Iranian terrorism vs. American terrorism

[HoverBoarder]

By popular demand, this is a separate thread from a discussion on the General Israel/Palestine discussion thread on Iranian terrorism vs. American terrorism.

The issue arose after discussing recent terrorism attacks on Israel from groups including Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza, which launched a number of recent rocket attacks on homes in Israel, and who are being armed and directed by Iran. This also follows recent terrorism acts by Hezbollah in Lebanon and around the world, as well as the Syrian regime which also get their arms and directions from Iran.


The question was:

Name one terror act, policy, or campaign sponsored by the Iranian state. Then name one or more similar acts, policies, or campaigns sponsored by the American state.

 

[Puppycow]

The hostages.

 

[WildCat]

Why is everyone down on Iran for trying to eradicate cancer?

 

[mikeyx]

By popular demand, this is a separate thread from a discussion on the General Israel/Palestine discussion thread on Iranian terrorism vs. American terrorism.

The issue arose after discussing recent terrorism attacks on Israel from groups including Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza, which launched a number of recent rocket attacks on homes in Israel, and who are being armed and directed by Iran. This also follows recent terrorism acts by Hezbollah in Lebanon and around the world, as well as the Syrian regime which also get their arms and directions from Iran.


The question was:

Name one terror act, policy, or campaign sponsored by the Iranian state. Then name one or more similar acts, policies, or campaigns sponsored by the American state.

They seized British naval folks a few years back, and more recently fired on one of our drones, flying along and minding its own business when they terrorized it....

 

[Praktik]

I wonder what would happen if there was an Iranian drone flying around within sight of NY Harbour....

Probably nothing...

 

[WildCat]

I wonder what would happen if there was an Iranian drone flying around within sight of NY Harbour....

Probably nothing...

Are you claiming that the US woulod shoot down an Iranian drone flying in international airspace?

 

[Praktik]

Clearly that's ridiculous!

Americans would be totally cool with Iranian drones flying up and down their coast and as long as they were officially in "international waters" I'm sure everyone would be really chill about the whole thing.

As an aside: no one knows for sure exactly where the American drone was when it was shot down. Clearly it was in a position where it antagonized the Iranians, wherever the invisible line might have been is a separate question I'm not sure we will ever truly know.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Clearly that's ridiculous!

Americans would be totally cool with Iranian drones flying up and down their coast and as long as they were officially in "international waters" I'm sure everyone would be really chill about the whole thing.

As an aside: no one knows for sure exactly where the American drone was when it was shot down. Clearly it was in a position where it antagonized the Iranians, wherever the invisible line might have been is a separate question I'm not sure we will ever truly know.

Shot at, not shot down.

Still, shooting at a military drone over international airspace is illegal, but doesn't really come that close to being defined as terrorism.

I would guess that we really wouldn't like drones flying in international airspace near our border, but I don't know if we would attack it like Iran has.

More pertinent to the terrorism discussion is Iran's recent actions in directing attacks in Gaza, attacks in Lebanon via Hezbollah car bombs/other recent attacks on Lebanese people, and especially their support for the mass killing in Syria.

Also, their support for recent terrorism attacks around the world.

Hezbollah Is Blamed for Attack on Israeli Tourists in Bulgaria

 

[Praktik]

By all means, let's not derail!

 

[HoverBoarder]

By all means, let's not derail!

By talking about Iran firing at drones in International airspace, which doesn't really fully count as terrorism, vs. their more blatant recent acts of terrorism.

Sounds good.


No one has brought up American terrorism yet, so I will start by bringing up one of the most commonly cited, US drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.

These strikes are reserved for people on the terrorism kill list, so does killing people who are planning or currently working on carrying out terrorist acts count as terrorism?

 

[Praktik]

To what extent would you consider proxy forces in central america (I'm thinking Nicaragua, Guatemala, Colombia) and some graduates of the School of Americas examples of American sponsored terrorism?

The issue here is the degree of separation. Apologists for America could make claims of plausible deniability given the lack of a clear, direct order from an American handler to say, wipe out a village of alleged socialists. They did that in a self-directed way even if they got guidance, $$ and arms from the Americans.

Would that support be enough for those acts to be considered American acts of terror for the purposes of this discussion?

 

[Praktik]

Would the current drone strike program in Pakistan count as "terrorism"? Or does the purported existence of a cost/benefit analysis and a self-described noble intention mean the reactions of people on the ground in Pakistan, who might very well feel "terrorized", count less then those two conscience-clearing elements?

This was an interesting report: http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf

"Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practise of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that is has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practises related to burial and made family members afraid to attend funerals."​

Clearly this documents the feeling of being terrorized. Do these feelings NOT warrant the application of the label "terrorism" to the drone attacks purely by dint of the alleged motivations of the forces behind the drones?

What is more important, the feeling of terror on the ground or the stated motives? And can terror on the ground ever be completely justified by those motives?

 

[theprestige]

To what extent would you consider proxy forces in central america (I'm thinking Nicaragua, Guatemala, Colombia) and some graduates of the School of Americas examples of American sponsored terrorism?

You tell us: Name an Iranian-sponsored proxy force that you consider to commit terrorist acts or further terrorist policy, and then name one or more similar US proxy forces.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Would the current drone strike program in Pakistan count as "terrorism"? Or does the purported existence of a cost/benefit analysis and a self-described noble intention mean the reactions of people on the ground in Pakistan, who might very well feel "terrorized", count less then those two conscience-clearing elements?

This was an interesting report: http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf

"Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practise of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that is has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practises related to burial and made family members afraid to attend funerals."​

Clearly this documents the feeling of being terrorized. Do these feelings NOT warrant the application of the label "terrorism" to the drone attacks purely by dint of the alleged motivations of the forces behind the drones?

What is more important, the feeling of terror on the ground or the stated motives? And can terror on the ground ever be completely justified by those motives?

Thanks for the link to the report.

However, not gathering in groups or going to school because of drone attacks? That's more than a little bit of hysterical paranoia.

How many schools do you know of that have been hit by drones?

There is the same problem in Warzistan from drinking juice boxes (which are rumored to include CIA transmitters for targeted drone attacks), and getting the polio vaccine (which is laced with CIA placed Aids viruses).

Not supporting major killing in Afghanistan, and having more people, not less support quality education is the best way for them to get out of that mess of paranoia and ignorance.

 

[WildCat]

Clearly that's ridiculous!

Americans would be totally cool with Iranian drones flying up and down their coast and as long as they were officially in "international waters" I'm sure everyone would be really chill about the whole thing.

We wouldn't like it, but there'd be nothing we could do about it. US and Soviet planes regularly flew up and down each other's airspace during the cold war, same with ships on the sea.

You aren't allowed to shoot at drones or planes in international air space.

 

[WildCat]

Would the current drone strike program in Pakistan count as "terrorism"? Or does the purported existence of a cost/benefit analysis and a self-described noble intention mean the reactions of people on the ground in Pakistan, who might very well feel "terrorized", count less then those two conscience-clearing elements?

Is that the definition of "terrorism" you're using? Anything that terrifies someone?

If not, can you please cite the exact definition of "terrorism" you're using?

 

[Praktik]

You tell us: Name an Iranian-sponsored proxy force that you consider to commit terrorist acts or further terrorist policy, and then name one or more similar US proxy forces.

I think there's general consensus on Iranian proxies - not really all that controversial. At this stage I thought the thread would be at point of defining our terms. No need to clarify the Iranian side - unless there is some dispute that Hezbollah would qualify? I will assume not unless someone pokes there head up

There is more dispute on what might qualify as an American proxy that one could call an American sponsored terror force. Would the participants in the thread consider paramilitary forces like The White Hand in Guatemala to be a similar kind of terror proxy?

http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=4122

 

[Virus]

Would the current drone strike program in Pakistan count as "terrorism"? Or does the purported existence of a cost/benefit analysis and a self-described noble intention mean the reactions of people on the ground in Pakistan, who might very well feel "terrorized", count less then those two conscience-clearing elements?

This was an interesting report: http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf

"Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practise of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that is has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practises related to burial and made family members afraid to attend funerals."​

Clearly this documents the feeling of being terrorized. Do these feelings NOT warrant the application of the label "terrorism" to the drone attacks purely by dint of the alleged motivations of the forces behind the drones?

What is more important, the feeling of terror on the ground or the stated motives? And can terror on the ground ever be completely justified by those motives?

Do you think the storming of Normandy was terrorism because it would have been terrifying for the people living there?

 

[WildCat]

Thanks for the link to the report.

However, not gathering in groups or going to school because of drone attacks? That's more than a little bit of hysterical paranoia.

It's not "hysterical paranoia", it's the result of an ignorant, illiterate, and isolated people who get all their news filtered through clerics and others who often have an agenda of their own. I remember a documentary where a captured Taliban fighter said he joined the Taliban because Americans were kidnapping women and taking them to Gitmo to be raped.

 

[Virus]

I think there's general consensus on Iranian proxies - not really all that controversial. At this stage I thought the thread would be at point of defining our terms. No need to clarify the Iranian side - unless there is some dispute that Hezbollah would qualify? I will assume not unless someone pokes there head up

There is more dispute on what might qualify as an American proxy that one could call an American sponsored terror force. Would the participants in the thread consider paramilitary forces like The White Hand in Guatemala to be a similar kind of terror proxy?

http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=4122

You have to prove it was a proxy first.