTA has given one of the lawyers positins, without claiming it's the only one there is. I think that's a very accurate description of a plausible legal position.

I agree there with BTA too, excpet in one point. I agree, that at some point, IIRC, the UK/US decieded, that it should be bombed. They didn't plan that from the beginning, afterwards there were many who argued, not planning to destroy it from the beginning, was a grave mistake. Were I do not agree is, that it's destruction offered a definite military advantage. I am not sure, but if my memory don't fails me here, the attack was a failure, i.e. the Iraqi TV was after a few hours on air again and remaind till the end.
But I don't want to say, that the bombing of the TV-station has no legal consequences. At least, the UK/US has to pay for the damage done.

But the big loss of reporters, surely is one of the main problems of the war. Mainly because one dead reporter gets easily more reporting than 200 dead "normal" people. And there are even countries, where high-ranked politicans get their share for mistakes they are thought of as responsible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2934271.stm

 

@BTA and some parts @ Pac Man as well
resoulution 1441 stated that Iraq had to disarm or face imediat (spelling?) and harsh consecenses. I might be wrong about the above sentence but, no where did it give USA permission to invade Iraq.
I don't know for sure but its highly likely that the terms of the cease fire were forced on Iraq as much as the terms of the treaty of Versailles were forced on Germany.

This is what we call propergander (spelling?) is it not? And if so the USA are just as guilty of it as Iraq.

@ Ragman
With an opinon like that I'm guessing you're from a Eurpoean country, right?
But i must agree with you. The "fighters for freedom justice and democracy" aren't as good as they seem to be.

@Pac man
As to your first point see above, and your second point asking who could attack the USA, well thats easy. No one alone could stand a chance.

@Jack Funk
They might not have been civilains but they are still protected by international laws.

I think I've covered every thing any one has said against my case, and if not its not because i'm ignorant (Jack Funk) but because i simply either missed it or thought it wasn't worth the effort to reply to .

 

Pac man, Pride Comes Before A Fall, undoubtly, some other country will soon be able to rival the US.

And the US, I think would fall under the category of terrorist under some of their actions in Iraq, especially the intentional targeting of Iraqi citzens, like the mall and resturaunt. And do not forget Aghganistan, even though the Al-qaeda is based there, the marines targeted small rural villages.

 

@Tarsahk

How smart of you for noticeing. But i think you failed to notice that these small rural villages in most cases probably hosted Al-qaeda.
And as much as I would like it to be true, I doubt in the near future any country would be able to rival the USA alone .