US Military; Terrorists?

[ender098]

Over on JBL, I saw a thread while browsing the off-topic lounge. The original Post asked something about how would you deal with terrorists in the real world. After the Marine in me calmed down and stopped thinking about a Terrorist massacre, I started formulating a response. But before I got too far, another poster stated :

" problem being. even our troops .. sometimes.. are terrorists... may not be their fault... but in some cases we arent the good guys..."

Now that REALLY set me off. After walking outside and calling on the almighty to comdenm him for all eternity, I thought it over and decided to respond educatedly and intellectually...and in my response, I found out a strange thing.....

BY DEFINITION, HE MAY HAVE BEEN RIGHT!

Bear with me, before you start condemning me, too!

I wrote what I thought was a wonderful response, only to finish it and see the thread was locked. So, bear with me and I will share my revelation on what I found out about the definition(s) of "Terrorism" and "Terrorist" ;


here was what I wrote;

[QUOTE=ender098]
Being a Marine, I have to say, I guess I have always followed this definition of Terrorist from The Marine Corps Terrorism Awareness handbook;

a. Terrorism. Terrorism is the calculated (unlawful) use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear (by impressing upon the mind through frequent repetition or persistent urging); intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

I would say the fact that we don't try to Inculcate fear and we try to get away from Illegal calculated use of violence to attain our ends makes us NOT terrorists. However do Service mambers step across the line? YES! The difference is, we punish them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism>

However, follow this link to wikipedia, and they give a more broad generalization of the terms "Terrorism" and "Terrorist". And as is said, if you sort through all the various definitions, the only constant is "violence and the threat of violence". Hmmm, well, by that definition, isn't any organization charged with enforcement a Terrorist? From the Police to the Ghestapo?

If that is the definition of Terrorist you are going by, that the Military uses "Violence or the Threat of Violence" to gain it's ends, then YES, we are terrorists. I have never see an Army go to war that has not intended to do violence if the need be.

I however like to think the ends justify the means. Unlike our enemies, we don't Purposely Kill civilians or our own people. And when one of us or a group of us does, they are punished severly, such as that group who killed the family so they could rape a 13 yo girl in Iraq. They will go to prison for the rest of their lives. Have you ever seen Al Queda punish it's members for going "over the Line"?

I think Terrorists (in the sense I label the Taliban and Al Queda and their ilk) target the populace and make them fear so they can achieve their means. WE however, try to restrict our operations to target only the bad guys. WE wear uniforms, so if our enemies want to kill us, we are easy to find. They kill indiscriminately and hide in the very people they terrorize.

It's just a matter of syntax. Before you say our troops are terrorists, state your definition of terrorism. If it's broad as wikipedias, I guess we do fit. But if you tell me I'm as bad as that trash that calls itself Al Queda, I say you move to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan and see what you're talking about first!

amen!

P.S. And speaking your mind just shows you still have freedom of speech and this "Terrorist" is doing his job properly! LOL! :) No offense taken!

***Disclaimer, this post is not meant to be argumenative, but show both sides and how the person who said that sometimes our troops are terrorists could BE right depending on definition and Situation, and it is NOT a bad thing! However saying we are as bad as the Taliban or Al Queda (which he did NOT say) WOULD be uncalled for!******

[\QUOTE]


Sometimes anger can motivate us to educate ourselves!

[ToneGunsRevisited]

What I can say from here is that my definition of terrorism is, when you do something against people to prove something that the one your are aiming at have nothing to do with your cause. Look september eleven, terrorists hurt, killed, murdered people who doesn't have anything with their own problems. USA going against ...Stan doesn't look mad, thinking by the way that they were supporting and hidding Osama Bin Laden (but we can't forget that US gave them gus to fight U.S.R.R. back in the cold war time, '89 if I'm not wrong). But the Iraq war II began over a lie. The Commander-in-chief of USA forces (aka Bush), said that they were going to war to prevent Iraq to give chemical weapons to be used against USA. Today there were not any chemical weapons found.
Lookin' by this perspective, in Iraq, looks like the Joint forces are acting like terrorist to the Iraq people's eyes. However I'm not here to judge anybody, I would say to you Frank, don't let those things get you. If you can't let this type of things just pass by you, looks like you need to prove that the war is legal or something like that. Just let this real war things don't get us out of mind :p.

[ender098]

Well, my point was that there are well over 100 different definitions of the term "Terrorist" depending on who you ask. The only common thread they all seem to share is they all contain the words "Violence or threat of violence" .

Going by that definition, all Armies are terrorists. (as are all police, armed security guards or any enforcement agency) WE All use Violence or threat of violence.

The military has a lot more rules it has to follow (Geneva Convention, Code of Conduct) etc, but still we use "violence or the threat of violence" to achieve our means. So, by BROAD definition, or by most common denominator in all the definitions, we DO fit the BROAD definition of Terrorist.

I like to think the difference lies in what we aim to achieve and how far we are willing to go to achieve it. Were we as unscrupulous as our enemies, we WOULDN'T hesitate to drop our nuclear arsenal on any country that opposed us and our agenda. We would purposely attack civilians and innocents. We would routinely use torture to obtain our means. The funny thing is if we used THEIR tactics and disreguarded following the rules, we would beat them in a few days!

[Bayer]

Guys, the funny thing about the terms Terrorist and Liberator is that they are subjective. One man or woman's terrorist is likely to be another's liberator. Were we liberators in Iraq? By the view of the Iraqi citizens tearing down Hussein's statue in Bagdad, I'd say yes. Has the United States engaged in acts of terrorism? Depends upon who you ask. I'm sure the Taliban would answer with yes. Hussein would say yes (were he not currently in much warmer climes :p ). But these are answers from groups who themselves are on the defensive over oppressive behavior of their own.

Human society will always have this element of multiple viewpoints, so long as it exists in a healthy environment, that is to say, exists in a world that affords the freedom to believe something someone else might not believe.

Terrorism is an illegal act because it infringes on the rights of individuals who are not necessarily involved in the original conflict. That is its power. By affecting people who wouldn't otherwise have an interest in the conflict, the terrorist can bring attention to his/her agenda or issues.

This is the difference between a terrorist act and a normal criminal act. A criminal act usually has a much more mundane and concrete motive whether it is a bank robbery (money) or murder (get rid of someone). Terrorist acts while criminal, are usually based in an ideological framework with violence as only an attention getting device and not part of the motive.

Homocidal maniacs and Sociopaths not withstanding as they have a psychosis which leads them to believe that their acts are part of normal behavior or have no moral compass to lead them.

The United States while motivated by some rather dubious information, has acted with general world consent. This is much the same way a Police force acts, with the general consent of the society they patrol. Whether or not you agree with the president's actions, they have been generally legal.

But it is our duty as citizens to follow what the government does. We are ultimately responsible for the rights and wrongs our country does. Remember: Adolf Hitler was legally elected and granted extra-ordinary powers by the German government, before he started his acts of terror on Europe. And at the time it all seemed perfectly reasonable to the thinking German citizen.

[Outrider]

Frank, you hit the nail right on the head when you mentioned definitions of terrorism. Ask a hundred people and you would likely get a hundred different answers. Personally, I think the allied military forces (and that includes my country's armed forces) are as far from the filthy terrorist scum as can be, but that's by my definitions. As Bayer said, it all comes down to which side of the fence you are looking from. Deliberate cowardly attacks on innocent unarmed civilians? Terrorism without doubt. Killing those who seek to harm those very civilians? Justified use of force. Whether I'm right or not is for history to judge.

[Lava Boss]

[QUOTE=ender098] I like to think the difference lies in what we aim to achieve and how far we are willing to go to achieve it. Were we as unscrupulous as our enemies, we WOULDN'T hesitate to drop our nuclear arsenal on any country that opposed us and our agenda. We would purposely attack civilians and innocents. We would routinely use torture to obtain our means. The funny thing is if we used THEIR tactics and disreguarded following the rules, we would beat them in a few days![/QUOTE]


Yeah, basically. If the USA took the gloves off...it wouldn't be pretty.

There's a lot more restraint than critics abroad and at home think. (Not that we some criticism isn't warranted.)

I'd say the Geneva convention made terrorism more legit. In old school days, ununiformed combatants could and would be killed if captured. The west civilized warfare, but of course, other parties don't play by those rules...and there's little that can be done to make them.

And there-in lies the difference. The US military has recognized leadership, which can be held accountable. Can the same be said about guerillas and terrorists? No. They rely on hiding, secrecy. Nazi Germany could be defeated and was, and its surviving leaders held accountable for its actions. Would a captured Osama formally declare a surrender if captured or negotiate a cease fire? No. How about pay reparations to the families of 9/11? Nope.

Of course, if insurgents played by the rules, then they wouldn't have a chance, would they?

If we break all the rules, the US military risks becoming the "Nazis" that some claim the US is already acting like. (I'm really sick of people using the word "nazi" for everyone they hate).

[Ranger_22]

The U.S. military isn't made to combat terrorism and their geurilla tactics. Example Vietnam, and for the British, the american revolution. Our military is made to fight other armies. We should come up with some kind of NSA strike force who goes about like regular citizens but looks for every terrorist leader and members and terminates them. Kind of like what they did in the movie Munich.

I would call the "terrorists", Islamic extremists. Or by there real name, Taliban, Hesbola, Alqeuda. The main defenition to me is- a person or persons who create terror. So TG is right, looking at an Iraqi stand point. But to the U.S. we are liberators relieving the terror of Saddam. TERRORISM. I hate them!!! Or Islamic extremists!

[ender098]

[QUOTE=Bayer]Guys, the funny thing about the terms Terrorist and Liberator is that they are subjective. One man or woman's terrorist is likely to be another's liberator. Were we liberators in Iraq? By the view of the Iraqi citizens tearing down Hussein's statue in Bagdad, I'd say yes. Has the United States engaged in acts of terrorism? Depends upon who you ask. [/QUOTE]

Good point! I'll bet that during the American Revolution more than one British Official called us "Terrorists". I mean we hid behind trees and ambushed recognized military formations and for the most part we had no uniforms. Makes you think.....


[QUOTE=Ranger_22]The U.S. military isn't made to combat terrorism and their geurilla tactics. Example Vietnam, and for the British, the american revolution. Our military is made to fight other armies. We should come up with some kind of NSA strike force who goes about like regular citizens but looks for every terrorist leader and members and terminates them. Kind of like what they did in the movie Munich.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't think the Military has the intelligence resources to combat terrorism. If we could let the CIA or other agencies infiltrate terrorist organizations and the military act on their intel, we would be so much better.

The problem is, during the Clinton administration, Slick Willy banned the CIA from putting terrorists and criminals on the payroll. Who are you gonna get to infiltrate Al Queda? Bill Cosby? It's taken us a while to even attempt to infiltrate Al Queda. That is why I get so upset with people who talk about how great a president Bill Clinton was. He never killed a single terrorist either! (remember after the bombings of the Emabassies in Africa, he shot cruise missiles at training camps in Somalia and never had a single casuality?)

I better quit, I'm starting to stray into my personal political beliefs and not the facts of the matter.

The only way to combat terrorists is to defeat their logic and turn the masses against them. Notice that Al Queda can't operate freely in Oman, Bahrain or Jordan? That's because these Arab states have high standards of living, well educated people and moderate Muslim populations. If Osama blew up a bomb in Oman, the Omanis would hunt his ass down and kill him using his own tactics! If we could get the Middle east educated and away from believing that any holyman who has read the Quaran is the unreproachable word of God, we could turn things around. If we could get them to question their leaders instead of just blindly following them we could end this. But the terrorists want to keep the people down and uneducated. Teach them to read the Quaran and decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.



.

[Ranger_22]

Thats true. I remember the good old days fighting armies, and winning.

[General Jones]

That's the crappy part Frank. Osama has twisted the Quaran to mean what he wants it to mean to the terrorists he leads. I agree with you in that I wish the other the other Muslim factions would take action against Al Queda, but it seems to be the same situation as the different Christian factions, do your own thing and, for the most part, leave the other "different types" of Christians alone. Am I totally off he mark?

[Acantilado]

I would like to point that possibly the actions of the US army have encouraged terrorism, and have given Osama and his slimes the "reason" at the eyes of most people when they say that western countries want to destroy muslim people.

I mean, it's like ender said here:

"Well, I don't think the Military has the intelligence resources to combat terrorism. If we could let the CIA or other agencies infiltrate terrorist organizations and the military act on their intel, we would be so much better."

Is that simple: to fight terrorism you have to use intelligence services, not bombing a country with people in it that does not have any relation with terrorists. Here I reach the point that remarked ender at the begining, when he said that "terrorism" can be a different concept depending on the point of view.

I'm afraid this post maybe sounded a bit too "polítical" o_0