American Drone Attack in Pakistan Kills German

[sandinista]

Guess I win.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

"generally speaking" your statement is NOT true. Never heard of South and Central america have you? Or Vietnam for that matter, or Laos, Cambodia? The US jumped from WW2 to Iraq and Afghanistan in your mind didn't it (both of which are also acts of state terror).

Of course I've heard of those places. Make your point.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is an act of terrorism. They are wars. The US didn't target civilians - the targets were the enemy combatants.

Your use of the term "state terror[ism]" is misplaced there. And, you're just basically including any violent act under the rubric "terrorism," just like many folks lump any ill treatment of a prisoner with the word "torture." It's a way of sweeping disparate things under a broad umbrella so that a false equivalency can be made. Your goal is to equate the US with the nasty dictatorships of the world, so you lump in anything violent the US does with actual terrorist acts and call them all terrorism. That way you can pretend that they are equal, and suggest that the US is in the wrong, and the people that blow up civilians in cafes are in the right.

But, while fancy games can be played with definitions, we just need a little deeper thought to see that the word terrorism doesn't include wars like the Afghan War or the Iraq War. Terrorism is a term that originate where and when? Well - France in the 18th century. The French government's "reign of terror" brought us the concept of "terrorism." Shortly after the overthrow of the French monarchy, a revolutionary dictatorship was established and with it the decision to root out anyone who might oppose or undermine the revolution [shades of another guy we've been talking about elsewhere....rooting out those who oppose the revolution....but I digress]. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed by guillotine for a variety of crimes. That was terrorism. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam - all faced state terrorism, where civilians were "purged."

There is a fundamental difference between those examples of state terrorism and the tragic incidents of civilian casualties in urban warfare. Yes, both suck ass. But, they aren't the same thing, and they don't merit the same degree of culpability.

[GreyICE]

The US conduct in Vietnam does not fall into your model. It was, at best, state sponsored terrorism.

While I believe Iraq and Afghanistan were conducted differently in a few respects, it is important to grasp and acknowledge the difference between them and Vietnam, and why they the start of a better model (there are still many issues, but it is less prevalent - we could use more openness in our operational videos after the fact, and I think more drones would lead to more stomach for acceptable losses on our side that would lead to less death overall (since losses would be time and money, not flesh and blood).

[sandinista]

coito:

and suggest that the US is in the wrong, and the people that blow up civilians in cafes are in the right.

fuck, again, "either wit us or wit the terrorists". Man, that is fucking OLD...and wrong btw.

[Robert_S]

So, is there an explanation of why the hell this German chose to go to Pakistan when he could be safely swimming off the sunny shores of... say... Sharm el-Sheikh for example?

[JimC]

coito:

and suggest that the US is in the wrong, and the people that blow up civilians in cafes are in the right.

fuck, again, "either wit us or wit the terrorists". Man, that is fucking OLD...and wrong btw.

A complaint about a polarised opinion from someone with such a subtle and nuanced view of US actions...

I would love to see a lot less black and white in threads like this. Some folks are perhaps being overly defensive about the US. It is important to recognise past actions in Vietnam and elsewhere which thoroughly deserved criticism, as GreyICE suggested (though state sponsored terrorism was an inaccurate term, I believe). Part of this criticism is due because of actions involving the relatively indiscriminate, if inadvertant bombing of civilians, and such actions as the widespread use of defoliants etc...

Others need to recognise that the vast majority of recent military actions by the US, whether they deserve criticism or not for other reasons, have not involved deliberate targetting of civilians. Where civilians have died in Afghanistan, it has been very much against American interests in a PR sense...

These others could possibly also look a little more critically at actions by islamic terrorists all over the world, whose despicable disregard for civilians continues...

[Robert_S]

coito:

and suggest that the US is in the wrong, and the people that blow up civilians in cafes are in the right.

fuck, again, "either wit us or wit the terrorists". Man, that is fucking OLD...and wrong btw.

A complaint about a polarised opinion from someone with such a subtle and nuanced view of US actions...

I would love to see a lot less black and white in threads like this. Some folks are perhaps being overly defensive about the US. It is important to recognise past actions in Vietnam and elsewhere which thoroughly deserved criticism, as GreyICE suggested (though state sponsored terrorism was an inaccurate term, I believe). Part of this criticism is due because of actions involving the relatively indiscriminate, if inadvertant bombing of civilians, and such actions as the widespread use of defoliants etc...

Others need to recognise that the vast majority of recent military actions by the US, whether they deserve criticism or not for other reasons, have not involved deliberate targetting of civilians. Where civilians have died in Afghanistan, it has been very much against American interests in a PR sense...

These others could possibly also look a little more critically at actions by islamic terrorists all over the world, whose despicable disregard for civilians continues...

When the US military kills civilians, it doesn't advertise the fact. The military and its supporters tend to get defensive.

When certain other groups kill civilians, they boast and dance in the streets. They promise more of the same.

Big difference there.

[sandinista]

coito:

and suggest that the US is in the wrong, and the people that blow up civilians in cafes are in the right.

fuck, again, "either wit us or wit the terrorists". Man, that is fucking OLD...and wrong btw.

A complaint about a polarised opinion from someone with such a subtle and nuanced view of US actions...

I would love to see a lot less black and white in threads like this. Some folks are perhaps being overly defensive about the US. It is important to recognise past actions in Vietnam and elsewhere which thoroughly deserved criticism, as GreyICE suggested (though state sponsored terrorism was an inaccurate term, I believe). Part of this criticism is due because of actions involving the relatively indiscriminate, if inadvertant bombing of civilians, and such actions as the widespread use of defoliants etc...

Others need to recognise that the vast majority of recent military actions by the US, whether they deserve criticism or not for other reasons, have not involved deliberate targetting of civilians. Where civilians have died in Afghanistan, it has been very much against American interests in a PR sense...

These others could possibly also look a little more critically at actions by islamic terrorists all over the world, whose despicable disregard for civilians continues...

all you want, subtle or not, I speak the truth. Nice of you to try to take the "middle ground" here, but that doesn't make your opinion any more valid. The US has been the largest, most well funded terrorist organization of the last 50 years at least. Why, oh why would you not call Vietnam state terrorism? If that's not what it is, than what the fuck was it? "the vast majority of recent military actions by the US, whether they deserve criticism or not for other reasons, have not involved deliberate targetting of civilians." That IS bullshit, prove it. Vast majority? Not true. "inadvertant bombing of civilians" Hardly Inadvertent, man, your one small post is so full of inaccuracies (and spelling mistakes, but I need not go there) it's ridiculous. Like if you "claim" something it must be true, and your making fun of my nuanced and "subtle" view of US foreign policy. At least I've read books on the subject which, apparently you haven't.

[sandinista]

coito:

and suggest that the US is in the wrong, and the people that blow up civilians in cafes are in the right.

fuck, again, "either wit us or wit the terrorists". Man, that is fucking OLD...and wrong btw.

A complaint about a polarised opinion from someone with such a subtle and nuanced view of US actions...

I would love to see a lot less black and white in threads like this. Some folks are perhaps being overly defensive about the US. It is important to recognise past actions in Vietnam and elsewhere which thoroughly deserved criticism, as GreyICE suggested (though state sponsored terrorism was an inaccurate term, I believe). Part of this criticism is due because of actions involving the relatively indiscriminate, if inadvertant bombing of civilians, and such actions as the widespread use of defoliants etc...

Others need to recognise that the vast majority of recent military actions by the US, whether they deserve criticism or not for other reasons, have not involved deliberate targetting of civilians. Where civilians have died in Afghanistan, it has been very much against American interests in a PR sense...

These others could possibly also look a little more critically at actions by islamic terrorists all over the world, whose despicable disregard for civilians continues...

When the US military kills civilians, it doesn't advertise the fact. The military and its supporters tend to get defensive.

When certain other groups kill civilians, they boast and dance in the streets. They promise more of the same.

Big difference there.

So what if they get "defensive" (in public), what the fuck does that matter? The US boasts of it's military exploits every fucking day, what ARE you talking about? Big difference? Not.

[Blondie]

So the US inflicts some additional collateral damage. This is news?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So the US inflicts some additional collateral damage. This is news?

Why call it collateral? He could have been very, very lost, looking for the annual shark run. He could have had a box of nice shiney toys for the sons of Allah. He could have been there to teach them the finer points of cross-stitch or how to make a better I.E.D. He could have been there to lead them all to Jesus, or to Mecca. I doubt we'll ever know for sure. I don't doubt that Sandy V. will call this bullshit, he only plays one tune.

[Robert_S]

Oh FFS, I'm not arguing that the US military is squeaky clean. But there's a damn big difference between them and the Taliban.

It isn't the criticism of he US that pisses me off. It's the equivalence between the US and the Taliban/Al-Quaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

What doctrine does the US have that compares to this quote?

[Blondie]

Oh FFS, I'm not arguing that the US military is squeaky clean. But there's a damn big difference between them and the Taliban.

It isn't the criticism of he US that pisses me off. It's the equivalence between the US and the Taliban/Al-Quaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

What doctrine does the US have that compares to this quote?

What was that statement GWB made after 911? ... I'll try to find it when I get home.

In the mean time OBL != Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, or militant Muslims. You're making an unfair comparison between the statement of a single person and the policy of a government. In fact, you've pulled a little sophistical trick out of your sleeve and asked for a US 'doctrine'.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, Robert, but your wrong. The US Army beats women who go out of the house without a man, or wear make-up or, Allah forbid, speaks to a man not her relative. Just like the Taliban.

Beside, the US military did something wrong once, somewhere, and so they're always wrong forever and ever and I won't hear anything different.

[Robert_S]

Oh FFS, I'm not arguing that the US military is squeaky clean. But there's a damn big difference between them and the Taliban.

It isn't the criticism of he US that pisses me off. It's the equivalence between the US and the Taliban/Al-Quaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

What doctrine does the US have that compares to this quote?

What was that statement GWB made after 911? ... I'll try to find it when I get home.

In the mean time OBL != Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, or militant Muslims. You're making an unfair comparison between the statement of a single person and the policy of a government. In fact, you've pulled a little sophistical trick out of your sleeve and asked for a US 'doctrine'.

The US got into this mess after an attack from Al Quaida. Quoting one of their head honchos is fair. The Taliban thought it was just fine to let him stick around. What should they have expected?