Tim Blair

Terrorism against George Bush would be justified because, as a Skull and Bones acolyte, he is a cunning weapon of the nefarious Illuminati, those Jewish masters of the world stage who first brought us the Masons, then the Bilderberger Group and, now, Al Qaeda is their never-ending quest for world domination by subverting and/or cowing Western democracies into clamoring for a one world government under the auspices of the UN.

The state of political discourse has reached such a low, especially on the Left, that had I not published this disclaimer, other posters here may have taken me seriously. On the other hand, the sophisticated posters could have guessed that I wasn't serious 'cause I didn't mention Hallibuuurrrrton (eeek!).

Or OOOIIILLLL!

Bush Lied®

Spaniards died....

Bush Lied® is a Registered Trademark of the LL (it's liberal left or loony left -- same difference). Unauthorised use will destroy your cerebral cortex thereby coverting you into a card carrying leftie -- or a wanker, whatever.

'SBS should run more polls on this subject'

More to the point, YOU should run some more polls, that Saddam one has been up for months.

What's the difference between "maybe" and "unsure"?

Just another traitorous pack of taxpayer funded bastards.

SBS has 100 viewers to make the % accurate and reflective of OZ society; or did they just do a quick survey in the tea-room?

I dunno Tim, I'm pleasantly suprised that the "no" figure is so high. I would have expected higher levels of ambivalence towards or support for terrorism amongst the SBS tranzi crowd. Maybe they were thinking of State-sponsored terrorism, you know, like building fences and stuff. That's definitely not on.

Crazy - I believe in the USA its LLL - Looney (Lunatic) Liberal Left. It can't work here because the Liberals aren't the leftys.

How about LLL- Lunatic Labour Left or LGL for the tree-huggers etc.

George, the difference between maybe and unsure:

maybe - "Depends on the circumstances."
unsure - "Huh? I only have two working brain cells, and they're on the left."

As long as you dont bomb the bit of SBS that shows the overseas nudey flicks, thats fine.

And i would like to second the motion re the online poll - having one that is related to the capture of Saddam is rather dated..

Speaking of which, what is Saddo up to nowadays, we havent heard about him in ages.

Remember that this depends on your definition of terrorism. From memory, I think this was a poll of the studio audience on the Insight program, which aired last week. There were a signficant number of Palestinians in the audience, which would have swayed the figures. A couple of seemingly reasonable people also spoke about this subject and said that it would be justified in some situations (example, attacks by the populace against a tyrannical regime), although they were sickened by it. Personally, I would have to have said yes in extreme circumstances as well. For example the allied bombings of Japan, and Germany during World War 2, both of which were designed to terrorise their populations could be called terrorism, and were in my opinion justified.

Poll suggestion: Who would terrorists prefer to win the Spanish election?

Pezza--

The Allied bombings of Germany and Japan were not designed to terrorize the people of those nations so much as to eradicate their ability to furnish munitions and supplies to their armies.

Because they did however terrorize innocent civilians, the West developed a moral revulsion to carpet bombing civilian infrastructure. Hence, the billions of dollars spent on developing "smart" bombs, etc. (See the UAV hit on the Yemeni al Qaeda car.)

Our enemies have no such compunction re: the innocent and wouldn't use laser guided munitions even if they could develop them which they can't because they are morally and intellectually backward superstitious cavemen.

JDB,

"The Allied bombings of Germany and Japan were not designed to terrorize the people of those nations so much as to eradicate their ability to furnish munitions and supplies to their armies."

This is true, but there was also an element of terrifying the population and governments into surrender, in particular with Japan. Certainly, the atomic attacks in Japan were primarily to force a surrender through terror.

"Because they did however terrorize innocent civilians, the West developed a moral revulsion to carpet bombing civilian infrastructure. Hence, the billions of dollars spent on developing "smart" bombs, etc. (See the UAV hit on the Yemeni al Qaeda car)."

This is true too, but unfortunately you have missed my point. During World War 2 such smart bombs weren't available. Therefore this was not an option, so the use of terror tactics to speed up the conclusion of the war was, perhaps, the best way of minimising casualties(as revolting as this was).

"Our enemies have no such compunction re: the innocent and wouldn't use laser guided munitions even if they could develop them which they can't because they are morally and intellectually backward superstitious cavemen."

I agree totally. I was just pointing out that it was a complex argument on SBS last week. The fact that members of the audience said that terrorism could at times be justified does not mean they were terrorist supporters. I think this poll has been somewhat misrepresented here as I watched that show last week and found it very interesting and quite fair in that it gave a good voice to Israelis, Palestinians, victims of terror, and the general public.

How many idiots and Muslims does Australia have, Tim?

Poll suggestion: Which Foreign leader wants Kerry to win most...

A) Jaques "Jackboot" Chiraq - France
B) Kofi "nepotism" Annan - Transnazistan
C) Gerhard "Hairdye" Schroeder - Europeon Socialist (like National Socialist but bigger in scope and more dishonest)
etc...

At SBS, the M D, Nigel Milan, should be a bomb target, because: (a) he's white, not ethnic; (b) he's arrogant and unresponsive to viewers/listeners, especially ethnic ones; and (c) he's a chump.

After SBS's Winter Palace in Artarmon is bombed out, SBs should be forced to move from this WASP enclave on the North Shore to somewhere genuinely ethnic, like Cabramatta or Fairfield. Then we'd see all the trendy lefties from Balmain who work for SBS, leave (they wouldn't know how to find their way to Cab) and we might see the tone of the station raised. They might even employ some real people!

Should we consider Nelson Mandela a terrorist?

Pezza:

Well, you're right and wrong.

You're right, the Allied strategic bombing campaigns of WWII covered both destroying the industrial base of the enemy and striking at their populations.

You're wrong in two regards.

First, the WWII strategy didn't work. In an odd Darwinian twist, the Nazis and Japanese just figured out ways around their losses, some quite ingenious. The population pretty either much hunkered or shot back -- but they didn't give up, in spite of terrible casualties. After the war, such bombing campaigns were largely discarded as a strategy because there was no real impact except to make the enemy work harder. The costs in Allied lives and resources simply didn't justify that -- strategically.

Tactically, carpet bombing stayed around until Vietnam, where it has been used with somewhat better results, but only because the B52s flew above ack-ack and dropped more ordnance (more bang for the buck as it were).

But unaimed ordinance is wasteful in lives and money -- better to put 1 2000 pound warhead on a target than 20 500 pounders. Fewer side casualties, more impact on the enemy. Very demoralizing, knowing that if they can see you, you are dead. So precision munitions were developed, where the real problem lies in having good intelligence on your target.

Second, and more importantly, there is no way you can compare the use of precision guided munitions with terrorist bombing campaigns, unless the terrorists get their hands on an F16 squadron and somehow manage to fly them long enough to bomb something. If a bomb goes in the wrong place, it's because of bad intelligence, equipment malfunction, or pilot error; renegade pilots flying hijacked aircraft into combat are a Hollywood invention.

In effect, you are equating terrorists who say "we love death" with men and women in the armed forces who love life, and try to kill those crazy bastards before they blow up more commuter trains. Our armed forces in Iraq are not terrorists.

That is crap. Maybe "terrorism" happened in WWII -- I don't call it that, but we don't do it now. This is called maturity, when one learns from mistakes.

As for the nukes on Japan....check your history again. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were in fact military targets because of their industrial and military infrastructure, something that is ignored by the chestbeaters complaining about Japan getting nuked.

Another poll suggestion:

What's Al-Qeada’s Best Hope to Help Kerry

1. Declare Fatwah on prepackaged condiments.

2. Purchase Lone Star Chain and make menu vegan.

3. Launch major spam operation to get American men to reduce the size of their penises.

4. Flood Botox market to drive down price.

5. Tell European leaders to stop talking to him, or else.

JeffS,

Your a bit off track from my original point. But in any case:

"First, the WWII strategy didn't work. In an odd Darwinian twist, the Nazis and Japanese just figured out ways around their losses, some quite ingenious. The population pretty either much hunkered or shot back -- but they didn't give up, in spite of terrible casualties. After the war, such bombing campaigns were largely discarded as a strategy because there was no real impact except to make the enemy work harder. The costs in Allied lives and resources simply didn't justify that -- strategically."

Initially, this may be true, but they did give up in the end didn't they? Nonetheless, this is off point.

"Second, and more importantly, there is no way you can compare the use of precision guided munitions with terrorist bombing campaigns, unless the terrorists get their hands on an F16 squadron and somehow manage to fly them long enough to bomb something. If a bomb goes in the wrong place, it's because of bad intelligence, equipment malfunction, or pilot error; renegade pilots flying hijacked aircraft into combat are a Hollywood invention."

Absolutely true. I never did compare the use of precision guided munitions with terrorist bombing campaigns.

"In effect, you are equating terrorists who say "we love death" with men and women in the armed forces who love life, and try to kill those crazy bastards before they blow up more commuter trains. Our armed forces in Iraq are not terrorists."

Bullshit!! I'm doing nothing of the sort. For one thing I was talking about World War 2, where terror was most definitely used as a tactic. I never said our armed forces in Iraq are terrorists!! I'm offended that you would put that on me. My point is that there are times when I think terrorism is justified. Ok, I'll give you another example: If the students in Iran start putting bombs under the cars of the mad mullahs, would you support this? I know I would. Yet this is terrorism, no? Therefore I have to say yes there are some instances that I would support it.

"As for the nukes on Japan....check your history again. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were in fact military targets because of their industrial and military infrastructure, something that is ignored by the chestbeaters complaining about Japan getting nuked."

Again, this is off point, but while these were military targets, the decision to employ atomic weapons were designed to force a surrender through mass destruction. Had the Japanese not surrendered (which nearly happened) more populated areas would likely have been next.

Pezza

You wrote "Ok, I'll give you another example: If the students in Iran start putting bombs under the cars of the mad mullahs, would you support this? I know I would. Yet this is terrorism, no? Therefore I have to say yes there are some instances that I would support it.

I understand your motivation, but IMO to follow such thinking is to start sliding down a very slippery slope.

After all every terrorist thinks that :

a) his/her cause is noble & justifies killing
b) his/her enemy deserves to die
c) it does'nt matter how many non-coms get killed in the process

love

Crazy

Crazy,

I think you can take away part c), but there are certainly times when a) and b) apply.

Can we please get this thread back to SBS?

Pezza:

My apologies on mis-interpreting your stance on the military. That was out of line.

But we'll probably have to agree to disagree on the rest. Specifically:

During WWII, the bombing strategy was designed to break the morale of the enemy and destroy their industrial strength. It was an accepted policy by the Allies, and supported by a large portion of their populations. After the war, careful study showed that neither objective was reached. The only real value of the bombing campaign was to slow down production, and force the enemy to divert resources away from the front lines.

This lesson was sharply relearned during Desert Storm I, when someone said "The only way you can be sure to control a piece of terrain is to put an 18 year old kid with a rifle on it."

The WWII bombing campaign, however, turned the governments away from the strategy of wanton destruction. Our memories of WWII were bad. Example: nuclear detente' (through the insane MAD doctrine) worked in part because no one (in a sane state of mind) wanted to kill millions of people in one strike.

Those memories of the cost in lives and resources also pushed the development of precision munitions, which allow us to fight wars where casualties are actually the *exception*, not the rule (except to the wounded and dead, God bless them).

All of this is evolved from a "terrorist" policy? Think about it -- that attitude is based on a politically correct view of events 60 years old. A rewriting of history. And it gives a stamp of approval to current terrorism tactics. After all, if the Allies did it in WWII, why not Osama?

Well, there is a difference here. The Allies used a specific strategy in combination with other approaches, to win WWII. The bombing strategy which was eventually rejected as a means of war.

The Islamofascists want to refine their strategy by bombing different targets with bigger bombs.

So let's not hand the Islamofascists this bit of credibility. Perhaps I harp on a minor detail -- but it's amazing how many details we've overlooked with Osama.

I think this poll has been somewhat misrepresented here...

Who'd have thought?

...as I watched that show last week and found it very interesting and quite fair in that it gave a good voice to Israelis, Palestinians, victims of terror, and the general public.

Here's the transcript of the Insight episode in question, if anyone cares to examine it.

JeffS,

Apology accepted. I won't add any more about World War 2, but I think your having a different argument to me. As I said, it comes down to how you define terrorism. And just because you call a tactic terrorism does not mean that you equate it with what Al Qaeda is doing. For example, as a previous poster said, were Nelson Mandela's activities in the late 50's and early 60's terrorism. You may not agree with this, but surely you see that its a complex subject and the debate on SBS was a reasonable one.

Pezza: If the students in Iran started car-bombing government officials and military targets it would be a revolt.

If the students in Iran started indiscriminately slaughtering their fellow citizens to scare the general population into demanding concessions from the mullahs or to generate sympathy for their own cause by framing the government, that would be terrorism. I hope none of us would support that.

Like Jeff said, don't give credibility to terrorism.

For example, as a previous poster said, were Nelson Mandela's activities in the late 50's and early 60's terrorism.

Unless Mandela was advocating violence against civilians and I missed it, that poster was probably being sarcastic.

Sortelli,

Are you saying its only terrorism if you target civillians? Then when ETA assassinate Spanish politicians, or when October 17 murder Greek politicians its a revolt and not terrorism? Or is it, that its only terrorism when you don't support the cause? Surely you can see that this is at least debateable? I'm not lending any credibility to any terrorist groups at all in saying that.

Using violence to sway a representative government is also terrorism, since it is cheating the political process used to give civilians control of their own affairs. If you can campaign and vote but choose to kill the opposition instead, that's no revolt.

Really, I won't even go so far as to say it is debateable. You're drawing a very poor line between acceptable uses of violence.

Fighting to gain freedom or defend yourself from an oppressive government when peaceful attempts at reform fail is not terrorism. Attacking non-military targets with the intention of finishing a war sooner by breaking the enemy resolve and preventing even more casualties in the long run isn't terrorism. It isn't pretty or desirable, but it isn't terrorism.

Attacking civilians to influence political desicions in your favor or using violence, murder and intimidation to subvert a democratic process is terrorism.

Ok,

So the attempted assassination attempts on Musharaf are not terrorism, since he is not representative? The assassination of Sedat wasn't terrorism? Castro and Guevara weren't terrorists? Fair enough you've got your own definition of terrorism but it is not necessarily defined that way universally. I haven't seen any reference to democratic process in any other definition. There is a debate over how you define terrorism and it is worth debating.

There is a debate over how you define terrorism and it is worth debating.

Ooo, right in the nuance! ;) Fine. I'm going to the dictionary.

The flat definition of terrorism is:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

I add a condition about the "unlawful" use of force . . . I included the mention of the democratic process to reel in the likes of Timothy McVeigh and domestic terrorists in the US. They have the ability to participate fairly but chose to kill and intimidate for influence instead--They break our laws. If those laws were unjust then breaking them would have some moral ground, so those "unlawful" acts shouldn't be considered terrorism if the laws are invalid.

I consider, for example, Britian's rule over the 13 colonies to have been unjust and therefore the American Revolution was justified (and was certainly not terrorism even though that comparison gets floated a lot these days by people who are trying to turn Islamic terrorists into a new kind of freedom fighter. Also, the colonists were not actively and purposefully targeting British civilians over British soldiers). I consider the laws that Timothy McVeigh broke when he blew up a federal building to be valid, and his act was therefore terrorism.

To apply the label of "terrorism" to any revolutionary act versus another requires that you exercise some judgement over the laws being broken. "Terrorists" do as they do because they don't recognize our laws and they think them unjust. But unless you are in a total moral vaccuum, there's a difference between assassinating a unjust leader to protect your self-evident rights to freedom or assassinating a leader to replace him by forcing your own will onto others through religious domination or to intimidate your enemies, etc.

Unless you're trying to challenge the moral judgement that Islamic terrorists are wrong and should be stopped, why is how we use the definition of terrorism worth debating? To make it easier to post-modernly rationalize us to the same level as the Islamic terrorists?

Sortelli: Unless you're trying to challenge the moral judgement that Islamic terrorists are wrong and should be stopped, why is how we use the definition of terrorism worth debating? To make it easier to post-modernly rationalize us to the same level as the Islamic terrorists?

No! Because if there is going to be a war on terrorism we have to know what we are declaring war on. Of course, its pretty clear cut that Islamic terrorists are evil scum who need to die. But not all terrorism is that clear cut. Sometimes we have to choose sides when both sides are bad. For example in Lebanon, the US supported the Christian Falange, who commited regular atrocities because the judgement was made (rightly) that they weren't as bad as the Hezbollah and other Islamic groups. Ditto, the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. Previously in Afghanistan, the US backed the mujahideen, which it saw as a lesser evil than the Soviets, wrongly as it turns out. Right now US allies include autocratic countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Would you support struggles for freedom in these countries that may involve violence against non-representative governments? What about our Kurdish allies and their plight in Turkey, a democracy, but one that has routinely oppressed a large minority of its population? Can you see my point. It's not always clear cut with whose a terrorist. There is often "nuance" and this has nothing to do with any sort of moral equivalence with Islamic fundamentalists. Sometimes we need to decide whose side we're on and its not always easy. I'll give you the last word, if you want it (my god I'm starting to sound like Bill O'Reilly). I'm tired.

Heh, sorry for the late reply, Pezza, I wandered off to bed.

I think we're basically arguing the same point from different angles. There are times when wicked acts have to be overlooked or grudgingly endorsed because there's no better alternative.

The problem I have with a news service asking is terrorism ever justified and presenting a large "yes" result is that it gives comfort to people who use terrorism--even though we can nuance some scenarios that aren't so black and white in who we should support or when it is okay, that's not what we're up against right now.

I mean, supose there was a rash of cannibalism, and a brave journalist asked "Is cannibalism ever justified?" and then people started thinking "Well, yeah, say you were in a plane crash and starving and there were already dead people nearby. . ." Why even try to understand cannibalism when the real issue is how to get rid of the freakin' cannibals?

So in the end I probably agree with you in principle, but I would have answered "no" to this poll regardless.