Terror terminology
I've been operating from the working assumption that, you understand my terminology. But, it's never not a good time (if you ask me) to clearify. Here are some terminologies definitions as I we will use them here in our my posts on The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog.
terror attack: the well-known attack against US mainland on 9/11/2001. Can also be termed blowback. (Most other so-called (by so-called liberal "media") "terror" attacks are really just legitamate resistance movements, insurgencies, etc.)
terrorist: a member of Al Qaeda. (HAS to be ACTUAL BONA PHIDE MEMBER e.g. Zarqawi DOES NOT COUNT i'ts is only LOOSELY AFFILIATED GROUP we HAVE NO RIGHT to consider him a "terrorist"!!)
war on terror: the invasion of Afghanistan to dethrone the Taliban, clear out terrorist (see def. above) camps, find and capture the main (but ONLY the main!) Al Qaeda leaders (i.e. Osama, maybe couple others), and subsequently institute a Marshall Plan-like rebuilding of their country into social democracy i.e. Denmark. Nothing else can be properly said to fall under the rubric of the war on terror (and if something falls outside this definition, at best it should be written - war on "terror", "war" on "terror", or "war on terror")
So immediately you can see, that BY DEFINITION, the war in Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH the war on terror!
Yet another reason why it was so WRONG1.
1 not that i nec. support the war on terror in the first place
posted by iraqwarwrong @ 10:16 PM
7 Comments:
I'm not clear on your definition of "Terror Attack".
"the well-known attack against US mainland on 9/11/2001. Can also be termed blowback."
So, it was a terror attack, and a blowback? What is the difference? You are citing an example of terror, I think, but even that isn't clear from what you wrote.
"Most other so-called ... "terror" attacks are really just legitamate resistance movements"
Seems to suggest no terror attacks can be legitimate / justifiable. Is that true? So anything that is even a little justifiable (or understandable) is, by definition, not a terror attack? Anti-abortion is somewhat justifiable, at least to some people. Therefore shooting doctors and blowing up clinics is not terror. I would disagree.
Is there a difference between "terror attacks" and "terrorist attacks"?
Your definition of terrorist seems to be incomplete. Only memebers of Al Qaeda are terrorists? Therefore, memebers of Hamas or members of Irish Republican Army are, by definition, not terrorists? And by definition cannot perform terror attacks?
Your defintions are a bit unclear. In fact, you never really define "terror attack." Instead, you give an example of one(?) and tell us what it is not. You didn't tell us/me what it is. Please elaborate.
I'm the same guy who posted above...and just wanted to let you know that I absolutely loved your site. I think it is great! I just saw the one post (first visit), and wanted to comment immediately. I read some of the other stuff, and, well, I really enjoyed it!
"So, it was a terror attack, and a blowback?"
Correct.
"What is the difference?"
There really isn't one. Terror attacks occur precisely because someone needs to blowback against an oppressor. It's regrettable but predictable.
"You are citing an example of terror, I think"
No, I'm DEFINING what I mean by terror attack as I use it in this blog. I admit that what happened on 9/11/2001 was a terror attack but most other soc-alled "terror attacks" are really just instances of asymmetrical warfare.
"but even that isn't clear from what you wrote."
I'm trying like my best to clearify please bare, with me (I'm new at this)
"Seems to suggest no terror attacks can be legitimate / justifiable. Is that true?"
You may have a point there I'm willing to entertain your list of legitimate / justifiable terror attacks.
"So anything that is even a little justifiable (or understandable) is, by definition, not a terror attack?"
The point is, our country is totally against "terror" (brainwashed into this war on terror) so I'm trying to explain define, what they are allowed to disapprove of and fight against. I'm allowing to fight / dislike what happened on 9/11/2001 but not much else. See the problem here is that if you write (for example) your list of justifiable terror attacks, the American people (sheep) might think "well but those are terror attacks we should fight against them too". I'm trying to minimize confine definition of "terror attack" to something I conceed is not justifiable and the America people are ok to fight, against. So that they don't end up wanting to ALSO fight against terror attacks you and I might ALSO think are is justifiable.
"Anti-abortion is somewhat justifiable, at least to some people."
You're kidding right?? To crazies. I relly think you must be kidding here. I don't find it very funny I'll have you know. Some serious subjects just shoudl NOT be joked or parodied about.
"Therefore shooting doctors and blowing up clinics is not terror. I would disagree."
You would disagree that it's not terror. Thus agree that it's terror. Ok we agree (had to think about this double negative)
"Is there a difference between "terror attacks" and "terrorist attacks"?"
I don't knwo what is the point of this silly hair splitting. A terror attack is made done by a terrist. It's a terrorist doing the terror attack. Waht part don't you understand I'm jsut a little taken aback that you need explain on this level.
"Your definition of terrorist seems to be incomplete. Only memebers of Al Qaeda are terrorists? Therefore, memebers of Hamas or members of Irish Republican Army are, by definition, not terrorists?"
They are freedom fighters fighting for freedom and a home land. Why do you cast a spursion on that goal.
"And by definition cannot perform terror attacks?"
AppARENTLY you have never heard of assymmetrical warfare!
"Your defintions are a bit unclear."
Yes I know sorry about that (new at this) please, to bare with me. as I'm nwe at this.
"Instead, you give an example of one(?) and tell us what it is not. You didn't tell us/me what it is. Please elaborate."
One what? Please elabroate.
To second comment by same commenter,
Hi again1 :) Well I"m am pleased that you saw fit to change your mind about, my site. IT's was nice of you to give me a chance (just a little ) and read more caerfully so as to, come to better understnading of my site (and, my rightness, and Iraq'ws war wrongness).
I'm tickled my fancy that we now understanding each other, much better (as form of common understanidng.) Please, to come back anytime for more shared undesrtaidng and enjoyment :) :) :)
Coridally,
Wow, you responded really quickly... As I noted in my second comment, I had only seen the one post. Things made much more sense after I read a bit more of the site, and the further reading answered many of my questions. And please forgive me my hair-splitting: I'm a comp sci guy who also minored in philosophy. It probably should have been the other way around, but philosophy doesn't pay nearly as well... Again, I really enjoyed the site! Keep up the good work!
Listen!!!! (Is someone still listening?).
This is so typical of you Americans. It's terror when it happens to You but it's not terror when it happens to other people. Well, I've got news for you! It's not terror when it happens to you either!
Al-Qaeda are a proper political party (just not registered. They're a repressed political party) ruling a nation (nation of Islam). Their army doesnt have nuclear weapons like America does (and France too, shame!) and they don;'t have air planes - (so they are obligated to steal them). What happened in 9/11 is penalty for Bush. As bin Laden said (implied) he doesnt want to hurt anyone who doesnt hurt them.
Calling them terrorists is just a way to run away from the problem and the problem is you and you cant run away from yourself!
Ok.
Wow that's some pretty good point(there). Youv'e given some good frood for thought (than'ks) I think probably you're right(sad, relly). when will we lern anyway??
Post a Comment
<< Home