U.S. Funds Attacks in Iran

myata · April 5, 2007

You mean, sponsoring insurgency in another country is better than (i.e., morally superior to) terrorism?

Guthrie · April 5, 2007

No wonder they had to assassinate Benny Hill.

M.Dancer · April 5, 2007

You mean, sponsoring insurgency in another country is better than (i.e., morally superior to) terrorism?

Yes absolutely.

Consider the french during the revolutionary war......

DogOnPorch · April 5, 2007

You mean, sponsoring insurgency in another country is better than (i.e., morally superior to) terrorism?

I doubt there's some moral high-ground. However, as mentioned, these fellows (Sunnis) were raiding Shi'ites well before the US was poking its nose into the affair. Here's a former Al-Qaeda group that now apparently wants to 'play ball' for the other side. Too much to pass up, I guess.

Those unfamiliar should give http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah a read-over.

But as I also mentioned...smells like Central America.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The higher...the fewer.

---Alexander Rozhenko: Star Trek DS9

myata · April 5, 2007

Yes absolutely.
Consider the french during the revolutionary war......

Not quite following... If french did it during their revolutionary war x hundred years ago, how does it give it any legitimacy now?

ScottSA · April 6, 2007

Yes absolutely.

Consider the french during the revolutionary war......

Not quite following... If french did it during their revolutionary war x hundred years ago, how does it give it any legitimacy now?

There is a difference between attacking military forces and attacking civilians. It's the true legal difference between "insurgents" and "terrorists".

myata · April 6, 2007

I agree. But let's be consistent then: if a bomb is dropped into a house full of people, and a bus taking military personnel to their station is blown up with some civilians on board, and a settler on an occupied land who carries a gun is shot at, they must be all either acts of terrorism, or legitimate warfare / insurgency. I don't really care much which one (all are bad in my view) but the standard must be the same.

jdobbin · April 6, 2007

Yes exactly, guerillas killing soldiers is not terrorism. That's called a guerilla conflict (war, insurgency etc etc etc)
Terrorists, planting bombs in commuter train stations...that's terrorism.

Get back to me if the situation changes....

I'm fine with that definition then. Let me rephrase: Some Americans must have a bitter taste in their mouths that their government is helping to fund an insurgency in Iran that likely provokes or continues to fuel insurgency in Iraq.

Guthrie · April 6, 2007

parse it out any way you want - peddling death is peddling death

ScottSA · April 6, 2007

parse it out any way you want - peddling death is peddling death

To a simple mind, that is true. You have a simple mind, ergo what you say is true for you. Now go play in traffic.

Myata: the standard is fairly straightforward: intentional attacks on civilians is terrorism. Attacks on military targets is not. If military targets hide among civilians (your mixed bus analogy), they are breaking intl law in doing so, AND they are still legitimate targets. Don't blame me, blame the GC. The GC, in aid of common sense, doesn't outlaw the killing of civilians, it simply outlaws the intent to target only civilians, and demands that the combatants use as much care as is practical to avoid civilian casualties.

That doesn't mean that all combatants caught blowing up military targets are simply enemy combatants and deserving of POW status if they get caught, but that's another point altogether.

Guthrie · April 7, 2007

only genuine dimwits try to justify indiscriminate murder with words like, 'incidental' - 'unintentional' and 'collateral'

ScottSA · April 7, 2007

only genuine dimwits try to justify indiscriminate murder with words like, 'incidental' - 'unintentional' and 'collateral'

And only genuine retards refuse to understand the difference between murder and accidental death.

Guthrie · April 7, 2007

as noted

only genuine dimwits try to justify indiscriminate murder with words like, 'incidental' - 'unintentional' and 'collateral'

there is nothing accidental, incidental or unintentional about a howitzer or a rocket or a daisy cutter

ScottSA · April 7, 2007

as noted
only genuine dimwits try to justify indiscriminate murder with words like, 'incidental' - 'unintentional' and 'collateral'

there is nothing accidental, incidental or unintentional about a howitzer or a rocket or a daisy cutter

Your point? Has the US dropped a daisy cutter on a civilian population center lately unbeknownst to everyone but you?

myata · April 7, 2007

To a simple mind, that is true. You have a simple mind, ergo what you say is true for you. Now go play in traffic.

And how do we know that your mind is a well of complexity? Anyways, not an argument so does not deserve answer.

Myata: the standard is fairly straightforward: intentional attacks on civilians is terrorism. Attacks on military targets is not. If military targets hide among civilians (your mixed bus analogy), they are breaking intl law in doing so, AND they are still legitimate targets.

I agree. As long as any hit on a civilian target is classified as an intentional attack. Really. If dropping a bomb into a house is not an "intentional" killing, the same can be said about flying a plane into it.

BTW, in that episode, "military targets" (Israeli) were not "hiding" on the bus. They were simply taking it to the place of their posting. Does it still make it (the bus) a legitimate target?

Don't blame me, blame the GC. The GC, in aid of common sense, doesn't outlaw the killing of civilians, it simply outlaws the intent to target only civilians, and demands that the combatants use as much care as is practical to avoid civilian casualties.

First, Geneva convention is not a universal revelation from the God. If one goes to war, unasked for, somewhere far far away, there's no guarantee it's the old good Geneva convention they'll find there.

Secondly, what is "practical"? It's not practical for those who resist an occupation by hugely superior military force to come out in a field and die. Does it mean that their allotment of "practical" casualties can be different from their opposition?

Then, another point altogether is the creative interpretation of Geneva Convention in the way that would ask for maximum protection for your troops (which on occasion happen to be invading other countries) while giving little or none to those who resist.

M.Dancer · April 9, 2007

Yes exactly, guerillas killing soldiers is not terrorism. That's called a guerilla conflict (war, insurgency etc etc etc)

Terrorists, planting bombs in commuter train stations...that's terrorism.

Get back to me if the situation changes....

I'm fine with that definition then. Let me rephrase: Some Americans must have a bitter taste in their mouths that their government is helping to fund an insurgency in Iran that likely provokes or continues to fuel insurgency in Iraq.

You rephrase is perfectly.

Not to condemn or justify the US strategy. but they are probably sendinga clear message to the mullahs, if your fuck with us in Iraq, we have plenty of opportunities to return the favours in Iran.

myata · April 10, 2007

The signal they're sending is that they're ready to use exact same methods as their presumed opposition (whose guilt has yet to be proven conclusively). In my eyes, that greatly diminishes their claim to moral superiority which they never fail to make.

M.Dancer · April 10, 2007

The signal they're sending is that they're ready to use exact same methods as their presumed opposition (whose guilt has yet to be proven conclusively). In my eyes, that greatly diminishes their claim to moral superiority which they never fail to make.

Ummm...yeah...sauce for the goose..sauce for the gander?

I doubt the standards of proof for those who lives are at riskis a high as ours......fact is though, we both know Iran is stirring the pot.....

ScottSA · April 10, 2007

The signal they're sending is that they're ready to use exact same methods as their presumed opposition (whose guilt has yet to be proven conclusively). In my eyes, that greatly diminishes their claim to moral superiority which they never fail to make.

The object of war is to win, not to arrive at the end of it with the best claim to having not fought it. I understand that you don't want the US to win, so the best way to avoid that outcome is to insist that it fight against a streetfighter with one hand tied behind its back and the other confined by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Geez...what a twisted way of looking at the world you have...

myata · April 10, 2007

The object of war is to win, not to arrive at the end of it with the best claim to having not fought it. I understand that you don't want the US to win, so the best way to avoid that outcome is to insist that it fight against a streetfighter with one hand tied behind its back and the other confined by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Geez...what a twisted way of looking at the world you have...

Quite likely it never occurred to you to question, if and why they really have to fight (and win - or lose) that war there, x thousand miles from their mainland. That omission on your part can be either plain dumb, or, really twisted.

To M.Dancer: no I don't. Look what happened in Iraq where everybody (with vested interest in the war) just "knew" that they had WMD or helped Alkaeda. After Iraq, all american claims should be taken with utmost scrutiny: once bit, twice shy.

M.Dancer · April 10, 2007

To M.Dancer: no I don't. Look what happened in Iraq where everybody (with vested interest in the war) just "knew" that they had WMD or helped Alkaeda. After Iraq, all american claims should be taken with utmost scrutiny: once bit, twice shy.

So you think those shaped charge IED with infra red triggers are being manufactured in basements in Basra?

Jerry Galinda · April 10, 2007

Are you describing terrorists attack in Iraq ?

Attacks of suicide bombers killing ordinary people – children, women, peasants - it doesn’t matter who ?

myata · April 10, 2007

So you think those shaped charge IED with infra red triggers are being manufactured in basements in Basra?

C'mon: even if it can be proven that they were delivered from Iran (which I have yet to see), it's a long long shot to claim government involvment. Maybe, the same standard as that required to prosecute americans in the ICC should be applied?

M.Dancer · April 10, 2007

So you think those shaped charge IED with infra red triggers are being manufactured in basements in Basra?

C'mon: even if it can be proven that they were delivered from Iran (which I have yet to see), it's a long long shot to claim government involvment. Maybe, the same standard as that required to prosecute americans in the ICC should be applied?

So you suggest that making shaped charges with sophisticated detonation systems in Iran could be done without gov't knowledge or approval?

myata · April 10, 2007

I suggest to replace guesswork with a due process. Long reaching conclusions without proper substantiation already proved wrong (and a very expensive wrong at that) in the previous and not so old instance. The avenues are available: ICJ, Security Council. Why don't this administration bring their accusations to these bodies, and prove them following due process? Their fanning hot air only makes me think that perhaps their evidence record may be too thin to be considered seriously. Maybe of the same nature as their (in)famous WMD file on Iraq?