At 9:30 AM -0400 27/5/08, Charles Bennett wrote:
>On May 27, 2008, at 3:26 AM, David Cake wrote:
>
>> At 8:13 AM -0700 26/5/08, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>>> The narrative of fear turns out to be more bullshit.
>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/id/138508>
>>>
>>
>> Really interesting result (and not entirely unexpected)
>> Its not to say that the Iraq war hasn't, I think, made things
>> worse as far as terrorism goes (the terrorist attacks in Jordan in
>> 2006, for example, absolutely wouldn't have happened without the Iraq
>> war), but I think its very valuable to defuse the idea of global
>> Islamic terrorism still rising (and idea that, for example, it seems
>> Chuck still adheres to).
>> Cheers
>> David
>> _______________________________________________
>
>Indonesia and the Philippines are the result of the Iraq war? The
>Christians being killed in Africa by Muslims are the result of the
>Iraq war?
No, never said that. But I think without the Iraq war we
would have had slightly less terrorism in the Middle East. Hammas and
similar organisations that predate the war would still be there, of
course, but some attacks, such as the 2006 ones in Jordan I referred
to, I think are directly attributable to the Iraq war.
The Christians being killed in Africa aren't a result of the
Iraq war, any more than people being killed by Christian terrorists
in Africa are (the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda are a Christian
group, and a recognised terrorist group, who have been doing horrible
things for years).
>My point wasn't about rising amount of terrorism, it was, to state it
>simply.
>
>While not all muslims are terrorists, (by any stretch of the
>imagination.. p.c. disclaimer etc...) the vast majority of terrorists
>acts in the world today are committed by muslims.
>In the 21st century, it's not even close.
Sure - the US let the Taliban get established as a terrorist
centre, it took a few years for the world to cope with the export of
terrorism from that and other sources, and even know the disastrous
situation in Iraq is a breeding ground.
But historically, terrorism is not an exclusively Islamic
problem, and has been a tool of Christian, secular nationalist,
leftist, and other religious groups as well. Sure, Islamist terrorist
is a major problem right now, but treating it as a peculiarly Islamic
problem rather than one of many sources of terorism doesn't make any
sense to me (other than being more convenient for US politics).
>This quote really pisses me off..
>
>"They count civilian casualties from the war in Iraq as deaths caused
>by terrorism. This makes no sense. Iraq is a war zone, and as in other
>war zones around the world, many of those killed are civilians"
>
>Let me call bullshit in the strongest possible terms. We are not
>carpet bombing cities like wwii.
They didn't say civilians were being targetted by carpet
bombs. They said civilians were being killed. Do you doubt it? Or are
you another one of those who is going to deny death estimates (and
call the Lancet a propoganda organ, and so forth)? A lot of
civilians died.
>
>So when this headline hits. " A suicide bomber killed 125 people and
>wounded 130 by detonating a car" He thinks what? "Act of war,
>let's not count it?"
>
>The vast majority of civilians killed are not the result of collateral
>damage, as he implies, but are targeted directly by terrorists..
>Collateral damage does happen but it doesn't involve VBIEDs in the
>middle of a market place filled with civilians.
Jared has it exactly - when its a guerilla war situation,
calling one side terrorists and the other side not serves no purpose
but propoganda.
And regardless of whether you like it or not, counting
terrorists differently for one conflict out of all those current or
previous, serves no purpose other than furthering one political
agenda. I don't think that is a good idea, regardless of whose
political agenda it is.
At 10:50 AM -0400 27/5/08, Charles Bennett wrote:
>Not what I said, or at least not what I meant.
>
>I'll accept that any IED, VBIED mortar, etc directed DIRECTLY at the
>US soldiers is guerrilla warfare and falls under the category of war.
>If civilians are standing near an Army hummer, for instance, and when
>it's gets blown up, and they are killed, I'll grant that they are
>collateral damage. (reluctantly)
SO, then you would agree with the original point, that
counting all casualties in Iraq, regardless of target or method, as
terrorist, is wrong. So, you don't agree that the accounting we are
objecting to anyway, right?
And then the next step is simply to, rather than attempt to
get detailed information about every one of hundreds of events in a
war zone, treat them all the same way they have historically treated
attacks in a war zone. I agree it would be nice to have detailed
information about every event, and try to classify each as terrorist
or not - but its clear these stats don't do that, and that they have
been treating the Iraq conflict differently to every other conflict.
Cheers
David
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
