June 23, 2004
KIM SUN-IL
Associated Press reports:
An Iraqi militant group has beheaded its South Korean hostage, Al-Jazeera television reported Tuesday, just hours after a go-between said the execution had been delayed and there were negotiations for the man's release.
The South Korean foreign ministry issued a statement confirming that Kim Sun-il had been killed but did not say he was beheaded.
South Korea's president strongly condemned the beheading of a South Korean hostage in Iraq but remained determined to send more troops, saying they were needed to help rebuild the country.
President Roh Moo-hyun rejected the kidnappers' claim that South Korea's plan to send 3,000 additional troops to Iraq would hurt Iraqis. The captors killed Kim Sun-il, a 33-year-old South Korean working in Iraq, after Seoul rejected their demand to cancel the South Korean deployment.
Posted by Tim Blair at June 23, 2004 05:05 AMU.S. forces launched an airstrike targeting militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after his group beheaded a South Korean who had pleaded "I don't want to die" in a heart-wrenching videotape.
And yet, the ABC (American version) this morning made reference to Bush and "his war on terrorism".
Posted by: Ken Summers at June 23, 2004 at 06:13 AMCHILD: "Dear Mummy (Associated Press), what's a 'terrorist'?"
MUMMY (ASSOCIATED PRESS): "Silly child. There's no such thing."
My condolences to the family and friends of Kim Sun-il.
There seems to be treachery here, or poor communications (disunity?) within the terrorist cell. The go between reported a delay of the execution, and then they did it anyway.
Stupid of the terrorists, on several counts, either way. But all told, it demonstrates that negotiating with terrorists is a lose-lose scenario.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 23, 2004 at 06:20 AMGeez, if beheading a hostage doesn't get you tagged a terrorist by the AP, what would it take?
Posted by: R C Dean at June 23, 2004 at 06:27 AMGeez, if beheading a hostage doesn't get you tagged a terrorist by the AP...
Just how horrific would it have to be?
The tag line of choice for the media describing these murderers has been 'militant'. I remember that word being used to describe feminist bra burners. Hardly seems appropriate for these butchers.
Posted by: tree hugging sister at June 23, 2004 at 06:40 AMCondolences to Kim's family and his nation. Those sick bastards...I am filled with sorrow and hate.
"Kim was abducted Thursday while passing through the city of Fallujah..."
What more will it take for us to clean out that sewer of its terrorists and killers???? How many more have to die? All our political correctness has done nothing except reap more hatred and more Bush bashing.
PLEASE, BUSH, FIGHT BACK!
Posted by: Patricia at June 23, 2004 at 06:46 AMI don't know why the "militant groups" haven't all been cleared out of Fallujah by now, they still seem to operate with inpunity.
Posted by: SleepyInSeattle at June 23, 2004 at 06:53 AMGovernments should respond to the attempted blackmail by terrorists who kidnap and murder their citizens by sending in MORE troops than previously planned. Not less, not the same, but more forces to answer to such vile crime. And sooner than planned. Just as Zapatero and his Socialists did, but the opposite.
Not going to happen, though. Hope the South Korean government at least holds to its current commitment of troops for Iraq, even as it is being candlelight vigiled a la Madrid to retreat from the fray.
Posted by: c at June 23, 2004 at 07:55 AMGeez, if beheading a hostage doesn't get you tagged a terrorist by the AP, what would it take?I dunno; maybe being a Republican? Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at June 23, 2004 at 08:20 AM
...if beheading a hostage doesn't get you tagged a terrorist by the AP, what would it take?...
Driving a SUV?
Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at June 23, 2004 at 08:38 AMThe problem with the word terrorist is that Bush has completely stripped it of meaning. Yeah, the bastards who've executed this bloke are terrorists - acts of violence intended to inspire terror. But Bush has defined terrorist so broadly now that they can call anyone a terrorist and simply the act of declaring someone a terrorist is enough to remove their civil rights. Don't have to prove anything.
Do you expect the left to get up and defend these terrorists, do you? Well, I won't be. But that doesn't mute criticism of Bush, either. Both sides are bastards. The only plus of the Bush side is that at least they don't publicly execute prisoners.
Posted by: Jeremy at June 23, 2004 at 08:57 AMTime to really rise up against the gates of Mordor. Open war is upon us whether we would risk it or not!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: debbie at June 23, 2004 at 09:06 AMLittle Jeremy wrote: The only plus of the Bush side is that at least they don't publicly execute prisoners.
Cutting heads off only works for some people, son. In your case, the shit hole would keep right on pumping out crap like that quoted above.
Posted by: superboot at June 23, 2004 at 09:21 AMI'm looking forward to Jeremy telling me who the Bush administration has labeled a terrorist that doesn't meet Jeremy's definition.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at June 23, 2004 at 09:21 AMMy condolences to Kim's family, they must be going through hell right now...
One question for Jeremy: Could you name a few people who you think have been wrongly tagged as terrorists by the Bush administration? Or absent that, name a few characteristics that the Bush administration would conceivably use to tag somebody as a terrorist, but which you think don't actually constitute terrorist behaviour?
Posted by: PW at June 23, 2004 at 09:24 AM"The only plus of the Bush side is that at least they don't publicly execute prisoners."
....or target school buses with bombs, or target office workers with even bigger bombs, or cheer and dance in the streets when lots of innocents are killed at once, or get his jolly's by seeing how much blood can be produced when he cuts someone's throat, or want to bring in a type of rule that was cruel even in the 8th century, where women can be raped and mutilated before being executed - just because they spoke!! or even worse- SHOWED PART OF THEIR CHIN!!
etc,etc...
What a sick fuck you are.
Posted by: Pop at June 23, 2004 at 09:37 AMJeremy,
Could you please provide us with your top three examples of Bush-terrorist abuse?
If not, you will be open to charges of a smear job. If you are truly a prinipled man, then I know you wouldn't do such a thing. Thanks. Three should be plenty to make your point.
Posted by: ras at June 23, 2004 at 09:37 AMI'm just hoping the British Falklandise their dispute with the Iranians over those kidnapped sailors. That would be great. Two tyrannies toppled and a nuclear threat eliminated! Peace-activists and human-rights campaigners everywhere would rejoice.
Right?
Sickened by the murder of this innocent man. Peace be to his family.
Posted by: CurrencyLad at June 23, 2004 at 09:55 AM
Jeremy?
You there? We would all still like to see those examples of Bush/terrorism that you alluded to.
One of the most common complaints about the liberal/left side of politics - and I hear this from both from its supporters and its detractors - is that it has lost its ability to argue rationally. Some say it's from lack of pratice; others say it's from lack of evidence.
Prove this wrong. Can you please cite three solid examples to justify your previous comments? Don't dodge the very argument that you yourself began. Or - like Aesop's fox and the sour grapes - declare it beneath you. Your claim goes to the heart of the great issues of our time - surely you can substantiate it?
Looking forward to your cogent response....
Posted by: ras at June 23, 2004 at 10:25 AMWOW. Listen to the deafening cries of condemnation and shock coming from the world's 1.3 billion muslim population over yet another beheading of an innocent person done in the name of their religion.
(chirp, chirp, chirp)
Posted by: Oktober at June 23, 2004 at 10:37 AMI can't wait for the (Australian) SBS and ABC News descriptions. Hang, on. Let me check.
Mm hmm. 'Militants' here, and 'militants' there. Not a 'terrorist' to be seen. Of course, the report is sourced from Al Reuterzeera.
'Militants' too strong a term for you? Then you need the Lakemba Broadcasting Service, er, sorry, I mean SBS. 'Captors'?!??.
Is there any doubt that these people are batting for the other team?
Posted by: Al Bundy at June 23, 2004 at 11:06 AMIt will be interesting to see the reaction of the Korean population. Those fiery little bastards could go either way, and probably will.
It'd be nice, though, if they channeled all of that organized chaos into a monstrous, slightly unhinged, bloodthirsty, anti-Islamist crusade. This scenario would have the added benefit of their not being overly concerned about how they play in the leftist matinee some call the global media.
I'd love to unleash a rabid S.K. division or two on al-Qaeda and those other c***suckers.
Posted by: DrZin at June 23, 2004 at 11:11 AMFrom Brisbane's The Courier Mail:
KIM Sun-Il, a South Korean held hostage by Iraqi insurgents, is a devout Christian who went to Iraq to make money to fund his studies to become a church minister, according to his family.
Born in 1970 in Busan, 450 km south of the capital, Kim dreamed of becoming a Presbyterian minister when he graduated from a seminary in the port city in 1994.
He decided to focus his religious ambitions on the Middle East and entered South Korea's top language school in 2000 to study Arabic after completing compulsory military service of two years and six months.
Friends say Kim was a diligent and quiet student set apart from his fellows by his age and religious inclination.
I hope these 'militants' enjoy their remaining days on the planet because where they're going ultimately aint going to be fun.
Bah,
I see The Age(d and Senile) beat SBS to it. 'Captors'? What sort of mass brain lesion is affecting these creeps? This is post-modern relativism gone waaayyyyyy too far.
I wonder if a respectable (left-wing, anti-US) journo was beheaded whether his murderers would be labeled 'captors'?
Posted by: Al Bundy at June 23, 2004 at 11:14 AMI'm waiting for them to refer to them as "Mr. Kim's Iraqi hosts."
Posted by: DrZin at June 23, 2004 at 11:16 AMJeremy? Are you still there? Here's PW's question again :
Could you name a few people who you think have been wrongly tagged as terrorists by the Bush administration? Or absent that, name a few characteristics that the Bush administration would conceivably use to tag somebody as a terrorist, but which you think don't actually constitute terrorist behaviour?We're still waiting... I'm not trying to beat you about the head with dielectic, I'm genuinely interested in your widely-believed proposition, and why so many believe it. Please enlighten me.
Posted by: Alan E Brain at June 23, 2004 at 11:46 AM
Another pointless evil murder, another reason to show no quarter.
Jeremy, we're still waiting.
Posted by: JakeD at June 23, 2004 at 11:53 AMYoo-hoo! Jeremy! Hey! Jer!
Jer?
(Psst. Guys: I think he must have been grounded from the computer. Bet his ma caught him making poo pictures on the living room wall again, or molesting her chihuahua.)
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 23, 2004 at 12:15 PMAah, give Jeremy a break; he's clearly not well.
It seems incidents which upset his moral equivalence formulas cause a Tourette's-like reaction.
Posted by: DrZin at June 23, 2004 at 12:57 PM"Governments should respond to the attempted blackmail by terrorists who kidnap and murder their citizens by sending in MORE troops than previously planned."
I'd love to see that. An announcement of "Due to the murder of one of our citizens we are now going to significantly increase our troop commitment" from a prime minister or president would send out exactly the right message.
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe at June 23, 2004 at 12:58 PMMy prayers and deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Kim Sun-il.
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at June 23, 2004 at 12:59 PMGovernments should respond to the attempted blackmail by terrorists who kidnap and murder their citizens by sending in MORE troops than previously planned. Not less, not the same, but more forces to answer to such vile crime. And sooner than planned. Just as Zapatero and his Socialists did, but the opposite.
My thoughts exactly. And they can afford to do so: they have one of the largest armies in the world, thanks to North Korea's Kim Il-Sung's policies (too bad we couldn't re-arrange the terrorists' orders so that they'd kill him instead of Kim Sun-Il).
If we withdraw from Iraq, this'll probably be the kind of people who'll run the place.
Posted by: Andjam at June 23, 2004 at 01:30 PMMore troops! I like that kind of thinking. It reminds me of the movie "Ransom" when Mel decided to put the money up as a bounty rather than ransom. Great cinematic moment and very Mel.
Posted by: DrZin at June 23, 2004 at 01:44 PMThere are blog comments stating that the hostage was reported in South Korean media as "executed" (what would happen to a criminal) rather than "murdered".
Posted by: Andjam at June 23, 2004 at 02:03 PMthink back over the last 30 years. Has Islam, any of it, produced any thing but terror?
think back over the last 100 years . Has Islam preduced anything that is useful or good?
think back over 500 years; or a thousand years
Posted by: Papertiger at June 23, 2004 at 02:23 PMViscerally, I'd like to announce an exponential execution policy. Kill one of ours, we kill two prisoners. Kill a second of ours, we kill four. Kill a third, we kill eight. And so on.
Not a good idea, but it does feel attractive.
(What do we do when we run out? Have it announced that the event will be marked by the nuclear devastation of the five largest cities in each state that at that time remains on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Think maybe Boy Assad, the mullahs, and the like might start assisting us in ending terrorism if that happened?
Again, not a good idea. But attractive, viscerally.)
"There are blog comments stating that the hostage was reported in South Korean media as "executed" (what would happen to a criminal) rather than "murdered"."
Where have you been Andjam? This is also what was said by the BBC!!!
Posted by: Susan at June 23, 2004 at 02:55 PMWhere have you been Andjam? This is also what was said by the BBC!!!
And the word used by some of the posters here. I guess I'd expect better from the media of the country he came from.
Posted by: Andjam at June 23, 2004 at 03:16 PMHow about putting two and two together?
Istead of "suicide bombers", islamic terrorists could have "suicide hostages" who are publicly murdered of their own free will by their colleagues.
Kind of like killing two birds with one stone.
Posted by: Kill 'em all at June 23, 2004 at 03:18 PMHow about putting two and two together?
Instead of "suicide bombers", Islamic terrorists could have "suicide hostages" who are publicly murdered of their own free will by their colleagues.
Suiciders get to die, terrorists get to murder.
Kind of like killing two birds with one stone.
Posted by: Kill 'em all at June 23, 2004 at 03:19 PMMy condolences to the Kim family.
My response would be to publicaly execute by fireing squad all those that the Terrorists asked to be released and droped from helicopters into Falujah i.e. have em back but dead.
Double troop numbers and increase each time this sort of outrage is perpatrated.
No quarter, no let up, do opposite of what they ask. BALLS are needed here. But it ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: Dog at June 23, 2004 at 03:47 PMYa'll might not remember this but the ROKs were
active at another time and place. It turns out that
Victor Charlie would go a very far distance to avoid
the ROKs (VC=viet cong, ROK=Republic of Korea Army).
These folks are for humanitarian assistance, if they
started military ops there might be hell to pay.
Allright terrorists you kill one of our civilians and we will double our troop deployment with ROK Marines who will hunt you down and dispense some justice. I guarantee that if nations increased deployments and aid into Iraq every time terrorists try to blackmail them they (terrorists) would fail totally.
Posted by: JBB at June 23, 2004 at 04:21 PMSeems to me I heard noises over the radio from ROK officialdom saying they will do just that - increase their troop strength. Maybe was already planned, but I got the idea another 1,000 troops are headed from ROK to Iraq ...
Posted by: Robert Blair at June 23, 2004 at 04:40 PMI have thought and thought on a name for the people who carry out these crimes. I could only come up with "scum". If anyone has a better one please let me know but for now every time I see "militant" or "terrorist" or "resistance member" I will substitute "scum". It just makes reading it easier.
Posted by: Allan Morton at June 23, 2004 at 04:44 PMIf conservatives captured (ie kidnapped) Phat Phil and executed him as a class traitor and anenemy of the people (ie cut his head off), would the SMH, the Age, the Lakemba Broadcasting Service etc regard them as freedom fighters for truth,justice and the Australian way, or just dismiss them as militants?
Posted by: Rob (No 1) at June 23, 2004 at 05:20 PMKorea is increasing its presence as a result of the beheading!
The BBC is obviously AMAZED by this un spanish reaction and gives it prime space on its web site.
Good on yer S Korea.
In the Marine Corps they're called maggots. They
feed off flesh (living or dead), they have only one
moral standard (do it my way), and they foul any
area that they occupy. I don't know of anything more
descriptive than that.
Notice that the Baathist Broadcasting cannot resist kicking the yanks in the guts in ther last two paragraphs of the article at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3831553.stm
I'm beginning to almost like ABC's new Iraq correspondent, Matt Brown.
I'm sure I heard some good news from him the other day, and he doesn't back away from words like terrorist.
Posted by: duncan at June 23, 2004 at 06:00 PMIs South Korea actually committing MORE forces to Iraq after this hideous killing? Quite fantastic, if true. The message to the victim's family, to South Koreans, to sociopathic brutes and to appeaser nations is spot on: "We'll avenge terrorist deeds with greater force. Don't mess with us!"
Sympathies and respect to the RoK.
Posted by: c at June 23, 2004 at 06:44 PMI'm just hoping the British Falklandise their dispute with the Iranians over those kidnapped sailors"
Ha ! Ha ! Ha !.......Guardian editorial suggests..."It will be difficult to construct a face-saving deal. It may involve a grovelling apology from Britain, but it is in the interests of both sides that oil is poured over troubled waters. "
I can just see Jack Straw on his knees on Iran TV imploring the Mighty Mullahs of Teheran "to let our boys go".............I bet he is practising right now
Posted by: Rick at June 23, 2004 at 06:48 PMHi, Richard Neville here. I've examined the grainy footage and I am convinced that the beheading was carried out by American soldiers. Why?
1. Well, the orange prison outfits, of course.
2. I couldn't see the chair, but its creaking sounded like the plastic one that Nick Berg was sitting on, and we all know that the CIA did that.
3. The thick Arab accent of the killer was a dead giveaway. After all, they needed to disguise their Texan drawls!
4. And there's just TOO much blood! How could one little person produce so much gushing claret? CIA, special ops, for sure.
Any other proof that this was done by the Amerikkkans?
Dick
Posted by: Richard Neville at June 23, 2004 at 07:47 PMAnother civillian death, butchered by islamic scum for kicks. I bet tomorrow's news reports will be back on Abu-Ghraib in no time.
It's almost like, Nick who???
PS Condolences to the poor young mans family. I hope these scum get to face some prison time at the hands of the south Korean military.
Tactically, me thinks Al-Qeada really fucked up this time.
Posted by: scott at June 24, 2004 at 12:37 AMAnd you guys are the civilised world, eh? :rollseyes:
Charming messages above. (Andrea, you're clearly a filthy-minded moron.) You know what? I work, and don't check blog message boards constantly.
However, point noted, and I'll get back to you with examples either this evening or on the weekend. Right now, I'm at work.
But in the meantime, please enlighten me with what your definition of a "terrorist" is. And just where does "conspiracy" with terrorists begin?
And then explain why there are so many people held in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay who haven't been charged with any crime. In many cases, for MORE THAN TWO YEARS. If they're "terrorists", charge them, try them, and convict them. If not, let them go.
Posted by: Jeremy at June 24, 2004 at 12:06 PMActually, I'll deal with this one now, although I do actually have work I need to do.
"The only plus of the Bush side is that at least they don't publicly execute prisoners."
....or target school buses with bombs, or target office workers with even bigger bombs, or cheer and dance in the streets when lots of innocents are killed at once, or get his jolly's by seeing how much blood can be produced when he cuts someone's throat, or want to bring in a type of rule that was cruel even in the 8th century, where women can be raped and mutilated before being executed - just because they spoke!! or even worse- SHOWED PART OF THEIR CHIN!!
etc,etc..."
Well, "Pop", first of all well done for being able to tell people apart.
Targeting school buses is a Palestinian terrorist issue and (to my knowledge) hasn't happened in Iraq. That's a different circumstance and a different issue, and whilst I agree that any murder is wrong, in that case we're talking desperate people who are constantly having THEIR children killed by the Israeli military as well. But that's a different issue.
"Cheering and dancing in the streets" - I presume you mean the footage of people cheering at S11. Well, that doesn't make them terrorists. All it makes them is people who fervently hate America and found a rather brutal glee in what they saw as vengeance. Well, I agree that's wrong. But then, I'm not an American who supports the death penalty or slaughtering lots of innocent Iraqis in the name of vengeance, either. In any case, I thought we were talking about the Iraqi terrorists who killed the South Korean, versus the Bush Administration. Not people who are not terrorists but who simply hate America. Hating America, Pop, does not make you a terrorist.
The third one, the person who enjoyed the graphic murder of a human being, is clearly a sicko, and clearly needs to be punished for that. And to my knowledge, Bush has never done that. (Although, it looks like some of the US soldiers at Abu Ghraib have been guilty of similar joy in their brutal prisoner-bashing tasks).
Finally, fundamentalist Islam that wants to drag women back to the middle ages. Damn right no-one on the left wants that. Which is why we're also not fond of the fundamentalist CHRISTIANS who want to drag women back to the 19th century. We don't like the conservative Islamists any better than we like the conservative Christians, and by all accounts fundamenalist Islam is ground even further in the past, and is more brutal than fundamentalist Christian. But if you ARE a right-wing Christian, what's the difference between you wanting the law to be influenced by your religion, and a Muslim wanting the law to be influenced by his or her religion.
Posted by: Jeremy at June 24, 2004 at 12:21 PM"Response? Response? Response?"
"Where are you guys? Respond to me dammit! Now!!"
Or is it that you're asleep, or away from the computer, or doing ANY NUMBER OF THE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS IN LIFE? Like I was doing earlier?
Get it?
ps I can't amend the typos in my posts above. Oh well.
Posted by: Jeremy at June 24, 2004 at 12:25 PMExcuse us, Jeremy. We were under the impression that you had no life. I wonder why.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 24, 2004 at 12:29 PMSo do I, Andrea. You think that everyone who disagrees with you is a sad pathetic loser who has no life? What a wonderful world view you have.
Posted by: Jeremy at June 24, 2004 at 01:39 PMAnswer the question Jeremy:
Name the top three people GWB has mis-identified as terrorists.
Failure to submit three names incurs the penalty of being positively identified as 'A Sad Pathetic LOser Who HAs No Life' (ASPLOWHANL).
I didn't say Bush had called a specific person a terrorist and that person wasn't a terrorist.
I pointed out that the word "terrorist" had been blunted of all meaning by the Bush administration, as evidenced by your difficulty in defining it.
Go on, define "terrorist". Because the word is bandied about to apply to anyone you guys don't agree with. "Pop" above implied that the people who cheered after S11 were "terrorists". Bush is holding an awful lot of people in GB and AG without access to lawyers, supposedly on the ground that they're terrorists. Well, where are the charges?
Actually, Robert, now that I think about it, your question is disingenuous and dishonest. How is anyone supposed to prove that someone is NOT a terrorist? How about I declare that YOU are a terrorist, and lock you up in GB without charge for two years. Go on, prove that you're not. Oh sure, there's no evidence, but then you terrorists are tricky bastards, aren't you?!
Posted by: Jeremy at June 24, 2004 at 04:57 PMBy the way, I agree that the correct response by SK is to increase its troop deployment there. No point killing a country's citizens to get it to remove its troops if it increases the number every time.
Unless they cunningly try reverse psychology! ("We'll execute this man if you DO withdraw your troops...")
Posted by: Jeremy at June 24, 2004 at 05:07 PMSorry Jerry - your answer sucks. ASPLOWHANL.
But you in good company - this blog full of them.
Posted by: Robert Blair at June 24, 2004 at 09:12 PMHow about this Jeremy:
terrorism: the willful, gratuitous execution of violent measures against specifically innocent targets in order to induce terror in an effort to achieve some political objective
I've heard neither President Bush nor anyone else with a brain in his head categorize anyone a terrorist that doesn't match the above description.
The word has no meaning only for those for whom the meaning is inconvenient. If you want the Baathists and al Qaeda to win, as many on the Left clearly do, it doesn't suit the attendant disingenuousness of their rhetoric to admit that they're cheering for depraved savages.
To address that problem, one either has to make the argument that "Bush is a terrorist, too!" or "there's no such thing as a terrorist." You've chosen the latter avenue, apparently. You even seem to have successfully fooled yourself. Well done!
Posted by: DrZin at June 25, 2004 at 12:53 AMAndrea, I think most people just wanted Jeremy to answer quickly before the evil Bushitler could declare him a terrorist and have him whisked away by brownshirts, and we'd never have the chance to hear his valuable opinion on how Bush can declare anyone a terrorist...
Whoops, Jeremy actually responded, even late. Guess Bush was asleep at the wheel yesterday. I'm sure this oversight will be corrected quickly.
Posted by: PW at June 25, 2004 at 03:54 AM"Targeting school buses is a Palestinian terrorist issue and (to my knowledge) hasn't happened in Iraq."
Jeremy, Bomb-making and bomb-deploying terrorists in Iraq have bombed indiscriminately with little worry over collateral damage. They did get a school bus, although, admittedly, it was not "targeted" per se because it wasn't full of Jewish kids.
(NYT, April 21, 2004)
"Three car bombs exploded... The Associated Press is reporting at least 45 people killed, including some 10 schoolchildren, and at least 236 injured... One of the blasts hit a school bus during the morning rush hour..."
The perpetrators weren't even after Americans in this murderous spree. They wanted the blood of Iraqis working to establish a free and civil society post Saddam. They wanted to blow up into bits Iraqi hopes for a future without dictatorship. They wanted to terrify, intimidate and demoralize Iraqis into accepting their thuggery. They are terrorists, absolutely.
Those held in Guatanamo Bay are considered to be illegal combatants, not "terrorists" necessarily. You are conflating issues.
Posted by: c at June 25, 2004 at 04:40 AMMy utmost sincere condolences to the family and friends of Kim Sun-il. I hope these murderers are judged by the wraith of god when their time comes.
Posted by: Dinaro at June 25, 2004 at 05:17 AMThe Islamic world needs to be given an ultimatum:
Cull your nuts. Otherwise the rest of the world will be forced to defend itself and cannot risk trying to differentiate between the Jihadists and the alleged peaceful Islamic majority.
The silence of the alleged peaceful Islamic majority is deafening. If there really was such an entity it would be amassing armies and sending them to ferret out the Jihadis and exterminate them, telling us to get out of the way so that they could show the world that they view the Jihadis as vermin and a pestilence on this world.
The Jihadis cannot be reasoned with, negotiated with or appeased, they simply want all of us infidels to die so that they can establish a worldwide "Caliphate". The only way to stop their killing is to find them and kill them, all of them.
I believe that if the alleged peaceful Islamic majority exists, the only thing that will motivate them to solve the Jihadi problem is the promise that if they don't, the rest of the civilized world will declare war on all Islamic states and populations to assure the utter destruction of all Islamic extremists in order to put an end to the terror.
Give them 60 days to get started, if they don't then we need to take the leash off our military and get the job done.
And as far as the comment in another post about us killing two prisoners for every one of these beheadings or other killing of civilian non-combatants who are there to help rebuild Iraq, I think we need to take an exponential approach, If they kill one, we kill 10, if they kill another one we kill 100. We have to demonstrate to them that we have the will to return their acts of savagery many times over, this they just might understand.
This is not racism. This is not hatred. This is a matter of survival. The Jihadis have made it clear that they want to kill us all. We have the right to defend ourselves.
I say we just take the Bush and all the evil leaders put them in a staduim with the terrorists and kill them all.
Posted by: let's kill everyone at June 25, 2004 at 08:22 AMhehe.. I enjoy reading all of these posts since I'm learning quite a bit. But to defend a comment made earlier "one murdered, kill two prisoners, two murdered, kill four prisoners, three murdered, kill eight prisoners".. that actually IS an exponential solution. It's just 2^x as opposed to your 10^x. :)
Posted by: Xillom at June 25, 2004 at 08:48 AM"Sorry Jerry - your answer sucks. ASPLOWHANL."
Gosh, I'm sorry to disappoint you, Robby.
Your question sucked and the demand did not follow logically from what I'd said. So ASPLOWHANL yourself.
Now, C:
"Jeremy, Bomb-making and bomb-deploying terrorists in Iraq have bombed indiscriminately with little worry over collateral damage. They did get a school bus, although, admittedly, it was not "targeted" per se because it wasn't full of Jewish kids."
Well now. Both Israel and the US regularly hit targets with plenty of collateral damage, and I don't see you calling them terrorists. Israel regularly sends attack helicopters and fires missiles into crowds to hit "specific targets".
"Those held in Guatanamo Bay are considered to be illegal combatants, not "terrorists" necessarily. You are conflating issues. "
I find it amusing that after defending "Pop"'s conflating of issues, you try to criticise me for the same thing.
But anyway, there is no distinction. What is an "illegal combatant"? Define "illegal combatant" in a way which doesn't just mean in reality "soldier for the enemy side". So why are they still being held? Well, Bush justifies it as part of his "War on Terror". If they're not "terrorists", why are they still at GB?
These questions too difficult for you guys? I'll get to Dr Z in a sec.
Posted by: Jeremy at June 25, 2004 at 09:27 AMStan, you're a nutcase yourself. How are you - with your demand for mass slaughter - any different from the terrorists?
Posted by: Jeremy at June 25, 2004 at 09:29 AMAt least DrZin takes the debate seriously.
"How about this Jeremy:
terrorism: the willful, gratuitous execution of violent measures against specifically innocent targets in order to induce terror in an effort to achieve some political objective"
That's okay, as far as it goes, except including the words "wilful" and "gratuitous" is problemmatic, as is the word "innocent". What you or I define as wilful or gratuitous, or who we'd define as innocent, really depends on from where we're sitting. If you think about it, who decides who's innocent or not? Innocent of what, exactly? Where is the line drawn between say an Iraqi blowing up a US military vehicle and killing its occupants (which most here would call terrorism) and the Israeli military using the blunt force of an attack helicopter to take out someone in a wheelchair surrounded by kids and a crowd? (which I guess you wouldn't call terrorism).
Or is what would be terrorism if the other side did it simply not terrorism if it goes through the military chain of command and is carried out by someone in uniform?
"I've heard neither President Bush nor anyone else with a brain in his head categorize anyone a terrorist that doesn't match the above description. "
Well, isn't that their justification for holding all those people in GB and AG? If they're not terrorists, why are they there, and if they are, why haven't they been charged and tried yet?
"The word has no meaning only for those for whom the meaning is inconvenient. If you want the Baathists and al Qaeda to win, as many on the Left clearly do, it doesn't suit the attendant disingenuousness of their rhetoric to admit that they're cheering for depraved savages. "
The left isn't cheering for depraved savages. And the Left wanted Saddam (and other dictators) toppled years before he became inconvenient to the US. As a leftist, I want all dictators removed and replaced by democracies. But it must be done under specific principles and be consistently applied, which is NOT how the US did it. The US has not said "here's the new policy: we will overthrow the world's dictators and ensure that people have access to free elections and that human rights abusers are tried in a court of law". Because there are many brutal dictators that the US likes - "he may be a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofoabitch" - and the US refuses to let its own soldiers be tried for crimes against humanity.
Essentially, the US refuses to abide by any rules except its own. And it doesn't even apply those consistently.
"To address that problem, one either has to make the argument that "Bush is a terrorist, too!" or "there's no such thing as a terrorist." You've chosen the latter avenue, apparently. You even seem to have successfully fooled yourself. Well done!"
I haven't done either. Bush is a dangerous fool and uses many of the same tactics as the terrorists, but he hasn't deliberately tried to get political capital by threatening to kill innocents. So I agree he's not a terrorist. Hurrah, Bush is less bad than terrorists. But that's hardly the greatest commendation in the world, is it?
More importantly, I'd expect more from the US President, who has many more options than the terrorists and has a real opportunity to make the world a better and safer place. Bush has done the opposite.
Posted by: Jeremy at June 25, 2004 at 09:41 AMJesus, Jeremy. There's no distinction for you between fighting to give Iraq a democracy and those terrorizing Iraq to impose dictatorship (Baathist, Islamist, take your pick). There's no distinction for you between Israel targeting Palestinian terrorists with some innocent loss of life and Palestinians targeting innocent Israeli civilians.
Oh, that's right. All Israelis are guilty and should be punished by death. All Americans and Iraqis fighting to supplant a Saddam regime with self-rule also deserve being blown to bits.
What in hell are your "specific principles... consistently applied" for removing all those bad guy dictators you say you want to go? Do Annan and Chirac know this theory and are just waiting for the perfect time to start applying it consistently?
When you answer, be sure to wave your hands in the air, call Bush and war supporters only a little better than terrorists, and spout some vague never tried theory for fixing the world.
Posted by: c at June 25, 2004 at 10:06 AMHey Jerry - your stuff still sucks.
Ranting and raving don't cut in the real world boy.
Why, bless me! I am resonding to your l e n g t h y posts with sarcasm and frivolity!
And guess what Jerry ? Thats cause your loose rantings deserve no better.
When you got some kind of rational thing to say, then folks will stop with the sarcasm and put-downs. You can start by listing those three folks W has mis-identified as terrorists.
Jerry, note that the tactic of talking rationally and refraining from ranting will work to improve your real, off-line, existence too. How do you think you got to be such a ASPLOWHANL in the first place ?
So, in the nicest possible way, get real Jerry, and then maybe you can get a real life. And stop bothering the nice RWDB's here.
Posted by: Robert Blair at June 25, 2004 at 12:09 PMThe civilized world's reaction to Islamic barbarism is far too civilized! Just imagine if these nihilistic under - achieving monsters get their hands on nuclear weapons: would the US / Israel forces still allow terrorists to openly demonstrate in support of their murderous brethren? Would inane entities like Jeremy continue to to promulgate their pap?
Geoff S
Posted by: Geoff S at June 25, 2004 at 12:34 PMGod Bless George Bush for fighting back. People, get out there and vote!! Kerry (the chickenshit that's running for President) isn't man enough to stand up to the terrorists that plague the world today.
Posted by: Rob H at June 25, 2004 at 02:23 PMI don't know why I bothered responding to you people in the first place.
My original post was clear enough, and then one of you emailed me because I hadn't responded.
C, you obviously can't read. I did not say there's no distinction between terrorists and the US. I simply pointed out there's a lot of common ground in many ways and that both are in the wrong on the issue.
And none of you have answered *my* questions, so why the hell should I keep responding to yours?
Robby, Robby, Robby. You don't like lengthy arguments? Well, try this then. Go fuck yourself.
And feel free to keep ranting on blairy's inconsequential little blog. It won't make a bit of difference to anything.
Posted by: Jeremy at June 25, 2004 at 05:58 PM"Where is the line drawn between say an Iraqi blowing up a US military vehicle and killing its occupants (which most here would call terrorism) and the Israeli military using the blunt force of an attack helicopter to take out someone in a wheelchair surrounded by kids and a crowd? (which I guess you wouldn't call terrorism)."
Jeremy, you're making a distinction without a difference by equivocating and comparing the two in your posts. You haven't provided the answer as if there is not much of one.
And where is that grand and global theory for getting rid of bad guys that Bush isn't employing but that so and so are, or would be, if only...
Wow, nice to see Jeremy can control himself.
Anyway, to belatedly answer Jeremy's question: "You think that everyone who disagrees with you is a sad pathetic loser who has no life?" -- no, just you (and a few others, but they aren't posting here so far).
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 26, 2004 at 01:57 AMWell now. Both Israel and the US regularly hit targets with plenty of collateral damage, and I don't see you calling them terrorists.
That may have something to do with the fact that these people wear uniforms and stuff, and are in the employ of the elected government for exactly that purpose. Who's providing the democratic legitimation (or any governmental legitimation) for terrorists (oops, militants) blowing up buses, mosques and police stations, again?
I can't say I'm surprised that you can't seem to (or willfully do not) recognize the difference. Segueing nicely into another really moronic display of your ignorance...
But anyway, there is no distinction. What is an "illegal combatant"? Define "illegal combatant" in a way which doesn't just mean in reality "soldier for the enemy side".
Illegal combatants do not wear uniforms of any recognized military (which is exactly what makes them illegal combatants when they're found armed and fighting, duh), and thus are specifically not soldiers*, so if "in reality [they're just] 'soldiers for the enemy side'", this would have to be that Leftist Alternate Universe I occasionally hear about.
*As specified by the Geneva Convention that leftists always hold up as the rules everyone should follow. Guess what, the U.S. does, and you can't seem to (or willfully do not) recognize that fact. Do I sense a pattern here?
As for the people held in Guantanamo being terrorists or illegal combatants, there's no need for it to be just one and not the other, as you seem to insist. They're regarded as terrorists because of their actions, but held in Guantanamo because they fulfill the definition of "illegal combatant". I suspect it's not possible to be an internationally operating terrorist without being an illegal combatant, but it's conceivable to be an illegal combatant without being a terrorist. Such a person would be eligible for a one-way trip to Guantanamo, and in fact that's exactly the case as some of the people who were rounded up because they were fighting on behalf of the Taliban probably can't be called terrorists (but they're in Guantanamo anyway). The fact that the vast majority of those currently held likely are both illegal combatants and terrorists has no bearing at all.
In other words, yes you were conflating issues, your "I put my thumbs in my ears so I can't heeeeaaaar you!" protestations notwithstanding.
That's okay, as far as it goes, except including the words "wilful" and "gratuitous" is problemmatic, as is the word "innocent". What you or I define as wilful or gratuitous, or who we'd define as innocent, really depends on from where we're sitting.
And here you finally expose yourself completely as the equivocating twit that everyone suspected you were right after your first posting. Care to tell us what Israeli mothers and children being shot dead or blown up in the streets are guilty of, exactly? Or the nearly 3000 people in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon? (Whoops, forget I mentioned the Pentagon...they were probably guilty by default, just on the basis of working there.)
And yes, it does make a difference that they were being specifically targetted for killing, as opposed to innocent Iraqis who sadly died during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
...the Israeli military using the blunt force of an attack helicopter to take out someone in a wheelchair surrounded by kids and a crowd? (which I guess you wouldn't call terrorism).
Of course, "someone in a wheelchair" =! "some random person in a wheelchair" as you seem to imply, but "someone in a wheelchair" = "the leader of a recognized terrorist group". Again, no surprise that this doesn't make any difference for you. And sure, go and blame the Israelis for the fact that innocent children die when Hamas uses them as human shields for its leaders, whydon'tcha. Where's your condemnation of that?
Or is what would be terrorism if the other side did it simply not terrorism if it goes through the military chain of command and is carried out by someone in uniform?
Umm, yes, because that requires there to be a recognized "other side" in the first place. Then we'd call it an official act of war and it would be dealt with accordingly. Do you have trouble grasping the difference?
Not that this would make any difference to whining Leftists, of course. You'd still demonstrate against the evil U.S. Empire that dares to actually defend itself.
The left isn't cheering for depraved savages.
No, you're just willfully not recognizing that anybody could even be a depraved savage by any objective standard. Morality, what's that?
And the Left wanted Saddam (and other dictators) toppled years before he became inconvenient to the US.
Funny how the majority of the Left stopped wanting that the minute that Bush et al. actually did something about him.
As a leftist, I want all dictators removed and replaced by democracies. But it must be done under specific principles and be consistently applied, which is NOT how the US did it.
"We're Leftists...if it's not ideologically pure, it's evil".
I guess the world could have continued to consistently apply the specific principles of the UN and sent Saddam a few dozen more resolutions. Yup, that would have turned Iraq into a democracy in no time.
Because there are many brutal dictators that the US likes - "he may be a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofoabitch" - and the US refuses to let its own soldiers be tried for crimes against humanity.
Well, duh. Considering the amount of people in the world (like you) for whom American soldiers are little better than terrorists, no matter what they do, allowing them to be tried by a kangaroo court would be nothing short of insane. Do you regularly subject yourself to a judiciary that publicly (and often proudly) displays its biases against you?
And congrats for being the newest Leftist to spout a variation of the "if Bush doesn't attack all dictators simultaneously, he has no standing to attack any of them". Always shows how serious a person actually is about getting rid of dictators.
C, you obviously can't read. I did not say there's no distinction between terrorists and the US. I simply pointed out there's a lot of common ground in many ways and that both are in the wrong on the issue.
And the only people who are in the right are principled Leftists, of course. Not that you've ever told us what those consistent principles actually are under which you'd support the deposing of any dictator. Must be a case of "I believe they exist, so it must be so". Kinda like cute cuddly unicorns.
Pardon me for not believing you that you're actually serious that you "want all dictators removed and replaced by democracies". Because that would require you to not just agree with the ends, but also offer some credible alternative on the means.
For evidence, see your own claim about the Left's attitude about Saddam. Wanting him gone, but not actually wanting anything done towards achieving that goal; just great. I can understand why...it gives you something to complain about either way things go. "The U.S. is showing their support for Saddam by not immediately deposing him!" - "The U.S. is showing their imperialism by attacking a sovereign Iraq, how dare they!"
And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
And none of you have answered *my* questions, so why the hell should I keep responding to yours?
People have answered you; you just don't bother to pay attention.
And feel free to keep ranting on blairy's inconsequential little blog. It won't make a bit of difference to anything.
Nothing like a juvenile shot at the blog owner (who didn't post one thing in the comment thread) to really expose how unserious you are. Yep, it's all Tim Blair's fault that nobody buys into your half-baked arguments.
Posted by: PW at June 26, 2004 at 04:44 AMI think I understand Jeremy now, he has a death wish. His solution appears to be that we do nothing and allow the jihadis to slaughter us all.
Just imagine what Jeffery would have said in the 1930's about Hitler.
Jeffery, my boy, do you not understand that their goal is to destroy all traces of non-Islamic culture and society? And to give all non-Islamic people the single option to converting to Islam or die?
What is it that you hate about Western culture and society that you would want to see it destroyed by the Islamists? Is it your disappointment over the failure of communism to take over the world?
Jeremy do you have any children? Just for a moment, imagine that you do have a child and that someone is threatening to kill your child. You know who that person is and there is no one you can call on for help. Would you allow your child to be killed just so that you could claim that you were a better person in some fucked-up way than the killer? Would you stand by and watch your child murdered and then really get the killer good by telling them that you are a superior being?
Killing people who are trying to kill you is called self-defense.
This is a struggle for world domination, but this time, instead of political zealots, ie. Communists, we are faced with religious zealots whose goal is to exterminate all other religions, to exterminate all non-Islamic governments and to either convert the rest of the world's population to Islam or exterminate them.
Jeremy, what is your plan, how would you deal with this? Would you still call them 'insurgents' or 'freedom fighters' or 'the resistance' if they cut the heads off of your mother and father? (If either or both of your parents have already passed I am sorry, I'm just trying to find something that will tap your core values as a person.) If they get the chance that is exactly what they will do, whether with a knife or a nuke. You need to be thinking about this in personal terms rather than out of your blind hatred of the current administration in the U.S..
What the left fails to understand is that this isn't about Bush.
The Islamists view western culture and society as a threat to Islam by virtue of the fact that the west exists. They see this as something to be conquered and destroyed. Co-existence with us is not an option for them.
Lastly, I do apologize for my inaccurate reference to the post with the eponential response by a factor of 2.
Posted by: stan at June 26, 2004 at 05:01 AMOh no!!!! I made a gramatical error:
"And to give all non-Islamic people the single option to converting to Islam or die?"
I should have written:
"And to give all non-Islamic people the single option to either convert to Islam or be killed?"
I know that this grammatical error automatically discredits every thought I have ever had and disqualifies me from expressing myself in the Leftist Alternate Universe. But least I have given Jeremy, or rather Jihademy, another opportunity to feel truly superior.
What you or I define as wilful or gratuitous, or who we'd define as innocent, really depends on from where we're sitting.
Exactly. And I do happen to sit somewhere. I imagine you do as well. We have to make a determination as to which side is right based on our own personal values. And the distinction between the U.S.-led coalition and the savages who are doing everything they can to prevent a peaceful democratic evolution of the Iraqi nation is quite clear.
If you think about it, who decides who's innocent or not?
You and I do. Zarqawi will also decide for himself. Personally, there is no room for compromise between my position and his, so it becomes a death struggle. Although I do confess that I'm not exactly in the firing line.
Where is the line drawn between say an Iraqi blowing up a US military vehicle and killing its occupants (which most here would call terrorism) and the Israeli military using the blunt force of an attack helicopter to take out someone in a wheelchair surrounded by kids and a crowd? (which I guess you wouldn't call terrorism).
I actually wouldn't consider attacks on a military vehicle terrorism. But I find it dubious that those undertaking such attacks against U.S. military targets in Iraq are averse to targeting specifically innocent players, as vividly demonstrated by their hacking the head off of the Korean fellow.
And the decision by Israel to target a mass murder architect who essentially straps children to his wheelchair--the cowardly cocksucker--would not fall under the definition because the purpose was clearly not to create terror, but to eliminate a direct threat.
"I've heard neither President Bush nor anyone else with a brain in his head categorize anyone a terrorist that doesn't match the above description."
Well, isn't that their justification for holding all those people in GB and AG? If they're not terrorists, why are they there, and if they are, why haven't they been charged and tried yet?
I think you overestimate the existence of specific protocol in our current struggle. I don't think members of an army of terrorists are entitled to greater consideration than members of a legitimate army, who would have to cool their jets in a compound until the cessation of hostilities. And if our determination for categorical purposes of who is or isn't a terrorist isn't legitimate, as it's subject to a "who's to say what's what" objection, why would a trial verdict be any different?
The left isn't cheering for depraved savages. And the Left wanted Saddam (and other dictators) toppled years before he became inconvenient to the US.
Perhaps you and maybe Christopher Hitchens are not, but a considerable segment of the Left most absolutely and admittedly is.
As a leftist, I want all dictators removed and replaced by democracies. But it must be done under specific principles and be consistently applied . . .
That's a foolish and paralytic impulse. If all totalitarian situations were equivalent, then consistency would be an option, we'd have to draw lots or something. I'd say the principles, as supplied by the Bush doctrine, have been quite applicable in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, but we can't topple all dictators in the world immediately. There has to be prioritization, and I don't think that it would serve you very well to argue that Hussein didn't stick out like a severed thumb.
The US has not said "here's the new policy: we will overthrow the world's dictators and ensure that people have access to free elections and that human rights abusers are tried in a court of law."
The new policy is "we will make no distinction between the terrorists and the governments who support them." So far there has been no inconsistent application of this policy.
Because there are many brutal dictators that the US likes - "he may be a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofoabitch" . . .
There are no dictators that the U.S. likes, there were certainly a few that we enlisted in our struggle against the Soviet Union, the greatest realization of Orwellian fears yet known to man.
There is a consideration of relative brutality and authoritarianism. With this in mind, the U.S.-backed dictators were pikers compared to those supported by the Left. The comparison is shameful and damning, and would be rhetorically devastating if Leftists were capable of shame and acknowledging its own culpability.
. . . and the US refuses to let its own soldiers be tried for crimes against humanity.
Our soldiers are tried for crimes against humanity all the time. We're just not going to let our opponents in Belgium under inferior judicial principles judge our citizens.
Essentially, the US refuses to abide by any rules except its own.
Please provide a superior set of rules for our perusal.
I haven't done either. Bush is a dangerous fool and uses many of the same tactics as the terrorists, but he hasn't deliberately tried to get political capital by threatening to kill innocents. So I agree he's not a terrorist.
That is a very impressive concession on your part and I think demonstrates an admirable independence from the typical leftist boilerplate. I know that may sound kind of condescending, but your teammates are usually not particularly respectable.
Anyway, what "tactics" does the President use in common with the terrorists, and if he's such a "fool," why do so many clearly non-foolish people consider him a visionary?
Hurrah, Bush is less bad than terrorists. But that's hardly the greatest commendation in the world, is it?
Well, until a third way becomes apparent, don't you think you should either get to work designing that option or throw your chips in with the "less bad"? Wouldn't the ouster of Hussein have been a greater enterprise without the U.N., France, Germany, Russia, and China colluding with him against the U.S. and its coalition partners to keep him in power? They wouldn't even have had to help, just refrain from making it more difficult.
More importantly, I'd expect more from the US President, who has many more options than the terrorists and has a real opportunity to make the world a better and safer place.
Sometimes a situation has to get worse before it can get better. Don't you think that a fully functioning Iraqi democracy, if we are successful, would be a step towards a safer world?
Anyway, thanks for the spirited opposition.
Posted by: DrZin at June 26, 2004 at 10:01 AMC, again, you didn't answer the question.
As for a "great global theory" there are plenty. And you'd better have some clear logical one which you're going to apply consistently, if you're going to go around INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES. The default position is DON'T INVADE OTHER COUNTRIES. If you're going to, then you'd better have a good reason. A principle. And then, to avoid being a hypocrite, apply it consistently.
What's Bush's reason? WMDs? No, he's resiled from that. Certainly wasn't very good evidence of it, was there? It's now just removing a dictator. FINE. Now, what's he going to do about North Korea, China, Zimbabwe, any of the other brutal dictatorships? Anything? If not, then that's not a good reason for invading Iraq.
Andrea: your hypocrisy is breathtaking. Your first remarks to me were foul, and without any provocation. I think I'll just ignore you from now on; from what I've seen of you here and on your blog, you're a dishonest hate-filled woman with a painfully closed mind. What's the point of even responding to you?
Posted by: Jeremy at June 26, 2004 at 10:05 AM"Well now. Both Israel and the US regularly hit targets with plenty of collateral damage, and I don't see you calling them terrorists.
That may have something to do with the fact that these people wear uniforms and stuff, and are in the employ of the elected government for exactly that purpose. Who's providing the democratic legitimation (or any governmental legitimation) for terrorists (oops, militants) blowing up buses, mosques and police stations, again?"
That's not much of a definition of terrorism, then. Same act, okay if authorised by a "democratic" government and carried out by someone in uniform? Justice depends on laws being applied consistently to everyone.
"But anyway, there is no distinction. What is an "illegal combatant"? Define "illegal combatant" in a way which doesn't just mean in reality "soldier for the enemy side".
Illegal combatants do not wear uniforms of any recognized military (which is exactly what makes them illegal combatants when they're found armed and fighting, duh), and thus are specifically not soldiers*, so if "in reality [they're just] 'soldiers for the enemy side'", this would have to be that Leftist Alternate Universe I occasionally hear about."
So the French resistance fighters in WW2 were "illegal combatants"? And the Nazis were right to imprison them without charge and execute them etc? I think it's a bit ridiculous to treat enemy soldiers differently depending on whether there's a recognised uniform or not.
"As for the people held in Guantanamo being terrorists or illegal combatants, there's no need for it to be just one and not the other, as you seem to insist. They're regarded as terrorists because of their actions, but held in Guantanamo because they fulfill the definition of "illegal combatant". I suspect it's not possible to be an internationally operating terrorist without being an illegal combatant, but it's conceivable to be an illegal combatant without being a terrorist. Such a person would be eligible for a one-way trip to Guantanamo, and in fact that's exactly the case as some of the people who were rounded up because they were fighting on behalf of the Taliban probably can't be called terrorists (but they're in Guantanamo anyway). The fact that the vast majority of those currently held likely are both illegal combatants and terrorists has no bearing at all."
Why are they still there, then, after Bush declared the War in Afghanistan over?
pause... whew. Is there a better way of doing this than cutting and pasting from above each for each little response? And how do I do italics?
"That's okay, as far as it goes, except including the words "wilful" and "gratuitous" is problemmatic, as is the word "innocent". What you or I define as wilful or gratuitous, or who we'd define as innocent, really depends on from where we're sitting.
And here you finally expose yourself completely as the equivocating twit that everyone suspected you were right after your first posting. Care to tell us what Israeli mothers and children being shot dead or blown up in the streets are guilty of, exactly? Or the nearly 3000 people in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon? (Whoops, forget I mentioned the Pentagon...they were probably guilty by default, just on the basis of working there.)
And yes, it does make a difference that they were being specifically targetted for killing, as opposed to innocent Iraqis who sadly died during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
First, I AM NOT DEFENDING the bastards who commit murder against innocent people, just people at random, Israeli mothers and children, American workers, or Palestinian mothers and children, either.
But, THESE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME PEOPLE. What Bush has done is lumped everyone who doesn't like the US into the same category. No-one is defending the people who launched those attacks. They're bastards. Trying to understand why they did it isn't defending them, either.
I'll have to come back to this, as I'm ten minutes late going out. I'll finish responding to you and PW and DrZin later. I haven't got to the crux of your posts yet.
Stan, I simply don't agree with your "kill the bastards" policy, because your definition of "the bastards" is too broad and is, well, genocidal. You'd be killing a lot of people who don't have a pathological hatred of modernity, but who simply have an honest belief in their religion. Same as many of you guys.
Andrea: your hypocrisy is breathtaking. Your first remarks to me were foul, and without any provocation. I think I'll just ignore you from now on; from what I've seen of you here and on your blog, you're a dishonest hate-filled woman with a painfully closed mind. What's the point of even responding to you?Awwww... did widdle Jewemy get his feewings huwt by the bad, mean woman? Look, I cried a real tear. Oh wait -- my bad, that's just condensation off the bottom of my Bloody Mary glass (made with real blood -- tomato juice is for weenies).
And in any case -- I scanned for my "foul" messages. Hmm... are we a little sensitive to mentions of chihuahua-molesting? Does that Taco Bell commercial make you all funny in the underpants? I meant only to jest -- I had no idea you had an actual problem.
However, I do notice that you called me a "moron." Excuse me, I pay for and administer this website, and I don't permit people to waste my bandwidth calling me names. I think that the commenters here have given you enough of an ego-boost by actually responding to your long-winded, tedious, and so-August-2001 arguments. Also, I have a toothache and the elephants that live in the apartment above my head (and apparently never sleep, and seem to have midnight hobbies such as woodcrafting and indoor basketball) have just returned home. So I am in the mood to ban someone's IPs, and guess what, you are it! Sorry guys -- we'll have to do without Jeremy's wisdom for a while.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 26, 2004 at 11:44 AMOkay. What do I think Bush should have done?
1. Finish up in Afghanistan before moving onto Iraq. Afghanistan was still a total disaster area, by any measure, before the Iraq invasion. What lost my support for toppling Saddam (yes, I was happy for the US to get rid of the bastard originally) was the fact that the US had no actual plan beyond topping him. How did Bush squander all that anti-Saddam Iraqi feeling? By leaving the people in a disaster zone for months after Saddam was gone. Hello, fertile breeding ground for anti-US sentiment.
2. Before invading any country, make the case as to why. WMDs were a complete furphy, and the reason Bush went with those is that Americans didn't actually care about Saddam's human rights abuses; the only way to get support was to try to pretend that Saddam was a real threat to Americans in America.
(North Korea's a much bigger threat - a nutcase with a nuclear arsenal pointed at the US west coast. But let's leave that for the moment.)
But self-defence was a furphy. When had Saddam attacked US soil? He and Osama hated each other. The only link was that they both hated the US.
So the doctrine of pre-emptive strike was pretty empty. And it is also incredibly dangerous, because it justifies ANY country invading another. "Oh, Poland was about to invade us!"
Why is Saddam a monster we're glad to be rid of? Because he abused human rights. So make that the criterion for toppling democracies.
1. a complaint is made about human rights abuses
2. UN makes a demand to investigate
3. Saddam refuses to abide by a certain date
4. international community (UN including US) invades to topple Saddam, ensures that citizens of country have access to basic services, sets up elections, oversees them for a few years, gradually withdraws.
And this principle should be applied consistently. It should be applied to Zimbabwe, North Korea, China etc.
Now I note that I've been criticised for implying that this should all be done at once. Not at all. Toppling Saddam lost my support because the US didn't finish the job in Afghanistan before it moved to Iraq. We could SEE what was going to happen in Iraq, because it was already happening in Afghanistan. I don't expect the US to install democracies everywhere all at once. But I expect it to at least declare that that is its intention. It HASN'T, and the reason is that it doesn't intend to do that. It just wanted to get rid of Saddam.
It wasn't principle, it was revenge. If it was a good principle, and if it was carried out competently, I'd support it.
Bottom line: invasion can be justified. But it has very high costs (in human lives, most importantly) and should only be undertaken when the benefits outweigh the costs. There's not much point killing thousands of people and spending billions of dollars if you're just going to replace one dictator with another, or leave a country an empty rubble-filled shell.
That will be Jer's last comment for a while. There are only so many available IPs.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 26, 2004 at 12:02 PMAh, Andrea. Banning troll Jerommyski was late but thankful. Bless you. G.
Posted by: Gerry at June 26, 2004 at 05:14 PMI don't think banning the guy is appropriate; he's fairly reasonable and responsive. I think he's dead wrong about most things, but what's the point of us all hanging around agreeing with one another about everything?
Posted by: DrZin at June 26, 2004 at 10:54 PMHe was getting tedious. However, he still could have been commenting here if he hadn't called me a moron, and then compounded his error by accusing me (via whiny email) of calling him a "sick f*ck" (sic), and then compounding that error by sending me yet another whinging email about how he only said that because (and I quote again): "a) I know who used the expression 'sick fuck', the point was that on that thread that sort of language had been used, so 'moron' seems hardly out of place." The usual trollish equivocation and backsliding. I have no patience for it. If you want to have an indepth discussion with the little bore, email him.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 27, 2004 at 02:08 AMdamn.. I'm sick of those fucking Iraq who are killing those innocent people.. Well I hope this is the end of killing innocent people. And peace to his family.
Posted by: EC at June 27, 2004 at 10:56 AM