From: andie nachgeborenen
It's quite obvious that unless you are an absolute pacificist, which Charles is not, I don't believe, that this position is a vast oversimplification. First, if you accept that some war is just -- say the war against Hitler, or the Vietnamese resistance to the various invasions of their country -- and you also accept that it must necessarily involve some killing of noncombatants at least by mistake, then just war is consistent with some unintentional killing of noncombatants.
^^^^^^ CB: Yes, I was sort of taking things back to a basic ( simple) level (didn't think I was making a pacifist argument) I didn't think there was much of an argument that the U.S. is prosecuting a just war (?!) That's sort of nonsense. In my experience, the term "terrorist" is only used to refer to killers who are not American soldiers (or any other soldiers), with the implication that "terrorists" do something worse than what your average soldier does.
I agree that the attackers on 9/11 were terrorists, but I just would like to see the same label applied to U.S. military personnel who kill much more than Al Q.
In other words, "terrorist" as used in U.S. mass-talk is equivalent to "enemy soldier". It is a subtle way of justifying the U.S. slaughter of Iraqis.
^^^^^^
Obviously this does not go to intentional killing, as with, e.g., the firebombing campaigns against Geramn and Japanese cities targeted at industrial workers, or even reckless killing of noncombatants. Nor does it offer any justification for suicide bombings and the like, intentional attempts to kill noncombatantas.
Nor does the principle say how much unintentional killing of noncombatants is acceptable, or what risks of such killings may be taken for what purposes and under what constraints. It does suggest that within the scope of the reasonale objectives of the war, the unintentional killings shoud be minimized -- incidentally I guess that was part of the announced purpose of Shock and Awe, whether you believe it or not.
^^^^ CB: True, but we shouldn't let the U.S. get away with posturing as if they are waging a just war or that they "care" about or try to avoid the deaths of Iraqi civilians. Recall the 100,000's the U.S. killed indirectly through blockade and attacks before all out war. This is a genocidal, not just, war !
^^^^
All that said, there is a double standard that a lot of liberals use, that when out forces wipe out a weedding party by mistake in Afghanistan, oops, sorry, but if a bomb planted by resistance fighters in Iraq and aimed at a police station blows up a bus full of children, Outrage! Terrorism!
^^^^ CB: Agree, but I'd say it stronger: "when U.S. forces wipe out an Afghanistan wedding party in Afghanistan, we shouldn't give them the "oops". Presume it is on purpose , until they prove otherwise." Our boys and girls are monsters, sorry to say. Every bit of monsters as the worst "terrorists" on the "other" side.
^^^^
As has been variously pointed out, "terrorism" is a pretty slippery word, and it's less often applied to state conduct than it should be if it's defined the way it is defined in various national and international laws. Thus in the Patriot Act, international T is defined in part as the use or threat of force in a way dangerous to human life and in violation of what would be a law of the US or any state (if it occurred in US jurisdiction) that is intended to influence the policy of a government . . . . It's not hard to see that a lot of US policy in Iraq satisfies that definition -- even if the govt whose policy being influenced is not Iraq's!
^^^^^ CB: Truly. We must resist "might makes right" or allowing the U.S. to define world law.
^^^^
All that being said, and the need for the anti-war and the anti-imperialist satruggle being acknowledged, it's also necessary to say that the guys running around blowing up trains in Spain and crashing plans in building here are really bad, dangerous people who have to be stopped. Terrorism isn't a bad name for what they do, either.
Jks
^^^^^
CB: Truly. Osama Bin Laden is a U.S. trained , rightwing, terrorist. The U.S. created a monster, that has turned on it. The U.S. has to be stopped from creating monsters. "Terrorism" is an apt name for what Bin Laden (or his agents) does, but it is even more apt for what the U.S. does, although it's not quite a strong enough term. If we could find a term stronger than "terrorism" for U.S. conduct...