6 ms·

Which is exactly why I deplore the term "terrorist". The U.S. throws the term terrorist around with reckless abandon while proudly parading its strategy of "Sho

Which is exactly why I deplore the term "terrorist". The U.S. throws the term terrorist around with reckless abandon while proudly parading its strategy of "Shock and Awe"[1] and weapons like the "Daisy Cutter"[2] around on CNN. How are those two examples anything other than naked attempts to instill terror in it's enemies??? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82

berntb 10y ago
Because the laws of war is different when you have civilians as your main targets? Here is my standard reference about the subject. Note that it is critical of the US -- and that ROE is still followed quite closely. Compare that to [terrorists and non democracies]. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-us-style http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-u... (Are you really surprised by the content of this answer..?) ---- Edit: My answer to throwaway98237's deleted follow up comment: >> a small band of tribes from Afghanistan >> Also, the "laws of war" have evolved over time. You went from: Setting an equal sign between terrorists and real armies (which use legal weapons psychological warfare against enemy soldiers, not against civilians). To: Excusing terrorists because (a) some of them also do guerrilla warfare and (b) because the laws of war were a bit different 50+ years ago? That is just not coherent. Bye.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway98237 10y ago
  I deleted my comment because I didn't see a reply from you and wasn't certain my comment was correctly speaking to your points because I just don't get your comment. Since I wasn't certain my response was speaking to the points, I removed it so as not to muddy the conversation. Don't appreciate your aggressive tone.
  - berntb 10y ago
    Like this, then: You started by arguing that following the laws of war is terrorism. That subject of law have been really discussed, there are lots of academic papers. I'd be happy to see references? And your follow up was just not possible to parse. Please read Byer's article, it taught me a lot on the subject.
crdoconnor 10y ago
Edward Peck says it best: In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my working group was asked] to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
- throwaway98237 10y ago
  Wow, I never knew that! That is a gem of a piece of history.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Similar: If we applied the laws we used to prosecute the Nazis at Nuremberg, every single post WWII US President/government would be considered to have committed war crimes.
  - Kadin 10y ago
    I find it interesting that the Nuremberg Trials are continually held up, often by people who ought to know better, as a shining example of "International Law" and not a fairly straightforward example of the victors of a war taking the opportunity to polish off a few key enemies they missed. Which is a time-honored and not especially surprising practice, but hardly laudable, particularly when it involved some ex post facto invention of capital offenses. Had it occurred in the context of anything but World War II, and was it aimed at anyone other than the Nazis, I think the consensus on it would be much more... nuanced. But because there is a very significant interest (across the US, Germany, Russia, Japan, etc.) in maintaining the Nazis as a singular sort of villain, so abjectly evil as to defy all comparison past or present, special rules apply. (Plus, I suppose, there's some grading-on-a-curve that happens when the inevitable comparison is made between the Allied handling of the postwar environment and that of the Soviets; the Nuremberg Trials may have had certain jurisprudential imperfections, one could easily argue, but at least they didn't require heavy equipment just to dig the mass graves. Though that seems like damning with faint praise.)

berntb 10y ago

Because the laws of war is different when you have civilians as your main targets? Here is my standard reference about the subject. Note that it is critical of the US -- and that ROE is still followed quite closely. Compare that to [terrorists and non democracies]. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-us-style http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-u... (Are you really surprised by the content of this answer..?) ---- Edit: My answer to throwaway98237's deleted follow up comment: >> a small band of tribes from Afghanistan >> Also, the "laws of war" have evolved over time. You went from: Setting an equal sign between terrorists and real armies (which use legal weapons psychological warfare against enemy soldiers, not against civilians). To: Excusing terrorists because (a) some of them also do guerrilla warfare and (b) because the laws of war were a bit different 50+ years ago? That is just not coherent. Bye.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
throwaway98237 10y ago
I deleted my comment because I didn't see a reply from you and wasn't certain my comment was correctly speaking to your points because I just don't get your comment. Since I wasn't certain my response was speaking to the points, I removed it so as not to muddy the conversation. Don't appreciate your aggressive tone.
- berntb 10y ago
  Like this, then: You started by arguing that following the laws of war is terrorism. That subject of law have been really discussed, there are lots of academic papers. I'd be happy to see references? And your follow up was just not possible to parse. Please read Byer's article, it taught me a lot on the subject.

crdoconnor 10y ago

Edward Peck says it best: In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my working group was asked] to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

throwaway98237 10y ago
Wow, I never knew that! That is a gem of a piece of history.
FireBeyond 10y ago
Similar: If we applied the laws we used to prosecute the Nazis at Nuremberg, every single post WWII US President/government would be considered to have committed war crimes.
- Kadin 10y ago
  I find it interesting that the Nuremberg Trials are continually held up, often by people who ought to know better, as a shining example of "International Law" and not a fairly straightforward example of the victors of a war taking the opportunity to polish off a few key enemies they missed. Which is a time-honored and not especially surprising practice, but hardly laudable, particularly when it involved some ex post facto invention of capital offenses. Had it occurred in the context of anything but World War II, and was it aimed at anyone other than the Nazis, I think the consensus on it would be much more... nuanced. But because there is a very significant interest (across the US, Germany, Russia, Japan, etc.) in maintaining the Nazis as a singular sort of villain, so abjectly evil as to defy all comparison past or present, special rules apply. (Plus, I suppose, there's some grading-on-a-curve that happens when the inevitable comparison is made between the Allied handling of the postwar environment and that of the Soviets; the Nuremberg Trials may have had certain jurisprudential imperfections, one could easily argue, but at least they didn't require heavy equipment just to dig the mass graves. Though that seems like damning with faint praise.)