Militaries are the same as terrorists

Ahnimus

luckytwn wrote:

Try educating yourself to history. Hezbollah has not only carried out suicide bombings, they have carried them out against Americans.

"On October 23, 1983, around 6:20 am, a yellow Mercedes-Benz delivery truck drove to Beirut International Airport, where the 1st Battalion 8th Marines, under the U.S. 2nd Marine Division of the United States Marines, had set up its local headquarters. The truck turned onto an access road leading to the Marines' compound and circled a parking lot. The driver then accelerated and crashed through a barbed wire fence around the parking lot, passed between two sentry posts, crashed through a gate and barreled into the lobby of the Marine headquarters. The Marine sentries at the gate were forbidden from using live ammuntion, for fear that a discharge might kill a civilian, so they were powerless to stop him. According to one Marine survivor, the driver was smiling as he sped past him.

The suicide bomber detonated his explosives, which were equivalent to 12,000 pounds (about 5,400kg) of TNT. The force of the explosion collapsed the four-story cinder-block building into rubble, crushing many inside."

241 American soldiers were killed in that suicide bombing. There are American terrorism experts who regard Hezbollah as a much bigger threat than Al Qaeda.

Also, note that this was one of the first known cases of suicide bombing, a form of terror that was perfected not only by Hezbollah but also by Islamic Jihad.

Actually when I did a search for "Hezbollah suicide bomb" that's the only example that came up. Additionally I found no where that Hezbollah claimed the attacks, so it could belong to a different group. Really the evidence is refutable.

WindNoSail

Ahnimus wrote:

Actually when I did a search for "Hezbollah suicide bomb" that's the only example that came up. Additionally I found no where that Hezbollah claimed the attacks, so it could belong to a different group. Really the evidence is refutable.

I wondered about this myself and remembered that there was some debate about whether they did claim responsibility for any acts of terrorism. I suspect that they either are innocent (unlikely) or they just don't take responsibility like other groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Allegations_of_specific_terrorist_attacks

El_Kabong

WindNoSail wrote:

Because they have been importing weapons from Syria and Iran and God knows who else, and storing them along the border (in neighborhoods)

but isn't it ironic israel sold iran thousands of weapons for us in the 80's?

WindNoSail wrote:

If there were no terrorists in Iraq, Iraq would be living in a democracy by now. Seriously, I have never seen a more destructive act than terrorism.

if there were no US government Iran would still be a democracy now...is there a more destructive force than capitalism?

WindNoSail wrote:

Most believe they did the Marine barracks suicide bombing in 1982. And yes, they have claimed responsibility for suicide bombings.

I wouldn't really even equate a kamikaze pilot, since they truly were part of the military of a nation.

If they would just put on a uniform, operate under the control of a military that was part of an accountable government, and didn't TARGET civilians, then we would be able to have diplomacy, a chance for peaceful settlement of disagreements, and as a last option war with an enemy that can either defeat or be defeated. That is the only way we are going to progress as the human race, otherwise we are slipping fast into tribalism.

what about the contras (who we violated congress and funded by selling weapons to iran thru israel)? they were called terrorists by our own congress. what about all the death squads we've created, trained, armed, funded? what about the acts of terrorism we've committed like blowing up passenger airliners? what about the deaths in panama where to get a cia agent we killed thousands of ppl which the pentagon admitted over 75% were civillians (they also admitted they dumped "some number of bodies in the same grave")?

plz, we destabalize more of the world than hezbollah or hamas ever will

WindNoSail

El_Kabong wrote:

but isn't it ironic israel sold iran thousands of weapons for us in the 80's?

Quite ironic, really.

El_Kabong wrote:

if there were no US government Iran would still be a democracy now...is there a more destructive force than capitalism?

Capitalism is an idealogy of economics and personal liberties, not war making. That doesn't mean that a capitalistic govt can't screw up the world as much as a communist or fascist govt. It is just less likely to do it since the people have a voice and with correct information can vote against such policies.

El_Kabong wrote:

what about the contras (who we violated congress and funded by selling weapons to iran thru israel)? they were called terrorists by our own congress. what about all the death squads we've created, trained, armed, funded? what about the acts of terrorism we've committed like blowing up passenger airliners? what about the deaths in panama where to get a cia agent we killed thousands of ppl which the pentagon admitted over 75% were civillians (they also admitted they dumped "some number of bodies in the same grave")?

Whoa, that is a lot to respond to - what passenger planes did we blow up?

El_Kabong wrote:

plz, we destabalize more of the world than hezbollah or hamas ever will

seems the world is a lot more violent these days, all since terrorism has become so prominent.

Ahnimus

WindNoSail wrote:

I wondered about this myself and remembered that there was some debate about whether they did claim responsibility for any acts of terrorism. I suspect that they either are innocent (unlikely) or they just don't take responsibility like other groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Allegations_of_specific_terrorist_attacks

Oh man 6 countries only. Only 6 countries either fully or partially label Hezbollah a terrorist group. Russia omits Hezbollah on it's list. All the other countries recognize it as a legitimate resistance. Hezbollah denies the accusations of Israel and the US.

"The American government has labeled us as terrorists," he says. "They say they don't negotiate with terrorists -- and neither do we."
~Director of Foreign Media Hussein Naboulsi

Good article

While I am linking, here is something for the Islamaphobics.

Anyway, I think that's a pretty loose determination of what a terrorist faction is. I don't see much evidence here just a lot of accusations. They don't appear to deny suicide attacks however or torture. All the US government documents just read "Where as we know..." and then a bunch of stuff with no reference to evidence. Hezbollah says they aren't terrorists. Maybe there is a misunderstanding of the word. I have my own definition, I got it straight out of the dictionary, three of them actually. It often doesn't apply to many groups or people that are labeled a terrorist these days.

Rant...
Did anyone ever notice that since 2001 there has been a lot of terrorist activity. Cells popping up in every neighbourhood. All the bombings and destruction lately have been arabs. No americans blowing up buildings anymore or taking hostages. It's all islamic extremists. That's what I see anyway. Except germany, they had that Armin Meiwes guy. But I mean there is a lot of activity these days. It doesn't make any sense. I think what's going on is a big sociocultural fuck up. We don't even know half of what the US has done to these guys over there. I mean we sit back thinking the western world is bringing justice to everyone else. That's bullshit. We are the most corrupt bastards in the world. We are capitalist scum, usurers. Corporate globalists looking to seize as many assets as we can. The US has political domination over so many countries. It's been going on for so long. I'm getting sick of this. I live under this flag that's supposed to represent me but it doesn't. You get flag waving morons that represent it and whatever the government stands for. They are mindless idiots, they don't have an opinion they just wave the flag. People seem to go through cognitive dissonance when their government fails them. I feel this way constantly. Eventually the only peaceful result is accepting the consequences. It's more self-gratifying to have an optemistic view or to totally support the government's every move. Perhaps submission is the only way. Fighting is useless, it makes life miserable. The flag waving moron has it made. Ignorance is bliss.

enharmonic

WindNoSail wrote:

That is true - and I hope that fuck Hitler knows that his little plan ended up creating the nation Israel full of Jews instead of eliminating them as a race.

But, what I meant was that Jews didn't kill anyone in war to obtain Israel. And Arabs and Jews and Christians lived peacefully for many years before and after 1948 in Jeruselum.

Bill Hicks said it best.

"Hitler had the right idea, he was just an underachiever."

The Jews certainly killed tens of thousands of people to claim their expanded borders. They're not innocent in this. If anything, they learned nothing from being oppressed people, except how to oppress.

dunkman

WindNoSail wrote:

I wouldn't really even equate a kamikaze pilot, since they truly were part of the military of a nation.

.

they were put there under duress... sometimes they were told that their family would be killed if they didnt conclude their mission.

It wasnt like they signed up for it or anything...

just a thought though.... why did they give Kamikaze pilots helmets???

dayan

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I think Hezbollah is trying to protect Arabs who are misplaced and oppressed by Israel. I think they view Israel as a threat because of their policy of continuous occupation and violence to those who don't go along with it. I don't agree with their means but I think that is their reasoning.

Why did the US set up camp in a sovereign nation that had a military? Maybe their govt/military feel they need the added protection? They haven't kicked them out.

I would recommend that you read more about Hezbollah. You might start with the wikipedia entry on them. Pay close attention to the section on their ideology as it pertains to Israel. I've posted that bit in my thread on "what Israel should do" it's in my latest post (as of now #55 I believe) if that is easier for you. I think you will find that Hezbollah's stance towards Israel is highly aggressive, and in fact even genocidal, and is not, as you say, merely a defensive stance in the face of Israeli aggression.

shiraz

A political party who is also an armed force = Terror group, end of story.
And I don't care how hypocritical Russia or any other counrty chose to define them.

Hizbullah is an armed force who took over southern Lebanon and stayed there even after Israel moved out in 2000. It is no Lebanese official army, it doesn't get orders forn Lebanon govt but from Syria & Iran, it had no reason (nor right) to stay armed and it cearly didn't need to protect anyone after we got out of Lebanon - Its only goal now is to destroy Israel.

The IDF is Israel's official army, which takes orders from Israeli govt only and its goal is to protect Israeli citizens against terrorists like Hizbullah men.

dayan

Abuskedti wrote:

no, there is no difference between a military and a terrorist.. they are both militaries and they are both terrorists.

Would the American military ever bomb a bus they knew to be full of civilians, and which had no hostile military personel or equipment on it, on purpose, just so they could kill as many civilians as possible? REMEMBER that I mean on purpose, not accidentally, or based on bad intelligence. I mean they see a bus full of civilians they know is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER a military target and decide to destroy it anyways. I don't think they would ever act this way. I am sure that they have no problem killing many civilians while attacking a military target, but I don't think they would ever target a purely civilian target on purpose. That is the difference between terrorists and militaries. A legitimate military draws a distinction between enemy combatents and civilians. Terrorists do not. That is why Hamas, Hezbollah, al Queda, al Queda in Mesopotamia, and all the others like them, even if you think that they are acting to defend their people (which I think is entirely false) are terrorists, because they deliberatly target civilians.

Byrnzie

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

okay, okay, you moved the rest...I'll move the last one.

Why do you think Hezbollah is baiting and attacking Israel?

Because Israel is holding approx 10,000 Lebanese prisoners in it's jails, and because Israel is continuing to slaughter Palestinian Muslims.

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

Because Israel is holding approx 10,000 Lebanese prisoners in it's jails, and because Israel is continuing to slaughter Palestinian Muslims.

I'm fairly certain Israel is not holding 10,000 Lebanese prisoners in jail. Certainly there are Lebanese prisoners, but not 10,000 of them. Besides which, please tell me how indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a legitimate means of obtaining the release of prisoners. I was under the impression that attacking civilians to achieve a political aim is defined as terrorism. As for the Palestinians, you are virtually admitting that Hezbollah is using the Palestinians as an excuse to attack Israel. Palestinians are not Lebanese. Their struggle is not Hezbollah's. And even if Hezbollah was motivated by empathy and solidarity with the Palestinians, again, please tell me how attacking civilians is a legitimate means of expressing support?

lgt

hello,

I have been reading the thread in my lunchbreak and I felt compelled to write in to add my 2 cents..

The military aims to preserve the status quo, ie defend and preserve the current political set-up and must follow political directives in a democratic regime. Exceptions are coup d'etat when the military can be co-opted to overthrow the political regime.

Terrorist groups aim to upset and change the status quo by using violent tactics, because they do not recognise the political authority in power. This has happened for instance when the American colonies fought the British Empire in the seventeenth century: violence was used to gain their political objective of independence. Similarly, supporters of the Zionist ideology used violent tactics against the British who at the time held a protectorate over Palestine, in order to further their objectives of establishing the state of Israel. More recent examples from European history: the radical left terrorism of the 1970s in Italy and less prominently in Germany, which was not successful as the democratic state were able to suppress (not just by using the military) the terrorist movements.

In conclusion I think the objectives of the military and terrorists are opposed, although, of course, the means are the same, armed violence.

Finally, I just wanted to remind that there are huge divisions within the Arab world to consider so one cannot just talk about the Arabs. There is a schism between the Sunni and the Shia muslims. For instance, Hezbollah are Shia muslims. Iran has a majority of Shia muslims. Palestinians instead are Sunni.

Sorry, if my post is long-winded, but I was trying to summarise in a very short time!

dayan

lgt wrote:

hello,

I have been reading the thread in my lunchbreak and I felt compelled to write in to add my 2 cents..

The military aims to preserve the status quo, ie defend and preserve the current political set-up and must follow political directives in a democratic regime. Exceptions are coup d'etat when the military can be co-opted to overthrow the political regime.

Terrorist groups aim to upset and change the status quo by using violent tactics, because they do not recognise the political authority in power. This has happened for instance when the American colonies fought the British Empire in the seventeenth century: violence was used to gain their political objective of independence. Similarly, supporters of the Zionist ideology used violent tactics against the British who at the time held a protectorate over Palestine, in order to further their objectives of establishing the state of Israel. More recent examples from European history: the radical left terrorism of the 1970s in Italy and less prominently in Germany, which was not successful as the democratic state were able to suppress (not just by using the military) the terrorist movements.

In conclusion I think the objectives of the military and terrorists are opposed, although, of course, the means are the same, armed violence.

Finally, I just wanted to remind that there are huge divisions within the Arab world to consider so one cannot just talk about the Arabs. There is a schism between the Sunni and the Shia muslims. For instance, Hezbollah are Shia muslims. Iran has a majority of Shia muslims. Palestinians instead are Sunni.

Sorry, if my post is long-winded, but I was trying to summarise in a very short time!

There are further divisions however. Group can use violence for political change in different ways. The examples you gave of the American Revolution and the Zionists against the British are examples of what I would term "freedom fighters" because they attacked the soldiers that represented the status quo. Had they attacked civilians they would have been terrorists. (I'm sure someone will bring this up so I will pre-empt them. There were Zionist terrorists, namely the Irgun and the Lehi (stern gang), however these were small splinter groups that didn't represent the majority of the yishuv, and were rejected and physically suppressed by the Zionist establishment.)

You're right that there are indeed differences in the Arab world, and certainly Shia and Sunni is one of the biggest. I would point out however that with regards to hatred/opposition to the West and Israel there is actually much more common ground than difference between these two groups in Islam.

Abuskedti

dayan wrote:

Would the American military ever bomb a bus they knew to be full of civilians, and which had no hostile military personel or equipment on it, on purpose, just so they could kill as many civilians as possible? REMEMBER that I mean on purpose, not accidentally, or based on bad intelligence. I mean they see a bus full of civilians they know is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER a military target and decide to destroy it anyways. I don't think they would ever act this way. I am sure that they have no problem killing many civilians while attacking a military target, but I don't think they would ever target a purely civilian target on purpose. That is the difference between terrorists and militaries. A legitimate military draws a distinction between enemy combatents and civilians. Terrorists do not. That is why Hamas, Hezbollah, al Queda, al Queda in Mesopotamia, and all the others like them, even if you think that they are acting to defend their people (which I think is entirely false) are terrorists, because they deliberatly target civilians.

Its a giant bus, a giant prison.. its call Iraq. They can't escape - can't fly - can't fight.. and we bomb and bomb

yes we would we do

dayan

Abuskedti wrote:

Its a giant bus, a giant prison.. its call Iraq. They can't escape - can't fly - can't fight.. and we bomb and bomb

yes we would we do

This doesn't deserve a response. I understand that you oppose the war in Iraq, but when you reduce things to absurdities like this there isn't anything to talk about.

jsand

Moral equivalence is completely immoral. Blurring the distinction between a military, whose purpose is the defense of a sovereign nation, and terror groups, such as the Islamofascists whose purpose is to destroy the lives of civilians to achieve their goal of global domination, is disgusting. That so many on this board equate the two is a sad statement as to the morals and intelligence of Pearl Jam fans.

lgt

Hello Dayan,

(I am not too familiar with posting on a message board, so I hope it is ok to address you personally)

With regard to the first point about terrorists and "freedom fighters", I think it is all a matter of perspective/viewpoint, i.e. the one you support. Surely, the British would not view the American colonists as freedom fighters, whereas the colonists viewed themselves as fighting for their rights and their political objectives.

If on the other hand, you posit the attacking of civilians as the hallmark of terrorists, then there are examples of wars staged by military/armies where civilians were also casualties. True, they may have been "collateral damage". The point about terrorism is to use whatever violent tactics will further their ends. I am talking here of all kinds of terrorism (red, ie leftwing; black,i.e. fascist; or religious terrorism) and the tactics can be as diverse as kidnappings of Prime Ministers (this happened in Italy in 1978) in order to raise the stakes and force negotiations with the State, viewed as their enemy (in that case, that tactic did not work. The PM, Aldo Moro, was killed; the state did not negotiate. However, the state was only able to succeed in defeating the radical left terrorism by a combination of force and negotiation, ie talking with the captured terrorists who then revealed more info.. sorry, I am digressing! My point is that the attack of civilians is not a defining characteristic per se of terrorist groups, but rather it is their tactics, stemmed from their objections to the normal patterns of political; and their tactics are aimed to provoke terror (hence the name), because this what is most likely to raise their profile.

Finally, with regard to Shia and Sunni being united by their hatred of the West/Israel, I would agree that this latest initiative in Lebanon by Israel had the effect of uniting the Shia and Sunni Lebanese behind Hezbollah.

This is to me, incidentally, is proving a highly unpragmatic way for Israel to solve the Hezbollah problem. Instead of supporting the weak Lebanese government in ridding Hezbollah (mainly operating in South Lebanon and emerged in 1982 during the first war in Lebanon against Israel invasion) they opted for a military solution, which I am not sure how quickly can be reached in a satisfactorily (sp?) manner for Israel.

Also, you also have to consider that there are differences within the West itself (the contrasting opinions of the general population and their respective governments with regard to the war in Iraq for instance, well mainly in Europe. I don't know whether the US public supported the war originally. I guess now with the rising numbers of US soldiers being killed support for the war in Iraq might be waning).

Ok, I hope I have been able to put across my thoughts!

---

Edited to add:

Dayan,

I do see your points that in the current situation of Israel, terrorists (whether suicide bombers or Hezbollah in the North) target civilians, whereas the Israeli army targets terrorist groups. But that it is not always so clear cut. The Israeli army attacks have produced civilian casualties (UN peacekeepers and 37 children in Qanaa, most recently); terrorists aims at military targets but also at civilian targets, because this will most likely produce, in their calculations, the highest returns to their cause with the military means they have (and in the Middle East situation the military might of Palestianian fighters or Hezbollah, even considering the support from Iran and Syria in this latter case, is still considerably less than that of Israel, so killing civilians is a viable tactic for those groups in their calculations).

El_Kabong

WindNoSail wrote:

Whoa, that is a lot to respond to - what passenger planes did we blow up?

for a start...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Bosch

Orlando Bosch is a Cuban exile and former CIA-backed criminal, head of CORU organization, which the FBI has described as "an anti-Castro terrorist umbrella organization". He has been accused of having taken part in Operation Condor and of a variety of terrorist attacks. Most notably he has admitted, together with another anti-Castro Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles, of taking part in the October 6, 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner in which all seventy-three people on board were killed. This bombing would have been decided at the same meeting, attended by Luis Posada Carriles and DINA agent Michael Townley, where Chilean former minister Orlando Letelier's assassination, in Washington, D.C. in 1976, was decided.

Orlando Bosch was in contact with CIA in 1962 and 1963, as the agency itself admitted, as recorded in the National Security Archive [1]. At this time, Bosch was the General Coordinator of the Insurrectional Movement of Revolutionary Recovery (MIRR). He was a member of the anti-Castro Operation 40.

...Several days later, Posada was reported to have stated that "we are going to hit a Cuban airplane" and "Orlando has the details." (Both the Bosch and Posada statements were cited in an October 18, 1976 report to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger posted by the National Security Archive on May 17, 2005.)

He was arrested in Florida for an attack on a Polish freighter with a 57 mm recoilless rifle in 1968. Bosch was freed from Venezuelan charges and went to the United States in 1987, assisted by US Ambassador to Venezuela Otto Reich. Bosch was pardoned of all American charges by President George H.W. Bush on July 18, 1990.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

Luis Posada Carriles (born February 15, 1928) is an anti-Castro and anti-Communist fugitive who is alleged to have been involved in numerous violent terrorist plots, including Operation 40, hotel bombings and the 1976 bombing of a Cubana Flight 455 in which seventy-three people were killed. He is also said to have been involved in Operation Condor, namely in Orlando Letelier's murder in Washington, D.C., a few weeks before Cubana de Aviación's explosion. Posada has lived in Venezuela, where he became a naturalized citizen and served in its political police; and the United States, where he served in the U.S. Army and developed a relationship with the CIA.

In April 2005, Posada sought political asylum in the United States. Venezuela, where he had broken out of prison, has formally requested Posada's extradition,[1] as has Cuba [2]. A Department of Homeland Security judge ruled that he cannot be deported because of alleged threat of torture in Venezuela [3]. According to Cuba's official newspaper on March 22, 2006, the US Immigration and Custorms Enforcement (ICE) informed Posada that he would continue to be detained on the grounds that he continues "to present a danger to the community and a flight risk" and claimed that he has "a history of engaging in criminal activity, associating with individuals involved in criminal activity, and participating in violent acts that indicate a disregard for the safety of the general public".[4] With Guillermo Novo Sampoll, Orlando Bosch and Gaspar Jiménez Escobedo, he founded the Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU)[5].

El_Kabong

jsand wrote:

Moral equivalence is completely immoral. Blurring the distinction between a military, whose purpose is the defense of a sovereign nation, and terror groups, such as the Islamofascists whose purpose is to destroy the lives of civilians to achieve their goal of global domination, is disgusting. That so many on this board equate the two is a sad statement as to the morals and intelligence of Pearl Jam fans.

you're saying a military has never been misused? you're saying germany used it's military for good things?