5 ms·

Ok, I don't like these bastards who attacked Cole, but how can they be terrorist? They attacked a military target. Is it because they masqueraded as civilians -

Ok, I don't like these bastards who attacked Cole, but how can they be terrorist? They attacked a military target. Is it because they masqueraded as civilians - didn't follow the laws of war?

cf141q5325 8y ago
They were part of a group that is classified as a terrorist organization.
- jacobush 8y ago
  Ok, I can buy that - it's not perfect, but the world is messy. :-/
  - Sebguer 8y ago
    It's also worth noting that it was a suicide bomber attack, which is rarely a facet of conventional warfare.
    - Frondo 8y ago
      Rare, though with one prominent usage in the 40s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze
dmurray 8y ago
The word "terrorist" has been reappropriated, possibly because "guerilla warfare", "asymmetric warfare" etc sound too glamorous. In the US it mostly means any military action by non-state actors against the US and its allies.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  It was re-appropriated because it is easy to get the American people on board with spending bucket loads of money on it. It's a trillion dollar industry, terrorism is. People are getting wealthy off of it. Forget that almost no attacks happen. Forget that more people die each year choking on food. Let's spend money like it's free!
- balabaster 8y ago
  When you say non-state, you surely mean by parties whom aren't favourable to US interests. It's interesting that when a government or party that's not in the US's best interests is in power, it's okay for the CIA to use asymmetric tactics to fund rebels and favourable terrorism, stage coups d'etat, overthrow governments and meddle in foreign elections but when those parties seek to do the same to the US, it's terrorism. Kind of hypocritical really. But that's US exceptionalism for you. It's only bad when someone else does it. It's almost impossible at this point to point a finger and say "there's the bad guy, right there" because both sides are as bad as the other and both using much the same tactics on one another, both spewing rhetoric and hatred in the face of the other terrorists. It's like trying to mediate a kindergarten playground fight where the cost of losing the fight is death instead of being dragged to the principal's office by your ears. It's so undignified it's nauseating.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    I imagine when a country is founded on an illegal uprising against a significant world military and economic power that they go on to win, exceptionalism ends up baked into their cultural DNA.
    - alasdair_ 8y ago
      Isn’t every armed uprising “illegal” in the eyes of the group that used to be in control?
      - gnu8 8y ago
        Depends on which side wins.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - chillacy 8y ago
      Vietnamese exceptionalism?
  - 8y ago
- da_chicken 8y ago
  There is a term for it. "Act of war".
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    The war media and armaments lobbyists don't like using the actual word "war" much. That tends to highlight the fact that none of the military actions currently underway have been sanctioned by Congress as required by the Constitution. The last legal declaration of war occurred in 1942. "Terrorism" has been a useful catch-all for some time now, but when it wears out through overuse they'll come up with something else.
    - rthomas6 8y ago
      That's not strictly true. The recent wars weren't "declarations of war", but most (not all) were authorized by Congress. Congress voted on military action against those countries and it passed both chambers, but they didn't "declare war". To be honest I don't understand the difference, other than the words used.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Here are the possibly relevant enumerated powers of Congress: - define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations - declare War - grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal - make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water - raise and support Armies - provide and maintain a Navy - make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces - provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions - provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States Nowhere in that list is "for an indefinite period of time, kill a bunch of unidentified people in unspecified foreign lands for unspecified reasons". Wars fought among nations are generally bad things, but historically there has been a protocol that the Constitution references in the simple phrase "declare war". Various acts of violence against various parties for various purposes have been considered necessary for the peace and security of any political unit, but those acts have been limited to the territory of that political unit. Ever since the USA army wasn't properly stood down from WWII, the requirements of the military-industrial complex have dictated the invention of another procedure for killing thousands of innocents every week on an ongoing basis. A cursory examination of the Constitution reveals that this new innovation violates the enumerated powers of Congress and the executive.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
iooi 8y ago
It's pretty simple. Read the definition of terrorism under U.S Law [1]. Keep in mind, while it was a military target, they were not in a state of war. The goal of al Qaeda with this bombing was to coerce the U.S. to leave the peninsula. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#U.S._law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#U.S._law

Ok, I don't like these bastards who attacked Cole, but how can they be terrorist? They attacked a military target. Is it because they masqueraded as civilians - didn't follow the laws of war?

cf141q5325 8y ago

They were part of a group that is classified as a terrorist organization.

jacobush 8y ago
Ok, I can buy that - it's not perfect, but the world is messy. :-/
- Sebguer 8y ago
  It's also worth noting that it was a suicide bomber attack, which is rarely a facet of conventional warfare.
  - Frondo 8y ago
    Rare, though with one prominent usage in the 40s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

dmurray 8y ago

The word "terrorist" has been reappropriated, possibly because "guerilla warfare", "asymmetric warfare" etc sound too glamorous. In the US it mostly means any military action by non-state actors against the US and its allies.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago
It was re-appropriated because it is easy to get the American people on board with spending bucket loads of money on it. It's a trillion dollar industry, terrorism is. People are getting wealthy off of it. Forget that almost no attacks happen. Forget that more people die each year choking on food. Let's spend money like it's free!
balabaster 8y ago
When you say non-state, you surely mean by parties whom aren't favourable to US interests. It's interesting that when a government or party that's not in the US's best interests is in power, it's okay for the CIA to use asymmetric tactics to fund rebels and favourable terrorism, stage coups d'etat, overthrow governments and meddle in foreign elections but when those parties seek to do the same to the US, it's terrorism. Kind of hypocritical really. But that's US exceptionalism for you. It's only bad when someone else does it. It's almost impossible at this point to point a finger and say "there's the bad guy, right there" because both sides are as bad as the other and both using much the same tactics on one another, both spewing rhetoric and hatred in the face of the other terrorists. It's like trying to mediate a kindergarten playground fight where the cost of losing the fight is death instead of being dragged to the principal's office by your ears. It's so undignified it's nauseating.
- fixermark 8y ago
  I imagine when a country is founded on an illegal uprising against a significant world military and economic power that they go on to win, exceptionalism ends up baked into their cultural DNA.
  - alasdair_ 8y ago
    Isn’t every armed uprising “illegal” in the eyes of the group that used to be in control?
    - gnu8 8y ago
      Depends on which side wins.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - chillacy 8y ago
    Vietnamese exceptionalism?
- 8y ago
da_chicken 8y ago
There is a term for it. "Act of war".
- jessaustin 8y ago
  The war media and armaments lobbyists don't like using the actual word "war" much. That tends to highlight the fact that none of the military actions currently underway have been sanctioned by Congress as required by the Constitution. The last legal declaration of war occurred in 1942. "Terrorism" has been a useful catch-all for some time now, but when it wears out through overuse they'll come up with something else.
  - rthomas6 8y ago
    That's not strictly true. The recent wars weren't "declarations of war", but most (not all) were authorized by Congress. Congress voted on military action against those countries and it passed both chambers, but they didn't "declare war". To be honest I don't understand the difference, other than the words used.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Here are the possibly relevant enumerated powers of Congress: - define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations - declare War - grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal - make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water - raise and support Armies - provide and maintain a Navy - make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces - provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions - provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States Nowhere in that list is "for an indefinite period of time, kill a bunch of unidentified people in unspecified foreign lands for unspecified reasons". Wars fought among nations are generally bad things, but historically there has been a protocol that the Constitution references in the simple phrase "declare war". Various acts of violence against various parties for various purposes have been considered necessary for the peace and security of any political unit, but those acts have been limited to the territory of that political unit. Ever since the USA army wasn't properly stood down from WWII, the requirements of the military-industrial complex have dictated the invention of another procedure for killing thousands of innocents every week on an ongoing basis. A cursory examination of the Constitution reveals that this new innovation violates the enumerated powers of Congress and the executive.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

iooi 8y ago

It's pretty simple. Read the definition of terrorism under U.S Law [1]. Keep in mind, while it was a military target, they were not in a state of war. The goal of al Qaeda with this bombing was to coerce the U.S. to leave the peninsula. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#U.S._law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#U.S._law