Full Version: I take your terrorist and raise you one
While watching CNN they had a story about how Putin is irate at our terror stance when it comes to there problems.
Putin blasts U.S. on terror stance
Question : Could this undermine our situation with Russia or another country when each country sees things differently as their own terror threats?
Is this War on Terror with enemies that are only our enemies?
If we are saying this a world War on Terror should we consider other governments problems with terrorists and support them?
Putin blasts U.S. on terror stance
QUOTE
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that mid-level officials in the U.S. government were undermining his country's war on terrorism by supporting Chechen separatists, whom he compared to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
snipet
In the wide-ranging meeting which lasted almost four hours, Putin said he likes President Bush, calling him a friendly, decent, predictable person.
But Putin said each time Russia complained to the Bush administration about meetings held between U.S. officials and Chechen separatist representatives, the U.S. response has been "we'll get back to you" or "we reserve the right to talk with anyone we want."
snipet
Putin's comments came a few weeks after the U.S. granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the "foreign minister" of the Chechen separatist movement.
snipet
In the wide-ranging meeting which lasted almost four hours, Putin said he likes President Bush, calling him a friendly, decent, predictable person.
But Putin said each time Russia complained to the Bush administration about meetings held between U.S. officials and Chechen separatist representatives, the U.S. response has been "we'll get back to you" or "we reserve the right to talk with anyone we want."
snipet
Putin's comments came a few weeks after the U.S. granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the "foreign minister" of the Chechen separatist movement.
Question : Could this undermine our situation with Russia or another country when each country sees things differently as their own terror threats?
Is this War on Terror with enemies that are only our enemies?
If we are saying this a world War on Terror should we consider other governments problems with terrorists and support them?
Could this undermine our situation with Russia or another country when each country sees things differently as their own terror threats?
It already does - need I remind you that America's unconditional support for the Israeli government (which is unarguable) and the Israeli government's perceived use of terror tactics in the Occupied Territories (which is arguable, but we're talking about perceptions here) is one of the major, if not the major, reasons why America is currently such a terror target - from Islamic extremism, at any rate.
Is this War on Terror with enemies that are only our enemies?
It is in all practical respects, and to an extent that is fair enough.
The problem is that the associated rhetoric coming from the Bush administration & their allies (and indeed with any country faced with any threat, justified or not) is couched in catch-all, dyadic terms of good and evil, freedom and tyrrany, and so on.
The bandying about of such words raises the perfectly reasonable question such clear-cut, absolute standards are applied selecitvely. Why are some evils and some tyrranies tolerated or even approved of (uncontroversial ones would include Sudan & Saudi Arabia, but also arguably Pakistan and Israel), and others are not (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya)?
If we are saying this a world War on Terror should we consider other governments problems with terrorists and support them?
No. You should condemn and act against the use of terror against civilian populations wherever it takes place, and whoever perpetrates it - regardless of the status of the perpetrators i.e. be they terror groups or governments.
In effect, the definition of terrorism that we should be using is based on what constitutes an act of terror - direct targeting of uninvolved civilians or acts of violence that do not discriminate against civilians*. It should not be based on whom is being attacked, or who is doing the attacking; nor on the whether the perpetrators wear a uniform, a headscarf, or a balaclava (sorry, ski-mask
).
*Note - some civilians may still be killed accidentally even if the actions are discriminating (which is where the hateful phrase "collateral damage" comes in). As a rule of thumb, perhaps we can say that if more bystanders are killed than intended targets, the action (be it a bomb, an armed assault, or a whole battle) is indiscriminate.
I'd say this second definition (acts of violence that do not discriminate against civilians) covers about half of what is going on in Iraq. The other half, that which is actively discriminated towards the security forces, is more usefully thought of as guerilla warfare, I think. The balance is made up of "direct targeting of uninvolved civilians", which is arguably the "worst" type of terrorism.
It already does - need I remind you that America's unconditional support for the Israeli government (which is unarguable) and the Israeli government's perceived use of terror tactics in the Occupied Territories (which is arguable, but we're talking about perceptions here) is one of the major, if not the major, reasons why America is currently such a terror target - from Islamic extremism, at any rate.
Is this War on Terror with enemies that are only our enemies?
It is in all practical respects, and to an extent that is fair enough.
The problem is that the associated rhetoric coming from the Bush administration & their allies (and indeed with any country faced with any threat, justified or not) is couched in catch-all, dyadic terms of good and evil, freedom and tyrrany, and so on.
The bandying about of such words raises the perfectly reasonable question such clear-cut, absolute standards are applied selecitvely. Why are some evils and some tyrranies tolerated or even approved of (uncontroversial ones would include Sudan & Saudi Arabia, but also arguably Pakistan and Israel), and others are not (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya)?
If we are saying this a world War on Terror should we consider other governments problems with terrorists and support them?
No. You should condemn and act against the use of terror against civilian populations wherever it takes place, and whoever perpetrates it - regardless of the status of the perpetrators i.e. be they terror groups or governments.
In effect, the definition of terrorism that we should be using is based on what constitutes an act of terror - direct targeting of uninvolved civilians or acts of violence that do not discriminate against civilians*. It should not be based on whom is being attacked, or who is doing the attacking; nor on the whether the perpetrators wear a uniform, a headscarf, or a balaclava (sorry, ski-mask
).*Note - some civilians may still be killed accidentally even if the actions are discriminating (which is where the hateful phrase "collateral damage" comes in). As a rule of thumb, perhaps we can say that if more bystanders are killed than intended targets, the action (be it a bomb, an armed assault, or a whole battle) is indiscriminate.
I'd say this second definition (acts of violence that do not discriminate against civilians) covers about half of what is going on in Iraq. The other half, that which is actively discriminated towards the security forces, is more usefully thought of as guerilla warfare, I think. The balance is made up of "direct targeting of uninvolved civilians", which is arguably the "worst" type of terrorism.
QUOTE
Question : [b]Could this undermine our situation with Russia or another country when each country sees things differently as their own terror threats?
I would say that it wouldn't hurt us any more than our strained relations with France and Germany who thought we rushed in to Iraq. While ambassadors are not being pulled or that kind of thing, it does make us "French" in their conflict. Perhaps boycott efforts will now start up and that kind of thing?
QUOTE
If we are saying this a world War on Terror should we consider other governments problems with terrorists and support them?
We need to really consider the value of complexity and nuance before we take on other nation's battles. Today's (september 12th) New York Times has an excellent article on the Chechen movement. While they have taken money and arms from radical Islamic "charities" Chechnya is still a relatively secular culture and is driven by nationalism more than a religious jihad as portrayed by Bin Laden. If helping the Chechens is a religious war to him, the Chechens don't mind since their ultimate goal is independence and they want that more than anything else. The Russians have yet to identify any foreign arab fighters, the arms came from a raid on a police station a few months back, and the Russians are famous for exaggerating about the influence of foreign fighters in Chechnya.
We also need to be careful about calling everyone a "terrorist" and refusing to look at what they are fighting for. Jumping into a conflict where a group of people want independence, is to jump into a conflict that we can only delay. We lost the Vietnamese war of independence(propping up a "Tory" illegitimate South Vietnamese government) and we would probably only lose a Chechen one. Finally, you would think the Russians would learn something about having been in Afghanistan.
QUOTE
We also need to be careful about calling everyone a "terrorist" and refusing to look at what they are fighting for.
Well, I personally think that any group that attacks, tortures and kills over 300 children in a school should easily warrant the term terrorist, as well as the terms evil and inhuman.
Is this War on Terror with enemies that are only our enemies?
It was sold as a war on any terrorist or any state that harbors or supports terrorist. Seeking independence is a goal we could support, but we cannot support any group that uses terror tactics to achieve their goals.
If we are saying this a world War on Terror should we consider other governments problems with terrorists and support them?
We should be supporting any government that requests our help that is under attack by terrorists. Any government, or movement that uses terror tactics should be considered an enemy of the world and should be treated as such.
Could this undermine our situation with Russia or another country when each country sees things differently as their own terror threats?
I think Bush is wrong in this case ... the people who perpetrated this atrocity were the same group(s) ( muhjahadeen backed by al-qeada) that helped in terror attacks against the US ... we need to let russia fight as our ally not tie them with resrictions that we do not impose upon ourselves...
Is this War on Terror with enemies that are only our enemies?
Not only no but HELL NO !!!... bombing of spainish rail system ... the targeting of french railways and journalists... our enemies are ones that wish to spread a worldwide islamic theocracy ... and they would kill an indian hindu or german christian just as readily as they would kill an american atheist...
If we are saying this a world War on Terror should we consider other governments problems with terrorists and support them?
yes because we are all in this together the WoT is one of anihilation ... one of us is not coming out of this in shape remain a viable force in the world ...
I think Bush is wrong in this case ... the people who perpetrated this atrocity were the same group(s) ( muhjahadeen backed by al-qeada) that helped in terror attacks against the US ... we need to let russia fight as our ally not tie them with resrictions that we do not impose upon ourselves...
Is this War on Terror with enemies that are only our enemies?
Not only no but HELL NO !!!... bombing of spainish rail system ... the targeting of french railways and journalists... our enemies are ones that wish to spread a worldwide islamic theocracy ... and they would kill an indian hindu or german christian just as readily as they would kill an american atheist...
If we are saying this a world War on Terror should we consider other governments problems with terrorists and support them?
yes because we are all in this together the WoT is one of anihilation ... one of us is not coming out of this in shape remain a viable force in the world ...
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.